What Did New Hampshire Tell Us?
Tony McNulty thinks New Hampshire shows us that Mitt Romney will be the Republican candidate, but not before a little more blood on the carpet.
11 Jan 2012, 17:00
Mitt Romney's Victory Speech
So, what did New Hampshire tell us? In The West Wing (Series 3, Episode 15) Josh and Donna spend much time trying to persuade some of the 42 registered voters of Hartsfield Landing, supposedly in New Hampshire, to vote for Bartlett in the first key primary. Hartsfield Landing mattered because they voted there at one minute past midnight – the first real votes in the process of selecting presidential candidates (with all due respect to caucusing Iowa) – and the votes would be counted before the rest of New Hampshire got up in the morning, let alone voted. So Hartsfield Landing mattered – hence Josh and Donna’s efforts with Mac and Roberta Flenders. In real life, Hartsfield Landing is a mixture of Dixville Notch and Harts Location. For the first time in a long while, the result in Dixville Notch was a tie – 2 for Romney, 2 for Huntsman, 1 each for Paul and Gingrich, and 3 for Obama. In Harts Location, Romney got 5 votes, Paul 4, Huntsman 2 and Gingrich and Perry 1 each. American democracy is alive and well and living in upstate rural New Hampshire.
New Hampshire told us that Romney remains on schedule to be the republican nominee and won very comfortably indeed. As a previous Governor of next door Massachusetts, he should have won, but the 39.4% that he achieved was more emphatic than anticipated, although not emphatic enough to see off any of his rivals. Ron Paul came second with 22.8%, Jon Huntsman third with 16.9%, Newt Gingrich fourth with 9.4%, Rick Santorum – the surprise strong second in Iowa – came fifth with 9.3% and Rick Perry last on 0.7%. Romney had to win and win well in New Hampshire and this is exactly what he did. He became the first non-incumbent republican hopeful to win Iowa and New Hampshire. But the race isn’t won yet and, as ever with the primary season, the results need much more than a cursory scrutiny.
Romney is, of course, in a very strong position after Iowa and New Hampshire, and remains the most likely to win the nomination, but not without a little more blood on the carpet first. The caucus/primary process is supposed to be a killing ground – weaker candidates fall by the wayside in favour of the strongest candidate, or the field thins out until only two survive to go head to head. This is not happening for a variety of reasons. It is true that Michele Bachmann quit the race after Iowa, but there are few signs that anyone else will drop out before the South Carolina primary on the 21st January and all may hold on until Florida on the 31st.
Romney should be, on balance, happy, but every reason he has to be cheerful also contains reasons to be fearful. He should be happy that he prevailed by a large margin, but, as heavy as it was, the media had already discounted his victory. He fulfilled expectations – big deal. He should be happy that no-one has emerged as the key contender for his crown. Rick Santorum, the erstwhile ‘victor’ in Iowa, came nowhere in New Hampshire so his momentum has stalled. Ron Paul emerged as this week’s contender, the ‘sideshow Bob’ of New Hampshire, but doesn’t look strong in the next few states with primaries. The downside for Romney is that this means all of the other candidates think that they still have reasons to stay in the race.
South Carolina is certainly volatile – in a CNN/Opinion Research poll December 7th Gingrich led Romney by 43% to 20%. Since then, Gingrich has faded and the positions have been reversed – Romney lead in the CNN/Time/ORC January 4th/5th poll by 37% to Gingrich’s 18%, whilst Santorum was on 19% and Paul on 12%. Romney’s Mormon faith sits uneasily here, but so did Kennedy’s Catholicism is overwhelmingly Protestant West Virginia in 1960. South Carolina will almost certainly prove to be the game-changer in this year’s race
Romney should be grateful that it is Ron Paul who has emerged with some momentum after New Hampshire. Paul is not a quintessential Tea Party candidate who could appeal as the ‘anyone but Romney’ candidate and provide a focal point for conservative South Carolina. But, he should worry that it is Ron Paul who has emerged with some momentum after New Hampshire. Paul is the closest to a subversive, anti-politician politician with an anti-Beltway message that may start to catch the public imagination. When conceding the New Hampshire result, he relished the thought that the “establishment found him to be dangerous”. He is becoming more palatable to some in the Tea Party, scored highly amongst the young and Independents in New Hampshire, and has not gone out of his way to completely squash rumours of a third party bid. Although Ron Paul only scored 9% in a January 7th poll in South Carolina, the only way is up after New Hampshire and he may have to revise his view that it was not worth his while to campaign seriously in Florida. The first post-New Hampshire poll may make interesting reading for the Paul campaign. Paul will fight hard in South Carolina and has already sanctioned TV ads attacking Gingrich and Santorum.
Jon Huntsman may well have peaked too early – in the sense that he was trailed as the coming man in New Hampshire, heading for a strong second. He has made it clear that he remains very much alive after New Hampshire and goes to South Carolina with a degree of confidence – wholly misplaced, it has to be said. He scored 4% in a January 7th poll in South Carolina and scores only 2.3% in a poll of polls. He has no obvious base in South Carolina at all and will last only as long as his father, a multi-billionaire, stumps up the money. All the signs are that Daddy Huntsman’s largesse is about to run out. It is Huntsman’s misfortune, as a more moderate republican, that South Carolina is the next primary. He will be dead in the water for sure after South Carolina, the only issue will be whether he realises it or not.
Newt Gingrich will be happy to still be alive after New Hampshire. He led in many primary state polls throughout November and December and has dipped at entirely the wrong time. He feels aggrieved about the attacks on him by the Romney campaign in Iowa and introduced a degree of raw acerbity into the campaign in New Hampshire. He rides to South Carolina on a wave of money and negative campaign ads funded by super-PAC 'Winning our Future' – which has just got $5m from Sheldon Adelson, a billionaire casino owner. South Carolina has very low TV rates for broadcasting ads and the negative campaign will run daily on the airwaves until the 21st. Gingrich needs to emerge in tact after South Carolina – as one of his main supposed strengths is as a ‘Man of the South’. If he cannot do it in the murky, bloodstained waters of South Carolina, he is unlikely to do it anywhere at all. He must overcome Rick Santorum who was in second place to Romney in the CNN/Time/ORC poll in South Carolina on January 4th/5th. He certainly led in Florida 44% to Romney’s 29% in a poll in early December – but a poll (albeit by Tel Opinion) on 10th January put Romney ahead by 36% to Gingrich’s 25% with Santorum on 17% and Paul on 7%. Gingrich must survive beyond Florida if he is to be taken seriously by Super Tuesday on 6th March. Hanging on in good shape in South Carolina is his only option and he will fight very hard to ensure survival.
Rick Santorum should have died in Iowa. He will not be the nominee and neither will he be the main contender to Romney. He was Iowa’s Sideshow Bob, was never expected to do well in New Hampshire – and lived down to expectations – but moves onto more fertile territory in South Carolina. In the January 4th/5th CNN/Time/ORC poll, he was on 19%, just 1% ahead of Gingrich - and has the potential at least to repeat Iowa, especially if Gingrich fails to sparkle. Santorum may well do so, but it would really be too little, too late. If he did achieve this, then it could be important because of Gingrich’s reaction to such a failure rather than Santorum’s own position. His plan, clearly, is to hang on until he is the ‘last man standing’ and, therefore, by definition, the ‘anyone but Romney’ candidate. This really does seem to be very unlikely. Indeed, his very success could contain the seeds of his downfall. Ron Paul and Rick Perry have already targeted him for negative ads in South Carolina’s very cheap media markets, and it must only be a matter of time before Gingrich takes aim at him too. It is not clear that he has the resources to fight back or take them on. Santorum will want to hang on in South Carolina and thinks that he will be the main beneficiary if Perry and Huntsman fall out of the race. His team assume that they will also naturally benefit from a Gingrich implosion. There is little reason for him to do anything other than stay with the fight for as long as he can.
Texas Governor Rick Perry decided that he had little chance in New Hampshire and has staked the future of his presidential bid on being perceived as a ‘son of the South’ in South Carolina. He was certainly right about New Hampshire where he secured 1%. In reality, Perry’s bid died in Iowa. He goes to South Carolina on barely 5% in the polls and would have hoped that New Hampshire proved to be a graveyard for at least one or more of his rivals. Perry has had money to spend in South Carolina and has essentially gone ‘all in’ – he is betting on a good showing. It will not happen for him. He may limp on to Florida, but should really quit whilst he is behind. Given that he has bet so heavily on a good showing in South Carolina, he will fight as though his political life depends on it – because it does.
In a rational world, Romney will win in South Carolina, but not by enough to see off all competition and it may be that a combination of either Santorum/Gingrich, Santorum/Paul or Paul/Gingrich move on to Florida and then, after an unconvincing victory there, Romney is anointed as the nominee. But the primary process is, above all else, not a rational process. Romney should win; Santorum and Gingrich are likely to share second and third place; Paul may threaten them, but still has little appeal amongst true conservatives; Perry and Huntsman will fade and die, but not without a fight.
So, what did New Hampshire tell us about the real winner? Given that, like Iowa, the New Hampshire result was not definitive enough to see off the competition; that Romney did not emerge triumphant enough to thin out the field ; that at least 3 contenders are still alive (Paul, Gingrich and Santorum); that 2 others think they are still alive, although probably fatally wounded (Huntsman and Perry); and that the only certainty is that, for all the reasons suggested, South Carolina will be a fractious, bloody, dirty and very negative battle for survival right to the end – the winner has to be, as in Iowa………..Barack Obama and, of course, the good citizens of Harts Location and Dixville Notch, New Hampshire. Surely?
Comments (0)
Subscribe to this posts's comments feed