Michele Bachmann wins Ames Straw Poll, cruises to Republican presidential nomination

By Michael J.W. Stickings

What you are about to read is true. You know it.

Scene: 24/7 cable news, yesterday, August 13, just after the Ames Straw Poll results were announced.

As you have surely heard by now, because it's more important than 9/11, the first Moon landing, and Nipplegate put together, Michele Bachmann won the contest with 4,823 votes, just ahead Ron Paul with 4,671. Pawlenty finished third with 2,293 but dropped out of the race today. Rick Santorum and Herman Cain finished fourth and fifth, respectively. Rick Perry and Mitt Romney came next, though neither one campaigned actively in advance of the contest. Newt Gingrich and Jon Huntsman the Formidable were even further back. Thad McCotter brought up the rear.

The takeaway, it seems, was clear.

Mainstream Beltway Media (MBM): (channelling Dick Vitale): It's over, baby! Awesome!

Dumb-Ass Regular American (DARA): What is?

MBM: The Republican nomination for president, baby! It's ooooverrrrrrr!!!

DARA:
But it was just a straw poll, wasn't it? No one actually voted for
anyone. The primaries don't start until... (racking the cobwebs in
narcotized brain)... like... like... next year or something.

MBM: Michele Bachmann! She's for real, baby, the real deal! She's unstoppable. The people have spoken!

DARA: Well, just the people who took the time to go to Ames. They're the party fanatics, aren't they? They don't even represent Iowa Republicans, let alone Republicans nationally.

MBM: I can't believe it, baby! I can't believe it!

DARA: And Romney and Perry didn't even campaign for the straw poll. And (summoning something heard ad nauseam on CNN, or MSNBC, or Fox News, OCDically flipping through the channels with beer in hand) aren't they really the two frontrunners now, along with Bachmann? I mean, Perry just got in the race yesterday. Isn't it premature to declare a winner?

MBM: Uh-oh... uh-oh... uh-oh...

DARA: What?

MBM: Rick Perry, baby! The titan from Texas! I believe, baby, I believe! Awesome!

DARA: (cluing in) So basically it doesn't mean anything.

MBM: Oh yes, show... time! Give it up, give it up! Slam! Woooooo!!!!! Woooooo!!!!! Awesome, baby, awesome!!!!!

DARA: (switching from beer to something harder) I wonder if The Bachelor's on.

And so we slide further into the abyss...

With writing all over the wall, Pawlenty drops out of GOP presidential race

By Michael J.W. Stickings

It wasn't so long ago that Tim "T-Paw" Pawlenty was the darling of conservative and generally David Broderesque pundits on the inside, heralded as the sort of appealing "bridge" candidate with executive experience who could unite the GOP's corporatist establishment and Tea Party / theocratic extreme. He looked the part, presidential but also populist, and George Will et al. just couldn't get enough of him -- sufficiently conservative, unlike Mitt Romney, but not crazy, unlike Michele Bachmann. (In this way, he was presented and promoted, with the same punditocratic swooning, just as Mitch Daniels was, it's just that Daniels never jumped in.)

Well, the shine faded pretty quickly as Pawlenty proved to be a terrible candidate -- not charismatic, not arousing of the base -- and, while doing terribly in the polls, proved to be a desperate one as well, trying everything he could to catch on, passing himself off, despite a fairly technocratic record in Minnesota (where he was anything but an ideologue), as both a devout social conservative (anti-gay, anti-abortion, etc.) and a hardline fiscal one (anti-tax, anti-spending, etc.).

Quickly, the punditocracy jumped ship, with even Will beginning to say nice things about Bachmann. And, really, it was only a matter of time before the inevitable dropping out. Even his wife was saying implicitly disparaging things about his chances.

Basically, if he couldn't do well in the Ames Straw Poll -- that is, in Iowa, close to home, where once upon a time (pre-Bachmann) it looked like he had a shot -- that was it. The writing was going to be on the wall for everyone to see.

And he didn't, finishing third behind Bachmann and Ron Paul in a contest that didn't feature Romney and Rick Perry (or at least for which they didn't actively campaign). Which isn't all that bad, perhaps, but he needed to do a lot better, particularly after sinking so much energy into it.

But it wasn't just Ames. Pawlenty never once caught fire, never once looked like a serious contender. And while there may still be room for a "bridge" candidate to emerge between Romney and Bachmann/Perry, it was clear that he wasn't going to be it.

And why? Who knows? Maybe he didn't want it enough. Maybe there isn't much of a constituency for someone like him in today's Republican Party. Maybe he's just too small for the national stage. Maybe he never really found himself, hence his desperate struggle for attention. Whatever the case, he seemed to wither and shrivel up as the campaign went along, hanging on at the very bottom of a weak and embarrassing field with the likes of Rick Santorum. That's sad company, to be sure.

And now it's over. We won't have T-Paw to kick around anymore. Not that anyone was paying much attention anyway.

Random thoughts on the GOP presidential field

By Richard K. Barry

Michele Bachmann won the Ames Straw Poll. I understand that it's an important indicator of how a GOP presidential contender might fare over time. I get it. Although the fact that she barely beat Ron Paul, who is a perfect example of a crazy fringe candidate, doesn't exactly make the results unequivocally useful, as far as I can tell.

I understand that this will make it easier for her to raise money and to get some wind in her sails (and any number of other metaphors you might be able to think of).

But she is not going to win the Republican nomination. Conjuring up Dana Carvey's brilliant George Bush senior impersonation: "Not gonna happen."

It's still probably going to be Romney. I guess Texas Gov. Rick Perry's announcement complicates things, though I was intrigued by the assessment of a few pundits who thought that we would be able to tell very quickly if he was the real deal or not.

I'm not sure I know what that is supposed to mean. Does it mean that either all of the Tea Party /social conservative energy in the campaign comes to him more or less immediately, in which case he becomes the consensus choice anti-Romney? Or that a number of candidates continue to share the hard-right constituency, in which case his campaign never really takes off?

Maybe that's their point.

I must say that I loved Paul Begala's description of Perry as "the perfect candidate for those Republicans who viewed George W. Bush as just a little too cerebral."

But is that a problem?

Unkind as this may be, I could modify that famous H.L. Mencken quote to say that "nobody ever lost electoral ground overestimating the intelligence of the average Republican voter." So maybe being duller than George won't be a bad thing for Perry.

Judging from Perry's campaign launch speech, which contained every standard fare Tea Party / social conservative speaking point, he will not be doing anything to alienate the radical right and he will not be forcing anyone on that side of things to think outside the box they've made for themselves. No, no, no.

And as I suggested yesterday, if you base your campaign on pandering to the radical right, you might be able to win the GOP nomination, but the general election would be a much harder nut to crack.

So here's the radical prediction of the day:

Perry's candidacy will eventually force Bachmann out. They appeal to the same constituency and he's going to be a better standard bearer.

Palin will endorse Perry. She has been saying all along that she will only run if no one meeting her criteria steps forward. Perry will be her guy and that will matter.

Most importantly, this will become a Romney - Perry street fight and the campaign will move decidedly to the right as Romney attempts to counter claims from Perry that he is not sufficiently conservative.

And, the prefect storm for the Democrats will have just gotten perfecter. The Tea Party and fellow travellers will have found their candidate. And, even if Romney is the eventual nominee, as I still think he will be, he will have had to tack so far to the right that independents will no longer be available to him.

In the short term, the Democrats have needed one effective, theoretically electable, Republican presidential contender to force Romney to the far right. Bachmann was never that contender. She's not that serious. Perry is.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

World comes to a halt as Republicans take to the stage in Iowa to debate future of humanity

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Ah, yes, there was a Republican debate last night in Ames. Good times. Maybe if I weren't on vacation I would have cared. (I was too busy watching The Makioka Sisters -- a stunningly beautiful film.)

Or maybe not.



No, no, let me be serious for a moment.

Did last night's debate mean anything? Well, not as much as Saturday's straw poll -- which won't really mean anything either, though it will clarify both public and insider GOP perceptions and possibly even help separate the wheat from the chaff, as they say.

Not that we don't already know what's wheat and what's chaff.

Romney is wheat. He's the national frontrunner -- though doubts remain on the right (if not venomous opposition from conservatives and other Tea Party types, and he may have a fairly low support ceiling.

Bachmann is also wheat, or at least what passes for wheat these days in the GOP (and on the far right generally). She's a serious contender, craziness notwithstanding.

Other than that?

It's amusing to see Santorum and Gingrich try to convince us we should take them seriously. Do they take themselves seriously? Of course. Do they know they've become joke candidates without a hope of winning anything other than the political equivalent of a Razzie? Maybe -- if they're being honest with themselves, but one doubts either one is capable of such self-effacing honesty.

It's also amusing to see more of the Bachmann-Pawlenty spat. T-Paw, lagging far behind in the polls (not even doing well in Iowa, so close to his Minnesota home), is still so desperate for attention that he's taking the gloves off, as they say, hopeful of emerging as the compromise candidate (particularly liked by the Beltway punditocracy) between the establishmentarian, business-oriented Romney and whoever ends up leading the charge from the radical right, either Bachmann or Perry (or both). Yes, I suppose he still has a shot. Yes, it's a long, long one. And he doesn't stand a chance against Bachmann in their little ongoing feud.

Pawlenty death watch: He'll "reassess" matters if he does poorly in Ames. Now there's a nice, lovely euphemism for "make up some self-aggrandizing excuses and get the hell out."

Perry life watch: It looks like he'll take the leap on Saturday. Not that he's trying to upstage the Ames straw poll or anything. No, of course not.

Cain? Yes, he took time out of his busy schedule scapegoating Muslims to grace us with his presence.

Paul? Hey, did you know he really hates government and much, much prefers the Hobbesian state of nature?

Huntsman? Oh, yes, Huntsman the Formidable, as I've dubbed him. He remains to me and impressive figure, an old-school, Reagan sort of conservative who in other, saner times would have been the clear GOP pick. Now? Not so much.

Wait, you want substance? Come on, you all know how it went. Obama is the satanic incarnation of anti-American evil. And taxes are bad, so very, very bad!

(But if you want some helpful fact-checking, check here. Needless to say, there was some fastness and looseness going on last night. What else is new?)

Besides, that spat is what seems to have gotten the most attention.



And, overall, it does now seem that civility in this Republican field is a thing of the past. As Slate's John Dickerson explained:

The debate had the makings of a serious discussion about leadership,
what form it should take, whether the candidates have demonstrated it,
and how it should be applied in Washington. However, this discussion
took place in a roller derby where that underlying theme was obscured by
people trying to bruise and batter each other. Criticisms and veiled
critiques broke out into the open among candidates desperate to avoid
being eliminated from consideration. In the end, there was a lot of arm
flailing. Everyone went round and round, and the lot of them wound up
where they had stood before the debate began.

Fight, fight, fight! Isn't that what we all crave -- what really gets us going? Who cares that the global economy is imploding or that our civilization is crumbling? Or that it's this right-wing ideology, so much on display last night, that is one of the main causes of our present (and future) crises?



Politics is a bloodsport.

And now, on that note, I'm going to go sit out on the deck and read (about something that has nothing to do with American politics circa 2011).

(photo)

Michele Bachmann's failure to understand basic public finance

By Richard K. Barry

Dave Weigle at Slate ran an interesting piece recently about Michele Bachmann's understanding of government finance, or, we should say, her failure to understand it.

Here is Weigle's account of comments made by Bachmann at an event in Iowa:

When Bachmann arrived, she devoted half of her opening statement to the downgrade. The mesage: She could have stopped it.

"For the last two weeks, I led the fight against raising the debt limit," Bachmann said. Increasing the limit "pushed the rating agency over the edge." It was a $2.4 trillion blank check that caused the downgrade.

Make no mistake: The downgrade was Obama's fault: "We were somehow able to get through the Great Depression without a credit downgrade," she said. "Only under this president have we seen a credit downgrade... we are getting that credit rating back. This is to be our goal. That will be our mission.

Is it possible that Bachmann doesn't understand that the downgrade, however unjustified it may have been, occurred because S&P said they were concerned that the U.S. government could find itself unable to pay its bills? And that they might be unable to pay their bills precisely because the debt ceiling might not have been raised?

Is it possible she doesn't get that? And if the answer is yes, this suggests a whole new level of incompetence for this Tea Party darling, if that's possible.

This is on a par with the Wisconsin Tea Party cheering the fact that Democrats have blamed them for the S&P downgrade. In their simple understanding of the world, all we have to do is stop the government from spending money, even its current obligations, and everything will somehow, magically, work out.

I was not around when the United States devised its economic system. I'm pretty sure if I had been I would have suggested some improvements. But this is the system we now have, and I surely would prefer that anyone aspiring to the highest office in the land understand how it works.

It's not much to ask.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

The Michele Bachmann Phenomenon -- crazy, extreme, formidable

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I'm still on vacation, and enjoying it immensely (and trying not to pay too much attention to the news, even as the world economy crumbles yet further, day after disastrous day), but I can't resist posting on yet another fantastic political profile by Ryan Lizza at The New Yorker, this one on Michele Bachmann.

It's long but deserving of your time and attention.

We all need to understand better the phenomenon that is Bachmann, not least because she may win the Republican presidential nomination.

Mitt Romney remains the fairly clear frontrunner, but he may very well have a low ceiling of potential support, and, if Rick Perry isn't included (and he may or may not run), Bachmann is currently running a strong second. What's more, given Tim Pawlenty's weakness, she'll likely win this Saturday's Ames Straw Poll in Iowa, an influential barometer (at least for the media, but also for donors and, generally, for party undecideds), particularly if she does well, which she likely will (she is, after all, charismatic and engaging), in Thursday's GOP debate.

If Perry runs, she'll have a hard time securing the right-wing vote, assuming that Perry actually runs an effective campaign. Indeed, if she and Perry end up competing for that vote, Romney's path is made so much easier -- the nomination could then be his by default, with the right-wing vote split.

But if he doesn't, and if Sarah Palin stays out as well (as expected), and if the race turns into a Romney vs. Bachmann slugfest (as opposed to, say, a Pawlenty vs. Bachmann spat, which she crushes), who's to say that Bachmann wouldn't win? (She's got the right-wing bona fides, he doesn't. It might just be as simple as that.)

Anyway, enough horse-race speculation. Read Lizza's piece.

Here are the two high-level takeaways:

1. Bachmann is a crazy conservative ideologue and conspiracy theorist.

2. Bachmann has formidable political skills, has an impressive campaign operation, and is a serious contender for the nomination.

Crazy, extreme, and formidable.

Formidable because she's crazy and extreme.

Because being crazy and extreme is what makes you formidable on the right.

Which says all you need to know about today's Republican Party.

Tim Pawlenty's wife's qualified enthusiasm for his chances

By Richard K. Barry

More news on the Tim Pawlenty presidential campaign "death watch," and this one is just plain funny.

It seems that poor Tim can't even catch a break from his own wife. CNN reports recent comments by Mary Pawlenty that she was "cautiously optimistic" about her husband's chances and that: 

He needs to move from where he's been and show significant progress, but I'm reasonably confident we're going to see that good progress.

Ouch. When the best your own wife can do is say that she is "reasonably confident" that your campaign won't flatline in the near future, that's not good.

The comments were made with the Ames Straw Poll in Iowa in mind, which is a key event in the Republican presidential nomination race calendar that takes place on August 13th.

There was a time when Pawlenty was hoping for a big showing in Iowa. It now seems that he's simply hoping not to embarrass himself. Judging from the relative lack of enthusiasm from Mary, what do we think the chances are that Tim will show "good progress" any time soon and, more to the point, how long do we think it will be before he decides to pack it in?

Hard to say.

And, by the way, here's another little piece. The New York Times reports that:

Al Hubbard, a former Bush administration official who two months ago became a top policy advisor to Tim Pawlenty, has stepped down from Mr. Pawlenty's presidential campaign.

When he came on board in June after a close ally, Gov. Mitch Daniels of Indiana, decided not to get in the race, it was considered a big coup in the competition among GOP candidates to recruit people with connections to W's network of donors.

Not surprisingly, the Pawlenty campaign suggests we not read anything into his departure, stating that Mr. Hubbard "became busy with work and is not operating in a policy role."

Or maybe the stench of defeat coming from the Palwenty campaign drove him away.

It could be that.

But to hedge my bets just a little, T-Paw is putting in a huge effort to do well in Ames and knows as well as anyone that a poor showing would be disastrous, as much as his campaign is trying to play down expectations, apparently with the help of his wife.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

What is the Ames Straw Poll and why do we care?

By Richard K. Barry

Sometimes it's good to take a step back and do a little self-education about an apparently significant event in the current election cycle. Experts and other pundits talk about some of these things like we all know exactly what they are and how they work, which is frequently not the case.

Recently, as I have been trying to figure out how things are going in Iowa for the crop of Republicans seeking their party's nomination for the presidency, I've been hearing a lot about the Ames Straw Poll.

So, what is it?

Near as I can tell, it's a non-binding vote that takes place at a fundraising dinner in Ames, Iowa benefitting the Iowa Republican Party. Obviously, its purpose is to determine voters' preferences for GOP presidential candidates. Although there are a number of pre-Iowa Caucus "straw polls" in the state, it seems that Ames is by far the most important based on the fact that it is centrally located and draws voters from all over Iowa. This is the reason it's called the "Iowa Straw Poll."

The next one will take place on Saturday, August 13, 2011 at the Hilton Coliseum on the campus or Iowa State University.

As for voter eligibility, non-Republicans are allowed to vote. Voters have to be 18 years of age on or before the presidential election date, which, if I understand correctly, means a voter could be as young as 16 and 3/4 years old, or thereabouts. A voter must be a legal resident of Iowa or a student attending an Iowa university or college, which is really interesting given efforts by some Republican run states to disenfranchise college students. And, finally, a voter has to have bought a ticket to the fundraiser.

It also appears that the integrity of the vote is taken seriously as hands are stamped or dipped in ink to ensure that no one can vote twice, although in past years integrity may have been an issue.

Again, the vote is non-binding and has no official effect on the presidential primaries, but it is considered, whether fair or not, an indicator of the strength of a given campaign and treated as such by the media and others who pay attention.

Just to give a sense of the magnitude of the event, here are some results from 2007: Mitt Romney (4,516/31.6%); Mike Huckabee (2,587/18.1%); Sam Brownback (2,192/15.3%); Tom Tancredo (1,961/13.7%); Ron Paul (1,305/9.1%); Rudy Giuliani (183/1.3%); and John McCain (101/.7%).

I should note that neither Giuliani nor McCain attended the event in 2007, which obviously had an impact on their performance and the usefulness of the straw vote that year. Clearly, decisions to attend or not to attend are influenced by one's assessment of chances for success.

As for the August 13th vote, the following names will appear on the ballot: Michele Bachmann, Tim Pawlenty, Herman Cain, Ron Paul, Rick Santorum, and Thad McCotter, all of whom are aggressively campaigning in the straw vote.

Mitt Romney, Jon Huntsman, and Newt Gingrich will also be on the ballot, though these three are not expected to attend.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry and Sarah Palin will not be on the ballot.

Bizarre as it may be, the Ames Straw Poll is considered the first major organizational test of the 2012 season. I guess any electoral contest is as important as the chattering classes deem it to be (whether it is or not).

All I can say is that Tim Pawlenty, thus far failing in all attempts to gain traction, probably has an awful lot riding on a bunch of people attending a fundraiser in the middle of Iowa in the middle of August. I'm sure he'll be sweating for all sorts of reasons.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Palin politics: Mistaking the little pond for the big pond

By Richard K. Barry

Although Sarah Palin is remaining coy about her intentions to run for the Republican presidential nomination, many of us continue to talk about her. I suppose that is a part of her grand strategy, which is, we must admit, working. I mean the part about us still talking about her.

Given the fact that she is doing none of the things a candidate conventionally needs to do to run a credible campaign, people who understand how it is typically done are raising questions.

Maybe this means she has no intention of running, but what if she does?

As evil as Karl Rove may be, no one disputes his experience as a campaigner. When asked if Palin could wage a non-conventional nomination campaign with any degree of success, his response was:

Her people think so.

They've talked with people about it, whom I talked to, and they've been explicit about it - that she doesn't need to go to Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, press the flesh and go to all these local events in order to cultivate local leadership. She can talk to people over that. She doesn't need to cultivate the fundraisers and the bundlers, because her mere presence in the race will generate the cash needed for the campaign.

Rove added, rather ominously, that she was ignoring the "niceties" at "her own peril."

Scott Conroy, however, at Real Clear Politics takes issue with Rove on this, claiming that doing things the old-fashioned way in Iowa may not matter that much. Consider, he says, that Rick Santorum, Tim Pawlenty, and Newt Gingrich are getting praise for their organizational efforts there yet going nowhere in the polls. Rick Perry, Sarah Palin, and even Chris Christie, none of whom is even declared, are doing better.

This, he suggests, tells a different story.

First of all, if we are just talking about Iowa, Conroy might be right. Although I was always of the impression that Iowa was all about retail politics, that in smaller races like this it was all about meeting people and pressing the flesh, maybe Palin's brand is such that she can get away without all of that in Iowa. I might even cede the point.

But is there any way a candidate can run a credible campaign for the nomination across the country by running a top-down effort that does not rely on strong organization?

All of Karl Rove's experience tells him that it is not possible. There is just too much work involved, too many fundraising bundlers to organize and stroke, too many opinion leaders to lobby, too many volunteers to care for and feed, too much effort required for a successful "Get Out the Vote" campaign, and on and on.

Maybe that's Palin's problem. She has never been good at understanding the scale of things. Iowa may be an important race in the early days of the GOP nomination, and if she got in she might do well there, but America is a much bigger country and doing things the old-fashioned way in primary after primary is probably still necessary.

Relying on your brand alone to win in Iowa, where a lot of GOP voters may already love you, is different than winning over the long haul.

This is classic Sarah Palin politics: mistaking the little pond for the big pond.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

My problem with Tim Pawlenty, besides everything he stands for

By Richard K. Barry

I recently saw Tim Pawlenty's new ad to run in Iowa. I just don't know.

When you've been around politics a long time, you like to think you can consider things objectively and not let your own views get in the way of good analysis. That may not be possible, but some of us do try.

Well before Pawlenty crashed and burned in his "moment" during the CNN candidates' debate in which he famously failed to take on Mitt Romney on health care reform, having previously coined the silly term "Obamneycare," T-Paw, at least for me, always exuded a whimpering weakness. Franky, he makes me cringe.

So, now he's got an ad to run in Iowa in which he talks about the fact that his health care reform in Minnesota didn't involve an individual mandate, as Romney's did in Massachusetts. I know this may sound strange, but after the debate, any time Pawlenty takes a swipe at Romney, it's going to feel like he's talking trash behind Romney's back when he won't stand up to him, up close and personal, given the chance. I'm fairly sure most people frown on that sort of behavior.

But, beside all of that, the man just bothers me.

It's not about policy. It's not about where he stands on the issues. It's about how he comes across. And, objectively speaking, in this ad (below), he just comes across as "weak," like if you looked at him the wrong way, he'd dissolve. And, to be clear, I'm not saying it's true, only that in politics appearance is the largest part of reality.

Come to think of it, he kind of reminds me of Jon Cryer's character on Two and Half Men, Charlie's pathetic brother.

Anyway, decide for yourself.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)