Iowa Republican votes still up for grabs

 
Mitt Romney campaigning in Iowa (2 January 2012) If Mitt Romney wins the Iowa caucus, it would make him hard to beat

To the sound of Kid Rock's Born Free, a tanned and fit-looking Mitt Romney, dressed in blue jeans and crisp white shirt, bounds on stage. This is politics as stadium rock but the setting is more garage band. In fact, it is the first time I have been to a rally in a garage. Tyres hang on the wall, rusty chains coil around the place and a faint smell of oil permeates the air.

It is a testimony to the intimacy of the Iowa experience. Candidates have done nearly a thousand little events like this one, travelling 23,000 miles in the process.

And tonight it all comes to a head. The polls suggest a pretty tight contest for the top three places between Romney, Ron Paul and Rick Santorum. But Romney doesn't spend much time attacking his opponents.

There is coded stuff in the introductions, about the importance of family - aimed at the thrice-married Newt Gingrich - but nothing in his own speech. It is all aimed at the president. He calls Obama "the great divider, the great complainer".

Romney is behaving as though he already is the anointed Republican candidate and is fighting the presidential election. That's probably a good strategy. The Iowa result matters a lot to him, but he doesn't have to top the poll. Winning doesn't clinch the nomination but it would make him hard to beat.

Second place wouldn't worry him. If he and others have stopped Gingrich's rise, then he has probably dealt with his most serious rival. If he comes third, his team have more work to do, but it is reasonable to argue he could see off Paul and Santorum further down the road.

These bizarre primary contests are, on paper, about gathering votes for an election that will never happen. No-one expects delegates to have to vote at the Republican convention in Florida in August.

The Iowa caucus is even odder. Tonight's vote is not binding on delegates to that convention, so this isn't really any more than a glorified opinion poll. It matters because the media say it matters. Whoever gets the top spot in Iowa will get attention and interest and so momentum going into next week's election in New Hampshire.

It could be Ron Paul who makes it to the top. In a college further down the road in Cedar Rapids, the 76-year-old congressman, standing in front of a funky modernistic stainless steel statue, points out gleefully that there doesn't seem to be anyone over 40 at his rally. One middle-aged man gingerly raises his hand. But the Congressman is right.

In the crowd there's a scattering of tats, beanies and sculpted beards that you might think belong more on Occupy Wall Street than a Republican rally. One youthful group I talk to say they like Paul for his honesty. They say he tells uncomfortable truths and they think he can win voters from the left and the middle ground because of that.

His speech calls for troops to be pulled out not just from America's wars but South Korea, Japan and Germany. He attacks the Patriot Act as incompatible with freedom and civil liberties. He says the middle class have subsidised the privileged. With a bit of editing of the parts about the need to cut a trillion dollars spending in a year, you could mistake him for a left-wing Democrat.

Ron Paul would be an intriguing candidate in a general election. But he's a libertarian, not a conservative, and he would have to work hard to convince many Republicans he's the man they want.

The story of this contest so far has been the rise and fall of the candidates who could rival Mitt. First Bachmann, then Perry, then Cain and finally Newt. It was a puzzler why Rick Santorum, the earnest Christian conservative, seemed to make no impact, especially as he was working so hard in Iowa.

Now it seems his reward has come and his turn to surge has coincided with an actual vote. If he should top the poll, there is no reason why he should not build on that success although some say he has no organisation in other states, and not enough money either.

In a way, who does badly may be more important than who does well. A poor result for Bachmann, Perry or Newt may not kill them off straight away, but they may find cash and support begin to haemorrhage. You can find out what actually does happen as it happens here and on our live page.

 
Mark Mardell Article written by Mark Mardell Mark Mardell North America editor

Is Obama right over Iraq?

The Obama doctrine says the US will only go to war if its vital interests or those of its allies are threatened, so what does that mean for Iraq?

Read full article

More on This Story

Related Stories

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 161.

    The founding fathers knew about the religious wars in Europe, so they crafted a secular republic. "Modern" right-wing Americans don't, so the Bachmans and Santorums don't realize, or don't care, what will happen if the church-state divide is breached. Considering they hate "Shariah," is it just stupidity that they want a "Christian Shariah?"

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 160.

    Scott: fracking waste water was being injected back in the earth

    Its just plain wrong

    I saw a report on PBS about Wyoming+ they said its now one of the most contaminated places in US due to fracking

    No one is really speaking up or talking about fracking
    but it could very well
    ruin our environment
    in a way we can never get back

    Is oil really worth more than America?

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 159.

    158.JClarkson
    Not to mention he was a paranoid former [ex-?] seminarian and mass murderer. Most real socialists don't consider "Communism" true Socialism, which is why , when Communists take over the Socialists and less murderous "Communists" are the first to be murdered.

    In Russia, Lenin first murdered the Mencheviks and then the Socialists; putting them together is inaccurate.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 158.

    #157 "For me, Stalin is a staunch socialist, but I wouldn't really consider any of Europe's leaders as socialists."

    As far as I know, Stalin was the chairman of the Communist Party in Soviet Russia. There was no other party other than the Communist Party.

    Hence, he was a Communist, not a Socialist.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 157.

    150.JClarkson
    Ok Mr Clarkson. In an attempt to find some common ground, perhaps it is fair to say that Americans and Brits have different definition's of socialism.

    For me, Stalin is a staunch socialist, but I wouldn't really consider any of Europe's leaders as socialists. For me healthcare, education etc, are basic entitlements. But in America, it's different.

    Each to their own!

 

Comments 5 of 161

 

Features & Analysis

Elsewhere on the BBC

  • FilmsOnes to watch

    BBC Culture picks nine top films coming out next month

Programmes

  • A computer simulation showing a planned station upgrade in Hong KongClick Watch

    Simulated world - how architects are using virtual and augmented reality to transform our cities

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.