Within the Margin

New Hampshire feels like an interregnum, between an interesting Iowa and a possibly-climactic South Carolina.

I think Matt ably summed up what New Hampshire will look like when the results come in tonight: Romney gets an easy win, but he’ll still be hard-pressed to crack 40%. Nate Silver projects him to come in around 38.5%, and I’ll take the over on that – but just barely. It’s not as good as McCain’s 48% in 2000 or Reagan’s 50% in 1980, but it will surpass other recent winning New Hampshire totals on the Republican side.

Coverage this week has focused on three themes:

• Huntsman is generating some momentum, but too little and too late to ensure even a distant second-place finish.
• Santorum followed his Iowa surge by stalling out in NH ahead of what many see as a must-win in South Carolina. Santorumentum looks to be over unless he can get a head-to-head matchup with Romney in South Carolina (see below).
• There are still too many non-Mitts to derail Willard’s path to the nomination.

I concur with all three of these, as well as with the notion that New Hampshire was never really going to matter. New Hampshire, by virtue of being one of Romney’s de facto home states and by showcasing a slightly more libertarian brand of Republicanism, cannot serve as a winnowing force in the field. That’s apparently now the role of South Carolina, where Perry will make his last stand. One imagines that Santorum and Gingrich will also both head to SC, with one perhaps dropping out and endorsing the other sometime between now and January 21st. I’m not betting on it, though. The idea that conservative leaders will coalesce around a non-Romney in time to do some damage in SC is somewhat plausible, but the idea that individuals as stubborn as Newt or Santorum would subsume themselves for the good of a wider movement strikes me as laughable – even in the context of their mentor/protege dynamic. Newt was a distant 4th in Iowa, and that was an opportune time to drop out if he wanted to give Santorum some space. He didn’t.

I’ll conclude with the estimates – whereas in Iowa I was banking on Santorum outperforming his polling by a decent margin (and he in fact exceeded even my generous figure), I don’t see anyone doing so tonight.

Mitt Romney: 39%
Jon Huntsman: 19%
Ron Paul: 18%
Rick Santorum: 12%
Newt Gingrich: 10%
Buddy Roemer: 1% (I overshot in Iowa on this one…Buddy won’t let me down this time.)
Rick Perry: 1%
Others – <1%

With the waves of spin that have emerged from Tuesday night’s Caucus in Iowa it’s time to really look at the next state: New Hampshire and try to figure out what’s next in the reality show that is the Republican Primary for President (if MTV filmed this whole thing, I’d actually have respect for that network). New Hampshire isn’t a state with a large portion of evangelical voters, so right off the bat the likes of the Ricks (Santorum and Perry) are going to have a hard time winning over voters who may be church going, but not CHURCH GOING. Ron Paul’s economic vision should play well here, and it likely will to a second or third place finish, but Ron’s been running for President for 24 years and has no shot at the nomination.

Then there’s Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman. Huntsman has said that all the cards are on the line in New Hampshire, and after a paltry 700+ vote performance in Iowa, you certainly can’t blame him. Huntsman has probably taken to New Hampshire the way Santorum did to Iowa and actually did something that the major players haven’t particularly done well this year: campaign. Santorum’s over-performance wasn’t magical polling that the major firms missed, just look at his itinerary, he took Iowa seriously and Romney and the others didn’t. Huntsman’s doing the same in New Hampshire. Yesterday’s endorsement from the Boston Globe for the former Ambassador to China and Utah Governor is certainly nice, but how much pull does it have; that remains to be seen, it’s timed just late enough to sway some undecideds, but it likely won’t have the penetration into NH to make the endorsement a game changer by any means. Huntsman could finish top three in NH despite a ridiculous “surge” for Santorum which would be the product of a week of pretty good press and not voters doing their due diligence with regards to the candidate. Jon Huntsman won’t win New Hampshire, but he sure could help the “Anti-Romney” crowd with a Santorum-like over performance due to actually campaigning and winning folks over.

Then there’s Mitt Romney. He may or may not have won the Iowa Caucus, and the polls have him winning New Hampshire by 25 points, but that’s not going to be good enough for Romney if his end game is a short primary and a long general election. if he wants to shorten the primary, he needs to push his numbers to >50% in polling. Yesterday’s Suffolk University tracking poll had Romney at 43% and Paul at 18, impressive, but when you’re the “favored son” in that Primary/Caucus you have to be getting greater than 40% in the polls. The conventional wisdom of this whole primary was that Romney wouldn’t preform great in Iowa (and he didn’t) and would preform exceptionally in New Hampshire, leaving Nevada, South Carolina and Florida as his biggest stepping stones to the nomination. Romney’s still upside down in South Carolina and Florida, and a sub-50% finish in his “home state” isn’t going to ward off the rabble-rousers who hate Mitt Romney. Mitt’s still the favorite for the nomination, he’s the only one with any realistic chance of beating President Obama, or so the conventional wisdom goes. Romney needs a big win, and a win in terms of a majority of the votes cast, not being the highest total of the plurality.

Iowa and New Hampshire are places to whittle the field, Iowa claimed Tim Pawlenty early (I wonder what his numbers would look like right now had he decided to stay in) and Michele Bachmann late (thank god for that). Both parties nominations will never be won in either state, let me be clear about that right now, but impressive wins in either makes for shortening the primary season, which I don’t see happening with this year’s primary.

Turnout is always reliably unpredictable, you never know what the day’s conditions (weather, last minute robocalls, dirty tricks from other campaigns) will forebode for you. In the closing days of the New Hampshire primary, Mitt Romney’s going to get what he wants (a win) and not what he needs (a huge win to begin to shorten the primary).

In less than 24 hours, we should know the outcome of the Iowa Republican caucuses. It’s less likely that we truly know what that outcome means, though: polling basically shows a three-way tie between Mitt Romney, Ron Paul and Rick Santorum and I think that we’ll have a result pretty close to that, which will mean that the most a non-Romney winner could claim is some momentum – nothing approaching a decisive win. And the most Romney could claim is that he barely won against deeply-divided opposition, and that he still has a great deal to prove going forward.

Over the past few days I have been able to convince myself that any of the three will come out on top.

Rick Santorum, because of his late momentum – to use a cliche, he’s peaking at the right time, when it’s too late to really come under attack from his opponents or be savaged by the press. The possibility exists that enough Bachmann and Perry supporters opt to go with a (potential) winner and move their votes to the man who most easily passes for their next-of-kin. Familiarity with Santorum, borne out of the man’s near-residence in the state this year, has resulted in the highest Iowa favorability of any of the Republicans in the race and could get him over the hump.

Ron Paul, because we have always been told that organization counts a great deal in Iowa, because we have seen how organization counts, and organization he has in spades. He’s doing a late fade after his brief surge, but Paul’s floor has always been stable.

Mitt Romney, because he never fades, because his opposition is not up to the task of mounting a sustained offensive on the openings he provides, and because – most importantly – Mitt said Monday that he was going to win. I’m not being tongue-in-cheek; I think that really is important. More on that below.

I will not, under any circumstances, give Gingrich a shot at winning this thing. The ridiculousness of watching a man concede defeat, only to hours later start talking about compound sentences and how he may indeed pull of a historic upset, rivals only that of watching Rex Ryan incorrectly assess his team’s playoff chances at a post-game press conference. For Gingrich, we’ve already moved into the post-game. Yet, does his book tour require him to press on for now? His egomaniacal desire to be able to declare that he influenced the course of debate may also necessitate appearing in another couple of debates. And he would certainly lose face among conservative opinionmakers by bailing before New Hampshire after receiving that state’s most promiment newspaper endorsement.

Likewise, Bachmann and Perry are done. Bachmann isn’t getting out of the high single-digits in current polling, she’ll probably end up bleeding even more supporters to Santorum at the very end, and she has no money to continue after this. Her campaign will end tomorrow in the state where she was born. As some of my family members pointed out to me on Christmas Eve, when the discussion around the wood stove turned to politics, she didn’t flame out as spectacularly as Perry or Cain or even Gingrich. She couldn’t raise money, and she couldn’t hold on to staffers, but her relatively quiet rise and fall are a distinct phenomenon from other other one-time pack leaders.

Perry, on the other hand, may continue past Iowa because he has the money to do so and because South Carolina looms as a potentially friendly environment for the Southerner to mount a final stand. But more likely, the Santorum surge finishes Perry and dooms him to single-digit performances in Iowa and any other states he contests.

That leaves Jon Huntsman, who has maintained a laser-like focus on New Hampshire but is stagnating there even as his opponents are encamped in Iowa, and Buddy Roemer, the oft-forgotten former Louisiana governor whose populist, shoestring campaign has not caught on anywhere. Both do register a bit of support in most Iowa polling, so I include them in my final call.

So my prediction – or perhaps best guess – about Tuesday’s final numbers:

Mitt Romney – 25%
Rick Santorum – 23%
Ron Paul – 21%
Newt Gingrich – 12%
Rick Perry – 9%
Michele Bachmann – 6%
Jon Huntsman – 3%
Buddy Roemer – 1%

There’s nothing earth-shattering there, though clearly I’m buying into the idea of Santorum finishing even stronger than his current polling shows, by claiming a good chunk of the undecideds and nipping a point or two from Gingrich/Perry/Bachmann. And I think Romney wins with a lower percentage in the Iowa caucus than we’ve seen in the modern era – even lower than Bob Dole’s 1996 showing.

Why do I see Romney hitting 25% and taking the win, despite failing to reach that mark in any of the four weekend polls? I’m putting a lot of credence in his Monday statement that “we’re going to win this thing.” Yeah, I know a campaign aide later said he was referring to the nomination, but the context of the statement was clearly about Iowa, because he immediately followed by referring to “other states.” Mitt’s campaign has been marked by limiting Iowa expectations while raising expectations everywhere else. They’ve been remarkably disciplined in this approach. Mitt rarely goes off-script, in part because emotion is what makes you go off-script, and emotion is not what Mitt does. That the words came out of his mouth, even in the heat of the moment, even on the eve of a major election, when candidates are tired and raw, tells me that Mitt believes their organization will get the job done on Tuesday.

The ordained Republican frontrunner usually – well, always – wins the nomination. But he rarely wins Iowa. I think this is the year that changes, and that Romney wins despite never really planning to do so.

But don’t count out the two guys still standing – Paul and Santorum – who actually engender some enthusiasm among Republicans. And tell us what you think in the comments.