DES MOINES, Iowa - Political pros in this state are not foolish enough to pick a winner this far out from the caucuses (I am: It will be Ted Cruz, whose mix of frank religiosity and anti-establishment zeal is a good fit for the Iowa Republican electorate, and practically no other) but they do love their typologies.
Historically, by one account, there are brand name candidates (think Bob Dole or George H.W. Bush); conservative outsider candidates (think Mike Huckabee or Rick Santorum); and idea candidates (think Jack Kemp or Ron Paul). Most Iowa political types I consulted would pick this as a conservative outsider year.
Michael GersonBy most accounts, the Republican candidates are competing for control of three "lanes": Hard-Core Evangelicals (HCE), who think the GOP's main problem is a lack of fighting spirit; Practically Minded Evangelicals (PME), who are socially conservative but value electability; and Terry Branstad Republicans (TBR), who, following in the footsteps of a popular and effective governor, want the largest tent possible consistent with their convictions (and feel the HCEs are going off the deep end).
Note that whatever lane you choose in Republican Iowa, you are likely to hit an evangelical. Scott Walker, it is generally believed, flamed out because (among other reasons) he did not "own his lane." Based on polling and anecdote, HCEs are breaking toward Cruz. PMEs seem to be moving toward Marco Rubio. And TBRs - a shrinking proportion of Iowa's GOP electorate - are still divided among a few candidates.
No one I consulted can explain the Donald Trump phenomenon.
Cruz is benefiting from a common but specious conservative argument - that recent GOP presidential candidates have lost because they weren't conservative enough. This claim has been around since the days of President Goldwater. But it has gained traction in Iowa, with a twist. Given the perceived political vulnerability of Hillary Clinton, might it be possible to choose and elect a "real" conservative this time around, defined as the rejection of compromise at the highest decibel level?
Cruz has the decibel part mastered, and has moved right on immigration in an attempt to sew up conservative support. Cruz has benefited in one way from the Trump ascendency. He looks positively reasonable in comparison. And Cruz doesn't have Trump's main drawback in reaching out to conservatives - that Trump isn't actually a conservative.
Rubio is gaining steam in Iowa, on the strength of a perception that his next-generation conservatism matches up well against Clinton's old-time liberalism. He seems to be on just about everyone's top three list. He is trying to gain ground by moving right and has moved rightward on immigration, demonstrating how Trump's nativism has pulled many in the GOP toward restrictionism.
Rubio's strategy is not without risk. Heading off Cruz on the right may come across as forced and inauthentic. And siding with anti-Branstad forces in Iowa could cause the TBRs to coalesce around Chris Christie or Jeb Bush. This seems to be the only possibility for Bush to finish a respectable third or fourth.
Large questions remain unanswered. Can Trump translate poll numbers into caucus-goers? Will people who have probably never participated in a caucus trudge on a cold night to a high school cafeteria to support a candidate who isn't part of any ideological movement, other than the Trump-should-run-everything movement?
In other words: Can you have a revolution without a cause? As the first test, Iowa will play its accustomed and essential role.
Washington Post Writers Group