Iowa Republican poll

Here are the results from Iowa this morning:

Mitt Romney 23%
Michelle Bachmann 22%
Herman Cain 10%
Newt Gingrich 7%
Ron Paul 7%
Tim Pawlenty 6%
Rick Santorum 4%
John Huntsman 2%

First, as a 6th generation Iowan (the Harmans were here in the 1830’s before Iowa was even a state), allow me to say that I am appalled by Michelle Bachmann’s strong showing. While more competent than Palin, she is in many respects a more heinous politician. Why can’t the Republicans come up with a woman who isn’t an abomination?

Conventional wisdom says this poll is a disaster for Pawlenty, who is from neighboring Minnesota as well and has spent a ton of time in Iowa already.

However, Nate Silver (who knows a lot more about polls than I do, or than most other people do for that matter) says HERE that the results are actually worse for Romney– 38% of Iowa Republicans view him unfavorably, versus only 13% unfavorable for Pawlenty. In short, few people loathe Pawlenty, and they may be persuadable. (What Silver neglects to mention is that Pawlenty is a fairly boring man, which may hurt his persuasiveness.)

As for Romney’s 38% negatives, I *do* think the Mormon issue is hurting him here (though in other contexts it is overrated as a factor, in my opinion). A large portion of the Iowa Republicans are evangelicals, and might easily think of Mormons as “pagans,” or some other such adjective.

But in the end, I don’t really think it matters if Bachmann wins Iowa. New Hampshire loves reversing what Iowa does, and New Hampshire doesn’t seem like a Bachmann sort of place to me. They’d probably go for Romney.

Otherwise… Herman Cain seems like a Tea Party Special whose numbers will never go very high; Newt Gingrich is compulsively self-destructive and has too many enemies; Ron Paul is a guy with a fanatical but small following unlikely ever to capture the hearts of the rank and file; Santorum appeals to the far-rights and that’s all; Huntsman seems doomed to stay at around 2% all the way to the end.

That leaves Pawlenty as the one guy of the current group who could emerge. But again, he’s a bit of a bore. The big surprise emerger in 2008 for the Republicans was Mike Huckabee, and Huckabee is simply a likable guy, whatever you may think of his views about the Bible and science (and I happen to think they’re completely cracked).

It’s still early, but I am currently envisaging a Romney nomination after a bit of fussing from some evangelicals.

But again, I don’t see any of the current list defeating Obama, barring a 1929-style economic meltdown (which is not out of the question). Even a big terrorist attack probably wouldn’t bring down Obama now. The bin Laden thing (which Obama handled with class and with excellent decision-making) earned him enough national security credits that the Republicans are barely even mentioning defense right now. When was the last time that happened with a Democratic President? Probably under FDR, frankly.

Think about it… Truman got ripped for Korea and for firing General MacArthur. Kennedy got ripped for not being able to take out Castro. Johnson was ripped, and fell, for Vietnam. Carter was considered a national security laughing stock. Clinton was viewed as a draft dodger who shot missiles to distract the press from Monica.

It’s remarkable, but despite some complaints (mostly from his own party) on Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama is probably the first Democratic President since FDR not to be taking constant harassment about national security weakness. Even the people who do complain about Obama on security issues are complaining that he’s too far to the right, not that he’s too soft.