Paris
I shudder to differ with the esteemed Cardinal Richelieu. But, emboldened by writing from France, where I see how fleeting are all the achievements of glory, I raise this question: Could Richelieu be wrong in arguing that McCain should compete, at least for third place, in Iowa? The Cardinal argues that, given the Iowa bounce, a mild upset third-place finish for McCain in Iowa is the best path to a necessary victory in New Hampshire. In other words, "To win New Hampshire, McCain needs TV ads in Iowa."
I wonder if Richelieu is being too clever by half. For one thing, he underestimates, I suspect, how hard it would be for McCain to snatch third in Iowa. For another, this year's nominating dynamics could turn out to be more complicated than the usually reliable "three tickets out of Iowa, two out of New Hampshire." The way this year seems to be shaping up, I'd say Romney and Huckabee almost have to take the top two places in Iowa, given their strategies. Thompson probably needs to be in the top three. Giuliani can probably afford a respectably close fourth - though he'll quietly invest more than his campaign talks about to try to snatch one of the top three places, and virtually knock one of the other candidates out.
As for McCain, getting third in Iowa over both Giuliani and Thompson would be tough. Rather than invest in Iowa TV ads and fall short, I'd be inclined to put all my chips on New Hampshire. That implies explicitly pulling out of Iowa (and quietly urging supporters to work for Huckabee - to weaken Romney - or Thompson - to weaken Giuliani). McCain would simply announce that, with all due respect to the Iowa caucuses, they're not really a primary - and he wants his candidacy to live or die by the judgment of all the voters, so he'll compete only in real primaries. (On background, his aides can spin a not-entirely-ridiculous story of McCain's principled refusal to pander to ethanol-subsidy-loving Iowans.) Obviously, pulling out of Iowa would be an admission of weakness. But the media would probably go easy on McCain, and it would be better than competing and ending up fifth or sixth.
So McCain would pull out of Iowa, campaign full time in New Hampshire, and hope for three things. The first is likely: A greater media focus on the Democratic race in Iowa than the Republican. If Hillary wins Iowa, the Democratic race is probably over, and if she doesn't, Obama (or possibly Edwards) has a shot. So the Democratic result should be the lead item on TV on Jan. 3 and in newspapers the next morning.
The second thing is also reasonably likely: A Hillary victory in Iowa, so independents in New Hampshire decide the Democratic race is over and vote in the GOP primary.
The third is dicier, but by no means really unlikely: A muddied GOP result in Iowa (e.g., Huckabee 25, Romney 23, Thompson 19, Giuliani 18, Paul 9, others/uncommitted 6). That would minimize the Iowa bounce (especially for Romney and Giuliani, the two candidates currently ahead of McCain in New Hampshire). The mood on Friday would be that, in a way, the whole field underperformed in Iowa. Then a McCain upset win in New Hampshire the next Tuesday would put him squarely in contention for the nomination.
It's a bit of a long shot. But communing with the spirit of the real Richelieu while walking past his original residence a couple of hours ago, I wondered whether he might have thought it as reasonable a gambit as playing for third in Iowa. Pourquoi pas?
