Indeed, the Iowa contest could be a metaphor for the rest of the nomination battle. Romney made a consistent pitch to Iowa voters; he had compelling surrogates, such as New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, to vouch for his conservative credentials; he had a lot of money to deploy; and he ran a disciplined campaign. Despite his past heresies on social issues, and his advocacy of a Massachusetts health care plan that became a model for President Obama’s, enough GOP voters in Iowa deemed him solid and electable to put him over the top in the end.
Granted, the same factors that lifted Santorum Tuesday may give him more staying power than Trump, Cain, Michele Bachmann, or others who’ve auditioned as the Romney alternative. As a former member of the Senate leadership team, Santorum is more realistic about the federal budget and relies less on furious rhetoric or 9-9-9-style gimmicks. As a senator with a substantial blue-collar constituency, he’s further distanced from Wall Street than other contenders. But he has a well-earned reputation for making intolerant statements, particularly against gays. And while his brand of conservatism plays well in Iowa, the state’s unique caucuses often turn out to represent a high-water mark for evangelical Christian candidates.
Romney’s victory in Iowa - which, if the polls are right, will be coupled with a strong performance in New Hampshire next week - ups the ante for him and the other GOP candidates who opt to stay in the race. In their emphases and on a variety of policy matters, there are significant differences separating Romney from Santorum and third-place Iowa finisher Ron Paul - not to mention former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, who has staked his campaign on New Hampshire. As the GOP field comes into sharper focus, voters in subsequent states deserve a thorough airing of those differences.
