This is not a sign of a healthy campaign.
Republican Michele Bachmann’s presidential campaign fell just as quickly as it rose. Now, she’s looking to Iowa, at the expense of other early voting states, to get back on track.
It’s a strategy of necessity for the Minnesota congresswoman. A victory in Iowa this winter would keep her afloat in the GOP nomination fight. A loss would almost certainly end her bid.
“We know that when Michele is in Iowa, she wins,” said Bachmann’s Iowa campaign chairman, Kent Sorenson. “If she’s here, she’ll win Iowa.”
That explains why, starting this weekend, Bachmann plans to campaign almost exclusively in the state as she tries to reassert herself in a race that’s become a two-candidate contest between Texas Gov. Rick Perry and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.
Both Bachmann and Herman Cain are testament to the fact that a single stellar debate performance early in the cycle aren’t enough foundation to build a successful campaign on. Cain won the first debate by most accounts and jumped up in the polls, but has faded since. Bachmann likewise enjoyed a strong performance in an early debate and vaulted to top tier status ahead of Tim Pawlenty, who eventually dropped out. But now Bachmann is fading fast.
One thing sticking to Iowa does is save the campaign’s travel expenses, and this could be a sign that Bachmann’s money is drying up. I wouldn’t be surprised if the rumors I’ve heard are true, that donors see Bachmann’s Ames straw poll win as her high water mark and are now moving their money to either one of the two frontrunners, Perry and Romney.
Successful candidates can and do suffer setbacks, rebound, and win. John McCain’s campaign imploded in 2007, but he rebuilt it and went on to win by capturing the South Carolina primary and then picking up Gov. Charlie Crist’s endorsement in Florida, which destroyed Rudy Giuliani’s chances. Bachmann may not be able to carve a similar path out of Iowa, though. That state is less predictive of GOP nominees, Perry currently leads strongly in South Carolina, and no one in the current race is repeating Giuliani’s ill-considered Florida-or-bust strategy.
Yes, it’s about the money. This is the McCain strategy. He was broke. He just had to hang in there, until the others self-destructed. Perry’s entry has dwarfed her, at least for the nonce. If he declines, her contributions will pick up again. She can hang on for quite awhile yet.
Of course, if Palin does get in, which is not likely at this point, Bachmann is done. She’ll have to withdraw and support Palin.
I believe you’re correct about the effect of a Palin entry on the Bachmann candidacy. However, if she were to campaign without Bachmann’s endorsement, Palin would face heavy weather against Perry and Romney. For a serious shot at the GOP nomination, it would be best for Palin to tap Bachmann as her running mate, assuming the Minnesotan is agreeable.
Bachmann as Palin’s VP? I just don’t see that happening.
Bachmann doesn’t really add anything to Palin. They’re too similar. I guess you could say that Clinton and Gore were pretty similar, but Gore had run for President, had foreign policy exp, was known as a hawk on defense. Had been in Congress for 16 years, Bachmann’s been in in Congress since 2007.
That said, it could be interesting if Palin did run with a VP during the primary, even with a whole cabinet in tow. Almost a UK style campaign with her as the leader of a shadow govt. Would be way outside the box and could really shake things up.
Of course, money comes back to a candidate’s perceived ability to win.
People like to back a winner, so if Bachmann looked like she could win, there’d be money pouring in. The fact that it isn’t just shows that most people don’t consider her a serious contender.
Which actually sets up a sort of vicious circle… because without money, she won’t be a serious contender… but the best way to get money is to look like you can win.
McCain just sat and waited until the media destroyed all of his competition. The media arrogated to themselves the power to decide which “gaffe” or “error” or “miscalculation” or “dirty laundry” or “baggage” is sufficient reason to announce to the American electorate that a candidate should be disqualified from further consideration.
The media allowed McCain to stay in the running only because they knew that he was no conservative.
The media were also aware that Obama and every aspect of his background were both freakishly bizarre and truly un-American, but they did everything they could to keep the voters from finding out.
I just don’t get the whole Rick Perry thing. Why is he a big deal? I don’t see that he should be getting all the credit for jobs in Texas. That’s a joke. Oil. Republican Legislature. He’s not as great as the polls make him out to be, and the debate didn’t convince me he was any better than Romney or Bachman. At one point, I thought his head was going to implode when he tried to answer the question on Global Warming. I bet he sticks his foot in his mouth a few more times and will be done. As for me, I’d take Romney or Bachman any day over Perry….
You’d take the man who set up RomneyCare, the template for ObamaCare?
That in and of itself tells me all I need to know about you.
If the election comes down to Obozo versus Romney, we’ll emigrate.
Just like all those Hollywood folks that said they’d emigrate if Dubya got elected or re-elected?
Well, it really only tells you that we disagree about Romney, unless you are like some of the lefties I know who can’t carry on an intelligent conversation with you once they find out you disagree with their leftist world view.
Yes, I prefer Romney over Perry in spite of RomneyCare and I would also prefer Bachman over Perry and I would prefer Ron Paul over Perry, too, for that matter.
I’m not in any way a supporter of Obamacare or RomneyCare, but, in my opinion, Romney is a much better candidate overall. A few more debates should show this. And at this point, I think Obamacare will be only one of multitudes of issues that Obama will suffer from – there are so many targets.
So, forgive me for not being as good of a conservative as you are. I think the big issue is the economy and Romney gets my vote on that issue any day over Perry. So does Bachman. Perry is no big deal. Lots of hype, but I haven’t been that impressed so far.
Sorry, mister, Romney has too many flip-flops, including the one on SS… in his book, he essentially calls it illegal (i.e. a Ponzi scheme), yet he’s bashing Perry for saying the same thing.
In effect, you’re supporting another “say anything to get elected” Obama-like candidate, just from the other party.
Perry screwed up when he called it a Ponzi scheme. (He also screwed up when he said Bernanake was guilty of treason.) That will haunt him for a long time – even if it is true. Those type of comments make him come across as extreme. I’d bet we’ll see more of those from Perry soon enough.
I didn’t see Romney “bashing him” on that during the debate. Seemed like the press was doing most of that. I heard Romney say that it’s not a Ponzi scheme to the millions who depend on it, but it must be reformed to be sustainable….True. Romney is the man.
…By the way…the ultimate flip flop would be going from Al Gore Campaign chief in Texas to Tea Party favorite today.