You’ve probably spotted the most popular man in Iowa, Gov. Terry Branstad, in a cutaway shot during the debates. With his wire-rim glasses, drooping mustache, and salt-and-pepper hair, he’s a picture of calm, the professorial politician. Over and over on live television, Republican presidential candidates shower him with praise. But Branstad rarely reacts; he’ll twitch an eyebrow, maybe nod. He’s content, he tells me, to stay in the background, watching.
Branstad, a 65-year-old attorney, was elected last year, ousting incumbent Democrat Chet Culver. It’s his second stint at Terrace Hill, the governor’s mansion; Iowa politicos quip that with his whiskers and split tenure, he’s the Midwest’s Grover Cleveland. Branstad previously held office from 1983 to 1999 and retired as Iowa’s longest-serving chief executive. A few years later, he became president of Des Moines University, a medical college.
But Branstad, who, at age 36, was the youngest governor in Iowa’s history during his first term, wanted to reenter the political fray. He lives and breathes politics, he says, and has been participating in Iowa’s caucuses, in one form or another, since the late 1960s, when he was a College Republican at the University of Iowa. This cycle, as usual, he is watching the latest sprint with interest. And he is an impartial observer, having decided early on not to endorse.
Branstad has not always sat on the sidelines. He did not endorse during the 1988 or 2008 caucuses, but did support Bob Dole in 1996 and Lamar Alexander, and then George W. Bush, in 2000. After those experiences, Branstad prefers to follow the scramble like any other political junkie, debating who’s up and who’s down, observing instead of stumping.
This year, he says, the contest is shaping up to be one of the best in decades, with nearly every candidate in contention and many conservatives undecided about their favorite. “There are only three tickets out of Iowa,” Branstad says, arguing that a top-three finish is likely necessary to sustain a national campaign. “At this point, nothing is really settled, and the lead could easily change hands between now and January 3. It’s a very fluid race, it’s very wide open.”
As the clock ticks, Branstad is keeping an eye on five factors.
Ron Paul’s organization: Branstad says that Paul, a Texas congressman and libertarian, has built an impressive ground operation, with hundreds of signs dotting rural highways and scores of energetic college students canvassing throughout Iowa’s 99 counties. “He’s gone about it the old-fashioned way, and I think he deserves a lot of credit,” Branstad says. “He’s put a lot of time, effort, and resources into the state.” Paul’s message, he adds, is also resonating, blending pro-life politics with a hard emphasis on monetary policy and budget cuts.
Branstad notes that Paul, unlike Newt Gingrich, has been doing this for months, and that his second-place showing in August’s GOP straw poll in Ames hints at his statewide strength, both in the “Golden Circle” near Des Moines and in the western region of the state, which tends to back fiery, small-government candidates. If Paul sustains his momentum, bringing new, non-traditional coalitions into the mix, he could win. Unlike last cycle, when Paul focused solely on stirring grassroots fervor, his advisers are spending millions on media and mailings.
Television ads: Iowa’s airwaves have been blanketed in recent weeks with an array of negative and positive spots. Branstad says these ads could have an impact, but he is not sure whether they will be determinative. When he speaks with Iowa Republicans, Branstad says, he hears the same refrain: that voters are going elsewhere this year, beyond television, for their information. If that’s the case come caucus night, Branstad says, a second-tier candidate could emerge and do well, all under the noses of GOP consultants who have been buying (and touting) commercials.
“In central Iowa, for instance, you have WHO radio and the Des Moines Register,” Branstad says. “Others get their news from other sources altogether, especially from the social media.” But he acknowledges that the state’s television stations, even in the era of Facebook and Twitter, have a major say in shaping the campaign’s narrative. Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, for example, has spent over $4 million on TV ads in Iowa, more than any other candidate. Perry may be struggling in the polls, but with a strong presence on the tube, he could see some movement.
Rick Santorum’s quiet surge: “He seems to be coming up,” Branstad says. The latest polls show Santorum, a former Pennsylvania senator, having his best month of the year, holding 10 percent support in surveys conducted by Rasmussen and Public Policy Polling. Santorum, according to the Register, has also spent 95 days on the trail in Iowa, more time than any other candidate.
That matters to caucusgoers, Branstad says, since a majority of voters tends to support a candidate they have met. Even as the Internet’s influence widens, “it’s still important to make that personal contact and build an organization,” he says. “That hasn’t changed, and it’s why Ron Paul and Santorum are moving up, just as Mike Huckabee did four years ago.”
Santorum was also endorsed by Bob Vander Plaats, a high-profile social conservative who lost the state’s 2010 GOP gubernatorial primary to Branstad. “Santorum doesn’t have many resources, but he has gone to all 99 counties and just received [Vander Plaats’s] support, along with the support of many church leaders,” he says. For Santorum, he says, that’s a big boost.
Undecided evangelicals: But beyond the Vander Plaats endorsement, Branstad says that Iowa’s prominent bloc of Christian conservatives appears to be very much in play and could decide the caucuses. Every candidate, he says, has made explicit appeals to these voters at the eleventh hour, their strategists cognizant of internal and public polling that shows evangelicals remaining, to a large degree, undecided. “Forty percent or more of the caucus-goers are going to be evangelical Christians,” he says. “That’s significant; each candidate knows their importance.”
At the same time, Branstad says, the caucuses could be won by someone who appeals to that group but does not lead his pitch with moral issues. “The most important issues are the debt, the out-of-control deficits, creating jobs, and fixing the economy,” he says. “Even with people who are social conservatives, for whom social issues like abortion and gay marriage are critical, the economic issues are very important.” That fiscal focus could enable a candidate with fewer ties to the evangelical movement, such as Mitt Romney or Gingrich, to surprise, and someone with close relationships to it, such as Michele Bachmann, to underperform.
Mitt Romney’s potential: Romney may be leading numerous national polls, Branstad says, but the former Massachusetts governor has not invested much time in the Hawkeye State. Still, in Des Moines political circles, he says, the buzz is that Romney may do better than expected, with his organization stronger than most pundits think. Romney placed second in the 2008 caucuses, and his organization from that campaign has largely carried over, giving him a real shot at winning the caucuses, where well-connected precinct captains and experience can buoy one’s campaign.
In the RealClearPolitics average of Iowa polls, Paul leads with 23.8 percent, but Romney is close, holding 20.3 percent support. “I think [Romney] should have spent more time here sooner, but I understand that he has been trying to lower expectations,” Branstad says. “But he has really changed his approach in the last couple weeks. He’s opened a headquarters here, he’s been here more, and his wife has been here. He’s had [surrogates] speaking on his behalf and he has been spending significant money on television. So I think he’s trying to make up for lost time.”
Indeed, Branstad says, every campaign is in the midst of hand-to-hand political combat, looking for any angle, any chance to pick up ground with only days to go. “It’s really important for all of them to finish in the top three,” he says. “If you finish in the top three, you’re going to get some attention in New Hampshire. If you don’t, it’s going to be Romney in New Hampshire versus whoever won Iowa and maybe who came in second. But if somebody comes in a surprisingly strong second or third — a Santorum, someone like that — it could be helpful to them.”
“Obviously, a lot of people think that Ron Paul will be in the top three,” Branstad says. “Whether he wins it or not, I’m not sure. In the end, this is going to be a ‘beat expectations’ game. What Romney tried to do is lower expectations, but he needs to finish in the top three, too, or he could hurt himself in New Hampshire.” Gingrich, for his part, needs to overcome his abruptly organized Iowa campaign. “He’s surged in the polls, but a lot of people are concerned that he doesn’t have the organization, that he doesn’t have people to speak for him at the caucus sites.”
“If Santorum beats Gingrich, organization counts. If Ron Paul wins Iowa, organization counts,” Branstad says. But with turnout expected to be between anywhere from 120,000 to 140,000, in a state with more than 600,000 registered Republicans, the governor is adamant that no one, not even someone who has won nine statewide races, knows what will actually happen on that icy January evening. “What happens in the last week could change everything,” he chuckles, and as he watches the spectacle unfold, that’s fine by him.
— Robert Costa is a political reporter for National Review.