"When social movements like the civil rights movement or the feminist movement convince the center of the country that their claims are just, the court usually comes around... The great engine of constitutional evolution has not been judges who think they know better than the American people. It has been the evolving views of the American people themselves about what rights and liberties they regard as most important to them."

Just as the gay rights movement helped pave the road for new legal protections for gay and lesbian couples, those on the other side of the issue can attempt convincing their fellow citizens that same-sex marriage is not a civil right. They can offer arguments about why this case was wrongly decided, why it is a political question not a constitutional one. They can push for the election of new politicians who will appoint judges who will vote differently on similar issues.  If these arguments are persuasive, they will become increasingly influential within the legal culture.

These mechanisms allow popular opinion to have a long-term role in shaping the law, while still providing judges the breathing room to decide cases on their merit. An independent judiciary is a hallmark of our constitutional system; throwing out a judge whenever you don’t like their decision is antithetical to this idea.

Regardless of what you think about this particular ruling, it is indisputable that judges will sometimes be required to make decisions that are unpopular. It is deeply troubling that they could be forced to choose between fidelity to the law and holding onto their job.  

Larry Lessig has a thought provoking piece over at The Atlantic on campaign finance reform, arguing that until we do something about the role of money in politics it will be almost impossible to address other challenges. Frustrated that neither political party is making any attempt to fix the problem, he argues for citizens to nominate a third party candidate through Americans Elect who will bring the issue to the forefront of the election. If the nominee can get more than 15 per cent of the vote in six national polls they will be invited to participate in the presidential debates, and perhaps force Mr. Romney and President Obama to talk about campaign financing. Many Democrats have worried that Americans Elect will hurt President Obama’s chances of re-election, but Professor Lessig — who is liberal — thinks it would be worth the costs:

Let both major party candidates then address this issue. If the consequence is that Romney loses to Obama because of it, then Obama will have some mandate to return to the issue again. If the consequence is that Obama loses to Romney because of it, then maybe the next would-be-reformer president will carry through on the reform he promised. And if the unimaginable happens — that a true reform candidate captures the imagination of America and wins — then maybe we can finally address this, the most important issue in American politics today. Just maybe.

I share Professor Lessig’s frustration that the issue has been absent from the campaign and that President Obama made no attempt in his first term to try and reform to the system. I’m sceptical though that having campaign financing mentioned in a debate or two would do much to change the political salience of the issue. After all, the 2010 Citizens United decision put the question at the centre of public debate for a few weeks, but hasn’t led either of the parties to offer much in the way of reform. In any case, changes to the way we conduct elections are long overdue. Choosing politicians the same way over and over and expecting different results is the definition of insanity.

Beginning in 2014, companies with over 50 employees will be required to offer health insurance coverage to their workers or else pay a tax penalty . To facilitate access to insurance for those who do not receive it through work, states are required to set up health insurance exchanges in which consumers can compare plans.  Plans offered through these exchanges must provide a baseline set of benefits, and each exchange must offer at least two competing plans, one of which is provided by a non-profit organisation.  These plans must also offer four “predefined level of benefits".

The goal of the exchanges is to create a transparent one stop destination for small businesses and individuals who don’t obtain coverage through their employer to shop for health insurance, and to encourage market competition between insurance companies within a regulatory framework that ensures that they offer coverage to anyone who needs it.

The ACA also expands the scope of Medicaid, the government run health insurance program that is financed by a combination of federal and state funds and administered by the individual states.  Traditionally, Medicaid has been available to all children (and some parents) whose family income is below the poverty line, some pregnant women, the disabled, and seniors at a designated level below the poverty line. Citizens over 65 already receive health benefits through Medicare. Under the new law, all individuals and families with incomes below 133 per cent of the poverty line will be eligible for Medicaid. These changes are expected to extend coverage to 16 million previously uninsured Americans.

Prohibiting private insurers from discriminating against high risk applicants poses challenges though. Charging healthy and unhealthy individuals the same insurance rates creates an adverse selection problem; the sick will rush into the system while the healthy will choose to opt out. If I can purchase insurance at the same price once I get sick, it is rational to wait until I fall ill to buy it. Insurance works by pooling together the risk of individuals, but under the given rules, the pool will be flooded with high risk and expensive consumers. Since the per capita health expenditures within pools will be high, so too will the premiums that consumers pay. In order for these new regulations to work, there needs to be a way of bringing younger and healthier individuals into the risk pool.

This is where the individual mandate comes in. Under the ACA the uninsured -with the exception of select groups such as religious objectors-will be required to purchase a baseline level of health insurance coverage or pay an annual penalty of $695, or 2.5 per cent of annual income, whichever is greater. The penalty is not high enough to create de facto compliance, so it is anticipated that even with the mandate a fair number individuals will choose to opt out of coverage.

The federal government will also offer new subsidies to help offset the cost of purchasing health care.  People who are above the cut off line for Medicaid but whose income is less than four times the poverty level will be eligible for subsidies. Federal funding is provided on a sliding scale. Individuals and families with incomes 3 to 4 times the poverty level would not have to pay more than 9.5 per cent of their income for insurance, while those closer to the federal poverty level would not pay more than 3 to 4 per cent.  

Additionally, some small businesses that pay over 50 per cent of their workers health insurance costs will be eligible for tax credits.

In sum, the ACA attempts to address the affordability of health care by increasing the number of people eligible for Medicaid, preventing insurers from discriminating against those with pre-existing conditions, and increasing federal subsidies to low and middle income Americans.

The costs of the new healthcare program are financed in a number of ways. Most notably, is an additional 0.9 per cent payroll tax on individuals with an annual income over $200 000. Similarly, there is a 3.8 per cent tax on passive income, such as investments or royalties, that totals over $200 000 in a year. These taxes fund the Medicare program that provides health coverage to Americans over 65.

There is also a new excise tax on “group insurers with annual premium payments in excess of $10 200 for individual coverage and $27 500 for families.” The tax rate is “40 percent on the amount of premiums above the thresholds”

Additionally, the ACA imposes a variety of smaller fees on the “health care industry.” Among these are a 2.3 per cent tax on infrequently purchased medical devices , taxes on pay for health care executives whose companies fail to meet given government guidelines,  and an annual tax on “certain manufacturers and importers of brand name pharmaceuticals.” You can peruse the links I’ve provided if you’re interested in a fully comprehensive list of the funding mechanisms for the ACA. And here’s a good pie chart on how the bill is financed.

Estimating the total costs of the bill is not exactly a straightforward task because individuals disagree over the mechanisms used and in part because politically motivated individuals on both sides are excellent at obfuscating the issue. The Wikipedia article on the ACA provides a good summary of these areas of disagreement.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office which is responsible for scoring the costs of legislation estimated in March 2011 that the act will bring in $813 billion from 2012 to2021 and cost $613 billion to implement, resulting in a deficit reduction of $210 billion dollars. At the time it was passed into law the CBO projected that the ACA will cause “national health... expenditures to rise to 19.6 percent of GDP (by 2019) as compared to 19.3 percent had ACA not been enacted.”

There’s also a final point aspect of the health care bill worth touching on. As Sarah Kliff explains:

“much of the law’s 905 pages are dedicated to... an overhaul of America’s business model for medicine. It includes 45 changes to how doctors deliver health care — and how patients pay for it. These reforms, if successful, will move the country’s health system away from one that pays for volume and toward one that pays for value. "

I’d like to tackle the issue of cost controls on health expenditures in a later post. It’s an extremely important topic, but also a pretty wonky one.   A lot of the new regulations focus on incentivizing efficiency and encouraging health care providers and insurers to keep costs down (such as the previously mentioned tax on expensive health care plans.  Ezra Klein points out that the bill implants a wide variety of potential cost control mechanisms attempting to make “reform a continuous, rather than occasional, process.”

One area of agreement amongst both defenders and critics is that, even if the ACA is upheld by the Supreme Court, this will not be the end of the health care reform process.  Simply put, while the law begins to address rising medical costs, it doesn’t contain the sort of large scale cost control mechanisms that will curb the continuously increasing expenditures on health care.  The ACA is not the cure-all for a troubled health care system, but is it an important step in the right direction or a journey down the wrong path?

However, he stood to lose a lot of this positive publicity by staying in the race. Mitt Romney had moved ahead of Santorum in the Pennsylvania polls, and given his enormous cash advantages the former Massachusetts governor looked poised to win the Keystone State on April 24th. Even if Santorum pulled off the upset in Pennsylvania it was unlikely to alter the race much given that candidates are expected to carry their home states. In contrast, a loss would have brought instant comparisons to 2006, and his withdrawal from the race would have been cast in a less favourable light.

Putting aside Pennsylvania, there was already a growing consensus amongst Republicans that the time had come to coalesce around Romney and start looking toward the general election. The longer Santorum stayed in the race, the more it would appear that he was hindering the Republican’s chances in November.

It’s unclear what the future holds for Santorum. While the runner up in the Republican Primary often goes on to be the nominee in the next election cycle, it’s less likely that this will be the case with Santorum. There are a lot of talented young GOP-ers who will be ready to jump into the race in 2016 if Romney loses in 2012. Additionally, Santorum’s brand of conservatism inevitably turns off a large segment of moderate Republicans and independent voters. That being said, whatever Santorum’s future aspirations, they were likely bolstered by his decision to withdraw today.

The bill eventually passed, but the controversy has not subsided. Opponents gathered the signatures necessary to force recall elections for six Wisconsin legislators including Governor Scott Walker. The Wisconsin Republican Party “as a whole is more united behind Scott Walker than it’s been for anything it’s ever done” said Mark Graul, a veteran member of the state GOP. This solidarity has led most Republican legislators to fall in line behind the frontrunner and establishment favourite Romney. It appears that key figures in the party don’t see much point in wasting time or opening up party divisions by publicly voicing support for the other candidates.

However, there might be one silver lining for Santorum. Nate Silver points out that the lack of interest in the presidential primary may very well lead to low turnouts, and the fewer people that show up the larger the chance of a result that defies the polls. This coupled with the fact that Santorum has previously outperformed his polling numbers on Election Day, means that he still holds a (very) small chance of upsetting Romney tomorrow.

Finally, here’s a song for the primaries. This is Holocene off the 2011 self-titled album from Eau Claire, Wisconsin natives Bon Iver.

Justice Kennedy was a bit less transparent. He declared that the "mandate fundamentally changes the relationship of a citizen with the government" but near the end of oral arguments seemed to entertain the idea that the consequences of the uninsured on the national health care system might make this case unique.

Reading the tea leaves in these cases is often a fruitless task, but, since I couldn't resist, I went over the transcript from Gonzales v Raich and compared the two Justice's statements from oral arguments to the votes they ultimately ended up casting. If Justice Kennedy-or perhas even Justice Scalia-appeared sceptical of the constitutionality of the law but eventually upheld it, perhaps they might do the same thing in the current health care case.

Despite ultimately siding with the federal government, Scalia did draw attention to several perceived holes in their argument.

“I mean, in these other... in these other cases, Congress presumably wanted to foster interstate commerce in wheat, in Wickard v. Filburn. Congress doesn't want interstate commerce in marijuana. And it seems rather ironic to appeal to the fact that home-grown marijuana would reduce the interstate commerce that you don't want to occur in order to regulate it. I mean, you know, doesn't that strike you as strange?”

However, far from contradicting his vote in the case, Justice Scalia's line of questioning actually makes a lot of sense given the concurring opinion he ended up writing. While Justice Stevens's majority opinion relied heavily on rationale of Wickard v. Filburn, Justice Scalia's concurrence focused more exclusively on the Necessary and Proper clause. In this context, it seems doubtful that Scalia had a change of heart between oral arguments and voting, but rather that he was trying to convince the other Justices of his own rationale for upholding the government's regulation.

At numerous other points, Justice Scalia appeared outwardly supportive of the federal government's position. He mentioned that the prohibition of marijuana appeared similar to an existing prohibition on the possession of endangered eagle feathers. In that instance, Congress had explained that there was no way of determining whether the feathers came through interstate commerce or not. Obamacare supporters who still cling to the irrational hope that Justice Scalia might uphold the mandate probably won’t take much solace in the oral arguments from Raich. Justice Scalia showed a sympathy for the Bush administration’s argument that was wholly absent from his line of questioning in the health care case.

Justice Kennedy was coyer. Many of his comments in Raich were clarifying questions, asking the lawyers to expand on statements they had made. But, the few viewpoints he did express offered cautious support for the federal government's position. Once, he reminded Bush’s Solicitor General of a case that would support their argument. He also hinted several times that the mere possession of marijuana might constitute economic activity, and that its "fungibility" made it difficult to establish whether it came through interstate commerce or not.

Kennedy voiced concern on Tuesday that the individual mandate could justify a whole host of new federal powers, but he never expressed similar worries over allowing the federal government to regulate private marijuana use within the home. All indications are that he sees the Obama adminstration's argument in the current case as at least somewhat weaker than the Bush's administration's argument for a blanket prohibition on marijuana. In Justice Kennedy’s eyes, Raich may be more or less in line with traditional congressional regulation of economic activity, while Obamacare is an unprecedented use of Commerce Clause power.

Of course, none of this means that Justice Kennedy is a sure bet to strike down Obamacare, only that he sees it representing a somewhat troubling intrusion on indvidual autonomy and state sovereignty I could see Justice Kennedy going either way. He obviously seems troubled by the idea of government mandates, but, as others have pointed out, the outcome of the case might well hinge on whether he thinks he can uphold the law and still identify clear limiting principles that would restrain the government in the future.

It’s no secret that many conservative Christians are sceptical of Mormonism, and this distrust has had large implications on the Republican primaries. Steve Kornacki points out that while while Rick Santorum easily beat Romney in Louisiana amongst "evangelical or born-again Christians" (56 per cent to 20 per cent), Romney actually edged out Santorum amongst the rest of the electorate. Kornacki explains that this is part of a larger trend. Romney doesn’t have as much a problem connecting with very conservative Republicans, as he does connecting with evangelicals. Even more to the point, exit polling has shown that a large segment of voters think that it is very important for a candidate share their religious beliefs.

I don’t want to put words in the mouths of these evangelicals, but I would assume for many of them the thought process would go something like this.

"Mitt Romney thinks that Jesus visited America? He believes that there is no such thing as the Holy Trinity? You’re telling me he reject the idea of original sin? I’m pretty suspicious of this guy, even if I do agree with his tax policies."

For many of the devoutly religious, some of the teachings of Mormonism probably seem just as silly and illogical as they do to an atheist like Professor Dawkins. Obviously, voters can decide on whatever basis they want to vote for a particular candidate, but I would hope they would prioritize the substance of the candidate’s policies over his or her religious beliefs. As such, Dawkins’s statements are subject to many of the same criticisms that would be rightly levelled at a Catholic organisation who pressed a Jewish candidate on why he or she rejected the divinity of Christ.

Nevertheless, things don’t look promising for the former Senator from Pennsylvania. All of the recent polls out Illinois show Santorum trailing Romney by fairly large margins, and the gap has been growing over the last couple of days. Santorum really could have used a strong performance in Illinois, but it doesn’t appear that will be the case.

As has become the custom, I’ll leave you with a tune from the Land of Lincoln. This one comes from Uncle Tupleo, who hail from Beleville, Illinois. Following their breakup in 1994, several members of Tupelo headed north to Chicago and stated Wilco. Here, Jeff Tweedy shows why he’s one of the most talented songwriters of his generation.

“He had a black eye, he was proud of, like some of his friends. It made him feel somewhere outside, of everything and everywhere he'd been.”

 

“This result would have been better for same-sex marriage proponents than Reinhardt's approach because even though the same result invalidating Proposition 8 would be reached: (1) California would join the ranks of the same-sex marriage states in the important national tally by virtue of decisions of elected California officials (Attorney General and Governor) and the voters who elected them, rather than by unelected federal judges (especially the notoriously liberal Reinhardt); (2); the likelihood of Supreme Court review would be much lower than it is even under Reinhardt's California-specific approach; (3) Judge Reinhardt could appear to be displaying judicial modesty and obedience by taking to heart the admonitions by the Supreme Court reversing a Ninth Circuit case he authored 15 years ago concerning the lack of initiative proponent standing in federal court; and (4) there would be no doctrinal externalities to other settings arising from Judge Reinhardt's curious reasoning.”

“The fact is, when you combine the Santorum vote and the Gingrich vote ... the conservative combined would clearly beat Romney."

.......

"My hope is that gradually conservatives will come together and decide that a Newt Gingrich conservatism is dramatically better than Mitt Romney's liberalism."

These quotes weren’t an anomaly. Over and over again, Gingrich stressed that Romney’s establishment ties and lack of conservative credentials left him unfit to be the GOP nominee. Now the shoe is on the other foot; Gingrich has only managed to win one primary since he made these comments and Santorum has re-emerged, transforming the election into a two man race. If Gingrich can’t win in the Deep South, he’s not going to be making any noise in other regions of the country. Going forwards, he will likely play little role in the primaries aside from siphoning votes away from Santorum.

The very same reasons Gingrich gave Santorum for stepping down now apply equally to him. If Romney is actually the anti-conservative Gingrich makes him out to be, than surely the former speaker would want to do all he could to prevent him from getting the nomination? Further, at the same time Gingrich was criticising Romney, he was going out of his way to heap praise on Santorum. So, here’s Newt’s chance to play a key role in rallying the conservative forces in an attempt to defeat “Mitt Romney’s liberalism.”

However, Gingrich has refused to heed his own advice from a month earlier. The truth is, he probably never viewed the campaign as a battle between the real voices of conservatism and a Massachusetts moderate; it was just a narrative that he thought might win him some votes. And even if he does oppose Romney as passionately as he claims, it’s clear that fruitlessly chasing his own glory takes precedence. It’s easy to cite principles when they suit your own campaign, but when the same principles require a personal sacrifice, so much the worse for the principles.

Today the verdict came in, and common sense prevailed. Santorum won both races with Romney coming in third (about 3 points back in Mississippi and 4.5 points behind in Alabama). Here are a few takeaway lessons for future election forecasting:

• Polls change quickly. Don’t put too much to stock in numbers that aren’t from the few days immediately prior to the election. The polls were never entirely accurate in this case, but Romney’s perceived advantage did decline as the run-up to the election got closer.
• Look at the historical accuracy of the polling in the state. There was a lot of discussion about what the numbers said, but much less about whether they could be trusted. Nate Silver was the only person I found who mentioned that polling in these two states had been off in the past.
• Think critically about potential explanations for the data. In this case, there was very little reason to think that Romney had suddenly discovered his Southern swagger and it made no sense that Santorum was doing so poorly in two states that should have been his bread and butter. Yes, it’s unusual for polls to be too far off, but it’s also unusual for voter preferences to deviate so far from common sense. Inaccurate polling may be unlikely, but if the alternative explanation appears even more implausible, there’s good reason to be sceptical.

Will is right to stress the importance of Congress. The president is the head of the government, and receives the lion’s share of the media attention, but without the support of Congress it’s pretty near impossible for him do much in the way of sweeping reform. All three of the Republican candidates have mentioned how radical Obama could be in his second term without having to worry about re-election. But, what all three are well aware of, but conveniently forget to mention, is that Obama will not have the advantage of large Democratic majorities in the House and Senate. As Ezra Klein notes, “the single most important accomplishment of [Obama’s] second term would be protecting the gains of his first term.” If you need any evidence of Congress’s power to restrain the president, take a look at Obama’s meagre political agenda for the year.

However, there’s an important point that Will’s column overlooks; you cannot quarantine the presidential election off from the other House and Senate races. If voters are excited about the Republican candidate, they’ll be more likely to show up at the polls, and in many cases vote Republican all the way down the ticket. This is the presidential coattails effect, and it’s been well established by academic research.

Republicans should certainly focus much attention on picking up Senate seats, but they need to be strategic about how they go about it. If the message is, hey the guy at the top of the ticket is pretty boring but you should still vote for me, it’s going to turn off voters. For better or for worse, the fate of Republican candidates in the upcoming election is in large part tied to their eventual nominee.

Hope you enjoy the March 12th New Yorker cover as much as I did; parodying Mitt Romney’s infamous trip to Canada with the family dog strapped to the roof of the car. The problem with election predictions is that they can easily become obsolete by the following morning. This is not the case with yesterday’s Super Tuesday preview, but there has been some movement in the polls and it comes at the expense of Rick Santorum. As I noted yesterday, Romney’s previous momentum coupled with his ability to blanket the airwaves with ads gave him an excellent chance of reining in Santorum in Ohio. This is exactly what is happening, as the most recent data suggests Romney may have pulled slightly ahead in the state. Nate Silver’s election model, which yesterday gave Santorum a 57 per cent chance of winning in the state, now puts Romney as a 65 per cent favourite.

The news doesn’t get any better for Santorum down South. There isn’t enough recent data to make any definitive conclusions in Tennessee, but Romney appears to be making up ground there as well. There is now a real possibility that Romney could end up winning the most delegates in the state.

Romney was already slated to pick up the most delegates on Super Tuesday, and his margin of victory appears to be increasing. As for Santorum, it doesn’t bode well that he’s struggling in two states where the demographics skew so heavily in his favour. Heading into Super Tuesday, it’s looking like Romney is back in the driver’s seat.

Out west, Romney has a very good chance of winning in North Dakota, Idaho, and Alaska. However, these small caucus states could also be prime Ron Paul territory. Paul may not appeal to a broad segment of the electorate, but he does have a fervent base of supporters. Less than 14,000 Alaskans showed up for the 2008 Republican caucus, and a small but committed group of Paul devotees could flip the state in his favour. Still, the delegate count in these three states is not large enough to substantially affect the outcome of the primary process.

Standing between Romney and a Super Tuesday blowout is the South. Rick Santorum should pick up the most delegates in Oklahoma and probably Tennessee as well. Gingrich (yes, he's still in the race) is the heavy favourite in his home state of Georgia. It's unlikely that Romney will win any of these three states, but keep an eye on the results nonetheless. A narrow win in Tennessee or even a close second place showing in Oklahoma could be evidence that Romney’s re-established himself as the clear frontrunner.

That leaves one final state to discuss: Ohio. Ohio is without a doubt the crown jewel of Super Tuesday. It has the second most delegates of the day after Georgia, but its significance is more intangible. Two very different narratives could emerge out of Super Tuesday depending on who claims the Buckeye State. It's often remarked that the road to the White House runs through the Midwest, and so far Santorum has outperformed Romney in the Midwestern states. A win in Ohio, probably the most important state in the general election, would allow Santorum to reassert his message that he's the candidate best equipped to win in these key swing states.

On the other hand, if Romney wins there on Tuesday, the entire script changes. If he can't carry a state like Ohio, it will become much harder for Santorum to sell himself as the populist alternative to Romney. A Romney victory would be an important first step in repairing his image amongst middle class blue-collar voters.

At this point, the race between Romney and Santorum in Ohio is too close to call. Nate Silver's election model currently gives Santorum a 57 per cent chance of winning. However, as I mentioned the other day, Santorum's polling advantage in the state has been steadily declining over the last several weeks. Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball goes so far as to declare Romney the favourite in Ohio. As they correctly note, the Romney campaign has done very well in the few days before previous primaries by effectively utilising its organisational and monetary advantages. Santorum’s lead looks much more tenuous when you consider the final wave of Romney ads that are hitting the airwaves in Columbus, Cleveland and Cincinnati.

Still, even if Romney performs exceptionally well on Tuesday, the proportional system of delegate allocation makes it all but impossible for him to pull too far away from Santorum. Super Tuesday will greatly influence the trajectory of the race, but it won’t decide it altogether.

Romney also looks to be quietly narrowing the gap in Ohio. Santorum still holds a 8 point lead in the state, but he has to be feeling a little worried that polls had him 18 points ahead on February 15th. Ohio will probably be the biggest prize in the general election, and it would be huge for Romney to win there on Super Tuesday. I’ve criticized others for placing too much importance on individual states; but Ohio really is one worth obsessing over.

The moderate Republican was already a rare breed in Congress, and it just moved a step closer to extinction. In a move that caught everyone off guard, Olympia Snowe, the Republican Senator from Maine, announced today that she will not run for re-election 2012. Snowe is a moderate, who in 2010 was selected by Time Magazine as one of America’s 10 best Senators. She cited the hyper partisanship in Congress as her primary reason for not seeking a fourth term:

I do find it frustrating, that an atmosphere of polarization and ‘my way or the highway’ ideologies has become pervasive in campaigns and in our governing institutions. With my Spartan ancestry I am a fighter at heart; and I am well prepared for the electoral battle, so that is not the issue. However, what I have had to consider is how productive an additional term would be. Unfortunately, I do not realistically expect the partisanship of recent years in the Senate to change over the short term. So at this stage of my tenure in public service, I have concluded that I am not prepared to commit myself to an additional six years in the Senate, which is what a fourth term would entail.

Snowe’s retirement has big implications for the 2012 elections. She would have almost certainly been re-elected, but now Democrats have a good chance of picking up her seat. Maine is politically moderate, but has also voted Democratic in the last five presidential elections. It’s high risk high reward for Democrats though, since the Republican nominee will be less of a centrist than Snowe was.

Maine Republican strategist Matthew Gagnon explains that Snowe’s announcement also has important ramifications for the other congressional races within the state:

Senator Snowe’s decision to not seek re-election is nothing short of a political earthquake that fundamentally changes the dynamic of every single federal race in Maine in 2012. Both Democratic House Members, Chellie Pingree and Mike Michaud, will now be taking a look at a promotion to the Senate.

If Michaud jumps in, Senate President Kevin Raye will have a decision to make: as the strongest potential Republican who could potentially replace Snowe, will he take a chance on a competitive Senate race, or will he take an almost guaranteed House seat?

I’ve been looking for ways to discreetly sneak my nerdy love of music onto the Election Watch blog. I think we’ll start doing a song of the week feature here at the blog; but, in the meantime, here’s a “Great Lake State” themed tune in honour of today’s primary. This is off of Sufjan Stevens’s 2003 album Michigan. The song’s namesake, Romulus, is "a suburban city of Metro Detroit " with a population of around 24,000.

I agree that Michigan is quite important. Romney was born and raised there and his father served as governor; losing in a state where he has such a homefield advantage would be a setback for the campaign. Still, I can’t help but feel that people are overstating the importance of the Michigan primary.

A Romney win in Michigan would quiet his sceptics temporarily, but with Super Tuesday right around the corner, the results of February 28th could be forgotten quickly. It looks all but certain that Santorum will win Oklahoma and Ohio on Super Tuesday, and Gingrich could do well in the Southern states of Georgia and Tennessee. Romney winning a state that he was supposed to win probably won’t affect the momentum of the race too much.

Obviously, Santorum winning Michigan would be the more consequential outcome, but it wouldn’t necessarily spell doom for the Romney campaign. Romney’s looking likely to win Arizona on the same night, which would soften the blow somewhat. Additionally, Michigan is a unique case in that Romney was an especially outspoken opponent of the auto bailout; a bailout that affected so many workers within the state of Michigan. As such, the primary is in part a referendum on an issue that doesn’t hold the same importance to national voters.

We keep hearing that each successive primary is going to be the turning point in the race. Gingrich’s win in South Carolina was going to propel him back into contention, that didn’t happen. Romney’s win in Florida was supposed to have all but clinched the nomination; then Santorum won three states in one night. This has been a crazy primary season, and there is good reason to be sceptical of those who believe they know what the next chapter holds in store.

More fundamentally, the discomfort of some progressives with any hint of religion has often prevented us from effectively addressing issues in moral terms. Some of the problem here is rhetorical - if we scrub language of all religious content, we forfeit the imagery and terminology through which millions of Americans understand both their personal morality and social justice.

[...]

But what I am suggesting is this - secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, Williams Jennings Bryant, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King - indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history - were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause.

So to say that men and women should not inject their "personal morality" into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition.

And later in the same speech he explained how laws alone could not create social change.

I believe in vigorous enforcement of our non-discrimination laws. But I also believe that a transformation of conscience and a genuine commitment to diversity on the part of the nation's CEOs could bring about quicker results than a battalion of lawyers. They have more lawyers than us anyway

[....]

I also think that we should give [children] the information about contraception that can prevent unwanted pregnancies, lower abortion rates, and help assure that that every child is loved and cherished

But, you know, my Bible tells me that if we train a child in the way he should go, when he is old he will not turn from it. So I think faith and guidance can help fortify a young woman's sense of self, a young man's sense of responsibility, and a sense of reverence that all young people should have for the act of sexual intimacy.

These hardly sound like the remarks of a hardened secularist, but maybe Obama just pays lip service to these ideals while ignoring them in practice. However, the evidence does not bear out this claim. Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman explains that the Obama administration has actually been very accommodating on issues of religious freedom.

Most notably, Chapman points out that the administration has not repealed the Bush administration policy of allowing religious organisations who receive federal funding to “only hire people of their own faith.”

In this instance, Obama may be accused of ignoring the establishment clause of the First Amendment, which forbids government support of religion. But if so, it's because he has given too much deference to religious freedom rather than too little.

Chapman goes on to list numerous other instances in which the White House has sought to defend religious liberty.

His commitment is also on display in defending churches against municipal governments that would prefer to do without them. Under federal law, houses of worship are assured equitable treatment in land-use decisions. But mayors and community groups often tell churches to go to the devil.

When that happens, they often find themselves at odds with the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department. Last year, it forced the town of Schodack, N.Y., to retreat after it barred an evangelical church from renting space in a commercial area where nonreligious meetings were allowed.

It filed a brief in support of a Hasidic Jewish congregation's lawsuit against the city of Los Angeles, which had forbidden it to hold services in a private home. A federal court ordered the city to back off.

The administration has also intervened in cases where prisoners are denied religious literature. After a South Carolina sheriff prohibited inmates from getting devotional materials and other publications in the mail, the Justice Department sued. In the end, the county agreed to let inmates receive Bibles, Torahs, Qurans and related fare.

There’s nothing wrong with criticizing Obama on these issues. I felt that the contraception mandate went too far in curtailing religious freedom. But to claim that the president is actively hostile towards religion is to be ignorant of his statements and actions.

Obviously a justice should have an excellent understanding of legal theory, but it also helps to understand the perspective of the legislators that pass laws. Take the controversial 2010 Supreme Court decision Citizens United v FEC declaring “the government may not keep corporations or unions from spending money to support or denounce individual candidates in elections.” Imagine the sort of impassioned dissent that Justice Obama could have written if he were on the court at the time.

Unlike the other justices, I have served in elected office. I’ve seen firsthand the role of money in politics; how large donations influence the workings of Congress. Today, the Court opens the door for unlimited corporate and union spending in elections without any real understanding of how this will impact the integrity of the electoral system and the democratic process.

Over the last twenty five years, the Supreme Court has moved increasingly further to the right. In response, liberals have been looking for a justice who can offer a coherent and emphatic alternative vision of constitutional law. Given his name recognition, Obama has the potential to be this sort of figure. Whenever he read an opinion or dissent from the bench, it would be sure to garner media attention.

Of course there are a lot of obstacles to this ever becoming a reality. It’s rare nowadays for a justice older than sixty to get appointed to the court. Obama is fifty now, so he’d probably need a Democratic president to be elected in 2016,or at the latest 2020, in order to receive the presidential nomination necessary for appointment. Further, Obama might have no interest whatsoever in being on the court. This is a very real possibility; however, he obviously has a strong interest in constitutional law and has also been described as professorial and aloof, two character traits that seems more fitting of a Supreme Court justice than an elected official. Obama ending up on the Supreme Court is a long shot, but it’s an option that Democrats should at least consider in the future.

Most importantly, I’m viewing this post as a variant on Pascal’s Wager. If none of this ever comes to fruition, no one will remember that I mentioned the idea in the first place. However, if President Obama does ever become Justice Obama, I can dig up this time capsule and brag about how I brought up the idea before anyone else.

Both Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton made universal health care a key issue in their 2008 presidential primary campaigns. Unlike Clinton, Obama was opposed to requiring individuals to purchase insurance as a means of broadening the risk pool and decreasing health insurance premiums, “well, if things were that easy, I could mandate everybody to buy a house, and that would solve the problem of homelessness. It doesn't.” Ironically, the “individual mandate” ended up being the centre piece of the health care reform bill.

Upon taking office, Obama put health care reform at the top of his legislative agenda. The goal was to help curb the rising cost of health care, expand coverage to the uninsured, and prevent insurers from denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions. Both Republicans and Democrats generally agreed that these issues eventually needed to be addressed, although there was wide disagreement over the best means of doing so.

With large majorities in both chambers of Congress and the support of President Obama, Democrats were optimistic that they could pass comprehensive health care reform. However, their plans hit an initial roadblock in February 2009 when former Senator Tom Daschle withdrew his nomination as secretary of health and human services amid revelations that he had not properly reported or paid his income taxes. Before the scandal, Daschle had been set to lead the Obama’s administration’s health care overhaul. 

Initially, Obama took a passive role in the health care reform process, outlining his broad goals but allowing Congress to try and work out the details of the plan. In May 2009, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi vowed to have the bill signed into law by August. However, things didn’t go exactly according to plan for the Democrats. At town hall meetings across the country citizens protested against the proposed bill, and Republican lawmakers warned of the dangers of “socialised medicine” and “rationing health care.”

Democrats also had trouble convincing the more moderate members of their coalition to sign onto the legislation. In the 2006 and 2008 elections, Democrats won a large number of seats in generally conservative congressional districts. While this was obviously good news for the party, many of these new members of Congress were very moderate. These “Blue Dog Democrats” were concerned about the costs of health care reform and were reluctant to endorse government rune insurance plans. Bills have to pass through relevant committees before they can proceed to the floor for a vote, and Democrats had to appease the demands of many House Blue Dogs in order to get the bill through committee. Democrats informed Obama that passage of the bill could take longer than anticipated.

There was also much controversy surrounding the issue of abortion. The 1976 Hyde amendment prohibits federal funds from being used to pay for abortions, but there was dispute over what this should mean in the context of publicly subsidized health care. Eventually, House Democrats agreed to adopt the Stupak amendment, a proposal by Michigan congressman Bart Stupak stipulating that no federal funds be used to cover any part of a health care plan that covered abortion. Many pro-choice Democrats were upset at the compromise, but the amendment ultimately secured the necessary votes for the bill’s passage.

On November 7 2009, the Affordable Health Care for America Act was passed by the House of Representatives by a narrow margin of 220-215. Only one Republican voted in favour of the bill and 39 Democrats voted against it. The bill included a government run insurance plan, or public option, that would compete against the plans offered by private insurers. The bill mandated that all citizens buy insurance or a pay fee, and provided government subsidies to those who could not afford insurance on their own. The bill would cost $1 trillion dollars and would extend health insurance coverage to 36 million Americans.

Progress in the Senate was also very extremely slow. Senate rules required 60 votes to prevent Republicans from “filibustering”, blocking the bill from proceeding to the Senate floor for a vote. This meant that Senate Majority leader Harry Reid needed to get all 60 members of the Senate Democratic caucus to sign onto the bill. In order to appease moderate Democrats, various versions of the House bill needed to be modified. On December 24, the bill was finally passed along a strict party lines vote (60-39). It would cost $871 billion over ten years, and, notably, did not include a public option. The language regarding abortion was different as well. People receiving federal subsidies could buy health plans that covered abortion, but they had to write a separate monthly cheque for abortion coverage.

The final task was to merge the two bills into one. While there was still work to be done, it seemed fairly inevitable that the Affordable Care Act would become law. Then, the unthinkable happened. On 29 January 2010, Republican Scott Brown won the Massachusetts Senate special election to fill the seat of the late liberal icon Ted Kennedy, who had died that past August. Democrats now lacked the 60 votes to override a filibuster, meaning they could not pass a modified version of the health care bill. Massachusetts had no Republican representatives in Congress, and hadn’t elected a Republican Senator since 1972. Ted Kennedy had called universal health care “the cause of his life,” but now reform appeared in jeopardy because Democrats couldn’t hold onto his seat in one of the most liberal states in the union. In the eyes of many, this was the end of the road for health care reform. Others Democrats wanted to abandon their ambition for sweeping reform, and instead try to pass much more moderate legislation.

However, key members of the party continued to explore other options for passing the bill. Obama also refused to back down on the issue, emphasizing that Democrats couldn’t give up now after coming so close to their goal.Eventually, Senate Democrats settled on a potential solution: “reconciliation.” Reconciliation is a process generally used to modify spending in bills for the purpose of deficit reduction, and requires a simple up or down vote instead of the 60 votes required to end a filibuster. The Senate couldn’t pass an entirely new bill through reconciliation, but they could make small budget related changes to the bill they had already passed in December.

In late February, Obama and Pelosi announced that they supported using reconciliation in order to get the bill through Congress. Democrats argued that they were justified in using the procedure because given that the bill was projected to reduce deficits, it could be considered a deficit reduction measure. They also pointed out that Republicans had previously used reconciliation to pass several major pieces of legislation. Republicans accused Democrats of using a loophole to get an unpopular piece of legislation through Congress.

Speaker Pelosi was clear that she did not have the votes to simply pass the Senate Bill in its exact current form, given that House members had concerns with some specific provisions. Most notable was a guarantee that Nebraska would not have to pay any of the costs associated with the health care bill’s expansion of Medicaid. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had offered this deal in order to convince Senator Ben Nelson from Nebraska to vote for the legislation. Senate Democrats agreed to amend these provisions through reconciliation.

Still, there was much work to be done. Speaker Pelosi had gotten House Democrats to already sign off on one bill; now she had to persuade them to pass a bill nearly identical to the one that the Senate had already approved. Many liberal Democrats were frustrated that the Senate bill was less comprehensive than the one they had passed, but they realized that at this point it was their only option. The real difficulty for Pelosi was winning over moderate, and especially, pro-life Democrats. The Stupak amendment had been essential in getting the support of around 40 members of Congress the first time around, but there could be no such provision in the final bill. The White House and House leadership worked with these pro-life Democrats to try and find an acceptable compromise.

Then, on the evening of 21 March, Congressman Stupak and a number of other pro-life Democrats announced they had reached an agreement with the Obama administration. Obama would issue an executive order reaffirming the government’s commitment to the Hyde Amendment and also address some of the Stupak coalition’s other minor concerns, such as clear abortion restrictions on government sponsored community health clinics.

Later that evening, the House of Representatives passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act by a vote of 219-212. Every Republican and 34 Democrats voted against the bill. On 23 March, Obama signed the bill into law, proclaiming that health care reform reflects, “the core principle that everybody should have some basic security when it comes to their health care." Attorney General’s in 13 states immediately filed lawsuits claiming that the bill’s individual health care mandate was an unconstitutional violation of federal powers. Two days later, the Senate passed the reconciliation bill to amend the health care legislation in accordance with the stated wishes of the House. The reconciliation bill passed the Senate by a vote of 56 to 43. Senator Nelson was amongst three Democrats who voted against the bill. The process had been a long and often frustrating one, but Democrats had finally achieved the goal that had so long eluded them.

Still, don't count out the former Senator from Pennsylvania. His longstanding commitment to social conservatism obviously plays well to the Republican base, but he can potentially win support on other issues as well. He's done a good job of defending the principles of capitalism while still appearing fairly empathatic to those who are struggling. This prudent strategy could potentially win the support of Republicans who are turned off by Gingrich's attacks on Bain but still feel like Romney can't identify with their situation. Further, he performed well in the last debate, explaining why he, and not Gingrich, was qualified to criticise Romney over healthcare.

In any case, it was certainly an exciting day in the race; both for Santorum supporters and those (like us in the media) who are just hoping for an extended and suspenseful primary.

Romney's victory in the Nevada caucus made official what anyone following the election knew to be inevitable. The Silver State may be a toss up state in the general election, but here in the primaries, it had all the telltale signs of Romney country. Nevada is fairly moderate politically, with a large Mormon population, and the highest unemployment rate in the country — three characteristics that favour Romney. And Romney spent months coordinating his campaign in Nevada, a marked contrast from Gingrich, who only set up a campaign office in the state two weeks ago 

In one respect, Romney's win doesn't change much. No one's predictions or long term forecasts for the primaries were drastically altered as a result. Further, the delegates awarded aren't terribly significant, given that they are allotted proportionally.

Still, in an important sense, the results in Nevada are meaningful. In a race where perception and momentum are so critical, voters all across the country are going to see headlines such as "Romney Wins Easily in Nevada." They're going to read about how he won nearly every significant demographic, how he's now the only candidate to win two states in a row, how this only solidifies his status as the frontrunner... well, you get the picture. These things matter in campaigns. It's hard for someone like Gingrich to present himself as a viable nominee when he's coming off a big defeat in which his campaign looked so out of whack. He can still point to his victory in South Carolina as a sign of what he's capable of, but, as that result recedes further into the past, it will be harder and harder for voters to see it as anything but an aberration.

I firmly hope that the Catholic Church changes its stance on birth control in the near future, and I remain cautiously optimistic that they will, given that the vast majority of Catholics use contraceptives. However, until they do, I’m not sure the coercive response of the Obama administration is the best course of action. It’s never easy resolving these cases in which such fundamental principles come into conflict with one another, but there are times when liberalism must be tolerant of practises that are somewhat illiberal in themselves. I believe this is one of those times.

This is a vey disappointing result for the Gingrich campaign. Evidence shows that the party elite has incredible sway in deciding the nominee, and thus Gingrich faces an enormous obstacle in that Romney is the clear favourite of the Republican establishment. Given these obstacles, Gingrich has always had a very small margin for error. Florida was a key state for him, and this loss makes an already difficult path to the nomination even more improbable.

Still, don’t expect the other candidates to drop out anytime soon. A candidate needs 1,144 delegates to clinch the Republican nomination, so Romney still has a long way to go (Gingrich has 27 delegates, Paul has 10 and Santorum has 8). The campaign now hits a bit of a lull for the next month as there are only a few primaries, all in states in which the demographics favour Romney. The next big test will come on Super Tuesday on March 6th, when 11 states hold primaries or caucuses. Several of these are Southern states in which Gingrich figures to do well. Super Tuesday is likely Gingrich’s last and best opportunity to regain momentum.

The opponents of action are out of excuses. We should be working on comprehensive immigration reform right now. But if election-year politics keeps Congress from acting on a comprehensive plan, let’s at least agree to stop expelling responsible young people who want to staff our labs, start new businesses, and defend this country. Send me a law that gives them the chance to earn their citizenship. I will sign it right away.

Infrastructure

In the next few weeks, I will sign an executive order clearing away the red tape that slows down too many construction projects. But you need to fund these projects. Take the money we’re no longer spending at war, use half of it to pay down our debt, and use the rest to do some nation-building right here at home.

Regulation

And tonight, I’m asking my Attorney General to create a special unit of federal prosecutors and leading state attorney general to expand our investigations into the abusive lending and packaging of risky mortgages that led to the housing crisis. This new unit will hold accountable those who broke the law, speed assistance to homeowners, and help turn the page on an era of recklessness that hurt so many Americans.

Foreign Policy

Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal.

For example, in December, Gingrich said that in order to combat “activist judges” he would ignore certain Supreme Court rulings and impeach judges, or potentially eliminate entire courts, if their rulings were deemed too radical or “anti-American.” The impulsiveness and lack of foresight evident in this proposal is remarkable. Still, this seems to be the style of campaign Gingrich is determined to run as he reinvents himself as the conservative alternative to Romney.

Romney is still the clear frontrunner, but if Gingrich somehow wins the nomination, Republicans face a dilemma. Most likely, their candidate would lose handily in the general election. The other unfortunate alternative is that Gingrich becomes the face of the party for the foreseeable future.

Finally, Sullivan may be right that what matters to Obama “is what he can get done not what he can take credit for,” but a president, especially one who is up for re-election in ten months, needs to able to communicate his accomplishments and vision to the American public. A recent New York Times poll shows that independents have soured on Obama and voters do not have a clear idea of what he wants to achieve in his second term. Sullivan has made his argument for why Obama’s re-election remains as “essential for this country’s future as his original election in 2008”; it remains to be seen if Obama can effectively make the same case to the American public.

Of course, as I alluded to earlier, there are plenty of critics of open primaries. Proponents of a closed system argue that it’s only logical that the Democratic nominee should be chosen by registered members of the Democratic Party, and vice versa. Primaries are about choosing candidates who represent the values of the political party. Further, in an open system, Democrats and Republicans could cross over and vote in the other party’s primary for the candidate they think is the least electable in the general election.

However, while political parties may be private groups, they are choosing candidates to run in public elections for public offices. Under these circumstances, the freedom of association rights of a political party are different from that of other private organisations. For instance, a local club or church can exclude certain groups from becoming members, but a political party cannot prohibit racial or religious groups from voting in their primary election. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens illustrates this idea in a dissenting opinion from a 2000 case:

In my view, while state rules abridging participation in its elections should be closely scrutinized, the First Amendment does not inhibit the State from acting to broaden voter access to state-run, state-financed elections.

What about the danger of members of one party “strategically voting” for a weak candidate in the other party’s primary? I admit that the prospect of “party raiding” is unappealing, but studies have found no real evidence that it occurs on a large scale in states with open primaries. An abstract concern that is not borne out by actual evidence is not sufficient reason for dismissing the concept of an open primary

The open primary is not the magic bullet for reforming elections. Still, given the flaws in the objections against it, and its potential to address some shortcomings of the primary system, the open primary remains a valuable tool in encouraging broader participation in all stages of the electoral process. Academics and lawmakers should continue to explore ways to organise elections so that candidates are responsive to the needs of all citizens, not just the most extreme members of their own party.

The reasons for a close or divisive primary campaign also appear critical in predicting how it will affect a candidate’s general election prospects. All three incumbent presidents who faced serious primary challenges went on to lose the general election. This is not surprising, since it is likely that an incumbent is perceived as especially weak if they face competition in the primary from within their own party. In contrast, Barack Obama had an especially close nomination process, but the primaries existed against a backdrop of backlash against Republicans and a perception that the country needed to turn in a new direction. This supports David Smith’s assertion that the details of the campaign process are of much less importance than the public’s perception of the incumbent president.

I was trying to figure out which example from the table most closely mirrors the way the 2012 race is shaping up. It’s tough to find a great comparison, but the 2004 race in which John Kerry won easily in the primary and then faced a potentially vulnerable incumbent in the general election seems like the best comparison. George W. Bush, of course, went on to be re-elected in 2004 by a narrow margin.

I stand by my earlier comments that a divisive Republican primary would be in the interest of the Obama campaign, but, as the data indicates, it would be a relatively minor factor in the general election. Further, as explained above, the length and competitiveness of the Republican primary alone will be significantly less telling than the specific factors that caused it to be this way. For instance, has Mitt Romney fared so well primarily because he is a strong candidate or because the Republican field is unusually weak? I’ll leave the readers to further explore these issues.

I don’t think it’s likely that Paul will end up running in the general election, especially since he would not want to do anything to hurt the future political aspirations of his son Rand Paul, a senator from Kentucky. Nevertheless, it is something to keep an eye on; especially if Paul exceeds expectations in the upcoming primaries in South Carolina, Florida, and Nevada. The Romney campaign may not be worried about Paul and his supporters now, but they will be singing a different tune in a few months if Paul decides to stay in the race.

A Romney win looks more or less inevitable, but his margin of victory will be informative. Romney’s numbers have slipped a bit in the last several days, so if his competitors can exceed expectations in New Hampshire, it will make things more interesting for the upcoming primaries in South Carolina and Florida. Regardless though, Romney will remain the clear frontrunner coming out of New Hampshire.

The challenge Romney faces is trying to convince voters that he’s not simply the nominee by default, but someone they can get excited about. His task is made much more difficult when he has a host of challengers, most notably Santorum, arguing just the opposite. Team Obama still expects Romney to get the nomination, but they’d rather he come out of the process weary from a difficult primary fight and without the full support of the Republican Party. Further, Romney may need to tack further to the right in the face of Santorum’s criticism. This may prove beneficial in the primaries, but could potentially hurt him in the general election.

Finally, there’s the unlikely (but certainly possible) scenario in which Santorum defies the odds and goes on to claim the nomination. Santorum is no pushover, but the Obama campaign would have to be licking their chops over the prospects of facing him. Santorum’s major selling point is his social conservatism, and it’s hard to imagine the general electorate casting their votes primarily based on social issues, especially with the economy in such dire straits. The last time Santorum ran in a general election he lost by 18 per cent, and it would be difficult for such a rigid conservative to do well enough amongst moderates and independents to win the presidency.

It’s important not to overstate the potential threats to the Romney campaign. With his disciplined demeanour and well organised campaign, Romney has the tools to handle an extended nomination process and negative ads. Remember, he’s been at or near the front of the pack since the beginning of the race, and so far has handled the attacks thrown at him. Still, Romney and his staff can’t be excited at the prospect of Santorum and Gingrich driving a wedge between him and the conservative base. The longer the nominee remains in doubt and the Republican Party remains fractured, the better things look for Obama.

Even if Ron Paul were to win in Iowa, there is almost no realistic chance that he could go on to claim the nomination. Mr. Paul's firm libertarian views are just too far removed from the conservative mainstream for him to receive substantial support across the country. However, a solid showing in the primaries would gain more exposure for his ideas, and perhaps influence the party platform. If Republican Party leadership saw that a wide range of people were drawn to Mr. Paul's views, they would have to find ways of appealing to these voters.

Santorum is the latest in a long line of Republican candidates to see a surge in support. He is still quite a long shot to win the nomination, but his position certainly looks better than it did a week ago. Santorum has received very little media coverage, so a good performance in Iowa would substantially improve his name recognition. He is also a strong and consistent social conservative, and thus has a lot of appeal to the base of the Republican Party. Since primary voters tend to be less moderate and more extreme than those who vote in general elections, it is important for candidates to be able to appeal to the more ideological rigid members of the party. Given the perception that Romney has flip-flopped on issues, Santorum can try to bill himself as the true conservative nominee.

• Keep up to date with Election commentary and analysis from US Studies Centre experts