Ron Paul's best hope could be... Gingrich?

In my last several posts I've been discussing the Republican Nomination in general, and prospects for Ron Paul, the seeming Iowa frontrunner, specifically. I have noted several times that the Paul campaign has changed it's media strategy in Iowa and New Hampshire recently, specifically regarding Newt Gingrich.

His campaign has been running a negative spot on the airwaves in an attempt to erode Gingrich's popular support, particularly from conservative audiences, which would theoretically position Ron Paul as the 'true' conservative anti-Romney candidate. This strategy to woo conservatives, including social conservatives is echoed in his other most recent ad. Paul has said in TV interviews that he had decided to go after Gingrich because he thought that Gingrich's hypocrisy needed to be brought to light, particularly the fact that Gingrich took over a million dollars in compensation from Freddie Mac, a corporation Ron Paul has railed against for being a part of crony corporatism.

It has been my opinion that Ron Paul actually benefits from staying out of the fray so long as he is still seen as a second tier candidate in national polls. Romney and Gingrich, both running about 10 points better than Paul nationally, don't want to elevate Paul's position by attacking him- at least if they don't have to. Meanwhile Paul can use his organizing power and positive spots highlighting his consistent conservative position to build his vote share in Iowa, where he is running even or better than Romney and Gingrich. There's three reasons why tearing Gingrich down is risky, and maybe even counter productive.

First, attacking Gingrich, not surprisingly, has invited counter attacks, and although Gingrich probably doesn't have the funds to go on a major ad campaign against Paul, he can go on national TV to swipe back. For example, on CNN today he declared that he would not vote for Ron Paul against Barack Obama, that 'decent' Americans wouldn't agree with Paul on foreign policy, and that past controversial campaign mailers have not been adequately explained. It may not be much, but I can't see this extra negative attention helping Paul- and the attention may increase.

Second, Paul's ads may truly have helped to drag Gingrich down; certainly Gingrich has fallen to a tangible third place in Iowa polls behind Paul. But these attacks could also help Romney in Iowa. Perhaps increasing distaste of Gingrich could be cementing Romney's position as the alternative to Gingrich for voters who simply cannot stomach Paul's brand of libertarian conservatism- it appears that Romney's numbers have been on the rise in the last few weeks, corresponding with Gingrich's fall. But even if not, by splitting the vote in Iowa, Paul lowers the threshold for a victory, allowing the possibility that even with a ceiling of 25%, Romney could win or come in a narrow second place; both would be a victory for a campaign that has comparatively ignored the state.

One might argue that Romney doing well in Iowa doesn't matter as long as Ron Paul wins the overall Iowa caucus. I disagree. Romney is almost certain to win New Hampshire, with a nearly 20 point lead in polling there; even if Ron Paul grabs momentum from Iowa, he is unlikely to win in NH. So if Paul was to hope to win NH, it would be through attacking Romney, not Gingrich. In fact, if Gingrich remained relatively strong at Romney's expense and Huntsman could glean away enough moderates, it would lower the threshold for victory in NH as well, opening a possibility for a Paul win. Attacking Gingrich, and ruining him in Iowa will only further weaken the Gingrich campaign's ability to focus on pulling establishment conservatives away from Romney. Paul doesn't have a lot of play in the establishment.

But finally, the risk in attacking Gingrich has a much longer term effect. As Nate Silver wisely points out in a recent post, the best thing for the Paul campaign is to keep the Republican field as fractured as possible for as long as possible, and to enter into a brokered convention with as much influence as possible. To think that a majority of the GOP electorate would ever choose Paul as a nominee is very wishful thinking, but I could see a plurality supporting him in a fractured field. Therefore the best strategy for Paul, it seems to me, is not to win, but just to hold his own and hope the other weaker candidates can too. We could call this a winning (sort of) strategy.

Unfortunately to have a long term fractured field, you have to have candidates who can fight a long fight, continuing to split the vote with Romney much past Iowa and New Hampshire, since Romney's campaign is the only campaign that seems to have the game an resources to play a long game with Paul. The only other options for long-term candidates are Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich- Perry cause he has the money, Gingrich cause he has the numbers. And Gingrich was, and may still be, the best hope for the Paul campaign. But since being attacked from all sides, Gingrich has been weakened significantly, and without victories in either Iowa or New Hampshire, he may not be able to continue his campaign long enough to prove a contender for Romney.

Thus Ron Paul may emerge as the only Romney alternative, and I can't see Paul pulling in 55% of the overall national vote against an establishment-backed, well funded candidate, can you? Wild as it may sound, Paul's best overall chance for victory may have been to run positive spots on Gingrich's behalf, rather than bashing Gingrich down with negatives. I say this tongue in cheek.

Either way, and whatever the true reason for the changing fortunes, Romney's position is looking better and better for the long term- as Gingrich has fallen- even as Paul's position in the short term has skyrocketed. Now that Gingrich is fading, maybe the best chance for the Paul campaign is to hope for a Perry upset in Iowa, or a Huntsman surprise in NH. Or switch strategies and run a full court press on Romney, like, right now. Absent these possibilities, I'm having to admit that it's looking more and more like Romney just has to not mess up, and he could coast just ahead of the Paul tide, straight into the convention...

But to conclude, let's have a reality check here. Keep in mind that Gingrich's plummeting numbers are not- at all- entirely due to Paul's attacks; these attacks have simply added fuel to a growing chorus. There is not much Paul could have done to stop Gingrich's slide; my point here is that it may really have not been worth the resources attacking him. Remember, Gingrich still has a lot of play left, and he could ride strong performances in Iowa, NH, (and some debates) into a victory in SC and Florida, reviving his campaign. It's hard to know how much it will hurt Gingrich to lose two contests in a row- perhaps he will emerge into SC with the strength to hold his superior numbers there.

The outcome for Gingrich- and Ron Paul's fate too- may end up hinging on what candidates do after Iowa. It is likely that at least a couple of candidates will drop out if they have disappointing Iowa performances. If those candidates all consolidate around Romney, the end result seems clear. If they do nothing, it is unpredictable where their supporters might go, but Gingrich- and Paul- could benefit. However, if Santorum or Bachmann chooses to endorse Gingrich (or Perry) in the hopes of keeping Romney off the ticket, it may give Gingrich (or... possibly Perry) the credibility to continue to contests in SC and FL and grapple with Romney beyond.

And that could also be enough to give Ron Paul a winning (sort of) strategy.