It ain’t over till it’s over

New Hampshire’s no more special than Iowa

“As Iowans head to their caucuses Tuesday, Mr. Romney has come from behind to lead in the polls. A victory here—where he was once written off— followed by a coup in New Hampshire could well knit up the nomination.”

—Kimberley Strassel, in the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday

“Every four years, the country goes through this same routine: Watch Iowa, then New Hampshire. Every four years the same question occurs: Who gave Iowa and New Hampshire so important a role in picking the presidential nominees? And why does the rest of the Union stand for it?”

—Editorial, Arkansas DemocratGazette, on Wednesday

DEAR Ms. Strassel, do be careful. You’re going to sprain something jumping to conclusions like that. Mitt Romney is going to sew up the GOP nomination after two states—two smallish states at that— vote? The other 48 in the Union might like their moment in the sun. May we have a say, too, pretty please? After all, these candidates are running for president of the whole United States.

Yes, it does look good for Mitt Romney. Once upon a time, he sounded as if he’d just skip the Iowa caucuses and go for a big win in New Hampshire. Then he saw his rising numbers in Iowa, sized up the divided field aligned against him, and went for it. (In 2008, Mr. Romney lost Iowa to a candidate named Huckabee, a Florida resident who used to live around here somewhere.) Well, whadaya know, the candidate who couldn’t win Iowa won Iowa. By eight whole votes.

Eight votes. Don’t let anybody tell you one vote doesn’t matter. The remarkably close runner-up? Somebody whose time we thought had come and gone in the presidential sweepstakes, a somebody named Santorum. Despite that eight-vote landslide, it was the former senator from Pennsylvania who was the big winner in Iowa on Tuesday. Surprise has impact. News is what no one expects. And who expected Rick Santorum to come within eight votes of winning the Iowa caucuses? Well, Rick Santorum, maybe. And maybe Mrs. Santorum. The rest of us were taken by surprise.

So now Mitt Romney goes back to his home turf in the Northeast. All the polls show him not only leading the other candidates in New Hampshire, but leading big. Good for him. He should be 2-0 after two contests. But that’s only two contests. Arkansas might want to vote for the Republican nominee, too. It’s bad enough that some of us won’t be able to vote for Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain or Tim Pawlenty. And maybe by the time the voting booths open here, Rick Perry or Newt Gingrich. Even if their names still appear on a ballot or two, any vote for a candidate that’s dropped out of the race amounts to no more than a gesture.

But this race is far from over, and will probably still be far from over come next week and the vote in New Hampshire. Which is the way it should be. Some of us won’t get a vote—or a say—until May.

This much is certain: Only one candidate will have the nomination wrapped up after only Iowa and New Hampshire have spoken. His name is Barack Obama, and he’s not running on the Republican ticket.

ACCORDING to the conventional wisdom, the sight of this whole Republican menagerie of presidential hopefuls going at each other right, left, middle and every other which way was going to be such a spectacle, or maybe just such a bore, that it would turn off the American electorate and help only one presidential candidate, the one who doesn’t have to debate till the fall, the aforesaid Barack Obama.

But the conventional wisdom has proven as unreliable as it conventionally does. What with the GOP’S full lineup of presidential candidates bashing the president when they weren’t otherwise bashing each other, the case against Mr. Obama’s re-election was being pushed every Tuesday and Thursday or whenever these unending debates took place. And it was the Republican candidates who were taking up all the air time, then dominating the headlines next day. Repetition may bore, but it does have an impact. And the poor president was left to make an occasional campaign appearance under the guise of discussing public policy.

There are still those who say presidential debates have no effect, but even while saying so, they can’t seem to resist talking about them, and so wind up talking them up.

Political debates have no effect? Tell it to Messrs. Lincoln and Douglas.