To listen to the pundits, the Iowa caucus sets the stage for the whole election, and therefore it's a race between Mitt "the inevitable" Romney and Rick "not Mitt" Santorum. Mitt almost has the lock on the Banana Republican nomination, but with only 25% of the Iowa vote, he's hardly beloved. He practically lives in New Hampshire, so he's going to do well there, but then there's that expectations game, as well as the fight among those trying to be Not Mitt.
New Hampshire is not Iowa. It is, by some measures, the state with the highest gay population. Its Republicans lean libertarian. So of course the Paulistas will turn out, but they're just a side show, as he's an outlier who has little to do with the rest of his party. And they lean secular. A not-Mitt who's a religious nut case like Santorum will not have wide appeal.
So sure, it's Mitt's to lose. He will win New Hampshire, but will he have enough momentum? And more importantly, will his star fade? Listen to him speak. His campaign voice is just weird. It's not the Mitt we had here in Mass. as governor. It's a stressed, high voice, nervous as hell, and it sounds less sincere than a carny barker.
In other words, Mitt's inevitability is perhaps a bit much to assume. He still could stumble. And in that case, the less-extremist faction of his party will need a replacement. That's why John Huntsman's strategy isn't as daft as it sounds. He's not competing for flavor-of-the-month. He's waiting for Mitt to fail, in which case he's the backup Mitt.
Sports teams know about backup players. Several years ago, the New England Patriots had a pretty good quarterback, Drew Bledsoe. And three backups. Bledsoe took a hit and a backup got called in. Tom Brady became the star. Broadway knows about them too; they're called understudies. They know the role; they just don't play it that often.
Huntsman does not offer much contrast to Romney. Both are Mormons. Both got rich the old-fashioned way, by inheritance. Both are conventionally handsome. Both were governors. Both are considered moderate Republicans,whatever that means, though Huntsman is probably closer to the Reagan mold. He just looks more moderate because he's more tolerant of social difference, and he was willing to serve as Obama's ambassador to China.
Huntsman's economic positions are just what the "one percenter" faction of Republicans would like. He is a hard-core fiscal conservative. He wants lower taxes on the filthies, at the expense of the poor and middle class. He's too smart to claim that corporations are people, but he wants them and their owners to prosper. And he's smooth enough to make this sound like a tax cut for everyone, a tired trope to be sure. He's friendly to the energy industry, though he's a johnny-come-lately to denialism, so he might not be one at heart.
So how can he become more than a joke? It would take luck, but it's far from impossible. Right now a lot of party regulars are lined up behind Mitt, but Mitt isn't looking as inevitable as he once did. One measure of a man is how well he stands up to insult. Mitt and Newt are throwing insults at one another and the mud is sticking to both... not the insults so much as their bad reaction. Newt is openly petulant and vindictive, not endearing characteristics at all, but he is not in it to win. Mitt, though, is looking like he's hurt. He's panicky, trying to move farther right to meet the rest of the party. In other words, he's not looking presidential.
So if Mitt commits one big gaffe, or falls well below expectations in a primary, he could be the next Perry or Gingrich, suddenly written off. And neither Santorum nor Paul are tolerable alternatives. Santorum isn't really that popular. He just got lucky. The Not Mitt of the Month ran through everyone else and he was left at the bottom of the barrel. He's not really electable or even nominatable; by next month, he'll be as passe as Perry, Bachmann, Gingrich and Cain. That leaves an opening for Huntsman, not as Not Mitt, but as the Backup Mitt. The understudy.
If that happens, the general election might look different from a Romney one. Huntsman is less negative. He cannot escape having worked in the Obama administration, so he can't go as negative. He can only portray himself as the Republican alternative. Of course he's also very, very white, which will get some votes, but as a Mormon he is disadvantaged among many white southerners. No enthusiasm for him there. So I don't see him giving Obama a tough run. But then he may know that Obama is a likely winner anyway -- incumbents are hard to unseat -- so he may really be hoping to look good for the open seat in 2016.
I'm not saying that Romney will fail, but I think the Huntsman camp is starting to get excited about the possibilities of the understudy's getting his time on stage.