Republicans in Congress are fighting among themselves this week over whether to increase military spending, even if it means adding to the federal deficit, but a resounding 9-in-10 GOP insiders in early presidential nominating states think voters care more about cutting the debt than increasing the defense budget.

This week’s survey of The POLITICO Caucus — a bipartisan group of key activists, operatives and thought leaders in Iowa and New Hampshire — comes at the end of a week in Washington that’s brought pitched debate over the federal budget between deficit hawks and those who worry cuts in defense spending have hurt national security.


A chorus of GOP voices said the base wants to invest in the military, especially with the rise of the Islamic State, but they see going deeper into debt as anathema.

“People think the government is too big — every part of it,” said an Iowa Republican, who — like all 90 respondents this week — completed the survey anonymously in order to speak candidly.

“Deficits just do not sit well with conservatives, so finding a way to control spending is more important than increased military spending right now,” said another.

“Basically, voters want both, but they come down on the side of deficit reduction,” said a New Hampshire Republican, “assuming it does not hurt defense readiness.”

“New Hampshire is a fiscally conservative, anti-war state,” added another Republican there, highlighting the outsized role that independents play in their open primary.

To prevent military-minded Republicans from derailing their budget plan, House GOP leaders promised to add $20 billion in fresh funding for the military. With fiscal conservatives balking that this spending is not being paid for with cuts elsewhere, the Budget Committee passed its resolution Thursday without that money for the Pentagon — forcing leadership to move it later through the establishment-controlled Rules Committee.

One key factor is that denizens of the first two states do not perceive as many direct benefits from more military spending. “There aren’t a lot of military bases in Iowa or U.S. Navy ships moored at Lock 19 on the Mississippi River at Keokuk,” said a Republican there.

New Hampshire is more reliant on the military, with the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard on the border with Maine. “Despite the fact that we have numerous businesses that rely on Department of Defense contracts … more voters care about the deficit and overall national debt than they do military spending,” said a Republican there.

Democrats came down even more resoundingly on the side of debt reduction over increased military spending. And a common refrain on the right and left is that voters hate to see money spent on foreign nation building that could be spent on projects at home.

One Iowa Democrat alluded to the state’s isolationist history and remembered that GOP Sen. Chuck Grassley voted against authorizing the first Iraq war in 1991: “We are a dove state as a whole.”

“New Hampshire is a pretty (small-L) libertarian state,” said a Republican, “so the combination of lower spending and a defense footprint that’s smaller is quite appealing to many here, particularly in the general electorate, but even in the Republican primary.”

In practice, no one in the GOP field of likely presidential candidates is preaching austerity when it comes to defense spending right now. Most of the stump speeches both decry the deficit and pledge a stronger military.

Even Rand Paul, viewed as a dove by many in his party, introduced legislation Thursday that would give the secretary of defense the discretion to transfer funds within his department “to mitigate the damaging effects” of sequestration. “As a member of Congress, I believe protecting and defending our military men and women should always be our top priority,” the Kentucky senator said in a statement.

GOP insiders who said that voters care more about defense than deficits argued that there have been few substantive discussions at the grass-roots level about the needed budgetary trade-offs.

“Long term, Iowa Republicans want to balance the budget, but there is an immediate concern that the administration has weakened our country, undermined our allies and emboldened our enemies,” said a GOP thought leader, who noted that caucus goers crave a candidate “who can restore American leadership in the world.”

“New Hampshire has become very national security-aware over the past year, and we have always been a pro-military state,” added another Republican there who dissented from the larger group. “I think there is a belief that we should be able to strengthen the military and find cuts elsewhere.”

Here are five other takeaways from this edition of The POLITICO Caucus:

One-quarter of Democratic insiders think someone could defeat Hillary Clinton in their state.

Three-quarters of insiders polled do not believe there is anyone out there who could upset the presumptive front-runner in their state. All but three of 90 participants surveyed think the former secretary of state would win their state if the Democratic contest was held this week.

Among those who said they thought there was a possible candidate who would defeat Clinton, most mentioned Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren as the strongest challenger. “Warren would win Iowa if she ran,” said a Hawkeye State Democrat. “She is not likely to announce but could bring together a coalition large enough to give Hillary a lot of trouble.”

“Warren, from neighboring Massachusetts, COULD beat Hillary in New Hampshire,” said a Democrat there. “Keep in mind that many New Hampshire residents watch Boston TV, so she is a known commodity here.”

“Martin O’Malley is the only one with a genuine shot, but the odds are admittedly long,” said another.

“Only Hillary Clinton could defeat Hillary Clinton,” said a third.

Republicans are much more likely to contend that the right challenger could beat Clinton, and many say it defies understanding that her possible foes are not more aggressively attacking her from the left.

Democrats view it differently. “I think the right question is, could somebody beat expectations?” argued an Iowan. “Beating expectations in Iowa can be a win. It is something that could launch one person to being a serious contender.”

“Hillary Clinton is well-known, well-liked and greatly respected in our state,” said a New Hampshire Democrat. “That said, she cannot take New Hampshire for granted, as our shoals are littered with the wrecks of front-runners.”

“Bernie Sanders has a following in eastern Iowa as does Elizabeth Warren, however it is not enough to overcome Hillary,” said a Democrat there.

“Martin O’Malley caused a bit of a stir during his last visit,” noted a New Hampshire Democrat, “but the only people excited about him are the people who get excited very easily.”

Three-quarters of Republicans do not think the primary is a Bush-Walker race.

The mainstream media consistently oversimplifies the dynamics at play in a crowded presidential primary field. Producers making packages for television news and reporters competing for column inches tend to prefer framing races as a two-way fight; it’s tidier that way.

This has been on display lately in national coverage that depicts the Republican primaries as basically a battle between former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker. Last weekend, both men were making their debut trips to New Hampshire. Much of the coverage pitted the two against each other.

Not so fast, the overwhelming majority of GOP insiders in the early states say.

“The press got carried away with that angle this week,” said a New Hampshire Republican.

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz was also in New Hampshire this weekend and drew impressive crowds, even though the coverage focused on a little girl asking him if the world is really on fire. Though Paul has slipped from the media narrative, he retains strong grass-roots support in the kickoff states. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio is seen as being in the early stages or on the cusp of his own boomlet.

“Premature” and “fluid” were words that came up over and over again in responses to the question of whether the GOP race is mainly a contest between Bush and Walker. So did the old adage, “It’s a marathon, not a sprint.”

“Both Bush and Walker will not appeal to large sections of the GOP base, especially the liberty crowd,” said an Iowa Republican.

“There’s about 100 town meetings to go before they can be declared front-runners,” said a New Hampshire Republican.

An uncommitted New Hampshire Republican said the race today is between Bush and everyone else in the field: “Walker is for sure the ‘candidate of the month’ to challenge Bush, but we might see several candidates cycle through that role of the Bush alternative. Even Bush might stumble. However, I believe Bush will be like Romney in 2012 — consistent, well-funded, well-organized, and an inevitable finalist.”

Even among those who believe Bush and Walker are the two front-runners at this point, many argued that this could be a fleeting dynamic.

“The real front-runner is ‘uncommitted,’” said a New Hampshire Republican. “After Mitt Romney so dominated the last cycle, it feels like the bulk of the GOP is enjoying the freedom to browse.”

“We will likely see a surge mid-summer of another candidate,” said an Iowa Republican. “Who that will be, I am not sure.”

Most Democratic observers are on the same page. “Way too early to call it a two-man race,” said someone in New Hampshire. “I want to see what Rubio can do, and I still don’t count out Rand Paul,” said another.

Iowans think Walker had a terrible week; New Hampshire Republicans believe he had a great one.

A striking disparity popped up in open-ended responses this week from the two states.

Many in the Granite State said that Walker’s first big foray last weekend went well. One key player says his visit, which drew hundreds, “still has activists buzzing.”

“His mission was to come in and not make mistakes while introducing himself and he did so successfully,” said another, “so he’s reinforcing his momentum in New Hampshire.”

Meanwhile in Iowa, with no prompting, a dozen different GOP activists brought up Walker’s hiring of Liz Mair to express concerns about whether the governor is ready for prime time. The digital strategist resigned after the state GOP chair and others condemned tweets Mair posted that were critical of Iowa’s role in the nominating process. Her posts drew widespread coverage in the state and on conservative blogs.

“Hiring a staffer who was an outspoken opponent of the caucuses certainly didn’t help,” said an Iowan. “It showed his campaign may not be ready for the front-runner status he himself has proclaimed.”

“He may have peaked too early,” another Iowan said of Walker.

“Some of that new candidate glow appears to be wearing off,” said a third. “Iowa is wide open.”

Conservative Iowa, which borders Wisconsin and where he grew up, should be much friendlier territory for Walker than New Hampshire.

Speaking at a barbecue in Greenville, South Carolina, late Thursday night, Walker alluded to the Mair kerfuffle.

“I’ve always surrounded myself with people with a positive attitude,” he said. “One of my rules [for staff] is … you need to respect the voters. … One of the commitments you’ll get from me is … the people who are going to be on my team will respect voters.”

Insiders continue to think Christie is sinking.

Asked whether anyone in the field is sinking, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie was overwhelmingly the person most commonly mentioned from both Republican and Democratic insiders.

“Christie is becoming less and less relevant among the activist base,” said a New Hampshire Republican. “The moderates appear to have moved on to Bush, and there is precisely zero buzz about him right now.”

“He is damaged goods and having real trouble getting off the launching pad in New Hampshire,” said another.

“No one is clamoring for Christie anymore,” said a third.

“He’s visited only once since the fall elections, and there’s no buzz,” said a fourth. “He could become competitive in New Hampshire, but right now, he’s not competing.”

To be sure, Christie continues to lay the groundwork for a campaign. He has top-flight operatives helping him in both Iowa and New Hampshire.

Christie was also most mentioned by Democrats. “I know the conventional wisdom is that he wasn’t really hurt by Bridgegate, but that was the beginning of a long, long descent into becoming an historical footnote,” said one.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership has riled up some on the left and the right, but virtually every insider thinks trade policy will be on the back burner in the early states.

A centerpiece of President Barack Obama’s second-term agenda, the new trade deal is expected to be one of the few issues where he can cooperate with Republican congressional leaders.

But more than 90 percent of both Democrats and Republicans do not expect trade to become a significant voting issue next year.

Most Democrats believe trade only takes on importance in the primaries if someone credible emerges on Clinton’s left and uses the deal as a cudgel against her. (Bill Clinton took heat in the 1990s for supporting the North American Free Trade Agreement.) Labor unions will keep it in the conversation, they say, but it’s hard to see how it becomes a major issue.

Warren has recently stepped up criticism of the deal, warning in a recent interview that it could allow multinational corporations to gut U.S. regulations and win big settlements funded by U.S. taxpayers but decided by an international tribunal.

But Democrats believe that “Obama gives cover” for Clinton on this issue. “The president’s support for these trade agreements has muted what could have been much greater opposition to trade deals given the state of our economy in recent years,” said one in New Hampshire.

“I expect to see the more liberal activists get a question in here and there to the candidates when they have a public event,” said another. “Other than that, the reporters will be loath to write about it except in the most general term: ‘candidate answered foreign trade questions…’”

“Every cycle the impact of organized labor decreases, this year will be no different,” said an Iowa Democrat. “The TPP is … not going to be one of the top five issues that influences who they caucus for.”

From the right, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee blamed trade deals for stagnant American wages at the Iowa Agriculture Summit two weeks ago. The populist complains that “globalists” and “corporatists” wield too much power in the GOP.

An Iowa Republican said the people who believe this are “a small minority” but “very vocal.” They helped animate the presidential campaigns of Ross Perot, Pat Buchanan and Gary Bauer in decades past.

A New Hampshire Republican predicted that the TPP could become a hot button if it includes provisions that seem to interfere with U.S. sovereignty, especially when tied to the Obama administration. “Holding Americans to justice in a foreign court over economic claims could become a Common Core,” he said.

Another predicted that trade will become important to northern New Hampshire, which has seen its paper mill economy decimated since NAFTA and other trade deals. “However, given the small population in the ‘North Country,’ it is hard to see it playing a decisive issue,” said a Republican.

Many insiders stressed the importance of exports to both the Iowa and New Hampshire economy. But the TPP just has not broken through.

“None of my friends even know what the Trans-Pacific Partnership is,” said a New Hampshire Republican.

These are the members of The POLITICO Caucus (not all of whom participated this week):

Iowa: Tim Albrecht, Brad Anderson, Rob Barron, Jeff Boeyink, Bonnie Campbell, Dave Caris, Sam Clovis, Sara Craig, Jerry Crawford, John Davis, Steve Deace, John Deeth, Derek Eadon, Ed Failor Jr., Karen Fesler, David Fischer, Doug Gross, Steve Grubbs, Tim Hagle, Bob Haus, Joe Henry, Drew Ivers, Jill June, Lori Jungling, Jeff Kaufmann, Brian Kennedy, Jake Ketzner, David Kochel, Chris Larimer, Chuck Larson, Jill Latham, Jeff Link, Dave Loebsack, Mark Lucas, Liz Mathis, Jan Michelson, Chad Olsen, David Oman, Matt Paul, Marlys Popma, Troy Price, Christopher Rants, Kim Reem, Craig Robinson, Sam Roecker, David Roederer, Nick Ryan, Tamara Scott, Joni Scotter, Karen Slifka, John Smith, AJ Spiker, Norm Sterzenbach, John Stineman, Matt Strawn, Phil Valenziano, Jessica Vanden Berg, Nate Willems, Eric Woolson, Grant Young

New Hampshire: Charlie Arlinghaus, Arnie Arnesen, Patrick Arnold, Rich Ashooh, Dean Barker, Juliana Bergeron, D.J. Bettencourt, Michael Biundo, Ray Buckley, Peter Burling, Jamie Burnett, Debby Butler, Dave Carney, Jackie Cilley, Catherine Corkery, Garth Corriveau, Fergus Cullen, Lou D’Allesandro, James Demers, Mike Dennehy, Sean Downey, Steve Duprey, JoAnn Fenton, Jennifer Frizzell, Martha Fuller Clark, Amanda Grady Sexton, Jack Heath, Gary Hirshberg, Jennifer Horn, Peter Kavanaugh, Joe Keefe, Rich Killion, Harrell Kirstein, Sylvia Larsen, Joel Maiola, Kate Malloy Corriveau, Maureen Manning, Steve Marchand, Tory Mazzola, Jim Merrill, Jayne Millerick, Claira Monier, Greg Moore, Matt Mowers, Terie Norelli, Chris Pappas, Liz Purdy, Tom Rath, Colin Reed, Jim Rubens, Andy Sanborn, Dante Scala, William Shaheen, Stefany Shaheen, Carol Shea-Porter, Terry Shumaker, Andy Smith, Craig Stevens, Kathy Sullivan, Chris Sununu, James Sununu, Jay Surdukowski, Donna Sytek, Kari Thurman, Colin Van Ostern, Deb Vanderbeek, Mike Vlacich, Ryan Williams

Kristen Hayford contributed to this report.