Jeb Bush’s failure to invest time in Iowa is the main explanation for his seventh-place finish in the latest poll of likely Republican caucusgoers.

The POLITICO Caucus, our weekly bipartisan pulse-taking of the most important activists, operatives and elected officials in Iowa and New Hampshire, finds a pervasive feeling that the former Florida governor will improve his standing if he just gives the Hawkeye State some TLC.


“The Iowa Lottery’s motto is ‘You can’t win if you don’t play.’ The same is true in politics,” said a top Republican there, who — like all 72 respondents — completed the questionnaire anonymously in order to speak candidly. “Am I surprised that a candidate who has visited the state once in 2015, and only twice in the past 20 years, isn’t kicking butt in Iowa? No.”

It’s been exactly two months since Bush last appeared in Iowa, for an agriculture summit. He will return May 16 for a town hall in Dubuque, a fundraiser in Iowa City for Sen. Chuck Grassley’s reelection campaign and a Lincoln Dinner speech in Des Moines.

Like Mitt Romney in 2012, Bush is carefully trying to keep expectations in check and hoping for a late surge in Iowa. But unlike Romney, Bush did not lay the groundwork by running four years earlier. His brother and father both won the Iowa caucuses, though, but that was 15 and 35 years ago respectively.

“He is running the Seinfeld campaign — it’s a campaign about nothing except money,” said an Iowa Republican. “I have never seen a guy with such a great Rolodex who is incapable of connecting with regular voters.”

Jeb has four other serious strikes against him in the eyes of the conservative grassroots, based on this week’s feedback: supporting Common Core, backing legal status for illegal immigrants, bearing the burden of Bush fatigue and endorsing the confirmation of Loretta Lynch as attorney general last month.

It can be silly to read too much into early polling, especially with a race as fluid as this, but there’s a staggering disconnect between Bush’s domination of media coverage about the race (and lead in national polls), and his standing in Iowa. The Quinnipiac University poll published this week put Bush, with just 5 percent of likely caucusgoers, behind Scott Walker, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Mike Huckabee and even Ben Carson.

“Campaign here, and those numbers will rebound,” said a third, uncommitted, Iowa Republican. “It’s still very early, and that’s not reflective of what will happen on caucus night.”

Here are 9 takeaways from this 13th edition of The POLITICO Caucus:

Iowa Republicans believe it would be foolish and fatal for Jeb to blow off the caucuses.

Every single Iowa insider who responded to our survey this week, including from both parties, said Bush should compete in Iowa.

Here are the rationales offered by three tip-top Republicans inside the state—

“Don’t forget, Romney finished second in Iowa twice. John McCain also made a late play for Iowa in 2008 and finished in fourth place; he almost finished in third place. Bush also can’t afford to say ‘Screw it’ when it comes to Iowa because it’s a key battleground state that he will need in November if he somehow happens to become the Republican nominee.”

“He cannot allow Rubio to come out of Iowa with a head of steam going into New Hampshire. The more Walker caters to the evangelical right, the wider berth that gives Rubio and Bush to work the establishment, economic conservative lane. If Bush doesn’t compete here, Rubio has a ton of room to roam.”

“He should keep his options open in Iowa. He shouldn’t invest a lot of resources, but he should be positioned to get a top-five finish. There are lots of ups and downs before the caucuses. He should do enough to capitalize on an opening if one presents itself.”

Bush has problems beyond a lack of time in Iowa. A quarter of those polled in the Quinnipiac survey said they definitely cannot support him, while 45 percent said he’s “not conservative enough.” An Iowa academic highlighted his low scores compared to other candidates on trustworthiness and who “cares about the needs and problems of people like you.”

Some activists partial to Bush said this is because he’s been a punching bag for the other candidates, and voters have not been informed of his conservative record during eight years in Tallahassee — but they will be when TV ads start running.

Nearly half of New Hampshire GOP insiders think Bush should blow off Iowa.

Several invoked the legendary John H. Sununu adage from 1988, when George H.W. Bush lost the caucuses as a sitting vice president, that “Iowa picks corn, and New Hampshire picks presidents” to make the case that Jeb should ignore the state. (Jon Huntsman was fond of that quote in 2012, and it didn’t do him much good.)

“Voters in Iowa and New Hampshire are fickle, and they’re jealous any time a candidate spends time somewhere else,” said a New Hampshire Republican. “Almost like a guy trying to date two girls, it’s better to go with the one with the better chance of loving you back [than] spread yourself too thin and end up a two-time loser.”

New Hampshire insiders fashion themselves as more reflective of the electorate, partly because they have a higher-turnout, open primary and not a caucus system that empowers the most committed activists. They point to the fact that Huckabee and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum are the last two Iowa winners, combined with Michele Bachmann’s 2012 straw poll win, to argue that the state doesn’t deserve its special status.

“A state that genuinely considered Rick Santorum and Sam Brownback as our next president is not reflective of Republicans nationally,” said a New Hampshire Republican. “Bush is conservative, but not their kind of conservative. He’s too thoughtful and measured in tone to appeal to Iowa caucus goers.”

But a nearly equal number in New Hampshire said that voters there would be alarmed if Bush skipped Iowa because it would raise doubts about whether he could run a true national campaign.

“He would look very arrogant if he skipped Iowa, and it would play right into the ‘My name is Bush so I’m entitled to be president’ narrative,” said one.

Hillary’s immigration comments are boosting her standing with progressives.

Flanked by DREAMers in Nevada this week, Clinton declared her emphatic support for a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

All but one of the Democrats surveyed said Clinton’s immigration speech will calm concerns from the left about her credibility on the issue. Many used the word “bold” to describe it.

“Hillary continues to surprise, in a good way,” wrote an uncommitted New Hampshire Democrat who has expressed skepticism of her in previous weeks. “When she has every reason in the world this cycle to ignore the left and her challengers, she is showing a genuine desire to win her primary on the issues. Good for her!”

She said in Las Vegas that she would go even further than Barack Obama when it comes to controversial executive action on the issue.

“There is literally nothing for the left to complain about here,” said another New Hampshire Democrat. “They are thrilled about it.”

One of the low points of Clinton’s 2008 campaign was when she gave a tangled, contradictory answer about whether undocumented immigrants should be able to get driver’s licenses.

“Hillary Clinton has surprised many progressives of late, and the turnaround on immigration was no exception,” said another New Hampshire Democrat. “There’s a certain watchful waiting by about 50 percent to 60 percent of New Hampshire Democrats for more scandal shoes to drop, but everything she is saying is rock-solid. People are elated, in fact. The trick will be, will the moral baggage catch up to the Clintons or not? Politically, do they have one last one of those proverbial nine lives left? So far the answer is yes. Though the primary is a long way off.”

Republicans were split, though the majority predicted that a Nevada appearance won’t — or at least shouldn’t — ease underlying doubts. “The Left has never cottoned to Hillary, because she hasn’t used the time between losing the nomination in 2008 and now to reach out to them,” said a New Hampshire Republican. “Whatever the issue, they will consistently move the goalpost away from her.”

Most Democratic insiders want Warren to get onboard the Hillary train.

We asked our insiders to guess the size of the anti-Hillary share of the Democratic electorate in their state right now. The average response was around 25 percent among Dems in each state. Republicans rated it only a little bit larger.

Asked an open-ended question about what role Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren should play, a surprising number of Democrats said she should either run or get out of the way.

“I like her very much, but I’m not really sure why people think she should have some special role,” said a New Hampshire Democrat. “I don’t really understand the reasoning behind that. She is not some seasoned veteran who has been through this and has a huge level of experience or years of campaigning at this level that would entitle her to some special role.”

A handful of Democrats who do not plan to support Clinton in the primaries complained that Warren is freezing out potential challengers by not more forcefully telling the “Draft Warren” crowd that she’s not going to run in 2016.

“Warren’s militants are freezing the field of alternatives and as long as her name gets polled and draws 1-in-5 votes, a number of alternatives are starved for oxygen,” said a New Hampshire Democrat. “It’s a disservice to the process for her to not chastise these activists hoping against hope.”

Several Clinton supporters said that Warren should endorse Clinton now to help ensure the party holds the White House. “She needs to play the role Obama played in 2004,” said a New Hampshire Democrat, referring to the keynote he delivered in Boston. “Establish the party’s strong support for women and populist values.”

Republicans overwhelmingly encouraged Warren to run, often tongue in cheek, when asked what role she should play. “What, exactly, is the downside for her?” asked a New Hampshire Republican. “Warren would be an instant threat to win New Hampshire,” said another. “She bought a lot of TV in 2012 that went to Granite State viewers. Warren getting in and winning New Hampshire is the nightmare scenario for Clinton, as it would mean a protracted, and expensive, primary.” Added a third, “It would be a great test for Hillary; if she passes, Hillary will be stronger; if she loses, Warren would be the stronger Democrat to field in 2016. And it would be fun as hell to watch Bill attack Warren!”

Three-quarters of Democratic insiders believe six is just the right number of primary debates for Hillary.

The Democratic National Committee announced Tuesday that it will sanction six debates and require candidates who want to participate to sign an agreement that they will not do others. Many framed the announcement as an effort by the party establishment to protect Clinton from too much contact with her long-shot challengers, all desperate for free media, while also ensuring that there will still be some debate.

More than seven-in-10 Democratic insiders said six is just the right number of debates for Hillary. Twenty percent said it is too many for her to agree to, with the remainder saying it is too few.

“She likely gets dinged if it is any fewer,” said an Iowa Democrat. “But each of these comes with great risk. She is doing pretty well as it is without being on the same stage as the other candidates.”

“The timing of the debates is more important than the number,” said another. “The last two matter. She will shine brighter with practice.”

“Whoever wins the GOP nomination will be battle-tested and debate-ready,” said a New Hampshire Democrat. “The same should be true of our nominee.”

Among those who say six is too few are Democrats who recall how Clinton grew stronger as the spring debates progressed in 2008.

Many Republicans said six is too many for her own good. “There is no way she will participate in that many debates if the polling doesn’t show that there is actually another credible candidate in the race,” said an Iowan. “Participating in debates with the likes of Jim Webb, Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley is equivalent to her sitting in a dunk tank at a carnival.”

Most Iowa insiders thought Huckabee had the best rollout this week; Granite Staters picked Fiorina.

Three long-shot Republican candidates announced their campaigns this week: Ben Carson in Detroit, and Carly Fiorina with a media blitz on Monday — followed by Mike Huckabee on Tuesday.

Just over half of Iowa GOP insiders picked Huckabee as having the strongest announcement, perhaps because he made several stops in the state after his kickoff in Hope, Arkansas.

Several Iowans said Huckabee’s speech and events reminded them of what they liked about him back in 2007 and 2008, which allowed him to win the caucuses despite being outspent more than 10 to 1.

“Huckabee is a very good candidate,” said an Iowa Republican. “His campaign skills showed again this week. The other two are rookies, and they looked like it.”

Three-quarters of New Hampshire insiders said Fiorina had the strongest announcement of the three. “Carly introduced herself to a huge TV audience with strength, conviction, and poise,” said a Republican there. “Her willingness to engage in a lengthy Q&A with reporters was a clear contrast with Hillary Clinton’s small, hand-picked guest ‘conversations.’”

“Fiorina is doing a lot of the right things in New Hampshire,” said another. “She’s reaching out to the right people and putting together a team that can help her compete. She shouldn’t be underestimated.”

Showing some limitations on his appeal beyond the eight states he carried in 2008, several New Hampshire Republicans poked fun at Huckabee’s event in Hope.

“Huckabee’s speech sounded like he wanted Andy Griffith to amble out on stage to announce we were bringing back Green Acres — backwards looking,” said a New Hampshire Republican. “He sounds so yesterday.”

Not everyone in the state felt that way. As another Granite Stater put it, “Huckabee excels at being a folksy populist. Who wouldn’t want to have a beer with him (if he drank)? Is there anybody else in the race who can shoot barbs at his opponents yet you end up liking him more?”

Operative types pointed out that Fiorina’s team failed to register CarlyFiorina.org, which helped generate some negative press coverage about her tenure as CEO of Hewlett-Packed.

“Fiorina’s failure to register her domain, getting into an argument over whether she laid off 15,000 or 30,000, lousy poll numbers, and then losing the press coverage to Huckabee, all made her week the worst,” said a New Hampshire Democrat.

Ben Carson got no bounce from his announcement.

Only 8 percent of insiders said the retired neurosurgeon had the best rollout of the three candidates who announced this week.

He broke the news during an interview with a local TV affiliate the night before his speech in Detroit.

Tragically, he found out the day before that event that his mother, who has suffered from Alzheimer’s disease since 2011, was near death. He postponed his first rally in Iowa to fly to Dallas so he could say goodbye.

“Carson, though his events have been well attended, presents like a college lecturer, and I did not derive a sense of energy from listening to him in person,” said an Iowa Republican. “He is very soft-spoken, and some of his remarks were questionable, including one off-hand remark about ‘hands up, don’t shoot.’ He will need to really step up his game if he wants to keep people interested.”

“Carson has two chances to be the nominee: Slim and None,” said a New Hampshire Republican, “and Slim was at Carly’s announcement.”

Republicans overwhelmingly approve of the way Fiorina has contrasted herself with Hillary.

Fiorina wants to carve out a niche as the main GOP attack dog against Clinton. She explicitly pitches herself as the best option to beat the Democratic frontrunner. Her own announcement video opens with a clip of Hillary’s video.

Nine in 10 Republican insiders said they thought that was a clever move, even if a gimmick.

“Carly Fiorina will be able to land some of the hits on Hillary Clinton that male candidates simply cannot,” said a New Hampshire Republican. “That’s an important advantage for her and her campaign, and she’s smart to play it up out of the gates.”

Overwhelmingly, Republicans said Fiorina is not overplaying her hand as the anti-Hillary.

“Absolutely not,” said an Iowa Republican. “Any man in the field would be branded as sexist. Hard to call this a ‘War on Women,’ isn’t it?”

“This is a great niche for her to have early in the race,” said another. “She will eventually have to shift gears. But she has played her current hand very well.”

A New Hampshire Republican said its “impossible” for her to overdo the Clinton comparisons: “Our voters hate Hillary, and she is a target-rich environment.”

“The press may consider her Carly one-note, but most voters don’t know her at all and they are hearing it for the first time,” said another.

Some Republicans want more from Fiorina, however, and think she’s running to increase her visibility for a potential post in a GOP administration. “She needs to better articulate what she would do, rather than what kind of campaigner she will be,” said an Iowan.

“It’s nice red meat, but it makes her seem less presidential and substantive,” said a New Hampshire Republican.

Fiorina has successfully trolled Clinton supporters.

While Republicans praised her for the harsh anti-Hillary language on the trail, it’s clearly angered a swath of Democrats.

“It marginalized her as merely the ‘woman’ candidate,” said a New Hampshire Democrat.

“The GOP thinks they are being so clever by having the woman attack the woman,” said another. “If they think that gets them more woman votes, that explains why they continue to alienate them! That will backfire!”

Most Democrats said Fiorina has already overplayed her hand. One compared it to the way that former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani incessantly invoked the Sept. 11 attacks during his 2008 campaign.

“She’s headed for a Giuliani-esque, noun, verb and ‘Hillary Clinton’ moment,” said a Granite Stater. “From a strategic perspective, not defining herself in any way, shape, or form puts a ceiling on her campaign. Her 15-minute surge will inevitably be followed by anonymous oppo dumps from the establishment candidates painting her as this cycle’s Newt Gingrich.”

A dissenting New Hampshire Democrat warned against writing her off: “Honestly, what Republicans need is somebody who will beat Hillary, and you could argue that nominating a woman — especially one without a troublesome voting record, somebody who has survived cancer and suffered the loss of a child, somebody with a modest background — is the best matchup in November. The more the primary is about who can beat Hillary, the better chance she has.”

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.