Dick Morris had some interesting analysis last night (for whatever that is worth). He said basically that the Republican Party is 25% Romney and 50% anti-Romney with the rest undecided. He said that Santorum is just the next, but now last anti-Romney available, and the anti-Romneys aren’t ready to throw in the towel. He believes that of all the anti-Romney’s that Gingrich is the only one that could possible defeat Romney in a straight up battle.
However, with Santorum (and not Gingrich) being the anti-Romney favorite coming out of Iowa, it is extremely positive for Romney because now you will have Santorum and Gingrich splitting the anti-Romney vote, giving Romney wins in the next primaries and clinching the nomination.
He said that Gingrich needs to eliminate Santorum instead of Romney. He thinks that if it becomes a Romney/Gingrich battle that Newt can win the anti-Romney’s and the undecideds with good debate performances. But this must happen before he loses SC and FL due and runs out of money. Interesting, but I thought very true.
He also that with the right consultant Gingrich could beat Obama if he gets someone to wipe that constipated look off of his face and tone down his anger (paraphrasing).
Remember all the fuss about the Ames straw poll?
Place Candidate Votes Percentage
1 Michele Bachmann 4,823 28.6%
2 Ron Paul 4,671 27.7%
3 Tim Pawlenty 2,293 13.6%
4 Rick Santorum 1,657 9.8%
5 Herman Cain 1,456 8.6%
6 Rick Perry (write-in) 718 4.3%
7 Mitt Romney 567 3.4%
8 Newt Gingrich 385 2.3%
9 Jon Huntsman 69 0.4%
10 Thaddeus McCotter 35 0.2%
Hillary’s problems are not dissimilar from Romney’s problems in a lot of ways: they were both establishment candidates who had the lead in prep time and money, they both took what they felt were the most presidential positions on the major issues but were caught off-guard when the wind shifted, they were both seen as willing to say anything to get elected, and they both struggled to connect with large numbers of voters on a personal level. Clinton won New Hampshire in 2008 partly because Obama’s people thought they had it locked up and didn’t finish. I’m guessing that won’t happen to Romney because of all the other stuff that’s gone on.
And I agree that this is another indication that Iowa has a shaky track record. Even after a ridiculously close second place, how many people think Santorum has a shot to beat Romney?
I suppose the idea is to keep the newly-elected President free to select the best person for the job, rather than the person to whom he is most beholden.
Right, but people in this thread have been talking about offering cabinet posts to Iowa’s losers in exchange for their support. You can’t do it. Here’s the code language:
Just watched The Ides of March yesterday (good movie for political junkies), and in the film, this provision gets disregarded by everybody. Or maybe the screenwriters just weren’t aware of it.
I am not a “tea party person”, but I am over there on the right. If Republicans take House and Senate (as is expected), I certainly don’t want Romney as President. It would be better to have Obama.
Romney got 6 votes less this time than he did in 2008. Amazing. Yet this is a big win and 2008 was a hard loss for him. As long as the anti-Romneys are all in the race he will continue to win with paltry vote totals. If one guy becomes THE anti-Romney then he’s in trouble. It’s hard to see that happening at this point, but goodness knows this has been an odd race.
“The party” may conclude that but I suspect quite a lot “Tea Party people” think like me - that with the House and Senate Republican, it’s better that Obama be president.
That’s the difference between being in first place (by a ridiculously thin margin) and being in second place. It’s also true that Romney ran a different type of campaign this time. I don’t know if he spent more money or less, but it seems like decided that Iowa was never going to be home turf for him, so he really didn’t try to win a lot of people over. He just tried to get his supporters to show up, and since he’d done that before, he did a better job than the surging or less experienced campaigns. In boxing this would probably be winning on points.
You’re wrong. First rule in politics - don’t believe your own propaganda.
If House and Senate are Republican, Obama has no teeth whatsoever. And if House and Senate are Republican, and Romney is president, Romney can do WAY more damage than Obama can.
It will be, but the chances of both House and Senate being Republican after the elections are generally considered much higher than those of Obama being defeated. (Intrade: Obama reelected: 51% Republicans take Senate: 77% Republicans retain House: 72%)
I don’t put any stock in Intrade. Regardless, you vote for Congress and the presidency at the same time, so if you’re voting strategically - which is something I don’t think very many people do - you’re making predictions based on polls, not on certainties.
I just saw it also, and was wondering the same thing. But then again, most of the characters in that film didn’t seem overly concerned about ethics either.