Romney Mania

The Iowa straw poll is a more-or-less meaningless exercise, but it still seems to be the case that Ames winner Mitt Romney is on track to win the nomination. Somewhat curiously, I don't see this reality reflected all that much in the national coverage of the GOP race, but he has the most money and he's leading in the early primary states. Obviously, nothing's in the bag for him (or anyone) yet, but I feel like his third place status the last time I checked Tradesports is badly underselling his odds.

I've got him rated as a must buy at 22 cents on the dollar, but I don't want to open myself up to charges that I'm puffing Romney up (he's already won the crucial Yglesias Endorsement in the GOP primary) for financial gain.

Comments

I had put him in the same category as George Pataki. As in, angling for a cabinet position if R's win, or an AEI fellowship' if they lose.

Does this mean that George could be where Mitt is, if only he'd done it right? Scary thought.

Posted by George | August 13, 2007 7:45 AM

I think Romney's going to get the nomination too, as the Republicans become wary of Giuliani's baggage.

Posted by Fred | August 13, 2007 8:03 AM

The Straw poll in 1999 killed off all Republicans except Bush who won and McCain who ignored it. That said Bush didn't fall below expectations like Romney did. and after Iowa the entire party was really behind him where that isn't the case with Giuliani skipping the straw poll.

Posted by Rob | August 13, 2007 8:33 AM

When you look at the campaign funds and the positions, it sure does look that way. Giuliani and Romney both stand about an order of magnitude ahead of their competitors in funding, and Giuliani is simply too at odds with the Republican base on various issues.
However, if enough others stay in for long enough it could still result in failure for Romney. He's running to the right of Giuliani, but that vote could continue to be fragmented if Huckabee, Paul, Tancredo and/or Brownback decide to continue the fight up until the nomination. And while winning the early states should get him some momentum, he is or was polling low enough in other places (like the South) that that boost may not be enough...

Posted by bbartlog | August 13, 2007 9:13 AM

Historically, Iowa and New Hampshire are more deterministic of who wins the Democratic primary than the Republican one. Upsets in Iowa and New Hampshire are frequent in Republican contests, but by the time the big states come around the guy leading in the polls tends to vault back in front. Giuliani is well positioned to win the bulk of delegates on Feb. 5, regardless of how badly he does in IA and NH.

Posted by Adam Herman | August 13, 2007 9:42 AM

About three days after the Kerry debacle in 2004 the first diary appeared on DailyKos discussing the 2008 candidates. One guy posted that the Republican Party insiders were indicating that it would be Romney, to which the typical response was "who?". Since that day I have watched as Romney has been slooooowly pushed to the front, and now he is as Matt notes the leading contender.

Makes me think a bit anyway.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | August 13, 2007 9:47 AM

I dunno, if a bunch of the second-tier candidates (Brownback, T. Thompson, Hunter, etc.) take a clue from the Ames results and drop out it could solidify the "true conservative" vote behind Huckabee. Now whether this translates into better fundraising and national poll improvement, who can say, but this thing is far from over.

And Giuliani's still likely to win Florida.

Posted by right | August 13, 2007 10:21 AM

Matt, I suggest you ponder why Romney is running third or fourth in national polling. You are at serious risk of falling into the conventional Beltway narrative that campaigns can shape everything by early wins in these key states. Its like the Intertubey thing never existed.

Romney dumped a huge amount of change in Iowa and ended up with a turnout of about 55% of that of the last contested straw poll. Give me $6 million bucks and I could get a better crowd to hear the shittiest boy band in history right here in Seattle, mainly because I could afford to hand out free iPods to the first 6000 that showed up and still have an unlimited hosted Red Bull bar, with complimentary Jello Shooters. Shoot for that kind of money I could throw in free piercing and tattoos. Doesn't mean the crowd will squeal when Justin hits the stage.

Southern Baptists consider Mormons to be cultists. Per this site in 2003 there were 11,464 Southern Baptists in Iowa.
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/baptist/sbcstatedata.html
Granted this is more than the 10,475 SBs in Montana or the 8528 SBs in North and South Dakota, then again since no one actually lives in those states, we are talking about maybe the smallest percentage of Southern Baptists in the country. Okay you can take the 21,306 SBs in New England and the 30,909 in New Jersey/Pennsylvania to argue differently, shoot throw in the 14,582 in Minnesota/Wisconsin, but the Republican nomination is not going to make or break in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast and upper Mid West, it is going to happen in the South and the lower plains and the SB numbers there are eye-popping.

Where inside the Beltway and East Coast analysts generally get this wrong is that they think these people are all just simple rubes who when it comes right down to it don't really take those fundamentalist beliefs seriously. That is cross dressing gay friendly Rudy or flip flopping cultist Mitt can simply pass muster with the Republican base by pumping enough hot air into the balloon. Well we'll see.

But the sheer logistics suggest that Mitt should have been able to stomp the rest of the field in Ames, both his gross and his percentage have to be disappointing, however brave a face they put on it. I have been predicting all along that the race on the Republican side was going to get ugly early and often, Huckabee and Brownback having little to lose and much to gain by highlighting the more non-conventional sides of Rudy and Mitt.

Posted by Bruce Webb | August 13, 2007 2:03 PM

Romney is the most frightening nominee, because he truly is a cypher. (And, his surname even slant rhymes with Zombie!) He will do anything to attain and maintain power. He has few principles and a lot of ambition, in addition to a firm belief in his rectitude. He is like a slightly more competent and motivated Bush, which is a chilling shot. IN CONCLUSION: he must be stopped at all costs. Except voting for Hillary. I won't do it. I will write in Chelsea. Never. I will never vote for Hillary Clinton. So don't nominate her. I will write in Oprah or even Tyra or hell even Maury before I vote for Hillary.

Posted by Gregorio | August 13, 2007 3:37 PM

Is someone really (that is, betting money) offering odds of 78 to 22 on Romney? I would like a piece of that. I would probably take that on Giuliani as well.

Posted by skeptonomist | August 13, 2007 5:08 PM

"Romney is the most frightening nominee... He will do anything to attain and maintain power.

This distinguishes him from all the other prez candidates?

Posted by kafka | August 13, 2007 10:15 PM

I saw Huckabee on C-SPAN doing some meet-and-greet then a little stump speech a few months ago and was impressed with his skills. His second place showing in the straw poll -- and his turn as a populist democrat ("let's stop being the party of plutocrats", or words to that effect) on TV recently -- suggest he might be a strong focus for the "God" wing of the "God & Mammon" coalition.

But I have to agree that Romney has the best shot at the "Mammon" wing of the party.

Posted by STS | August 14, 2007 3:40 AM