On The Republican Side

Mitt Romney's win looks pretty solid -- 39 percent to just 30 percent for John McCain. What's more, it would seem to be an ominous sign for John McCain that he got beaten so badly among registered Republicans. New Hampshire had an open primary, lots of non-Republicans voted, and he won. Michigan had an open primary, but not so many non-Republicans voted, so he lost. In more and more of the states going forward, however, only Republicans are going to be able to vote in the Republican primary.

Of course it's not a two-person race, so things get much more complicated than that, but the basic shape of the river is still that Republicans need to like you if you want to win a Republican primary.

Comments

I'm starting to like Mitt a lot more as time goes on. Had a good victory speech, and I like his new theme.

Posted by JFD | January 15, 2008 10:00 PM

the basic shape of the river is still that Republicans need to like you if you want to win a Republican primary.

Exactly. I'm really not sure why everyone rushing to concede the nomination to McCain has been able to ignore this simple point. Has there been any reason to think that he's gotten beyond his problems with the party base?

Posted by Haggai | January 15, 2008 10:08 PM

So far, Washtenaw County, home of Ann Arbor (the People's Republic of) and the U. of Michigan (from the grad library of which I write this comment) is the only county that's gone Undeclared, i.e., Obama/Edwards. That makes me proud.

Now waiting for Detroit....

Posted by Ben Cronin | January 15, 2008 10:10 PM

Obama has been studdering more than usual tonight. Something must be distracting him. Something must be in his head.

Jessica Simpson, maybe?

Posted by Tyler | January 15, 2008 10:14 PM

There she is!! In the audience, the cameras just flashed to her!!!

Posted by Tyler | January 15, 2008 10:16 PM

We Democrats may come to regret rooting for Mitt in Michigan since I think that he would be the best Republican candidate in the general election.

I rooting for Fred in South Carolina and Rudy in Florida and then some type of split on super-Tuesday that leads to a deadlocked Republican convention and the emergence of something even more loathesome than the current batch. I just know that right now Newt Gingrinch is sitting somewhere and honing his negotiating strategy before he calls Satan and tries to cut a deal.

Posted by Gene | January 15, 2008 10:22 PM

We Democrats may come to regret rooting for Mitt in Michigan since I think that he would be the best Republican candidate in the general election.

You think this despite the fact that every single poll says that he would lose to a Democratic ham sandwich? Possibly even one without mustard.

Posted by Steve | January 15, 2008 10:25 PM

Can someone explain the Michigan Democratic primary to me? Why is Clinton but not Obama or Edwards getting votes there?

Posted by mpowell | January 15, 2008 10:28 PM

I have to say, I'm enjoying the Giuliani meltdown -- 6th place! I know he hasn't campaigned in these early states but still, name recognition alone should have given him something more.

Posted by Jeet Heer | January 15, 2008 10:28 PM

Mitt Romney would lose to a ham sandwich without the ham.

Posted by Dan in Maine | January 15, 2008 10:29 PM

Mitt doesn't scare me too much. He might be a good candidate for them if the Republicans were in better shape nationally, e.g. if Bush had solid approval ratings; despite his clumsy pandering, Mitt is a pretty decent "guy who can get things done"-type candidate for the GOP. But with Bush's approval ratings at record lows and the GOP party brand in the toilet, Mitt wouldn't have much going for him in a general election. He has almost no chance of convincing anyone that he'd be any "different" sort of Republican, whatever that might mean.

Posted by Haggai | January 15, 2008 10:30 PM

Why is Clinton but not Obama or Edwards getting votes there?

There are no delegates at stake for the Democrats in Michigan. The Party took the delegates away when Michigan decided to move it's primary forward into January. Consequently, Obama and Edwards removed their names from the ballot. Hillary did not.

Posted by Just Karl | January 15, 2008 10:38 PM

mpowell,

Hillary is the only one getting votes b/c Obama and Edwards both pulled out after the DNC condemned the Michigan Democrats and threatened to not seat their national delegates for moving the primary date up.

Brief coverage here.

Posted by Evan Herrnstadt | January 15, 2008 10:38 PM

Can someone explain the Michigan Democratic primary to me? Why is Clinton but not Obama or Edwards getting votes there?

mpowell, Michigan moved its primary up and, in retribution, the national party took away its delegates. The candidates pledged not to campaign there and both Obama and Edwards took their names off the ballot. Write-in votes are not allowed, and, in fact, will be crumpled up and tossed aside, so that's why all the non-Clinton votes are going for a Mr. Undecided.

Posted by Sausaletus Rex | January 15, 2008 10:39 PM

Ha, beat me to it Just Karl.

Posted by Evan Herrnstadt | January 15, 2008 10:40 PM

Thanks for the info.

Posted by mpowell | January 15, 2008 10:41 PM

I know he hasn't campaigned in these early states

I believe Guiliani campaigned pretty heavily in NH. He spent more time in NH than Romney and spent more money on ads than everyone but McCain and Romney.

Posted by Just Karl | January 15, 2008 10:41 PM

Heh. Me, too.

Posted by Sausaletus Rex | January 15, 2008 10:41 PM

There's a first time for everything :)

Posted by Just Karl | January 15, 2008 10:43 PM

but the basic shape of the river is still that Republicans need to like you if you want to win a Republican primary.

A two-word rebuttal: RON PAUL!!!!!

They said he couldn't do it - but first he won Iowa (don't believe the corporate media and their phoney huck-a-love), then he took New Hampshire (again, the real results were suppressed McCain McMedia), and now he took Michigan!

It's a frickin' Ron Paul R-evol-ution landslide!

In fact, he's already the President of the United States. He's just letting Bush tell people he's still the President, because Ron Paul gets more done behind the scenes. That's how he rolls - all the way to the White House, baby!

Posted by SoCalJustice | January 15, 2008 10:56 PM

We Democrats may come to regret rooting for Mitt in Michigan since I think that he would be the best Republican candidate in the general election.

You think this despite the fact that every single poll says that he would lose to a Democratic ham sandwich? Possibly even one without mustard.
Posted by Steve

You could be saying the same thing about Bill Clinton and other candidates in Jan 2002 running against a still-popular Bush Poppa. Or Bill Clinton in the National Poll over the Great Men of the Senate he was running against.

As another poster mentioned, Rudy is running in 6th place at 2-3% of the vote in a struggle with "uncommitted", but behind Thompson and Paul and well behind Huckster, McCain, and Romney. It was just last summer that Rudy was saying he was the only one who was beating Hillary!, Obama, and Edwards in the polls. Now he is almost an also-ran unless Florida proves he was a sand-bagging genius. (but his numbers are collapsing there as well as nationally).

Rudy's apparant dismal fate 6 months after his peak does show the stupidity of placing much meaning on early national polls or contrived head-to-head matchups.

*********************
But with Bush's approval ratings at record lows and the GOP party brand in the toilet, Mitt wouldn't have much going for him in a general election. He has almost no chance of convincing anyone that he'd be any "different" sort of Republican, whatever that might mean.
Posted by Haggai

It sort of depends on if the American people come to believe with all the failing fiscal, cultural, economic and educational indicators of America that we are in a crisis that could signal a permanent decline in America and our standard of living unless we turn it around under a competent, proven executive leader.

If they do, they may see a divided government as the best solution with a hard-charging outsider out to start repairing a broken Federal Gov't against Congress and the insiders. If that is the case, and the public disagrees that embracing defeat in Iraq is the consuming issue - then Mitt Romney has very plausible prospects against Democrats promising no new coal or nuclear plants and wind unless the neighbors object to windmills. And millions of new energy consumers pouring across our out of control Boarders and all their family amnesty'd in will be handled by a law banning lightbulbs for flourescent fixtures.

Romney is in the prime of his executive life. He has more successful executive experience than Obama, Edwards, Hillary!, McCain, and Rudy combined.

And Bush will not be running for reelection. The Dems will not succeed in running on Bush's past arguing they were all better choices than what the Dems came up with in 2004. It is likely to be an election about very worried Americans concerned about the future, not nuances of Iraq votes 5 years ago or campaigning on the soon to be departed Dubya was a poopyhead. Who is fresh? Who has new ideas and solutions? Who is not the Washington establishment?

Like their approaches or not, but that would be

1. Obama
2. Romney
3. Huckabee

With unelectable but "outside Washington" Ron Paul, Edwards, and Rudy in the 2nd tier.

Posted by chris ford | January 15, 2008 11:58 PM

Romney can't beat a Dem ham sandwich? Then how come he became Governor of Massachusetts, arguably the most Democratic state in the country, following a GOP governor (Jane Swift) who was seen as unethical and incompetent?

Posted by Gyrd | January 16, 2008 12:14 AM

It sort of depends on if the American people come to believe with all the failing fiscal, cultural, economic and educational indicators of America that we are in a crisis that could signal a permanent decline in America and our standard of living unless we turn it around under a competent, proven executive leader.

As if any of the Republican candidates have any ideas that could fix the problems created by the putting into practice of their party's ideology. They all claim to be 'Reagan Republicans'; guess what, George W. was a Reagan Republican, too.

A simple task: name three ways a President Romney would be different from Bush.

Posted by Joe | January 16, 2008 12:30 AM

"A simple task: name three ways a President Romney would be different from Bush."

1) More intelligent, far more intellectually engaged, and in better command of policy details.

2) Far less polarizing, more articulate, and better able to negotiate effectively with Democrats.

3) A far better leader and executive, able to recruit, lead, and motivate an higher overall class of appointees and government.

A President Romney would have a much better chance of working out a deal on entitlements than any other Republican, which is to say any candidate, since the leading Dem candidates don't believe there is any problem with entitlements.

Posted by Fred | January 16, 2008 12:45 AM

MSNBC says Romney "edged" McCain...the WaPo has a big picture of a smiling McCain...I really can't believe how much the press appears to worship McCain...

Posted by Mr. Noah | January 16, 2008 1:04 AM

The interesting thing that the press is not mentioning much is that Romney just got many, many more thousands of votes than McCain or Huck got in their earlier winning efforts. Romney's margin of victory is way bigger than the earlier victory margins. So why the hell should NH and Iowa set the tone for the rest of the campaign?

Posted by nbt | January 16, 2008 1:17 AM

I think this invalidates the notion that there is this property called "momentum" that candidates get when they win caucuses. This has been the standard narrative trope used to explain certain phenomena like Kerry's successes becoming the democratic nominee. Maybe it's bullshit, and maybe it's always been bullshit, and this is just the first time the field of candidates has been ambiguous enough to draw a different percentage of votes from different regions of the country.

Posted by gerontion | January 16, 2008 3:12 AM

So we can set up an antinomy here: Momentum vs. Resistance. The explanation for why Hillary won in NH is supposedly because Obama won in Iowa, and a lot of women got mad at the idea that the woman candidate would be so quickly knocked out of the running. I don't know how much of a factor that was, but now we have two equal and opposite arguments for what happens to candidates who win caucuses-in the first instance, the victory bolsters their reputations in future elections, and in the second, it invigorates their opponents in future elections. Of course, these aren't really mutually exclusive-presumably they could, in some fictionally ideal environment, cancel each other out. But it means that certain assumptions about the putative front runner of presidential elections aren't really valid, and it might not always be strategically beneficial to win a caucus.

Posted by gerontion | January 16, 2008 3:24 AM

"Has there been any reason to think that he's gotten beyond his problems with the party base?"

On the contrary, it appears he's set on aggravating it. One of the things that had him on the fecal rosters of so many Republicans was his effort to win Michigan 8 years ago by inviting Democrats to vote in the Republican primary, and he did it again, more openly.

Oh, yeah, campaigning with Gore's VP candidate for Democrats to decide the Republican nomination was just the thing for a candidate who'd distrusted for his habit of championing Democratic causes like campaign censorship to do. Man, I don't think he could have blundered worse if he'd set out to do so...

Posted by Brett Bellmore | January 16, 2008 6:31 AM

If McCain does prevail, he is going to owe the public some straight talk about his health. In addition to advanced chronological age, he has had melanoma incidents twice. That bulge in his left cheek just seems to get bigger.

I don't wish him ill health; I just think we ought to know whether he's fit to survive his term.

Posted by bob h | January 16, 2008 7:47 AM

Gerontion,
I find it much more likely that the Iowa caucus does almost nothing. It raises a candidates name recognition if they win, and may act as a little free publicity. It is desirable to win it, because it gives you delagates. About the only effect it has on the susequent primaries is the elimination of non-viable candidates.

All of that, however, does not make good infotainment. So we get blather about momentum and backlash.

Oddly, Michigan is a large diverse state that acts as a good predictor for other states and has a large number of delagates, yet the results there are treated as nearly insignificant.

Posted by Njorl | January 16, 2008 9:04 AM

Didn't I tell you that Romney's position best supported Michigan's interests?

Posted by freddiemac | January 16, 2008 9:23 AM