Romney's Big Lead

Robert Farley wonders "why isn't Mitt Romney being treated as the overwhelming frontrunner in the Republican race? He's won two of the four contests so far, and placed second twice. Moreover, Michigan differs from the other three contests in that it's inhabited by actual people, twice as many as the other three states combined. He's also the leader in total money and trails only minor also-ran candidate Rudy Giuliani in cash on hand."

All true. What's more, as you'll see in the chart overhead, he actually has a narrow majority in terms of delegates allocated. The Republican race is by no means over, but Romney unmistakably has the lead. What's more, Romney seems to me to have the advantage of internal lines in the three-way Huckabee-McCain-Romney battle. McCain's big hope was to knock Romney out of the race (or, more precisely, to have Mike Huckabee knock Romney out of the race) in order to become the establishment candidate with maverick cred. But having added a solid win in Michigan to his Wyoming pickup, Romney is a clearly a viable candidate for the establishment to back and McCain is back to being a guy who Republicans don't really like.

Comments

Who says money can't buy you love?

Posted by gonzone | January 16, 2008 3:03 PM

This Hunter guy is kicking some ass.

Posted by DNS | January 16, 2008 3:03 PM

Matt, can't you and Mitt just get a room?

Posted by Jasper | January 16, 2008 3:04 PM

What an idiotic chart. What percentage of the total delegates to be allocated nationwide have actually been allocated so far?

This is like saying that the Knicks scored the first basket of an NBA game, therefore they hold a commanding 100%-0% lead in points.

I can understand Farley being this dim, but Matthew???

Posted by Al | January 16, 2008 3:08 PM

We know that The Media loves McCain, but The Media isn't necessarily the most influential news source for Republican primary voters. How does Fox News seem to feel about Romney versus McCain? My instinct tells me that they would like Romney, but I don't know. It's also my impression that a significant contingent of conservative talk radio prefers Romney, but I only have a small amount anecdotal evidence. The thing is, if the overtly conservative media disagrees with the established MSM, i.e. what the republican primary voters think of as "the liberal media," McCain's support in the MSM doesn't mean much, or might even be a liability in the primary.

Posted by Galen | January 16, 2008 3:11 PM

McCain is still the favorite.

Romney has less than a 1 in 5 chance of winning.

Come on Matt, put your reputation on the line

Does Romney have a better than 20% chance of winning the nomination or not?

Posted by neil wilson | January 16, 2008 3:11 PM

Also, isn't it a bit tiring to flip flop on who is the front runner after every single state? After Iowa, it was Huckabee who had a clear path to the nomination. Then McCain won NH and he was about to wrap things up. Now Romney wins a state and he's the front runner. I mean, geez. You realize that, the day after SC, Matthew et al are going to be saying "[insert SC winner] unmistakably has the lead."

Posted by Al | January 16, 2008 3:12 PM

You realize that, the day after SC, Matthew et al are going to be saying "[insert SC winner] unmistakably has the lead."

Nah, we're still going to be pushing Mitt-mentum.

Posted by Gabriel | January 16, 2008 3:13 PM

Does Romney have a better than 20% chance of winning the nomination or not?

What? Of course he does. It's probably something like 40% Romney, 30% McCain, 20% Huck, 10% Giuliani or Thompson pulling off a miracle.

Posted by right | January 16, 2008 3:18 PM

The problem for Mitt is in the south. Can't win the Republican nomination without performing very well in the south. Iowa, New Hampshire, Wyoming and Michigan are not a good cross-section of the Republican party.

Posted by Brian | January 16, 2008 3:22 PM

Romney will be the toughest candidate against any Democrat in November. The deciding issue will be the economy and he has the strongest credentials among any of the Republicans in that area.

That is why the Democrats strongest candidate to field is Hillary Clinton. The electorate, faced with serious economic uncertainty will not be willing to roll the dice with Obama. Not when their families welfare is at stake. That is the argument Romney can make against Obama and he will win that argument.

But Clinton is in a far better position on this issue than Romney because:

1) the favorable impression the electorate has of Bill Clinton and his record eight years of peace and prosperity. His policies worked and everyone was better off. His approval rating is still the highest among any retired politician in America. This gives Hillary an advantage because voters will have not just a visualize of what to expect from her presidency they also have concrete memories/experience of just how good things can actually be. Call it the economic nostalgia factor if you want, it is real and it is powerful.

Romney has experience in business and in Massachusetts. Both of these will be to his benefit. The Democratic candidate will have to drive up his negative by hard hitting factual attacks on his record. Clinton has the experience and the steel to run this kind of campaign.

and 2) her experience and ability to be, as she claims, ready on day one. While there may be some scepticism about this from the pinheads at Atlantic, the public sees a hard working policy expert who knows how to get the job done. Some may think these are just campaign slogans, and they are, but have the ring of truth because she is careful to back up all her claims with fact.

Romney may not be liked by the pinheads but he will have the republican base on his side and will make an effort to appeal to independents based upon his credible record. Hillary Clinton is the only candidate with a record of successfully getting things done longer than does Romney. He can point to the Olympics, a one off event, she can point to S-Chip, a successful program still with us. Etc.

As long as she keeps hitting this campaign message hard all the way through November we will have a Democrat in the White House again.

Posted by ken | January 16, 2008 3:23 PM

There was a candidate with similar advantages in states won and delegates in the 1996 Republican contest, after even more than four states. His name was Steve Forbes.

Why didn't the media anoint Forbes the front-runner? Why didn't his campaign get any free media attention at all?

Because the media narrative inside the village didn't enjoy taking him seriously.

Presidential nomination contests are decided by beltway insiders and their media contacts. Sure an insurgent can occasionally win a few early states. That's because those are the states where the people get to see them unfiltered and make an informed decision.

Unless you can raise $10 billion for your campaign, you simply can't beat free media in the later states, though. And it'll be the beltway media who decide what latter state voters see.

Posted by Brian | January 16, 2008 3:29 PM

What states out there is Romney leading in? Obviously they can be expected to swing dramatically, but is he candidate to beat anywhere right now? This matters since the GOP has many more winner-take-all primaries than the Dems. I'd say it's just as likely for there to be three front-runners as one.This year is nuts, so let's just sit back and enjoy the ride. Feel the Mittmentum!

Posted by NHCt | January 16, 2008 3:41 PM

Latest odds

If you disagree you can make real money by going to Intrade or the IEM

Name Bid Ask Last
GIULIANI 21.6 22 22
ROMNEY 16.8 19.8 16.8
HUCKABEE 13.7 13.8 13.7
MCCAIN 37.5 38.9 37.2

Posted by neil wilson | January 16, 2008 3:42 PM

Sure an insurgent can occasionally win a few early states. That's because those are the states where the people get to see them unfiltered and make an informed decision. - Brian

I'm with you up to this point. I don't buy that "people in the early states see the candidates unfiltered" line (which you often hear from media elites in defense of our current system, which they prefer 'cause it gives them a horse-race to cover and hence makes work for them): do people (which includes independents) disatisfied with Bush & CO think that voting for McCain is the way to send a protest based on hearing him "unfiltered" or because the media has long told them that McCain is a maverick?

Presidential nomination contests are decided by beltway insiders and their media contacts.

It does seem that way, doesn't it? We might as well, as a conservative friend of mine points out, just go back to the days of conventions brokered in smoke filled rooms ...

But it's interesting to ponder what happens when the media contacts and beltway insiders disagree. In 2000, many in the media as well as the GOP-related think tanks wanted McCain. But the leadership of the religious right and certain other insiders wanted Bush. And we know who won ...

Posted by DAS | January 16, 2008 3:46 PM

Al what do you think of Rudy's chances?

Posted by WillieStyle | January 16, 2008 3:48 PM

Al what do you think of Rudy's chances?

I think the Intrade odds posted above are spot on - I'd give him 20-25%. (I also think that McCain is slightly overvalued by the above Intrade odds, while Romney and Huck are slightly undervalued.)

Also, the longer this race goes without a real front runner, the more likely it is that Giuliani's 2/5 strategy can pay off. The blogger cognoscenti (on both the left and the right) that have thought since Iowa that Giuliani is dead are just wrong. But Rudy still probably has to win Florida.

Posted by Al | January 16, 2008 4:04 PM

Is it relevant that some part of Romney's Michigan margin of victory came from Kos/TPM-inspired Dems in imitation of the pranksters who kept voting for Sanjaya on last year's American Idol? (asked in earnest, not rhetorically)

Posted by kth | January 16, 2008 4:06 PM

Rom, Spaceknight is not being treated as the front-runner for the same reason Steve Forbes wasn't taken seriously as a candidate. They're just buying votes with their own money. Rom dramatically outspent both Huck and McCain, yet got spanked by both. And there's the fact that it doesn't look like he'll be able to buy even 2nd place finishes in most Southern states.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | January 16, 2008 4:13 PM

In addition to not looking at pointless delegate counts, can we agree to continue ignoring the Wyoming caucus? It's bad enough the press takes Iowa so seriously but at least the candidates actually campaign there.

Posted by Other Ezra | January 16, 2008 5:14 PM

Why isn't Mitt Romney being treated as the overwhelming frontrunner in the Republican race?

For the same reason we don't call the leader in the Boston marathon the frontrunner after the first mile.

Because it's a trivial point in the race. There are nearly 2500 delegates to be counted. Mitt currently has about 40 delegates and is projected to lose in S.C. and Florida.

What's your hurry? We'll have some real numbers in 3 weeks. Let's wait until somebody shows a significant advantage before we crown the victor.

Posted by Jinchi | January 16, 2008 5:20 PM

if you disagree you can make real money by going to Intrade or the IEM

The prediction markets have failed to project any of the winners so far. They're completely reactive - Hillary was the overwhelming favorite before Iowa, Obama was the overwhelming favorite the day after, Hillary again the day after NH.

Likewise McCain magically became the favorite the day after NH and is now (the day after Michigan) crashing back.

Maybe you can make money, but the markets are useless as a guide to the actual nominees.

Posted by Jinchi | January 16, 2008 5:28 PM

trails only minor also-ran candidate Rudy Giuliani in cash on hand

We don't actually know how much money Romney has on hand at this point (after all, the last FEC filings are from more than three months ago). But he probably trails Ron Paul as well as Rudy, except of course in the sense that he really has an extra $200 million of personal cash on hand. Assuming he's willing to spend it, that is.

Posted by bbartlog | January 16, 2008 5:30 PM

He'll spend it.

Posted by gerontion | January 16, 2008 6:21 PM

Can we at least agree that it's gotta suck for the former governor of a major state to come in sixth, even in a state he didn't much campaign in? A candidate who's a real contender ought to be able to do better than 3% on name recognition alone, and national coverage.

Rudy can't pull many defeats like that off, before people will stop taking him seriously, and it's all over.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | January 16, 2008 6:24 PM

Is it relevant that some part of Romney's Michigan margin of victory came from Kos/TPM-inspired Dems in imitation of the pranksters who kept voting for Sanjaya on last year's American Idol? (asked in earnest, not rhetorically)

No, because only 7% of the GOP primary voters were Democrats, and of those McCain won 43% (and Romney, 33%, Huckabee, 15%)

Posted by Ben P | January 16, 2008 6:38 PM

In addition to not looking at pointless delegate counts, can we agree to continue ignoring the Wyoming caucus? It's bad enough the press takes Iowa so seriously but at least the candidates actually campaign there.

Actually, if this turns out to be a long primary, that's a reason to take Wyoming more seriously than Iowa. Most 2/5 and later states will go to the polls without signifigant campaigning by the candidates.

Posted by djw | January 16, 2008 6:46 PM

Can we at least agree that it's gotta suck for the former governor of a major state to come in sixth, even in a state he didn't much campaign in?

To which former governor are you referring?

Posted by Al | January 16, 2008 6:53 PM

Can we at least agree that it's gotta suck for the former governor of a major state to come in sixth, even in a state he didn't much campaign in?

Um, the State of New York City? It may have five counties, but it's still just a city, not a state.

When was the last time someone whose highest elected office was a mayor ran a national (or at least Florida-wide) campaign for President? About the closest I know of was Larry Agran (former Irvine mayor) for the Democrats in 1992, but he got less support than Rudy.

Posted by Adam Villani | January 16, 2008 7:12 PM

Rudy was never a governor, though if you think about it, NYC has many more people in it than Huckabee's Arkansas and is roughly on par with Romney's Massachusetts. NYC is also more populous than any of Iowa, New Hampshire, Wyoming, Nevada, or South Carolina, and isn't really that far behind Michigan in population.

Posted by Answer Guy | January 16, 2008 7:15 PM

Actually, if this turns out to be a long primary, that's a reason to take Wyoming more seriously than Iowa.

But how do we interpret Wyoming? Romney won about 66% of the delegates, but I haven't seen anyone give numbers on the percentage of the vote he won.

Worse still, Wyoming's screwy caucus system is even less comprehensible than Iowa's. They vote county-by-county not by population (and 50%+1 wins). Half the counties are alternates, not apparently included in the nationally reported delegate count (Romney won 4 of 11 of those, tied with uncommitted). Finally, none of those delegates are actually bound to vote for a specific candidate (Romney could conceivably end up with 0).

This is so far removed from one-person-one-vote that I don't know how to interpret it.

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/WY-R.phtml

Posted by Jinchi | January 16, 2008 7:20 PM

Romney is clearly the frontrunner as he continues to win Republican voters by a wide margin. I have said this for months and will continue to-he is the orthodox conservative candidate. He is the Fox News candidate. The talk radio candidate and the preferred mouthpiece of the influential blogs. They are the primary voters and they will elect the Republican nominee. He has them hook, line and sinker, even got Hewitt to write a book about him. And he is smart. Last night he starts channeling Edwards in his acceptance speech, going all populist about scared Washington lobbyists knowing that he won the nomination last night and has turned his attention to his message in the general. And what can the establishment do about that? Nothing. They have hammered McCain into the ground too far. Romney may have even flipped on the good old boys too/

He may lose SC and/or Fla but with all the pub he is going to get with primary voters he will gain and possibly win in 1 or 2 of those states. All primary voters pay attention to are the above media outlets as the rest is "liberal media" in their mind and they are hell bent (minus evangelicals of course) on not having McCain pushed down their throats. The venom toward McCain from the blogs and talk radio is outrageous. They act like the guy wants to lead us down the Soviet path.

So Romney is their guy and they are all that matter in the primary. And Romney will not be beaten by Clinton or Obama in the general. Don't think too hard about it, don't rationally analyze who is better. As we have seen, general elections don't turn on policy analysis. He is rich, white, tall, good-looking and can speak competently (at least sounding that way-forget the policies). Doesn't go any farther than that in the general election.

Posted by PaulE | January 16, 2008 7:42 PM

"Um, the State of New York City? It may have five counties, but it's still just a city, not a state."

My bad, I probably shouldn't post on painkillers; I'm still recovering from a fractured vertebra I got in a sledding accident not long ago. Speaking of which, I should leave the computer and lie down, so I can take this damned "Jewett brace" off. Who invented it, the Marquee de Sade?

Posted by Brett Bellmore | January 16, 2008 8:19 PM

Isn't the likely ticket Romney-Huckabee, the National Review crowd would think Huck would appeal to the unwashed and neutralise the Mormon problem? Business (Romey) + social conservatives (Huckabee) > neo-cons (Guiliani) + moderates (McCain)

Posted by Geoff Robinson | January 16, 2008 10:04 PM

McCain is still the favorite.
Romney has less than a 1 in 5 chance of winning.
Come on Matt, put your reputation on the line
Does Romney have a better than 20% chance of winning the nomination or not?
Posted by neil wilson

Romney is actually now a little better than 40% to get the nomination. McCain 30%. Rudy at 10% and still slowly dropping as his numbers go down even in Florida.
McCain, Rudy, and Thompson are rated in "OK-health" but with cancer histories.
Hillary is in very good health, along with Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee.
Obama and Edwards are considered in superb health, joining Romney in that category.

I think this is an election where voters want a healthy, vigorous President. Not an old man every bit his age older than Reagan was, who was healthier than his years, when 1st elected. Or a Tsongas that dies a year after running for Prez.

*****************
(Not frontrunner) -For the same reason we don't call the leader in the Boston marathon the frontrunner after the first mile.
Because it's a trivial point in the race. There are nearly 2500 delegates to be counted. Mitt currently has about 40 delegates
Jinchi

Not true. Both the media and donors use the early contests to weed out the pack. Basically by starving the early back of the pack runners of money and free media (Bye Dennis! Look, sorry, you don't deserve 1/4 of the Dem's debate time
as you have no chance to win. You have a court order? So what! We have a bigger court order. Don't let the door hit your wierd ass going out! Bye!)

Whereas frontrunners get to go on to Super Tuesday. And fight for donor bucks.

********************
Ken - But Clinton is in a far better position on this issue than Romney because:

"1) the favorable impression the electorate has of Bill Clinton and his record eight years of peace and prosperity. His policies worked and everyone was better off. His approval rating is still the highest among any retired politician in America. This gives Hillary an advantage because voters will have not just a visualize of what to expect from her presidency they also have concrete memories/experience of just how good things can actually be."

Sorry, but once you get past housewife emotionalism, even they conceed there are good reasons why spouses of CEOs don't take the firm over, or why Nancy Reagan did not run in 1988.

"Romney has experience in business and in Massachusetts. Both of these will be to his benefit. The Democratic candidate will have to drive up his negative by hard hitting factual attacks on his record. Clinton has the experience and the steel to run this kind of campaign."

The question Obama and everyone else asks is WHAT experience?? Where is the documentation of that or her spending more than a few days in court on litigation or two law review submissions dating bac to the mid-70s in her 30 years career to justify Clintonistas placing her as one of the 100 top lawyers in the country?

"and 2) her experience and ability to be, as she claims, ready on day one. While there may be some scepticism about this from the pinheads at Atlantic, the public sees a hard working policy expert who knows how to get the job done. Some may think these are just campaign slogans, and they are, but have the ring of truth because she is careful to back up all her claims with fact."

Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul can both be charitably described as "hardworking policy experts". Neither is ready to be President from day one by virtue of Wonkitude, any more than Hillary! is.

"...Hillary Clinton is the only candidate with a record of successfully getting things done longer than does Romney. He can point to the Olympics, a one off event, she can point to S-Chip, a successful program still with us. Etc."

Sorry, that is laughable on it's face.

Posted by chris ford | January 17, 2008 3:22 AM

Redo the pie chart, Matt. Add a slice for the delegates that have not yet been chosen. Mitt's slice will then be tiny.

Posted by Joe Buck | January 17, 2008 11:48 AM

Not true. Both the media and donors use the early contests to weed out the pack.

But that doesn't tell you the frontrunner. The first mile of the marathon "weeds out the pack" too. All the amateurs drop away pretty quickly. You're left with a group of contenders but you don't have a frontrunner yet.

Posted by Jinchi | January 17, 2008 12:59 PM

This thing does not "remember personal info;" at least not for me.

Anyway, slight correction. Romney's not "a viable candidate for the establishment to back;" he's always been the establishment candidate the the race. The media gin up fake "he's up; he's down" narratives and try to blow up each small caucus/primary step in the process into the definitive Apocalypse, but that's never been true in the real world. As you note, in the real world, delegates count.

In other news of the real world: Huckabee's always been the evangelical choice, and McCain has always been the guy who the indys like but the establishment doesn't like. The only candidate whose status has changed markedly has been Rudy's change from Mayor 9/11 Hero to What's Wrong With That Guy? Guy.

What I don't understand is the media conspiracy of silence to keep the good news of Sanjaya's campaign out of the public discourse.

Posted by Daddy Love | January 17, 2008 5:41 PM