In my blog yesterday, I pointed out how Mitt Romney leads among all Republican Presidential candidates for total votes, delegates, states won, and money raised. When I wrote my blog, however, it was before all the votes had fully been counted and the delegate estimates were still in flux. At that time, I reported that Romeny had won 12 delegates and McCain 9. However, now that the dust has settled and the estimates more firmed up, it turns out that Romney's blow out win in Michigan is a lot more sizable. As it stands now, Romney won 24 delegates, McCain only won 5, and Huckabee 1. (I went back and updated the count in yesterday's blog.)
This is HUGE and gives Romney a massive lead in delegates. Romney now has more delegates than all the other candidates combined!
Let's see what this means for Romney, going into Super Tuesday, EVEN IF HE LOSES Nevada, South Carolina, and/or Florida.
Let's look at the current polls (most of which have not yet taken into account any "bump" from Romney's MI win), as well as the delegates up for grab in these three states before Super Tuesday:
Nevada - 34 delegates
If you take the last four polls as of today, average them together, it looks like this:
Now, these assumptions will certainly be in flux. As I mentioned, most of the poll numbers I used were taken before Romney's strong win in Michigan. It's likely he'll do much better in all three of these sates. (I predict Romney will win Nevada and come in first or second in SC and FL.) Also, many of the other candidates are running low on funds and some could certainly bow out along the way, which would shift votes and effect things. However, under ANY scenario, come Super Tuesday, Romney will have a bucket full of delegates and a pocket full of funds. If we go into Super Tuesday with only two or three candidates remaining, it's quite clear Romney will be one of them.
My message to the mainstream media: It's the delegates, stupid!
With the first four states (Iowa, New Hampshire, Wyoming, Michigan) now having had their Republican primary and caucus elections, if you haven't been keeping score, here is a quick run down to catch you up...
Which candidate has won the most states?Mitt Romney
Romney has won two (Michigan and Wyoming), Huckabee one (Iowa), and McCain one (New Hampshire).
Which candidate has won the biggest state? Mitt Romney
Michigan cast around 850,000 votes. Iowa and New Hampshire COMBINED only cast less than half that amount, around 350,000.
Which candidate has gotten the most votes for all the states combined? Mitt Romney
Which candidate has the most money to continue on to future states? Mitt Romney
In addition to the impressive amount raised, Romney also has a sizable personal wealth he can call upon to get his message out in upcoming states. Many of the other candidates are low on funds.
It's interesting what states are anointed by the press as "important." I don't know how many times I've heard the talking heads from the press say, "But Romney needs to WIN something!" If I were a Wyomian, I'd be starting to have an identity crisis.
News Flash to the Press: Romney WON Wyoming back on January 5th. Mitt Romney won more delegates by winning Wyoming (8 delegates) than John McCain did by winning New Hampshire (7 delegates).
I fail to see what makes Iowa and New Hampshire so much more qualified to be the barometer of politics and covered by the national media, while Wyoming is completely ignored.
The most interesting turn of events in NH was the Hillary win. All the polls before the primary had Obama winning and his "change" message seemed like it was going to swing Obama all the way.
But, here's what I think may have happened....
40% of the voters in NH are registered as independent (undeclared). These voters can vote in either the Republican or Democrat primary. I think these voters listened to all the polls on Tuesday and assumed the Republican race would be the close one and that they would be wasting their vote on the Democrat side, so they decided to vote for McCain instead of Obama. This was good for McCain and Hillary, but bad for Obama and Romney. It shouldn't have been a surprise, however, that McCain did well among independents, because the very things that upsets Republicans about McCain, are the things that make independents feel that McCain is an "independent" type of politician.
McCain has upset Republicans on several occasions, including McCain-Feingold, his vote against the Bush tax cuts, his support for the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007, and so on. This has made him unpopular with many Republicans, but popular with independents. (If you're not familiar with McCain, I'd encourage you to read about him on Wikipedia.)
Where does this leave Romney? Here are some things to consider:
Romney won Wyoming, and came in second in Iowa and New Hampshire.
McCain had an edge in NH, because he left Iowa to go work on NH. However, while McCain only won 7 delegates in NH, because Romney choose to run in Iowa, Romney won 12 delegates in Iowa by taking second place! (NH only has 12 delegate slots, after having been penalized for moving their primary up.)
Romney has more delegates than any other Republican candidate. (See image below.)
In the first three state races, Romney has... - beaten McCain 2 out of 3 times - beaten Huckabee 2 out of 3 times - beaten Rudy 3 out of 3 times - beaten Thompson 3 out of 3 times - beaten Ron Paul and all others 3 out of 3 times.
Romney is the only candidate who has beaten EVERY OTHER candidate AT LEAST TWO out of THREE times.
Romney raised more money than any of the Republican candidates and has the resources to continue fighting.
Of course it's great to win states, but it's delegates that matter. The candidate to get 1,191 delegates gets the nomination. There are winner-take-all states, so it's important that Romney start to see more momentum, but there isn't momentum for anyone else yet either, so it's still wide open.
Thompson could actually do well in South Carolina. This means, by the time we get to Florida, there could still be FIVE contenders: Romney, McCain, Huckabee, Thompson, and Rudy.
Lots can happen between now and then. For example, the stock market is taking a beating. People should be looking for someone who understands economic growth to help our economy, that's Romney. How the rest of the country will respond to the bible-thumping tv-evangelistic Huckabee, or the 71-year-old, life-time politician, McCain, has yet to be determined.
Kevin
PS: If you watched McCain's victory speech, it was quite unimpressive. HE READ IT!!! (And even at that, he stumbled at times.) Go look at the inpromptued remarks by Romney after the results were announced, and then go look at McCain's victory speech. If Obama gets the nomination from the Democrats, he'll eat McCain's lunch on the stump. Note to McCain: Don't READ your victory speech!!! Anyone can READ a well-written speech by who-knows-who, but to win on the stump in the national election, you better know how to inspire people, not just read to them.
In my blog yesterday I compared the primary election process to the reality TV show Survivor. I mentioned how Romney really needed to "win immunity" to ward off the attack from the Rudy/McCain/Huckabee alliance "voting him off." Romney's best chance to do this was in the debate Sunday night.
Did he do it? According to the Fox focus group, he very well may have done just that. Take a look...
Luntz: Romney Hit A Home Run Tonight Sunday, Jan 06, 2008 10:14 PM EDT
Focus Group: Romney Can Beat Obama Sunday, Jan 06, 2008 09:54 PM EDT
Other comments about the debate:
Fox News' Chris Wallace: "As far as Mitt Romney, I thought it was the best he has done in any of the debates I have seen. Not only the performance and the demeanor which was quite commanding." (Fox News' "Live," 1/6/08)
ABC News' Rick Klein: "I do think, for late-breaking voters, Romney comes across well because he's in command of his facts and looks very, very presidential." (Rick Klein, "Live Blogging During GOP Forum," ABC News' Political Radar Blog, http://blogs.abcnews.com/, Posted 1/6/08)
Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "Mitt Romney, in my view, was the winner. His answers were crisp, knowledgeable, and poised. He was solid on each substantive issue and effective in defending his so-called attack ads. My guess is that he's cemented himself as the choice of Republicans in New Hampshire...." (Paul Mirengoff, "My Impressions Of Tonight's Debate," Power Line Blog, http://www.powerlineblog.com/, Posted 1/6/08)
Time Magazine's Joe Klein: "Mitt Romney – even though under assault constantly in Saturday night's debate – has had two of his best debate performances yet." (Joe Klein, " McCain's Lost Weekend," Time's The Swampland Blog, http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/, Posted 1/6/08)
RedState's Erick Erickson: "As for the actual candidates. I think Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney did the best tonight. Mitt seemed even paced all night." (Erick Erickson, "Winners And Losers Tonight," RedState Blog, http://www.redstate.com/, Posted 1/6/08)
National Review's Rich Lowry: "[Romney] spoke forcefully and put the case for himself as the reformist businessman in the best possible light. I think he basically dominated the first hour, and fell off a tab after that, but otherwise was truly excellent. His best performance yet, in very high pressure circumstances. His answers on taxes, job creation, and immigration were top notch." (Rich Lowry, "Romney & McCain In Fine Form," National Review's The Corner Blog, http://corner.nationalreview.com/, Posted 1/6/08)
The American Spectator's Quin Hillyer: "Romney does a great job explaining the characteristics needed in a president (and why executive leadership trumps Senate leadership and why executive leadership is more important than specific foreign policy expertise)." (Quin Hillyer, "After Commercial," The American Spectator's Blog, http://www.spectator.org/, Posted 1/6/08)
National Review's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "Romney was gracious on-point tonight. Good for him. This nomination fight isn't close to over. Thankfully." (Kathryn Jean Lopez, "A Good Night," National Review's The Corner Blog, corner.nationalreview.com, Posted 1/6/08)
Conservative Blogger's William Smith: "Mitt Romney had the performance of the night. He was prepared. He was solid. He defended his record and drew specific contrast between himself and his opponents. Romney pulled off the kind of performance that should only add to his lead." (William Smith, "Thoughts On Tonight's FOX News Republican Forum..." Conservative Blogger, http://www.conservativeblogger.com/, Posted 1/6/08)
The American Spectator's Jennifer Rubin: "Romney was very solid and effective on defending Bush tax cuts." (Jennifer Rubin, "Taxes," The American Spectator's Blog, www.spectator.org, Posted 1/6/08)
The New York Times' Michael Cooper: "It was the Republican Debate, Episode II: Mitt Romney Strikes Back." (Michael Cooper, "G.O.P. Rematch: Romney Fires First Round," The New York Times The Caucus, http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com, Posted 1/6/08)
- Cooper: "...Mr. Romney came out swinging Sunday night during the opening minutes of a Republican presidential forum that was broadcast on Fox News." (Michael Cooper, "G.O.P. Rematch: Romney Fires First Round," The New York Times The Caucus, http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com, Posted 1/6/08)
National Review's Jim Geraghty: "Romney, responding to Huckabee after one of his populist riffs: 'You're not going to help the wage earner in America by attacking the wage payer.' Boom. One of his best lines of the night. Is that an old Reagan line?" (Jim Geraghty, "Are We Watching Romney Get Up Off the Mat?" National Review's The Campaign Spot, http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com, Posted 1/6/08)
Hot Air Blog's Bryan Preston: "So far they've gone two rounds against each other directly. ... I'd score both rounds for Romney, with a solid knock down in the second one." (Bryan, "Videos: Mitt And Mike Go A Couple Of Rounds," Hot Air Blog, http://hotair.com/, Posted 1/6/07)
Politico's Jonathan Martin: "A prepared Mitt is out of the gates strong on his message, dinging McCain and Huck on taxes. And he even showed that he, too, knows how to wield the knife. 'You make up facts faster than you talk,' Mitt jabbed. Then, after the Arkansan responded to a question about whether he'd raised taxes by saying he had 'raised jobs,' Mitt nailed him again: 'That's political-speak.'" (Jonathan Martin, "A Prepared Mitt Is Out Of The Gates Strong," Politico, http://www.politico.com/blogs/, Posted 1/6/08)
American Spectator's Quin Hillyer: "Romney does a great job responding saying the old truth that you don't help the wage earner by attacking the wage payer. Explains his point well." (Quin Hillyer, "Next Round," American Spectator Blog, http://www.spectator.org/, Posted 1/6/08)
National Review's Mark Hemingway: "...Luntz's focus group on Fox. They loved him [Romney]." (Mark Hemingway, "Romney Just Blew The Roof Off," National Review's The Corner, http://corner.nationalreview.com, Posted 1/6/08)
National Review's Mark Levin: "I agree with the Fox focus group in that Romney was great." (Mark Levin, "I Will Second That," National Review's The Corner, http://corner.nationalreview.com/, Posted 1/6/08)
So, DID Romney win "immunity?"
We'll have to wait until Tuesday night to find out, but he certainly has given it his best shot.
I'm sure many of you have watched the reality TV show Survivor. The one thing I really dislike about that series, is the strongest player almost never makes it until the end and wins. The concept of "may the best person win," rarely happens on Survivor. Why? Because the way the voting works on the show creates a dynamic where the weaker players are forced to ally themselves together to vote out the strongest player. After the tribes merge, the strongest player has a big X on his back, and becomes the target of the weaker players. If you've seen the show, you know exactly what I'm talking about, and you'll also understand how this same dynamic is playing out currently in the Republican primary.
Who is the strong player everyone is ganging up on? Mitt Romney.
Mitt Romney had big leads in both Iowa and New Hampshire, and it was starting to look like he was going to take it all. No other single "player" was competitive in ALL of the early states, only Romney, so no one dared take him on one-on-one, so they formed an alliance.
Rudy was a no show in the early states, McCain, looking old and tired, was sinking in the national polls and in Iowa, and Huckabee was a no-show in New Hampshire and the other states where they didn't have a strong Evangelical Christian base. Romney was the ONLY candidate in a position to win the first few states. So, what did these weaker players do? The same thing the weaker players on Survivor do, they formed an alliance to take out the strongest player, giving them a chance.
An alliance formed between Rudy, Huckabee and McCain. Rudy needed Huckabee to take Romeny out in Iowa and McCain to take Romney out in New Hampshire. So, these three weaker candidates started gaining up on Romney. If you watched the Republican debate tonight, it was very clear who everyone was gunning for.
Once in a great while, the strong player on Survivor is able to win enough "immunity challenges" to actually make it to the end. It's very rare, but happens occasionally. If Romney can win in New Hampshire, he will have foiled the Rudy/McCain/Huckabee alliance's strategy. If he can't, just as is usually the case with Survivor, a less capable player will win the crown. (After the alliance takes out Romney, they then need to turn on themselves, fighting over which of these three now gets to take the lead if Romney is out. My guess is it will be McCain, leaving Rudy and Huckabee with the short end of their alliance.)
The real loser, however, should this happen, is the Republican party. The winner? The Democrats, who will have a field day with Huckabee, and stand a greater chance against the weaker, "grumpy old man" McCain or Rudy.
If you ever jump into Survivor in the middle of the season, having missed the first few episodes, and you want to know who the strongest player is, just look for the one everyone else is trying to take out of the game. You don't see any alliances to take out Rudy, McCain, Huckabee, Thompson, or Paul, because none of them really fears any of the others, because they all have weaknesses that can be exploited. Romney is the one candidate that is strong enough it will take an alliance to take him out. For the sake of the Republican party, I hope this doesn't happen, and the strongest player stays in the game to take on the Democrats.
Kevin
PS: Something worth watching about Mike Huckabee by Glen Beck, who was recovering from surgery:
I also wanted to comment on this ad by John McCain...
McCain never specifically went after the "bridge to nowhere," in fact, he was absent for key votes on its funding.
McCain never proposed cutting the bear study and actually voted for the final bill containing it.
McCain wasn't present for the most important votes on the Woodstock museum, including one on an amendment he co-sponsored to kill the earmark and divert some of the funds.
If you're going to go after these pork projects, you need to be there to vote against them.
The results from the Iowa caucuses are now in. For the Republicans, it went: 1) Huckabee, 2) Romney, and 3) Thompson. For the Democrats, 1) Obama, 2) Edwards, and 3) Clinton.
The big story coming out of the Iowa caucus was the solid victory by Obama and Huckabee. I've heard some say they "under estimated" Mike Huckabee. I think rather, they OVER estimated the insight of the people in Iowa and value of the Iowa caucuses in electing the president.
Historically, Iowa has ALMOST NEVER picked the candidate who ultimately becomes president. Let's review the winners of the last eight presidential elections, and how they faired in the Iowa caucuses:
2004 - George W. Bush - Was unopposed in the Iowa caucus 2000 - George W. Bush - Came in 1st in Iowa caucus 1996 - Bill Clinton - Was unopposed in Iowa caucus 1992 - Bill Clinton - Came in FOURTH in Iowa caucus with ONLY 3% of the vote 1988 - George H. W. Bush - Came in THIRD in the Iowa caucus with 19% of the vote 1984 - Ronald Reagan - Was unopposed in the Iowa caucus 1980 - Ronald Reagan - Came in SECOND in the Iowa caucus with 30% of the vote 1976 - Jimmy Carter - Came in SECOND in the Iowa caucus (behind "uncommitted") with 28% of the vote
So, as you can see, in the last 8 elections, if the candidate was opposed,Iowa only picked the winner of the general election ONE TIME!(George W. Bush in 2000.) Iowa seems to be good at picking losing candidates, but not so good at picking winners. So, before Huckabee and Obama do too much celebrating, they should remember the MANY candidates who won the Iowa caucus for their party, and then went on to lose in the race for president, such as John Kerry, Bob Dole, Al Gore, Gerald Ford, Tom Harkin, Richard Gephardt, Walter Mondale, and Jimmy Carter (2nd term). As opposed to Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and Jimmy Carter (1st term), who did NOT come in first in their party's Iowa caucus, but went on to win the Presidency.
Iowa hardly represents a cross section of America. Polls showed that among Republican caucus goers, 60% identified themselves as "Evangelical Christians," and Huckabee got pretty much all of their votes. I'm not sure there was anything Romney could have done to get that group to NOT vote for a "Baptist minister." Unfortunately for Huckabee, this same dynamic will not carry over for him in New Hampshire and many other states.
Because Obama won, he'll get a lot of the press this week and will likely pull many of the independent voters in NH to vote in the Democratic election, rather than for John McCain, making a Romney victory there quite possible.
I'm actually looking forward to finally have Romney be seen as the underdog. The story is now everywhere else besides with Romney (Huckabee, McCain, Obama, etc.), so he has a chance to be the "comeback kid," as was Bill Clinton in 1992.
Romney started in Iowa at like 2%, and finished tonight with a respectable 2nd place and 25% of the vote. If history repeats itself, this is right where he wants to be.
This is HUGE and gives Romney a massive lead in delegates. Romney now has more delegates than all the other candidates combined!
Posts
