A Big Warning Sign for Mitt Romney

[Kaine for Senate '18]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/48336.html

[Mr. Morden]

Too early to say if this means anything, as very few people are willing to endorse before you announce your campaign.  But yeah, obviously if he goes ahead with skipping Iowa:

http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2011/01/romney-aides-di.php

then he's not going to get a lot of support from his former operatives in Iowa.

[Napoleon]

As many of the comments said yesterday, who is going to be lining up behind an unannounced campaign? It makes sense for an old man with no political future such as H.W. but why would someone like DeMint who benefits from waiting or camaign operatives who are looking for work endorse a non-existent campaign. The establishment will flock to whoever has the best shot between Romney and Daniels, most likely Romney due to Daniels' call for truce on social issues.

[Iosif]

Politico's opinion pieces have been awful lately.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Politico's opinion pieces haves been awful lately.

FYP

[feeblepizza]

He would be better off skipping Iowa so he can improve his image in New Hampshire.

[anvi]

Iowa will be an important swing state in the '12 general.  I don't imagine Iowa GOP voters will take kindly to a candidate who skips their caucuses.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Iowa will be an important swing state in the '12 general.  I don't imagine Iowa GOP voters will take kindly to a candidate who skips their caucuses.

On the other hand is Romney who needs it the least, as he has the best chance to bring CO and NV back in line, based on his combination of Western+Suburban strength.

[anvi]

Well, assuming Indiana, North Carolina, Florida and Ohio come back to the GOP (a big assumption), the key states are Virginia, Colorado, Iowa, Nevada and New Hampshire.  Assuming the GOP candidate wins the first four states above, but doesn't win Virginia, they have to win Colorado and then take two out of the  three among Iowa, Nevada and New Hampshire.  Colorado and Nevada, even with Romney as the nominee, will be tough fights, and Romney's popularity in New Hampshire is iffy.  I don't think skipping Iowa altogether would be wise for Romney.  He doesn't have to win the primary there, but I think he should go there to at lease personally ingratiate himself to voters so that, if he is the nominee when the general comes around, the Iowa GOPers won't remember him as "the guy who blew us off."  And since Iowa has turned right since '08 anyway, it's best to actively solidify support there.

Unless circumstances turn it into a landslide, nothing can be taken for granted in presidential elections, and the Republicans have too much electoral ground to make up for their primary candidates to pass over early states that will be crucial in the general.

[Lief 🗽]

Politico's opinion pieces haves been awful lately.

FYP

Politico has always been pretty awful. Half the stories on that website are concern trolling.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Well, assuming Indiana, North Carolina, Florida and Ohio come back to the GOP (a big assumption), the key states are Virginia, Colorado, Iowa, Nevada and New Hampshire.  Assuming the GOP candidate wins the first four states above, but doesn't win Virginia, they have to win Colorado and then take two out of the  three among Iowa, Nevada and New Hampshire.  Colorado and Nevada, even with Romney as the nominee, will be tough fights, and Romney's popularity in New Hampshire is iffy.  I don't think skipping Iowa altogether would be wise for Romney.  He doesn't have to win the primary there, but I think he should go there to at lease personally ingratiate himself to voters so that, if he is the nominee when the general comes around, the Iowa GOPers won't remember him as "the guy who blew us off."  And since Iowa has turned right since '08 anyway, it's best to actively solidify support there.

Unless circumstances turn it into a landslide, nothing can be taken for granted in presidential elections, and the Republicans have too much electoral ground to make up for their primary candidates to pass over early states that will be crucial in the general.

I wish people would respond to what I wrote, instead of what they wished I had written. . I said that Romney has the best chance of the top four (Mitt, Huck, Sarah and Newt) of winning back CO and NV. This is because of his Western strength and connections, and his higher suburban appeal then the other three. I didn't say Romney would definately win them. Of course no state should be completely skipped, but Romney can't over invest himself in these places, either, like he did last time.  

[Mr. Morden]

I don't think Romney is going to do a full skip of Iowa, a la John McCain 2000, where he's explicit about it.  More likely, he'd do a half skip of Iowa (a la John McCain 2008), where he just shifts his attention to other states and quietly gives up on Iowa, without making a big song and dance over it.

The more immediate question is whether he participates in the straw poll.  But I guess he has six months to figure that out.

[anvi]

I wish people would respond to what I wrote, instead of what they wished I had written. . I said that Romney has the best chance of the top four (Mitt, Huck, Sarah and Newt) of winning back CO and NV. This is because of his Western strength and connections, and his higher suburban appeal then the other three. I didn't say Romney would definately win them.

You may have intended to say this, but that's not what you actually said in your initial post.  You said, with regard to my comment about Iowa, that "Romney needs it the least" based on his ability to win Colorado and Nevada (you did not mention the other candidates in your initial post).  I was trying to address what I understood to be your point by indicating that, if Romney doesn't win Iowa, he will have to win a few other states to make up for it in addition to Colorado.  But, whatever.  If Romney can pull off the big states I mentioned and win Colorado, Nevada and New Hampshire, then sure he doesn't need Iowa.  But it's a gamble.  It's best if he doesn't skip it entirely in the primaries, and that was my only point. 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I wish people would respond to what I wrote, instead of what they wished I had written. . I said that Romney has the best chance of the top four (Mitt, Huck, Sarah and Newt) of winning back CO and NV. This is because of his Western strength and connections, and his higher suburban appeal then the other three. I didn't say Romney would definately win them.

You may have intended to say this, but that's not what you actually said in your initial post.  You said, with regard to my comment about Iowa, that "Romney needs it the least" based on his ability to win Colorado and Nevada (you did not mention the other candidates in your initial post).  I was trying to address what I understood to be your point by indicating that, if Romney doesn't win Iowa, he will have to win a few other states to make up for it in addition to Colorado.  But, whatever.  If Romney can pull off the big states I mentioned and win Colorado, Nevada and New Hampshire, then sure he doesn't need Iowa.  But it's a gamble.  It's best if he doesn't skip it entirely in the primaries, and that was my only point. 

No I said in exact words "Best chance to bring NV and CO back in line". I didn't say "based on his ability to win CO and NV". The different being the former means to bring in line with with national margin or more Republican then that. The difference is Romney could lose in a landslide and may statement still being correct if the margins are at or bolow the national ones, where as this is not the case with your rendition of what I said.

[GeorgiaSenator]

When he came out of the country club for for open homosexual military soldiers it was over for him.

[Yelnoc]

When he came out of the country club for for open homosexual military soldiers it was over for him.

Oh come on, even Cheney supported repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell. 

Besides I doubt that will be a big news item in six months; I had already forgotten about it.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Screw Dick Cheney, Pat Toomey even supported that.

[DS0816]

Iowa will be an important swing state in the '12 general.  I don't imagine Iowa GOP voters will take kindly to a candidate who skips their caucuses.

If the Republicans win back the White House in 2012, "Iowa will be an important swing state in the '12 general." If President Obama wins re-election in 2012, Iowa will be in his column again, and with a margin very close to his national margin.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Iowa will be an important swing state in the '12 general.  I don't imagine Iowa GOP voters will take kindly to a candidate who skips their caucuses.

If the Republicans win back the White House in 2012, "Iowa will be an important swing state in the '12 general." If President Obama wins re-election in 2012, Iowa will be in his column again, and with a margin very close to his national margin.

I want to see Romney's performance in a Colorado poll. If like in Nevada, he does substantially better then Huckabee there, then I will reiterate my point the Romney needs Iowa the least "based on his ability to bring CO and NV back in line"

Hard to beleive that was 7 days ago that I said that. Damn time flies.

[jbgator]

Romney is a Giuliani-type frontrunner at the moment, relying only on name recognition.  He will get ripped apart as the campaign heats up.  The question is: can he recover like McCain did?

[Fritz]

I haven't seen any Republicans advocating a platform of reinstating Don't Ask, Don't Tell.  Have you?

This issue has been decided, and thus is no longer an issue.

[Landslide Lyndon]

I haven't seen any Republicans advocating a platform of reinstating Don't Ask, Don't Tell.  Have you?

This issue has been decided, and thus is no longer an issue.

Actually Tim Pawlenty of all people has made reinstatement of DADT a staple of his stump speech lately. He even called for Republicans to withhold the funds that Pentagon asked to implement the repeal.

[Fritz]

Pawlenty??  Good God.

Thanks for the info.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

I haven't seen any Republicans advocating a platform of reinstating Don't Ask, Don't Tell.  Have you?

This issue has been decided, and thus is no longer an issue.

Actually Tim Pawlenty of all people has made reinstatement of DADT a staple of his stump speech lately. He even called for Republicans to withhold the funds that Pentagon asked to implement the repeal.

If they would have listened to the generals instead of congress, we wouldn't be having this discussion. With that..... Good move T-Paw

[Kaine for Senate '18]

If they would have listened to the generals instead of congress, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

You mean the Generals who came to Congress and said to repeal DADT, right?