Mitt Romney wins Iowa straw poll

[Sisyphus]

NYTimes article:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/us/politics/12straw.html

 

I realize this is a very poor indicator of future success, but it does, at least at this point, make him "the man to beat" among the Republicans, and should gather him so momentum. Romney got 32%, Mike Huckabee got 18%, and Sam Brownback got 15%. Neither Giuliani nor McCain participated, presumably out of fear that a poor showing in a venue dominated by hard right-wingers and social conservatives would hurt their chances later on.

 

I don't have much commentary personally beyond saying the field looks pretty bleak, as I can't think of anything good to say about Romney or the other two. At this stage social conservatives are carrying the day, but I guess that's to be expected in the early primary.

[CPL.Luke]

it should also be noted that nationally giuliani is the frontrunner for the republicans

[Pangloss]

Yeah as I understand it he didn't spend much in Iowa for the straw poll. I'm not sure why, I'm not well-read on that, but I believe historically it's been a useful bellweather, but for some reason it's not seen as useful this time around. That doesn't mean Romney didn't get anything out of it, though -- just the fact that he came in first will gain him some useful PR going into the real primaries, beginning with the Iowa Caucus, where of course he's already done well.

 

There's been some talk about the Caucus moving up to December. This is another area where I lack information, specifically as to what technical issues stop these various states from moving their primaries up to, say, tomorrow. I'm sure there are costs involved and plannings to do, but you'd think there would be enough time to plan and execute a November primary, for example, especially since this has been on every political functionary's front burner for over a year now. I suspect the real reason has to do with intangible opinions about the fickle public and its voting habits (e.g. "I have to vote during the Christmas holidays? Are you nuts?!").

[john5746]

I think Romney will be the eventual Republican candidate. He will win Iowa and should fare well in New Hampshire as well. He is a true fiscal conservative and is trying to be seen as a true social conservative as well. He has to do better in the South though. If you can't beat Guiliani in South Carolina, forget it.

 

Skipping the Iowa poll was a strategic move. They knew they could not win, so they cut Romney's victory short.

[CDarwin]

Yeah as I understand it he didn't spend much in Iowa for the straw poll. I'm not sure why, I'm not well-read on that, but I believe historically it's been a useful bellweather, but for some reason it's not seen as useful this time around. That doesn't mean Romney didn't get anything out of it, though -- just the fact that he came in first will gain him some useful PR going into the real primaries, beginning with the Iowa Caucus, where of course he's already done well.

 

There's been some talk about the Caucus moving up to December. This is another area where I lack information, specifically as to what technical issues stop these various states from moving their primaries up to, say, tomorrow. I'm sure there are costs involved and plannings to do, but you'd think there would be enough time to plan and execute a November primary, for example, especially since this has been on every political functionary's front burner for over a year now. I suspect the real reason has to do with intangible opinions about the fickle public and its voting habits (e.g. "I have to vote during the Christmas holidays? Are you nuts?!").

 

By state law, the New Hampshire primary is before the primary of every other state. That's the only statute I know about.

[Pangloss]

I've heard about that one, and if memory serves the Iowa Caucus has to run X number of days before New Hampshire, also by state law. But don't quote me on it.

 

This fight to move primaries forward is going to have some blowback, sooner or later, and one thing to watch for will be what George Will calls "Buyer's Remorse". The religious right, for example, is so sour on the current crop of candidates that it may not get around to picking its man until after New Hampshire, and that could really throw a monkey wrench into the traditional prognosticating.

[ParanoiA]

From Wiki:

 

New Hampshire state law requires the primary to take place seven days before any other "similar contest," which state officials have always interpreted to mean any contest other than Iowa's caucus. The Republican Party, meanwhile, has maintained its support of the current primary calendar. New Hampshire officials indicate they will force candidates who want to campaign in the state to follow New Hampshire rules and skip any primary that is "too close" in time. It is unlikely that a serious candidate could risk skipping New Hampshire with its vast media attention. Furthermore the penalty for breaking DNC rules is trivial: the National Convention can strip away the delegates won in New Hampshire--but those are few. Of course, the Presidential nominee controls the convention and is unlikely to strip away his or her own delegates.

 

I'm having a problem understanding that second bit in bold though. Are they saying that New Hampshire demands any politician campaigning in their state to refrain from participating in any primary that isn't 7 days after theirs? I know I can't be reading that right.

[Sisyphus]

No, that's right. The people of New Hampshire are crazy about their primaries.

[Pangloss]

That's interesting; it would seem to answer (at least in part) my question about why a state doesn't push a primary up to (say) next Tuesday. It could be as simple as not wanting to PO New Hampshirites (New Hamphirees? New Hampsters??).

 

The system has been broken for some time now, and never worked all that great to begin with. IMO parties should choose their candidate in a national election, all on the same day, dispensing with delegates altogether. I realize that slightly favors larger population areas over smaller ones, but not that much given the information age, and these particular candidates aren't supposed to represent specific geographical areas -- they represent the country as a whole. It's time we elected them in such a manner.

 

Not only would that reduce the overwhelming power of small states over large ones, it would also reduce the influence of party extremists. The candidate would have to swing moderate even during the primary process, instead of the hypocritical pendulum swings we see now.

[ParanoiA]

Maybe it would also help to keep fringe candidates from being dismissed so easily. If New Hampshire basically ignores Ron Paul, he's not going to be seriously considered in subsequent primaries, even if he would have done better in them. But if they're basically simultaneous, New Hampshire wouldn't have that kind of deterministic clout.

 

Not that I'm all that well versed in part of the process....

[Pangloss]

"Well George I've just spent the last 45 minutes praying to the lord that you were going to call on me."

-- Dennis Kucinich, during the debate Sunday, when asked whether he believes in god.