Posted on 01/04/2008 9:02:14 AM PST by xzins
1. Iowa is a cross section of middle-America, a place of smaller city and rural people. They are traditional families, traditional religion, traditional values and traditional patriotism.
2. This group totally rejected New York radical liberal Rudy Giuliani.
3. As word of Romney's chameleon-like, slick, flippy/floppiness on his pro- gay agenda and pro-abortion history permeated Iowa the last 2 weeks of the campaign, average Americans turned away from him. Everyone is learning that Romney has recently proclaimed that the Boy Scouts need to include gays and not discriminate because of "sexual orientation."
4. Romney's huge cash expenditures, trying to buy votes from his personal & family fortunes, proved again that middle Americans don't take kindly to rich men trying to buy political power. (The same would happen if George Soros were allowed to run for public office.) It happened when Steve Forbes, Ross Perot, and John Kerry ran.
5. There is much work that remains to bury these two devil-in-the-details candidacies, but, hopefully, Iowa spells the beginning of the end of the 2008 liberal republican insurgency. The focus should remain on Giuliani's clear record of radical liberalism and on Romney's flip/flop Massachusett's pro-gay agenda, pro-abortion liberalism.
Loser: Mitt Romney
Spent a gagillion dollars in Iowa and lost to Huckabee who spent thirteen bucks. In fact, he lost big. Getting your ass handed to you in one of the states that was supposed to propel you forward is not a good sign, to say the least. People just don't like this guy.
I dont like Romney either, but let’s wait for the next caucus before we start making conclusions.
Tooty fruity Rudy didn’t campaign in Iowa so he’s excused.
No, the biggest loser is for all conservatives, don’t you get it?
To: F15Eagle
Which Iowa caucus winner would be more likely to get your vote for president?
Mike Huckabee 38% 25901
Barack Obama 62% 41765
Total Votes: 67666
15 posted on 01/04/2008 10:39:49 AM EST by TLI ( ITINERIS IMPENDEO VALHALLA)
Rudy didn’t campaign because they detested him.
He doesn’t get a pass because he didn’t campaign.
In fact, that should be a first sign that he’s rejected in middle America.
*****************
That's Romney's biggest weakness, imho. Although he has some die-hard fans whose loyalty sometimes verges on worship, far too many find him to be slick and cold.
Hillary and Edwards were the big losers too. Edwards needed to become the anti-Hillary vote, but with the win Obama did. And Hillary because the anti-Hillary vote was much larger than expected.
That’s just a turnout issue. The dems were more motivated by the choice between edwards, obama, clinton. Clinton is a lightning rod, so it doesn’t surprise me.
Good points about the dems.
I was just dealing with the Republicans.
President Bush defeated Kerry by only ~10,000 votes in Iowa in 2004. Rudy guarantees we lose those 7 electoral votes, given Obama, Edwards, and Hillary's numbers last night.
Huckabee’s win is an excellent reminder that the religious conservative part of the Republican party cannot be discarded.
I don't think anyone "lost". Mitt went down a little bit, but I think there was enough of a forwarning that Huck could win Iowa to soften that blow. If he doesn't show strong in New Hampshire, then you may have a point.
If McCain wins New Hampshire, then Rudy is still strong in the race. Because with having other campaigns split the wins, it gives no one the front runner status. That is what Rudy's campaign has been counting on. He wants the race still in a flux by the times his strong states come up.
Rudy didn’t lose ... he pled nolo contendere.
According to Intrade, it was Thompson’s dropout contract that rose 25 points after Iowa. His nomination contracts have become “more of a bargain” for those who want to put their money where their mouth is and maybe even make money as a result.
Rudy pled nolo contendere...
Not exactly correct. Rudy began courting Iowa and got the cold shoulder. He then decided that it would be best not to be directly beaten, so he played rope-a-dope.
The truth is that middle-American Iowans detested him. Otherwise, he’d have stayed in the kitchen.
Romney’s loss here is HUGE, given the amount of money he spent.
It is strategically devastating too in terms of the Republican Party. Romney’s been rejected by the religious conservative base, and that message is getting spread around.
What it means is simple:
Romney CANNOT win a national campaign. He will be deserted by those who don’t care for his pro-gay agenda, pro-abortion history.
This is a devastating loss for Romney.
Hard to dispute your definition. It's a cross-section of a portion of america. Like it or not, there are other parts of america that think differently, some rightly, some wrongly.2. This group totally rejected New York radical liberal Rudy Giuliani.
Honestly, Giuliani didn't even ask them for a vote, so he's not the biggest loser, or even much of a loser. He wasn't "rejected", because he really wasn't a choice to be rejected.3. As word of Romney's chameleon-like, slick, flippy/floppiness on his pro- gay agenda and pro-abortion history permeated Iowa the last 2 weeks of the campaign, average Americans turned away from him. Everyone is learning that Romney has recently proclaimed that the Boy Scouts need to include gays and not discriminate because of "sexual orientation."Sure, he did that because he would probably get hammered, but since this post is about perceptions, the perception is that Giuliani was not a winner or a loser.
Right about what people "learned", wrong factually. Romney has no "pro-gay agenda", and he is strongly pro-life and has a pro-life history of action, even though he had a pro-choice past rhetoric. Romney has NOT recently or in the past proclaimed the Boy scouts "need" to do anything, but the truth wasn't a commodity in high regard in Iowa. You are partially right that Romney does not want to discriminate AGAINST gay people simply because they are attracted to the same sex, but I hope that is the view of most of the conservatives, because it is the proper conservative viewpoint.4. Romney's huge cash expenditures, trying to buy votes from his personal & family fortunes, proved again that middle Americans don't take kindly to rich men trying to buy political power. (The same would happen if George Soros were allowed to run for public office.) It happened when Steve Forbes, Ross Perot, and John Kerry ran.
I think this was a serious problem for Romney. I don't think it would have helped though if he raised more money and spent less of his own -- just BEING rich is a negative in some places, and Romney would have to overcome that negative. It helps that he is rich because of his own hard work, but it's not like he was ever a person without privilege.5. There is much work that remains to bury these two devil-in-the-details candidacies, but, hopefully, Iowa spells the beginning of the end of the 2008 liberal republican insurgency. The focus should remain on Giuliani's clear record of radical liberalism and on Romney's flip/flop Massachusett's pro-gay agenda, pro-abortion liberalism.
Huckabee is not to be trifled with, but getting the facts out about him has to be done carefully. Any negative comment that can be twisted into an attack on his religious nature will just bind his supporters closer to him.I've already noted that Romney has no "pro-gay" agenda -- as Mass. Gov he opposed gay marriage and civil unions, in 1994 he opposed gay marriage and civil unions, he opposes them today, supports a marriage amendment and DOMA, wants to leave "don't ask/don't tell up to the military leadership, and contrary to many assertions here, has never suggested any desire to force the Boy scouts into anything, but rather has specifically said that the Boy Scouts should be free to set their own rules.
On life, he is pro-life (well, as much as most of our candidates). He opposes government funding of stem cell research, appointing strict constructionist judges, says Roe V. Wade was improperly decided, supports parental notification laws and the partial birth abortion ban. He supports the Human Life amendment.
Mitt is what he is. A stiff, wonkish, data loving pol, who speaks in jargon. People don’t like it, or accept it. I don’t think it matter from here what Mitt does. He, like Hillary, have high negatives. If the Republican field clears out a bit, they’re not going to go to Mitt.
CharlesWayne once again you show calm and rationality. Thanks for the boost. I was beginning to despair.
In your opinion what does Romney have to do to get the momentum back? Or has his campaign really deflated? The latest Rasmussen Poll out this morning puts him only one point behind McCain as the national Repub frontrunner. Will a second place finish in New Hampshire (depsite a win in Wyoming) spell curtains for Romney?
One thing I kept telling myself last night was that Reagan came in second in Iowa in 1980 as well.
Well, first I hope and expect to see an e-mail from his campaign reiterating that they plan to continue working hard. That’s a given.
Next, he has to keep working hard to win Wyoming. It’s not much, but it will allow the headlines of “1 to 1” with Huckabee, rather than the current “loser”.
He’s got to NOT play it safe at the debate. He needs to counter the overwhelmingly negative press he’s gotten in New Hampshire. Those NHers love straight talk, and Romney has to show it to them.
I don’t know what else he can do. Electability is something that is hard I think to manage. He could soften up around the edges, but any really noticable change would be seen as pandering. He can address concerns as they arise, but he can’t dwell on negatives because he needs to keep on HIS message, not be answering other people’s issues.
He needs to get on the talk show circuit and laugh about the “conventional wisdom”, since the conventional wisdom is bad for him right now.
Oh, well — I’m not a campaign strategist, so I don’t really know. I assume that Romney, being the consumate professional that he is, planned for this contingency since it was clearly coming for a few weeks now.
The polls are a lagging indicator, unfortunately that means that if there is a negative hit from Iowa it will show up right before NH votes.
He needs to highlight his conservative differences with McCain, and find a “kind” way to highlight why it is we rejected McCain 8 years ago. But in NH, there’s almost nothing you can do to sink McCain, the love him.
In fact, Romney needed a strategy long ago that involved making him the OUTSIDER in NH to McCain’s “insider”. That way a near-win would be a positive, instead of a negative. Too late for that now.
Frankly, I think Romney should simply get back to communicating his conservative platform, and hope that conservatives decide it’s nice to have a candidate actually speaking their issues in a way they can understand and relate to.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.