The P-I's Strange Bedfellows blog covers a new poll in Iowa showing some surprising numbers in favor of Mitt Romney. The real story though isn't the specific poll numbers themselves, it's the increasing number of indicators showing growing strength for Romney in the two early Presidential election states everyone talks about.
Observers should rightly be wary of one poll as potential outlier, even if the Des Moines Register poll in question gets respect in some national circles. Yet, three recent polls in Iowa and two recent polls in New Hampshire all show the same trend of significant upward movement for Romney. In New Hampshire, he even seems to be breaking open a lead of sorts. Four different pollsters are involved in the surveys for these two states, meaning if nothing else the trend itself is likely true, regardless of specific numbers.
Certainly, there are caveats even in that analysis. The Des Moines Register poll excluded Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich, while 87% of likely Republican caucus goers "say they could still be persuaded to support another candidate as their first choice." And of course, two of the polls in question come John Zogby, of whose broader body of work many politicos remain rightly skeptical. To be fair to Zogby in this case, his 2004 tracking polls in Iowa did accurately catch the late break toward Kerry and Edwards, coupled with the slide of Dean and Gephardt. Thus, his numbers seem worth paying attention to, especially when they are being validated by other pollsters.
Aside from the polls themselves, more in depth observations of what's happening on the ground in Iowa and New Hampshire show a unifying correlation to Romney's success: he's investing time and resources, which is paying off. Something is clearly happening in Romney's favor in those states.
What all this means in late-May of 2007 is anyone's guess. The race is of course still incredibly fluid, particularly with Fred Thompson's expected candidacy as yet unannounced. At minimum Iowa looks like a statistical toss-up right now and New Hampshire might be tilting toward Romney. That in and of itself is a huge shift in the last couple months and a tremendous boost to Romney's campaign. It will be intriguing to see what effect Thompson's campaign has in those states now.
Also of interest given this significant shift among the current "Big Three" is the ongoing question of which candidates plan to focus on Iowa and New Hampshire, while others may choose to look beyond them to bigger delegate prizes just a bit later in the primary process. I remain convinced by this analysis (summarized well in this graph) of the closest election we can compare this Presidential race to - the 2004 Democratic Primary. In that race, success in Iowa and New Hampshire drove national polls, not vice versa.
If the same trend discussed in that study holds true in this cycle, the compact nature of the 2008 primary season will mean the winners of Iowa and New Hampshire will dominate news coverage - from the Old and New Media - kicking off a rapid succession of succeeding state contests. Granted, candidates will still need the resources to compete in those later, larger state primaries (money that will have to be raised this year), but a scenario where the losers of Iowa and New Hampshire have trouble getting traction after those early battles appears more plausible than not at the current time.
All this may mean good news for Romney; it may not. Perhaps Captain's Quarters is right: "This kind of response in Iowa could foretell a breakout summer for the former Massachusetts governor." Odds are the race will see-saw a bit more and Romney may well stumble, just as Rudy Giuliani and John McCain have hit their own respective rough patches as of late.
It does mean Fred Thompson is going to have to jump into this race with real vigor when he announces. As of this typing we're less than eight months before the voting begins in what will be mind-numbingly, fast-paced series of caucuses and primaries.
That might be a perilously short amount of time to ramp up and mobilize the large apparatus now necessary to compete in what continues to be the most fascinating Presidential election in ages. Either way, it should be unrelentingly fun for political junkies to behold.
Mormonism is based on the first and worst lie ever told; that man can become as God.
We'd be better off with a Homocrat.
Posted by: Independent voter on May 22, 2007 05:16 AMRomney and McCain have been exchanging barbs. It seems McCain's are more tantrums than barbs, though. Instead of explaining how Romney flipflopped on immigration (which I don't know if he did), he decided to call him a John Kerry and left it at that. He seemed out of control the way he responded.
Romney seems oblivious to the campaign hype that has affected Giuliani and McCain. Maybe as the 'new' frontrunner he will get hammered and we can see how he handles the MSM. Then, if he is still standing, we will have a better appreciation of the man and the campaign.
Posted by: swatter on May 22, 2007 06:57 AMMcCain has shot himself in the foot again. FOOL.
His chances are fading fast.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on May 22, 2007 07:15 AMOf more impact in the race perhaps, as swatter mentioned above, is how Romney now fares under the gun. I think the MSM, and much of the blogosphere for that matter, already gave him a pretty thorough going over earlier this year. The question know will be what other campaigns might do in response. Generally speaking, they won't want another candidate to break away from the field at all. Things are probably going to get more testy on the campaign trail; and that June 5th debate in New Hampshire might have some real fireworks.
Posted by: Eric Earling on May 22, 2007 07:23 AMRelevance: New Hampshire and Iowa have little importance except to weed out half the field and to give the third or fourth candidates the shot in the arm they need to either survive or pull off the wins down the road. Romney has been the one spending the early money there, he must realize that Iowa and New Hampshire are the do-or-die states for him. Could be a good move, but at the same time it is clearly the actions of someone stuck back in the back and not a frontrunner.
Also the polls don't take into consideration the most recent debate, though they do take into count the first one which Romney gained the most over the other candidates.
Posted by: Doug on May 22, 2007 08:32 AMOn the Republican side, Guiliani is leading nationally, but is trailing Romney and McCain in Iowa and NH. On the D side Edwards has had a consistent lead in Iowa. What happens to these two races if the supposed front runners lose the early states?
More importantly, for months McCain and/or Guiliani lead Clinton and/or Obama. Now the ONLY matchup Republicans win - barely - is Guiliani v. Clinton. In every other scenario the Ds lead, and the trend lines aren't encouraging.
Take two candidates the public doesn't know that well, Romney and Edwards; a somewhat generic R and a somewhat generic D. Edwards wins by 27%!
There is a long way to go, but RIGHT NOW the only thing keeping us competitive is the unpopularity of Hillary Clinton.
Posted by: Chris Vance on May 22, 2007 08:45 AMSure, all those numbers show Giuliani at the top, but Romney is neck and neck now in many of the key states. He has the mojo while Giuliani seems to be gasping wind and McCain self-destroying.
Things will change in the next few months as we go back and forth.
Chris Vance's observations are chilling, but a year and a half is a long time in politics. I expect a blowout in the presidential general election caused by some factor- Iraq, recession or another attack on home soil- that hasn't happened yet. And I can't predict which party it will benefit.
Bloomberg? McCain as a third party? Something is going to happen. Rs need to pick their best candidate. I would feel lucky to be able to vote for any of the frontrunners, but McCain is starting to scare me at this time.
Posted by: swatter on May 22, 2007 09:07 AMIt's time for Republicans to distance themselves from extremists.
Posted by: John Bailo on May 22, 2007 09:11 AM"IM MORE LIBERAL THAN TED KENNEDY!!". Alright then, stay that way...dont change just because youre running for President.
And his explanation on abortion is a farce. Wonder how many months he spent concocting that story.
Posted by: GB on May 22, 2007 09:30 AMCalifornia, Texas, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania - all solidly Giuliani in the most recent polling, are those not key states?
Props to John Bailo, he is correct, if there isn't significant change between now and then, we'll have to put up a candidate that will appeal to the independents rather than our base.
Posted by: Doug on May 22, 2007 10:32 AMI recall now why Rudy in 2000 wasn't such a sure thing against Clinton. The press kept hammering and hammering. The fact is you can't be a nice guy and cut crime like he did and not tick off a lot of people. After 8 years, he wore out his welcome with the Slimes. They are again at him. If he can weather it, and he will, he is good president material.
I would have liked, though, if he had been VP or another cabinet member after the '04 election.
Posted by: swatter on May 22, 2007 12:33 PMI'd also vote for Hillary over Rudy the Fruity.
Posted by: Independent voter on May 22, 2007 08:23 PMI don't care what his religion is nor do I care what he thinks about abortion. Those are not litmus test issues with me. I do care who he would nominate for the Supreme Court.
Go Mitt! You've got my support & my vote.
Posted by: Clean House on May 22, 2007 08:48 PMHave to admit I'm a bit surprised that Romney is leading the RCP Average for (R)s in both Iowa and NH at this point (even if it's not a big lead)...
OTOH, the national RCP Average for (R)s still has Romney at 9.4 percent while Giuliani is at 27.4 and McCain is at 21.3.
SIDEBAR to IV: Vote for HILLARY over Rudy ?!?!.
SURELY you CAN'T be serious.......
O.K.: Time to grit teeth and force myself to listen to Larry King for a bit: Non-candidate (for now) Al Gore (shudder) is giving his pitch.
Posted by: Methow Ken on May 22, 2007 08:56 PMFOOTNOTE(s):
Chris Vance highlights a continuing scary number:
''Take two candidates the public doesn't know that well, Romney and Edwards; a somewhat generic R and a somewhat generic D. Edwards wins by 27%!''
I would not be surprised to see Edwards come out on top in a prelim match-up against Romney at this point. But Edwards up by **27** points is a shocker (a multi-millionaire left-wing TRIAL LAWYER as President: I don't even want to think about it).
I also fear Chris is objectively correct on Iraq:
If there is not at least SOME discernable overall improvement in the situation in Iraq, there will be trouble in River City.
And for what it's worth, I don't put much stock in trial head-to-head match-ups this early. A huge percentage of general election voters aren't even tuned into the race yet much beyond basic name ID.
Posted by: Eric Earling on May 22, 2007 09:26 PMAnd WRT trial head-2-head match-ups this early:
Eric is right about that too... although confess I wish RCP would add Romney 2 the standing ''head-2-head'' RCP Average list, just to see what that would look like. Coming soon, perhaps......
The interesting thing about the Iowa RCP average is that without the D.M. Register's poll, the top three are even. What put Romney ahead in that poll by 10 points was that Fred Thompson and Newt weren't in that poll. Because they are only polling likely Caucus attenders in Iowa, they are polling the right wing of the Republican Party which is fine for determining how a couple states will vote. As I pointed out earlier, if Thompson or Newt enters the race, they will take their support from Romney because the vots for Romney from the caucus goers are just votes against Rudy and McCain. The polls in Iowa CLEARLY AND WITHOUT QUESTION show that.
New Hampshire is interesting only because we can assume that the winner of the New Hampshire primary will not win the Republican nomination, that title in an open seat election will fall to the 2nd or 3rd place vote getter.
What is interesting is the 10-25 percent lead Giuliani has in the four most delegate rich states, and the huge 20+ point lead he has vs. Romney going down the line on the other big catches, not even mentioning the lead he has on Romney on the latest Massachusetts poll.
Posted by: Doug on May 22, 2007 10:37 PMWhile I accept the fact the DM poll may be an outlier, as acknowledged above, it's also done by a local polling group that has a track record of understanding the tricky universe of caucus attendees. So while I don't put great stock in their results because of their variation from other pollsters, I also wouldn't disregard it entirely.
Also note Rudy is 3rd in the RealClearPolitics poll averages in Iowa and New Hampshire. Good people can disagree or disagree about whether the compact primary season means Iowa and New Hampshire are more important or less. We won't know for sure until the campaign unfolds further, though you know where I stand. And either way, the main point of my post was that Romney is gaining ground where the campaign is underway in earnest.
Posted by: Eric Earling on May 23, 2007 06:34 AM