Posted on 01/02/2012 1:14:28 PM PST by rickmichaels
Conventional wisdom is that whoever wins the Iowa caucus has an encouraging boost to get the Republican nomination for president in November’s vote.
Never mind that Mike Huckabee crushed Mitt Romney in the 2008 Iowa caucus, and neither went anywhere; in the 2000 caucus George W. Bush easily beat Steve Forbes and went on to win his party’s nomination; or that in 2000 Robert Dole edged Pat Buchanan and both fell by the wayside.
So while winning in Iowa is a morale booster it doesn’t mean much, and will quickly be forgotten after New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida.
This year, the Iowa results may mean even less than usual, since it’s not a winner-take-all situation, but split among contenders according to their percentage of the vote.
So doing comparatively well is important.
By Tuesday evening we should know the winner. At this writing, polls show Romney, Ron Paul and Rick Santorum roughly share the lead. Newt Gingrich’s appeal has been falling, ever since he’s turned nasty on rivals. Smart money is on Romney.
It’s true that Ron Paul has worked long and hard in Iowa and led the polls, easing ahead of Gingrich, until a recent surge by Romney moved him into favored status.
In Iowa, the polls may not mean much. For Republicans whose main concern is to have Barack Obama bounced from the presidency, there’s almost a feeling of necessity to ensure that Romney gets the nod.
Iowans may lean towards the libertarian views of Ron Paul, but it’s also a given that Paul hasn’t a snowball’s chance of getting the nomination. Rival candidates snipe at Paul, clearly uneasy at his continuing appeal. Romney perhaps pin-pointed what even pro-Paul fans worry about — Paul’s casual concern about Iran developing nuclear weapons, and Romney’s gentle response that Paul may not be concerned, but most Americans don’t trust the idea of ayatollahs controlling nuclear weapons.
Hear, hear.
No one doubts that the Republican candidate Barack Obama and the Democrats would like to win — and who would be the easiest for them to defeat — is Gingrich. Apart from all the baggage Gingrich carries, he’s almost a resurrection of the past: An old, outdated reminder of things left behind in this era of change and progress.
The saddest of the Republican candidates is Michele Bachmann, who in interviews insists the tide is turning in her direction — as she drifts farther and farther from popular appeal.
She won’t even acknowledge that she’ll support whoever wins the nomination, which makes her kind of pathetic, and an embarrassment to watch. She keeps pretending that she’ll be the candidate and of course she’ll support herself. If she believes that, she’s not the person needed to lead America.
Self-delusion is not uncommon in politicians at any level.
But Romney seems the one with most self-control, unflappable, even-tempered, unexciting, competent, decent, and has the most potential to appeal to independents and moderate Democrats. He doesn’t get the blood churning, but he may be what America needs in tough economic times.
Trustworthiness is something many of Romney’s rivals haven’t earned, and something that many Americans are uneasy about in Obama, who radiates likeability but does not inspire confidence.
Romney looks a shoo-in for New Hampshire, which will make South Carolina easier. The race may soon be Romney’s to lose – and this year he’s not prone to stumbling.
Sorry - no votes for Vichy Republicans. Period.
Woo Hoo..
GEORGIA goes up 27-20 in the Outback Bowl!!!!!!!!!!
Trying to understand why someone who believes in taxpayer-subsidized abortions is more reasonable than Rick Santorum.
I stopped reading when it said Gingrich’s numbers started falling when HE got nasty.. wholly crap what a lie
Delusional
To the author.:
You like him, you vote for him, I won’t.
The SEC is having a great Bowl series.
Would NEVER vote for that dirty pos Romney. Newt is the best candidate running. NO ROMNEY EVER!
“Never mind that Mike Huckabee crushed Mitt Romney in the 2008 Iowa caucus, and neither went anywhere”
LOL!
Don’t be dumb. Huck came in 2nd nationally after dominating Iowa (not bad for no $$$), Willard 3rd nationally with an early drop out after FL (real bad for having all the $$$ in the world).
Gingrich’s numbers started falling when he came out in favor of amnesty for illegals.
Ditto.
Just one question. What the hell is The QMI Agency?
Don't answer that! It's a rhetorical question I have no real interest in having answered.
IBTZ.
Good to know just who’s vote mine against Mitt will offset.
You forgot the “barf alert.”
Tru dat!
Btw, do you know why crap posts like this PROMOTING Willard “$50 Abortioner” Flopney are allowed on Free Republic? I came here to get away from that nonsense.
I’m new and just asking.. :)
Well then, I didn’t leave the republican party. They left me.
Just WOW!
I think the way to respond to this type of diatribe is to go on the offensive. For instance: I believe that the best candidate for the Democrats would be Barney Frank! He represents everything the Democrats have been foisting on this Republic during the last generation.
Well, they don't call the Republicans "The Stupid Party" for nothing, Peter.
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.