Here's the thing. If the anti-Romney forces could unite under one strong candidate, they would beat Romney, not only in Iowa but probably for the nomination. Romney has never polled anywhere near 50% of the Republicans and, with the exception of Jon Huntsman and Ron Paul, there isn't much difference among the others in terms of policies and positions.
The problem is that the non-Romney crowd does not have a viable candidate who can win. They either prove to be not presidential material (Palin, Bachmann, Perry, Santorum, Cain, Trump, Paul) or they have too much baggage (Gingrich) or they just don't catch fire with the voters (Huntsman, Romer, Johnson). Those who could have been The One (Daniels, Jeb Bush, Christie) decided not to run.
My conclusion here just prior to the start of voting is that it's Romney's to lose. Paul is leading in the Iowa polls and may win the caucuses. His base is loyal but too narrow to expand into winning numbers; and, if people start looking at his looney positions, his boomlet in Iowa will go the way of all others. Huntsman could possibly emerge as the reasonable, last man standing -- but only if Romney crashes, and that seems increasingly unlikely.
So, even though it has been a roller coaster of ups and downs, repeated four times, it's pretty simple in the end.
And that is a statement that begs to come back to haunt me. Please, just don't let it be Newt. Although Obama could easily beat him, I couldn't stand listening to his bloviating cosmic ego for another 10 months.
Ralph
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
After I wrote this post came the report that, in the latest polls, we're now seeing a Romney surge !!!
ReplyDeleteImagine. The final iteration of the surge pattern was not Santorum, as he wishfully predicted. It was Romney.
He and Paul are now neck and neck in Iowa (Paul has dropped a few with the negative stuff about him and an old newsletter) and Romney has gained.
And Romney has also consolidated his gain in NH, now leading be a wide margin.