Romney Goes Dark In FL, South Carolina

Up on television in Florida and South Carolina through yesterday, Mitt Romney is not running any television ads in those states now, according to a Republican with knowledge of the traffic purchases in the state.

Romney's campaign hasn't booked any television time in those states, either.

And it's probably for a good reason: Romney needs to focus all of his resources in Michigan.

But opponents will wonder: is Romney hedging his bets? Does he not want to spend money in South Carolina and Florida unless he wins Michigan and has a reason to stay in the race?

Comments

Pulling out of post-Michigan states is not a good sign. There's obviously little confidence that he can pull off a win.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | January 9, 2008 1:02 PM

Romney spent more on media buys in NH than both Clinton and Obama; it did him no good there. Frankly, I suspect that he realizes the futility of investing in SC. SC is a hard-core evangelical state, a crowd not well-known for allowing the possibility that any point of view differing from their own has the least chance of being anything but blasphemous. Given that I am a resident of SC, I can claim some small degree of authority. 60% of the GOP Primary voters in this state identify themselves as evangelicals. Very few of these voters have the slightest idea as to what a Mormon is. They just know what it is not. It is not the Gospel truth.

To have addressed the SC question first, however, is to have begged the question as to the viability of the Romney campaign in general. It appears to me as if he already has one foot on Rudy, who is already in the grave. Perhaps a quick call to the esteemed Gov. of CA would help him to get the message: Hasta la vista, baby!

Posted by Rusty | January 9, 2008 1:43 PM

http://www.youtube.com/v/xrfOdLqMogs&rel=1

Romneys real problem

Posted by DavidE | January 9, 2008 1:44 PM

If Mitt gets a win in MI, that may help him to stay in the race, as he will have two golds and two silvers and will be leading, at least up to SC, where he is likely to lose. He may skip SC and go directly to FL after MI.

We have likely missed a good president. America will be doomed with anyone other that MITT or Fred as the rest are nothing but stupid liberals.

Posted by F. Melgin | January 9, 2008 2:23 PM

I hope Romney gets out and endorses Rudy.

Posted by SRD | January 9, 2008 2:30 PM

Way to early to throw Romney over. He has the money and if he does win Michigan, he is on his way. Everyone was RIPing Hillary's run and she showed that she is far from over. Just like they wrote off Huckabee who can win nomination. Just like they wrote off McCain in the summer. I am not ruling anyone out, even Rudy, until they leave the race or are mathematically elimninated from delegates. I don think we will have a brokered convention, but possible on the GOP side.

Posted by JackDonlan | January 9, 2008 2:35 PM

Romney places second in Iowa, wins Wyoming, places second in NH, has the most overall votes, the most overall delegates - and he should quit?

Maybe Huckabee should quit after getting NO votes in Wyoming and placing a pathetic 3rd in NH?

Maybe McCain should quit after losing the Conservative Vote in NH by 7 points to Romney in NH and having to count on Liberals voting in the Republican primary for a win?

Maybe Giuliani should quit because he has ZERO delegates after 3 races?

OF COURSE:
Of Course Romney is throwing everything into MI. He MUST win in another BS "open" Primary where Dems with nothing to vote for on their end can once again vote for the "easiest-candidate-to-beat-in-november" in our Primary.

If Mitt wins MI (a winner-take-all state) for 61 Delegates, he will have a 71 delegate lead over the rest of the field going into SC.

He needs to focus! If he wins MI, SC and FL will take care of themselves.

Posted by Bill Mitchell | January 9, 2008 2:40 PM

If the GOP nominates Rudy, they will be abandoning their pro-life voting bloc. This would probably destroy the GOP.

Posted by Matthew, Roanoke VA | January 9, 2008 2:42 PM

Funny how McCain skips Iowa to go "all-in" in NH and he is considered "a brave maverick" and "the comeback kid".

Romney does the same thing in MI and he is "desperate" and "running on fumes".

Posted by Bill Mitchell | January 9, 2008 2:42 PM

I'm so tired of BIG MEDIA hyping "he's finished" or "she's done" I mean come on!! Its only the second or third primary. Just like Mccain, I mean one win and "He's unbeatable" "he's the leader". This country is being manipulated, or at least they are trying to manipulate it. Just look at ABC dictating to New Hampshire voters and the rest of the country who can be seen in the Democratic debate. I just deleted ABC from my news bookmarks. I did this a long time ago with FOX. THIS COUNTRY NEEDS A FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE FROM THE GROUND UP. Mccain is old school. He can't do it. The powers that be though want only status quo to continue. WAKE UP AMERICA AND SMELL THE COFFEE.

Posted by manray | January 9, 2008 2:49 PM

Few comments:

We all should have learned yesterday: all this crystal ball stuff is pretty sketchy. Mitt is not "done." That said, there is no way any of Mitt fans can claim, with a straight face, that a win in Wyoming is the same as a win in Iowa or NH. Wyoming was uncontested, and Mitt spent no ad money there. He did visit, and he earned some delegates. Good for him. But to keep the Olympic metaphor, Romney's gold was in rhythmic gymnastics, while McCain won the decathalon, and Huckabee the 100 meter dash. The resources, and focus, and media attention make the NH and Iowa races a much bigger deal.

Also, Bill, you are misinformed about a few things. (a) Michigan is NOT winner take all, and (b) the GOP docked half of our delegates. So it will be worth 30 or 31 delegates total (do they give half delegates?) Although your comment about an open primary is true, and the Democratic ballot is uncontested. Already, an Obama supporter has formed a "Dems for Huckabee" group, based I guess on the perception that Huck would be the best guy to face this fall.

Posted by K Dub | January 9, 2008 2:52 PM

By the way Bill, Michigan has been penalized half it's delegates for moving it's primary before Feb 5th. So while it may be a winner take all race, it is not nearly as enticing at 31 delegates. You noticed that NH was only able to offer 12 delegates (of it's original 24). It's all a public perception battle at this point anyway. Delegates aren't a significant issue in these early races.

Posted by Nathan | January 9, 2008 2:55 PM

Romney, like Hillary, is not to be underestimated. I think if he goes down in Michigan, he has no chance of winning the candidacy, but he'll still continue until Super Duper Tuesday and get 15-25% of the delegates, which is nothing to sniff at.

But Romney sure has sucked so far. It's just amazing that the candidate who out-spent Huckabee 15 to 1 in Iowa and McCain 4 to 1 in NH, who was supposed to be the only candidate able to challenge Rudy, who based his entire strategy on winning momentum from early states, still lost not once, but twice in the early states - and lost the two the most important races, too.

Why did he lose, even though his policy positions are just more in sync with the GOP coalition as a whole than any other candidate? After taking a pounding in 2006, GOP voters want to not only win, but follow Huckabee's advice that "even if we loose elections we should not loose our honor". The GOP wants its honor back. Romney just feels like he has no convictions, whereas McCain and Huckabee and even Rudy have stuck their necks out on certain issues and gotten pounded for it. McCain is in to win because he is THE compromise candidate, who pro-lifers tolerate, economic conservatives appreciate, and general electorate can accept as a candidate. I say Huck for veep, as he balances out the ticket geographically and will mobilize social conservatives.

btw, don't McCain and Huck look eerily like Eisenhower and Nixon from the 50s? Likable moderate president with hard-core veep in a Democrat-dominated electorate... hmmm...

Posted by B. Payne | January 9, 2008 3:23 PM

Romney has a total of 30 delegates to Huckabee's 21. Why should Romney be concerned at this point? Everyone else is counting him down and out, but he leads the pack for total delegates!

Posted by KKnight | January 9, 2008 3:30 PM

So let me get this straight. In Iowa, Romney looses to Huckabee because of the evangelicals who vote on religion alone and refuse to vote for a Mormon and the same thing is going to happen in South Carolina.

In New Hampshire, Romney loses to McCain because of the independents who have no particular party affiliation or ideology but get to help pick the Republican nominee based on “likeablitiy”.

And then in Michigan, there will be no Democratic primary but the State’s Democrats can vote in the Republican primary and help pick the weakest Republican nominee.

When exactly will true Republicans get to make their preference known and not have their vote outweighed by Democrats, Independents and religious bigots?

Posted by Ci2Eye | January 9, 2008 3:33 PM

Romney needs to take the hint. The American election isn't for sale. He should use his money to do some good in the world. How about building homes for Katrina survivors???????

Posted by Donna Partow | January 9, 2008 3:35 PM

Romney should quit because he has only won 1/3 states so far(Like McCain and Huck), has more pledged delagates than McCain or Huck, and has recieved more total votes than both McCain and Huck. Makes sense to me!

Posted by Ivan | January 9, 2008 3:43 PM

Anyone who has been to Wyoming (or has a road atlas) will quickly realize that a "gold" for Romney there is about the same thing as a "gold" in Utah.

Mormons in Wyoming are as thick as "bugs . . . make that 'bees' on a bumper."

It was a walk-over for Romney in the "Cowboy State" because none of the other candidates wanted to waste any money fighting the LDS "machine" in a huge, sparsely populated, wind-swept land for only a handful of delegates.

The Romney-ians should lay off touting Wyoming as some sort of monster triumph.

Posted by Speedzzter | January 9, 2008 3:45 PM

You think that McCain made a come back?....Romney doesn't really need too, but the way people are talking they think he does....so he WILL BE the newest "come back kid" and it will be when you least expect it. Keep tuned in!

Romney is experienced in challenges. It might be a plus for him not to have won so handily. His strenghts and experience for meeting challenges might be better seen (to add to his already outstanding resume') than heard during this election year.

Romeny is a leader to be proud of.

Posted by Wendy73 | January 9, 2008 3:49 PM

Romney is in pretty big trouble (at this point I just don't see a way he wins enough delegates to put up a serious challenge for the nomination).

He won't win any of the other 3 states going into Super Tuesday so where is that going to leave him? His whole strategy from day 1 has been to gain momentum going to super tuesday.

If McCain wins Michigan, Huckabee South Carolina and Giuliani Florida it seems pretty likely that Romney will be regulated to MA, ID and UT on Super Tuesday (that's not saying much considering that these 3 states all have natural bases for Romney. There really isn't alot to look forward to after Febuary 5th.

If anything him staying in the race increases the likelihood of a brokered convention. (which is probably going to be the result since it's hard to imagine him dropping out)

This has the potential of becoming a huge mess, that will leave the eventual nominee with alot of work to do to win the general.

Posted by Adam I | January 9, 2008 3:56 PM

Speedzzter:
Wyoming has only 11% Mormons in the state!! He recieved over 60% of the votes.
I think your statement of Mormons in Wyoming are as thick as "bugs . . . make that 'bees' on a bumper" is incorrect.

Posted by Lance in TX | January 9, 2008 3:56 PM

I find it amazing that some people still believe McCain is not a proper conservative. He is a social conservative with a solid pro-life record, a fiscal and business conservative since he staunchly supports limited government, is the greatest opponent of pork-barrel spending and is a true free trader and nobody doubts his credentials as a defense conservative.
Okay, he supported comprehensive immigration reform, which (if you look at what it really meant) is certainly not amnesty. But so what? So did Reagan in the 1980s. You guys think Reagan wasn't a conservative? McCain also voted against Bush' tax cuts. Not only does he support them now but he also has good reason to defend his decision to vote against them at the time. As any good fiscal conservative knows, tax cuts need to be paid for by spending cuts, otherwise the deficit starts growing. As strange as it may sound, it is exactly because McCain is so conservative and such a proponent of fiscal discipline that he voted against these tax cut.
Get on board people! The Mac is back!

Posted by Henk Vermeer | January 9, 2008 3:58 PM

I'm afraid the deck is stacked against Romney.

As I noted above, the combination of open primaries and evangelicals are going to make outright wins difficult for him in many states.

The liberal media wants to eliminate him and is clearly pushing Huck hoping for an easy November win against the preacher. Plus, like a reality TV show, all his Republican competitors attack him at debates knowing he is the most powerful candidate that needs to be eliminated quickly.

Mitt has the best resume of the bunch and money but I wonder if that’s enough given everything against him.

Posted by Ci2Eye | January 9, 2008 4:05 PM

It appears that despite having the lead in delegates, Romney is adopting the approach of the rest of the candidates to focus on states where he has the most likelyhood of success. The change may help him avoid the tag-team he has received for being willing to take on all challengers on all fields of battle.

He may also believe that reducing his own exposure in South Carolina and Florida may help Thompson and Giuliani, the other two conservatives in the race, in an enemy of my enemy is my friend strategy. Giuliani may start looking very good as everyone else divides up the small states and he looks poised to take the large ones.

It is still very early in the primary season. With three states down, its Romney 30, Huckabee 21, McCain 10, Thompson 6, Paul 2, Giuliani 1, and Hunter 1.

Romney’s lead in delegates is largely due to his willingness to compete in every state, including New Hampshire where McCain beat G W Bush by 18 points and Iowa where Huckabee enjoyed a 60% evangelical voting block.

So far, McCain seems unwilling to compete in conservative states and Huckabee seems to be unable to compete outside of his evangelical base. While Huckabee did very well in Iowa, he couldn’t get above 0% of the vote in Wyoming and could only place a very distant third in New Hampshire with 11% of the vote.

The winner of the Iowa Caucus (Huckabee) received 17, with Romney receiving 12, McCain 3, Thompson 3 and Paul 2.

The winner of the Wyoming Caucus (Romney) received 8, with Thompson receiving 3 and Hunter 1.

The winner of the New Hampshire Primary (McCain) received 7, with Romney receiving 4 and Huckabee 1.

Romney and Huckabee have split six other committed delegates from Arkansas (Huckabee 3), Minnesota (Romney 2) and Illinois (Romney 1).

The next three weeks should be interesting with Romney and Huckabee tied in Michigan, Romney and Giuliani tied in Nevada, Huckabee ahead in South Carolina. But then Giuliani gets to make a one week run through some big states where Giuliani is ahead in Florida, Giuliani is ahead in California, and Giuliani is ahead in New Jersey.

Posted by FatherinOklahoma | January 9, 2008 4:06 PM

The left is alot more worried about Rudy Giuliani and John McCain then Romney.

Both have proven themselves to be solid, charismatic conservatives who can win in November. If either man is president there is no way in hell all the pork the fiscal liberals are pushing will stand a chance.

Posted by Adam I | January 9, 2008 4:19 PM

Romney won in Wyoming because he is conservative not because he is a Mormon. Living in Idaho I know a bit about Wyoming and they are not necessarily predisposed to liking Mormons. At UW games then constantly chant FU BYU and even FU UofU (Brigham Young and University of Utah). Romney does need to win in Michigan or at least be within 2 to 3 pts or he's finished. Whether we like it or not Huckabee does have the following of evangelicals and most of them will not support Romney. Let's not forget so quickly that Senator McCain authored McCain/Feingold, the amnesty bill (and yes it is amnesty), he joined with 13 other senators to basically decide which of President Bush's judicial nominees would go forward and which would die (this is caving pure and simple), he was a member of the Keating 5 (S & L scandal). McCain has been good ont he budget and cutting wasteful spending but to say he is a conservative (remember Romeny recieved the most votes from conservatives and non-evangelicals in both Iowa and New Hampshire) is just not true. Huckabee's populism will carry the republican party to a devastating defeat if he is the nominee. I have many friends who are Mormon and they are very turned off by Huckabee and his attacks on Mormons. He has a theology degree and claims to know nothing about Mormonism. That just is impossible to believe. He spoke in Salt Lake at the SBC (Southern Baptist Convention) where there were numerous "anti-mormon" speakers and "anti-mormon" literature and yet he didn't hear or read any of it. Are we really that stupid to believe it. I don't care if he believes that Mormons are going to hell at least have the courage to say it. He'd better be more conciliatory to the Mormons. Remember how tightly divided this country is. Bush would not have been president if he had not won every state he did in 2000. I did a quick google search and Mormons if they are turned off by Huckabee will doom him. Utah is roughly 60% Mormon, Nevada nearly 20%, Idaho 30%, and there are substantial numbers of Mormons in Colorado, Arizona, Montana and Wyoming all states that a Republcan nominee must carry to win. It's time we as republicans take a look at what we want.

Posted by Steve | January 9, 2008 4:26 PM

While Wyoming is less than 10% Mormon, it has enough Mormons that everyone knows one.

It is a whole lot harder to scare, even other evangelicals, about the evil Mormons once they have actually met a few.

In Wyoming they voted for the three conservatives in the race pretty much like the non-evangelical conservatives have across the board: Romney 1st, Thompson 2nd, and Hunter 3rd.

McCain would not have won in New Hampshire without the cross-over vote. McCain will struggle in conservative states. At this point, he isn't even leading in Arizona.

Posted by FatherinOklahoma | January 9, 2008 4:27 PM

Romney is leading in delegates. The press wants a Democrat or a liberal Republican. He is leading!!! Why write him off?

South Carolina will go to the Huckster, but Romney has a good chance in Florida.

Posted by Joe | January 9, 2008 4:31 PM

Romney should quit because he is a genuine fake and does nothing but sling mud. I am a life-long GOPer and have been following the conservative movement since President Reagan's first election. I have never heard Romney's name bandied about as a leader in the conservative movement until he started saying he was.

On a more practical note, is there one single blue state Romney could make competitive in Nov.?

GOPers/Conservatives may not like everything McCain and Guiliani have done, but at least they have been in the fight for a long time.

P.S. Can someone please tell me how McCain-Feingold has personally affected them?

Posted by EBudvis | January 9, 2008 4:33 PM

McCain stays out of conservative states because he is NOT a conservative. He's not even a real Republican...he just uses the "R" when it's convenient, and he hopes we'll forget his all of antics with the Democrats in the last 4 years.

Here's a quote from a conservative think tank:

"But throughout his Capitol Hill career, John McCain has loudly and proudly opposed a myriad of bedrock conservative principles. His record is replete with glaring examples of why conservatives should not support his presidential candidacy. On issues like abortion, campaign finance, global warming, gun control, illegal immigration, judicial appointments, same sex marriage, stem cell research, tax relief, and terrorist interrogation methods, McCain has staked out positions that are anathema to conservatism."

To read more of the report:

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Conservative_group_campaigns_again_McCain_Hes_0301.html

I am also from Michigan, and know that in this Liberal and unionized state it will be difficult to make our votes count in the primary, as Democrats can vote in the Republican process. But, it cannot be McCain. He is Hillary w/o Bill. I applaud him on the troop surge in Iraq, but other than that...there is nothing conservative to recommend him.

I have to go Romney or Guiliani. Huckabee will make Bush look eloquent and well spoken, and he is NOT prepared to lead as WAR TIME president. The rest of the field are out of nominational orbit, I'm afraid.

Folks, we need to form a Republican online caucus...where GOP voters from across the country can log in, find out what's what, and rally w/ other like minded folks to make their voices heard. Kind of like the UAW does in Michigan...

Posted by IamToday | January 9, 2008 4:46 PM

Romney is a total phony- a man without any principal who has made a career and a lot of money by saying and doing anything that advances him personally. Contrast that to John McCain who has spent over 40 years in service to the country,including 5 years as a POW. Where was Romney (and his sickening family) in doing national service? On a mormon mission, saving the mormon olympics - please just leave. Pursue you Godly callings but leave the nation alone.
With any serious scrutiny you have no chance.

Posted by j merrell | January 9, 2008 5:05 PM

Unfortunately for McCain, serving one's country does not make them inherently suitable as president...as Senator John Kerry proved.

I'd rather have someone with a little faith than someone who only showed up for church when CNN had a camera present. That being said, I'm not looking at their religions; I'm looking at their records...and McCain's stinks...unless he's switching parties before election day.

Posted by IamToday | January 9, 2008 5:24 PM

It is amazing that the conservatives despise McCain so much. He did not vote for the Bush tax cuts because he wanted a federal spending cap. I dóubt President Reagan could win a GOP nomination in this day and age. As Governor, Reagan raised taxes and legalized abortion. those two factors would have most conservatives ( which I am) calling him a closet liberal as well. -

Posted by Grayrider | January 9, 2008 5:27 PM

GOPers tend to remember when one of your own crosses party lines on multiple occasions, against the wishes of his constituents, and has the unmitigate gall to consider himself true to his constituents. I wouldn't say "despise;" I would say "distrust."

McCain only remembers his conservative values when he's in the middle of a stump speech. There are many conservative judges still waiting to be confirmed thanks to McCain.

Posted by IamToday | January 9, 2008 5:37 PM

All members of congress cross party lines to get legislation through, Additionally I would like to see evidence that John McCain is blocking federal judges.
http://www.issues2000.org/senate/John_McCain.htm

Posted by Grayrider | January 9, 2008 5:45 PM

Quoted from above:

Romney is a total phony- a man without any principal who has made a career and a lot of money by saying and doing anything that advances him personally. Contrast that to John McCain who has spent over 40 years in service to the country,including 5 years as a POW. Where was Romney (and his sickening family) in doing national service? On a mormon mission, saving the mormon olympics - please just leave. Pursue you Godly callings but leave the nation alone.
With any serious scrutiny you have no chance.

Posted by j merrell | January 9, 2008 5:05 PM

This is a good example of a sick person who has so much hate in them that they cannot see the truth. I recommend you get some professional help.

Posted by Dan, South Carolina | January 9, 2008 5:47 PM

Rudy Giuliani is now the best positioned for the GOP nomination. He will win Florida, he will win New York and New Jersey, and probably California too.

Posted by Sean Bos | January 9, 2008 5:47 PM

When will America face it. Romney is by far the most intelligent and qualified of all the candidates in both parties. McCain's a loose cannon and an ol' frat boy and Huckabee's a slack-jawed christian socialist who frighteningly reminds me an awful lot like Jimmy Carter.

Posted by Randy, Washington, DC | January 9, 2008 5:48 PM

As much as I dislike him, this is a smart move by Romney. He knows that if he drops Michigan to McCain too, he's finished. But I honestly don't think it will matter. McCain has the big momentum now. He was only trailing Romney by a few percentage points in Michigan in mid-December before Huckabee kicked Romney's butt in Iowa and McCain kicked it last night. Romney is damaged goods now, and unlike in New Hampshire, in Michigan there will be no Democratic primary competing for the state's ndependent voters who constitute McCain's strongest group. Look for McCain to win Michigan by 3-5 points and effectively end Romney's candidacy next Tuesday.

GO JOHN GO!!!

Posted by Dan R. | January 9, 2008 6:09 PM

As a non-religious man, I must say the anti-mormon bigotry and venom that so frequently sprews from so many self-professed christian's mouths regarding mormonisms and Romeny disturbs me. The hatred, resentment and bitterness that I sense from these evangelicals is palpable. Though it all I must say I've been quite impressed with how gracious Romney has handled it and counter to what I hear and perhaps ironically he's the one who seems to be the most "christian" to me.

It's amazing how un-PC it is to say anything disparaging about blacks, women, gays and to some extend muslims without be lambasted and laveled as a bigot, but these rules have seemed to go ignored when in comes to mormons. It really is a curious thing.

Posted by Jim Nelmes, Atlanta, Georgia | January 9, 2008 6:10 PM

Give it up. McCain's a RINO (republican in name only). This guy's screwed to many things up. McCain-Feingold, Amnesty for illegals (and yes it is amnesty), the keating party of 5. McCain's so comprimised, he can't even call himself conservative. Aside from all this, he's as old as dirt. The only respectable thing McCain has under his belt is his military service. Other than that, the guy's been an underachiever his whole life. He barely even got into flight school. Had we not been in a war, he wouldn't have. Romney's on the other hand is an intelligent, measured and classy guy. While Mcain was yucking it up with his frat boys, chasing tail and tapping arse, Romney was excelling in everything he did.

Posted by Randy, Washington, DC | January 9, 2008 6:18 PM

Not spending in South Carolina and Florida was a sound business decision for the Romney campaign and they might change after Michigan but frankly I wouldn't spend a dime in either state and let the B teams fight it out for those delegates. Giuliani will take Florida and Huckabee will likely take SC. Let's face it; Florida is made up of New Yorkers who probably vote in both states. South Carolina has a lot of good people and hopefully, Romney will pick up a few delegates without spending money there. I might head down to SC this weekend myself and campaign for him Ron Paul style (guerrilla warfare). I will admit that Giuliani cannot be counted out yet, but he is no Romney in rounded leadership. There is a reason all the candidates hate Romney and Ron Paul, Romney because he is a true leader and Ron Paul because he is ultra rightist. Just like most NCAA football teams hate LSU. It just goes with the territory. But Giuliani, and Huckabee and Thompson and Democrat McCain all get along pretty good don't they? Why? Because average Joes have nothing to lose and nothing to attack each other on because their records are average. I mean, if I was the mayor of Daytona Beach and Daytona Beach was somehow attacked by Terrorists and I went down to ground zero and shook hands with the fire fighters, does that make me a presidential candidate? If I was 40 years in Congress siding with Feingold and Kennedy on every issue and so old that I could barely make it through one more term (considering a war time presidency is going to age you 3x faster than sitting around Washington drinking tea with lobbyists)does that make me presidential material? How about pretending to be God’s appointed General to wage war on the rest of America that doesn’t claim to be Christian enough. Does that make me presidential material? What if I were a good actor and lacking any real substance, I played the tough guy? Would that make me presidential material? What about being president because I was a woman, or just happened to be Black and waved a flag to rally the people around…well nothing but the rally itself... does that make me presidential material?

Posted by RSM | January 9, 2008 6:24 PM

Romney has a couple of serious problems going against him.
1) His name recognition is very minimal outside of outside of Iowa, NH, Mich and Mass. This means the only way he competes in the other states is massive ad buys. That was the premise of his early vote strategy. Win the early primaries so he would get the name Recognition to compete in the other primaries.
2) Money - I know this may sound strange, but Mitt's money flow has come to a halt. How do I know? He just pulled himself off the air in florida. There is rumors out there that he has already put in $25 million of his own money and that he is going to have to put an extra $10-15 just to survive going into florida. Even then, he will have to determine where to allocate resources because of the name recognition issue.
3)The press - The press likes to follow a winner. There is a reason why the press doesn't follow Duncun hunter. They don't see him viable. When you don't win, the press pool begins to shrink which means less articles are written about you and people forget who you are. What is the saying "the only bad press is no press at all". This is a serious problem for Romney. Giuliani may survive it because Giuliani has a huge name recognition but Romney will not.

This message is for all those Romney supporters who are saying "2 silvers and a gold is better than everyone else!" or "We have more delegates" either doesn't understand politics or are on the campaign trail of Romney. Winning Iowa or NH is like winning the lottery. Winning Wyoming is like winning that gag gift at your white elephant christmas party. Iowa and NH brings in money, press, a lot of friends and momentum. Winning Wyoming gives you a thanks for participating delegate. Understand, Romney was the ONLY one who put any resources in there.

Posted by Asher | January 9, 2008 6:24 PM

Romney went dark for a reason to focus on Michigan. In case you haven't heard he raised over $4 million today the day after coming in 2nd in NH

This is worth reading. I have had enough of John McCain the Republican. Let's call it what it is. McCain is a moderate Democrat in a Republican costume!!

Tom DeLay Slams McCain, Calls New Hampshire Win ‘A Blip’
by FOXNews.com
Wednesday, January 9, 2008

|
By Chad Pergram

John McCain’s win in New Hampshire did not impress former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.

Revealing a divide in the Republican Party between moderates and conservatives, DeLay slammed McCain in an interview Wednesday with FOX News.

“There’s nothing redeeming about John McCain,” DeLay said.

The Texas Republican added that McCain “does betray conservative principles.”

When asked on which issues McCain was not a conservative, he said: “Mercy, there’s tons of them” and proceeded to list the Senator’s positions on the environment, immigration, the International Criminal Court, his support for affirmative action and taxes. He also called McCain a “hypocrite” when it came to lobbyists.

The Texas Republican went on to dismiss McCain’s victory as “A blip. An aberration in the nominating process of the Republican Party.”

DeLay said this was because New Hampshire is a state that’s trending Democratic (it replaced its two GOP House Members in 2006 with two Democrats and GOP Senator John Sununu has a tough re-election fight on his hands this year) and allows independents to vote in the Republican primary.

“He (McCain) appealed once again to independents,” DeLay said. “He’s not going to go much further than New Hampshire.”

McCain could struggle in South Carolina. President Bush clobbered him there in 2000. But eight years ago, he won Michigan, which votes next week.

DeLay also took a shot at press coverage of McCain, who described him as a “darling of the media.”

When asked about the divisions in the party between moderates and conservatives, DeLay said “I don’t think there’s a schism in the party. The party doesn’t exist. It’s rebuilding.”

Posted by Brian | January 9, 2008 6:33 PM

If Michiganders join forces to scuttle Romney there, the probability of him getting the nomination will be over. So one must wonder why it is we have states where the opposition party can participate in the primary process. It seems the overall impact is to reduce the selection process to the least common denominator. Wouldn't surprise me if we ended up having Kucinich running against Paul. Only problem with that is Ron Paul would be way more effective, so maybe they could get Dodd to run against Kucinich somehow.

For just once in my life I'd like to see the Fed Gov'mt run like a business--too often it's just this big morass of special interests, entrenched socialists, pandering earmarkers, and egotistical braying idiots running the show. Ladies and gents, it is estimated that the Fed Gov'mt wastes close to $1 TRILLION every year! That's the same as taking $3,300 out of the pockets of every man, woman and child in the entire US and just flushing it down the toilet, never to be seen again. Surely there are others that want responsible change in Washington. Romney could do that. I seriously doubt any of the other candidates would have the brains and guts to attempt it. The "change" they're all taking about would amount to about what I currently have jingling in my pocket.

Posted by Rockyspoon | January 9, 2008 6:33 PM

"Romney is leading in delegates. The press wants a Democrat or a liberal Republican. He is leading!!! Why write him off?"

How do you spot a losing candidate? His supporters are madly blaming the media.

The media wasn't voting in Iowa and New Hampshire. Republicans and independents were. And they didn't choose Romney. Do you think GOP voters are sheep who eat up whatever media spin comes down the pike?

The media may be liberal--they're opposed to most of the policy views of Huckabee and McCain--but like a lot of people who follow politics they can't stand being spun and manipulated. Romney could have talked about all the great ideas he has, the great work he's done and his record in Mass. But he didn't think GOP voters would like that. He thought that they'd go for partisan red meat (served up cold) and attack ads where he criticized McCain and Huckabee for policies that he himself advocated not too long ago. Romney could have been a great candidate but he decided to play a part instead. That's why after so many millions he still hasn't caught fire, even against flawed opponents.

Posted by colatina | January 9, 2008 6:47 PM

WARNING! Senator McCain is not a true conservative!

True Conservatives believe that tax cuts solve every economic woe - even when combined with spending increases. If a piece of legislation contains words "tax cut", a true conservative votes for it without reading. Senator McCain happens to believe in financial discipline - a dangerous liberal folly!

True conservative knows that liberalism is a contagious disease and does not speak to liberals - except when trying to cure them. Senator McCain has been known to engage in acts of bipartisanship - practice dangerous for Republican Party's purity and bad for our country.

Finally, true conservative does not think for himself. Republican National Committee (or possibly Rush Libaugh) does the thinking for true conservative - and he then votes for party agenda. Senator McCain is thinking for himself - a most dangerous practice!

Warn your friends! Your family! Senator McCain is no true conservative and must be stopped!

Posted by Joe Red | January 9, 2008 6:50 PM

The issue with Romney's Mormonism is not theological, except for evangelical Christians. Rather it is the perception-right or wrong-that Mormons are holier-than-thou goodie two-shoes. Romney fits this stereotype exactly.

Romney can't connect to America at large. He doesn't have the people skills of W or Slick Willie or even Huck. He doesn't have the back story of McCain, Guiliani or Obama. Romney is like John Kerry, but at least Kerry went to Vietnam, even if what he did or didn't do is disputed.

Romney cannot put any blue states in play. I live in SoCal and firmly believe that although McCain or Guiliani might not win CA, the Dems would be forced to fight for CA, thus wasting resources. If Romney is nominated, all the Dems have to do is flip Ohio and HRC or Obama wins.

Finally, I defy anyone to describe how McCain-Feingold has personally affected them.

Posted by EBudvis | January 9, 2008 6:56 PM

Romney is not connecting with America at large because America at large is bigotted against Mormons. Lets face it, on the issues, Romney does and has won hands down. I tend to take my vote seriously and want to elect someone who has some skills. A vote for McCain is a vote for poor leadership, bad judement and a hero of circumstance although he edured it well. Huckabee is a flat goofball and a rhetoritician. This guy finds a way to lie and deny he's lying and the media allows it...just like the "I supported the troop surge" stuff. The religion card stuff he pulls is pure crap. He should be run out of the election on a rail.

Posted by JN, Atlanta, Georgia | January 9, 2008 7:06 PM

To EBudvis,

Wouldn't it just be too bad to have a goodie two-shoes for a president. I know I'd hate it if we could tell our kids here's a man who is just too good to be true. It would really be awful if we had a president that had actually been married to the same woman instead of two or three others. And the fact that he doesn't smoke or drink disgusts me.

As for Mr. Romney being like John Kerry you must really be joking. Mr. Romney has achievements in business and politics. John Kerry only has achievements in marrying the right woman (twice) to make him rich.

As for Giuliani and McCain putting many blue states in play you must surely be dreaming. California is not going to go for the Republicans no matter who is running. California is as likely to go Republican as Idaho is to go Democrat. It's just not going to happen.

As far as McCain/Feingold effecting me personally. I can't say that it has. However, it has effected the country. 527 groups are largely run by democrat leaning people and they out raise and outspend republican 527 groups by a nearly 2 to 1 ratio. So it does have an effect on me because those groups do influence elections. And even if that weren't the case it's still limits my ability to give to who I want a much as I want.

You obviously don't like Romney but McCain/Feingold helps him. He can spend as much money of his own as he wants. McCain, Giuliani, Huckabee, etc. don't have that option. How much better off would those candidates be if they could raise money in greater amounts from their donors? McCain/Feingold helps those rich individuals with unlimited resources buy elections.

Posted by Steve | January 9, 2008 7:15 PM

Romney is not a fraud and not a liberal. He is the most conservative of any republican and FYI even without Wyoming, Mitt Romney would still be leading the race with number of delegates. Don't write this guy off, especially when he's a real conservative. Actually, that might be the reason he'll lose.

Posted by Dave Blackstone | January 9, 2008 7:17 PM

A (crazy?) theory:

On Jan 16, the case of the NH "push-polling" will go before a judge in Oregon. The AG of NH has subpoenaed the company Moore-Information, located in Oregon, that contracted Western Watts (in Utah) to do said push polling. After the calls were reported both Romney and McCain condemned them, and accused each other of being responsible for them. If the judge backs the AG (which, from a lawyer friend, seems likely) then the party behind the push polls might come to light...

SC and Fla are after Jan 16. Jus' saying...

Posted by K Dub | January 9, 2008 7:26 PM

Dear Steve:

The point I was making was not that a "goodie two-shoes" is a bad thing. Rather, I was saying that the perception of being one is a hinderance in terms of electability. Similarly, what I meant by comparing him to Kerry is that they have the same patrician/elite/aloof image. And image will always be a part of the equation. Sorry, but being shot down and taken POW or taking on the Mob and managing 9/11 on the ground make for a more compelling campaign narrative than organizing the winter olympics.

As far as McCain/Feingold goes, it didn't stop GOP wins in '00, '02, and '04. We could have won/held serve in '06 if W had sacked Rumsfeld before the election and the Congress would have stayed out of scandals and quit wasting money.

Posted by EBudvis | January 9, 2008 7:45 PM

Those of you who think the media is biased against Romney and want Huckabee to be the nominee should have your heads examined. Romney and Giuliani were anointed by the media in all the early debates by being placed in the center of the stage and given the lion's share of air time. Romney's name is mentioned about every 15 seconds by FOX because they think he will support the Republican establishment.

Huckabee was a media-designated "second tier" candidate even after he took the lead in the national polls. Even today, after losses in both Iowa and New Hampshire, Michigan is being described as a Romney-McCain "showdown" even though a poll released today showed that Huckabee has more support in Michigan than either of them.

Should Romney lose in Michigan and withdraw, the media will probably still be suggesting he should be the Vice-Presidential candidate for another man for whom greed is good - Michael Bloomberg!

Posted by David E7 | January 9, 2008 8:02 PM

He's playing it smart. Romney knows what he's doing. He currently leads the GOP in delegates. I would say his strategy has worked so far. Anyone who can add, a third grader for instance, can see that the current top three contenders have each won a state, but Romney has the most votes and the most delegates. If you can add, you will see that he is the current winner in the GOP.

Posted by Michael | January 9, 2008 8:28 PM

Hello, Marc, commenters-

I publish a McCain-focused site.

To return to the original post, I agree with Marc that in light of the absence of TV purchases:

"...opponents will wonder: is Romney hedging his bets? Does he not want to spend money in South Carolina and Florida unless he wins Michigan and has a reason to stay in the race?"

I am rooting for McCain, but I think that even the most dispassionate observer would agree with Marc's statement there. If he was 100% sure that the campaign was going full steam ahead, there would be no reason NOT to run ads. (Those primaries are pretty close - SC is only ten days away and FL is only three weeks away.) Money has never been an obstacle to Romney till now. It would suggest that Romney has reached the ceiling of what he's willing to spend, and he doesn't see any point in continuing unless he wins in Michigan.

Further evidence would be the very conspicuous fundraising event that took place in Boston...

Thoughts?

Posted by ElectionNightHQ.com Publisher | January 9, 2008 8:45 PM

Be very careful when assigning any value at all to the Wyoming return.

Each caucus had a delegate. The actual vote totals were not released. Romney was the only candidate who went to Wyoming and his campaigned extensively there. He got 8 of 12 campaigning against no one at all.

All you screaming about the greatness of Romney and how much fear he invokes and decrying the weakness of Mike Huckabee aren't really paying attention to the electoral map.

Romney, a Massachusetts RINO in the eyes of many southern voters has little to no support outside of blue states. His strength lies in blue states, generally the bluer the better. His chances of beating Hillary Clinton in a blue state are are astronomical.

We speak of Huckabee appealing only to evangelicals. Well, newsflash. The evangelicals make up at least 30% in nearly every red state on the map. That gives him a huge chunk of the electorate. While the business wing of the party whines and moans about Huckabee, they are not about to risk letting Clinton or Obama win in November.

Huckabee is not likely to lose ANY current red state. If he gets his butt whipped 80-20 in every blue state and loses the popular election 60-40, he'll still win the election.

If Romney gets beat 55-45 in every blue state, then drops Florida, Iowa and Missouri, it's over, he loses. Clearly he has no appeal in 2 of those 3 already.

To win the election, you have to understand the rules of the game. That's why Kerry was such a horrible choice for the Dems in '04.

Posted by Joey | January 9, 2008 8:49 PM

In his campaign of gymnastic flip-flops and mind-bending distortions, Mitt Romney topped himself Monday with his hilarious claim that he's just "a guy from Detroit." While Detroit and Romney's suburban childhood home in tony Bloomfield Hills might be separated by just a few miles, his privileged life there was light years away from Motor City.

For the details, see:
"Latest Romney Laugher: 'Just a Guy from Detroit.'"

Posted by Furious | January 9, 2008 9:12 PM

To Joey,

Huckabee is the only Republican that I cannot support. While calling Romney dishonest he is every bit as dishonest. His not going negative (I didn't realize that contrast ads were negative) but showing the ad to the media so that they'd put it out for free. That was cheap. His saying that he doesn't know anything about Mormons and then taking cheap shots is just plain rubbish. He has a theological degree for heavens sake. I personally don't care what he thinks about Mormons but at least be honest.

The electoral map is critical. But lets be honest only four or five states are in play. Ohio, Florida, Iowa, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, is Huckabee going to keep New Mexico, Florida, Ohio, Iowa and not lose any red states?

I can tell you living in Idaho and getting both Utah and Idaho news that Huckabee is very unpopular with Mormons and they may stay home. Keep in mind that in the last election Mormons voted over 90% for George Bush. He would not have won the election without Mormon support and neither will Huckabee. While I don't think these states would flip blue remember that Mormons have large populations in Colorado (a purple state), Arizona (fairly close last two presidential elections). Huckabee is no sure thing and the media will go after him big time for being an evangelical.

Republicans can only win if we generate strong turn out in our base and Huckabee cannot unite the base (in my opinion). He is a divider.

Posted by Steve | January 9, 2008 9:17 PM

America is chuck full of biggots!Mitt is by far the most intelligent candidate running today,but the far liberal media is just plain afraid of him.They want a liberal or a GOP liberal candidate like Huckleberry or McCain in there.McCain votes against his own party most of the time(hmmmm..sounds alot like Hagel},and Huck Finn is just a total liar and a fraud!Mitt will prevail when all is said and done!

Posted by twister61 | January 9, 2008 9:46 PM

"Huckabee is no sure thing and the media will go after him big time for being an evangelical."

Neither is any other Republican. It's a really bad year to be a GOP candidate. The economy is going to stink and even though Iraq is shaping up the public doesn't want Republicans at the helm of that ship anymore.

One thing Huckabee has is political talent. Huckabee haters out there should listen to him speak sometime. He was a preacher for heaven's sake; he can convince you that he's just a regular guy while he's promising to slap a 30% sales tax on everything you buy.

He also has evangelicals so locked up that he can say softer things like the idea that he would appoint an atheist to work for him. He doesn't have to throw out divisive Christian Right red meat because he already has those voters. His political style is nothing like the angry Christian Right that everyone is used to.

Romney, on the other hand, is bending over backwards to play the conservative. Do you think he'll be able to soften that message in the general election? No way. In many ways Romney is like Bush the First--an accomplished, competent moderate who made promise after promise to conservatives, who never quite trusted him and turned on him at the drop of a hat.

Huckabee's main downfall would be money. HRC or Obama will be able to outspend him 2-to-1. The GOP fundraisers are already unenthusiastic this year, and after the primaries they will have given much of their cash to Romney and others. Besides he doesn't appeal to moneyed interests in the GOP.

Posted by colatina | January 9, 2008 10:05 PM

Anyone notice that all the people posting against Mitt don't say anything about his record, his abilities, or even his positions. All they can manage is personal attacks and name calling. The lefty democrats are easy to spot, personal attacks is all they have. Come to think of it, that's all Huckabee and McCain have as well. Hmmm.

Posted by Kerry | January 9, 2008 10:21 PM

I wanted to reprint a vile post just so I could slam each dumb point the writer tried to make:

Romney is a total phony- a man without any principal who has made a career and a lot of money by saying and doing anything that advances him personally. Contrast that to John McCain who has spent over 40 years in service to the country,including 5 years as a POW. Where was Romney (and his sickening family) in doing national service? On a mormon mission, saving the mormon olympics - please just leave. Pursue you Godly callings but leave the nation alone.
With any serious scrutiny you have no chance.
Posted by j merrell

1. A man with no principles and a phony out to say and do anything that advances him personally - would have abandoned his variant of religion as an impediment, would not be studied as a model of ethics and civic committment (along with his father) in todays business schools. He would not have gone without a salary as Olympics Head or as Governor.

2. Where was Romney (and his sickening family) in doing national service? Starting with his sickening Dad, George Romney rose from poverty and no college degree to be the man most credited with organizing Detroit to help win WWII with war material production. General George Marshall selected George Romney to explain to Congress why his Marshall Plan to help recover Europe was doable, introducing him as a man Marshall credited with great public service. Later George Romney served 3 terms as Gov in a major state and is credited along with his sickening wife Lenore with leadership in Civil Rights and in creating the new coordinated modern version of Volunteerism and Private-NGO-Gov cooperation.
Mitts sickening siblings have led similar sickening lives of charity work, public service mingled with high performing careers in the private sector. Mitt's sickening wife and sons have all excelled in their lives, with no scandal, while accepting some hard setbacks with grace..

3. Contrast that to John McCain who has spent over 40 years in service to the country,including 5 years as a POW.

I'm a former officer, a Gulf War Vet, with a good private sector job and do charity work.
We all serve our country in different ways. John McCain has spent his entire lifetime from age 17 with his sole sources of income being either paychecks that say "US Federal Treasury" at the top or election funds he got to keep under now rescinded laws or stipends and inheritances from his rich family members.
Nothing wrong with serving your country as a soldier or elected official - but plenty with people lording such 100% lifetime government employment as morally superior to those 93% of Americans who have not been lifetime government employees.
And as a Vet, I say military takes risks, but being maimed, or being taken by the enemy is not enough to make such Victims or heroes of circumstance automatic lifetime Senators or worthy of President simply by "suffering as a POW or being a paralyzed Marine. 99% of POWs and maimed soldiers do not go on to lifetime gov't employment or continually "milk" their former status as a massive entitlement justifying what they want. McCain has milked his POW status in a way no WWII POW or his 561 other Vietnam returning POWs did.

4. Instead of national service On a mormon mission, saving the mormon olympics - please just leave. Pursue you Godly callings but leave the nation alone.

Each American citizen has choices and decisions in the way we serve our values, serve our bethren, serve our nation. Most are as honorable as military service. I don't, even as a Vet, fall for that bullshit that unless you serve the military, preferably in combat, you aren't shit. I credit Chris Dodd and the many Governors, Congressmen, and people who excelled in other fields for Peace Corp service. The towtruck driver I know who has been a volunteer firefighter for 40 years. And I have deep respect for CO's who served as hospital orderlys, halfway house counselors instead - just as long as they didn't run to Canada but did honorable alternate service....And all those people out there who sacrifice considerable time and money, even put themselves in danger - serving not the National Gov's goals by force of arms, but serve American citizens, or serve America's reputation and even "soft power" by being peaceful overseas missionaries, charity workers, experts helping the poor and developing people.
Norman Borlaug is an American Hero, as is Hoover and so many of the world's great humanitarians who happen to be American - as much as a fighter jock who died in war or who got hurt or who fell into enemy hands.....

Posted by chris ford | January 9, 2008 11:21 PM

You know chris ford, it takes a real asshole to call John McCain "a hero of circumstance". Yes, it takes more to be a hero than getting shut down by Vietnamese and spending 5 years as POW.

How about turning down freedom and instead choosing 5 years of torture on principle? John McCain refused early release from the prisoner camps - unless every US POW that got captured before him was released - because the army operated on "first in first out" princeple.

How about crawling back from the deathbed TWICE to serve his country? First, after the Forrestal incident, when John was wounded in legs and chest by shrapnel - but he worked his way back to health and into the plane's cockpit and back to combat missions. Then, after 5 years of torture, when both his legs and arms were broken (he still can't raise his hands above his head) - he once again insisted on going back to the military, endured 9 months of therapy just to get his knees to bend again - just so he can once again pass the flight physical and serve his country where he thought he'd do the most good. No Kerry-ing out for John!

And, by the way, after all that, he commanded the largest squadron in the Navy and turned it around from being a mediocre unit to its first MUC (Meritorious Unit Commendation for non-military types here). But I suppose you are right - buying out a company is a much better example of leadership...

I think you owe a public apology chris.

Posted by Joe Red | January 10, 2008 12:39 AM

I hope Romney stays in the race so that their is a real conservative running. Who would you call the real conservative? McCain who someone suggests will get all the independant and Democrat votes? Come on Republicans this is getting out of hand. If you love McCain so much move to the Democrat party. Huckabee is just as liberal ( I know he is on the side of life and so are Thompson, Romney, McCain, Paul). The only thing keeping him in this election are evangelicals. They vote based on religious preferance. How ridiculous is that!!!!!!

Mitt Romney is the one in the middle of every attack because he is the one with true republican principles. He is solid and has had everything dumped on him. He has the ball and everyone is trying to take it from him. I hope he fights for every inch of ground because if he doesn't the Reagan Republican party is history.

Posted by Wendy73 | January 10, 2008 4:16 PM

The way the posters here are using the term "THE LIBERAL MEDIA" implies that all the media is liberal. That is pure nonsense and right away you have lost credibility.
Romney loses because he is a Mormon? Romney really loses because he is arrogant,and a
flip flopper. You are using his religion to explain his loses when there are legitimate political and personal reasons and that is a cop out.

Posted by Rosa | January 10, 2008 8:28 PM

Anyone who is objective can easily see that Huckabee is a bigger flip-flopper than Romney. If he's not a flip flopper then he's a flat liar. Look at him immigration (flip-flop), look at taxes (a net raise but he claims he lowered taxes- flip flop). Look at him when he says he supported the troop surge (this is an outright lie rather than a flip-flop). The media never holds this slack-jawed redneck responsible.

Posted by Jim Nelmes, Atlanta, Georgia | January 11, 2008 11:42 AM