What now for Romney?
By Nom de Plume Posted in 2008 — Comments (30) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Mitt Romney based his 2008 strategy on winning early and often. With a defeat in Iowa and a shaky outlook in New Hampshire, where does he go from here?
Perhaps of more concern to the Romney camp is that despite their hard work and extensive expenditure, Romney hasn't been able to grow beyond his base.
So, if Romney doesn't win in New Hampshire, where can he win? Can you win a presidential nomination by coming in second place everywhere, even in a highly fragmented race? Should he consider striking a deal to accept the VP spot on the ticket with one of the older candidates and set the table for 2012 or 2016 (Romney is only 60, a relative spring chicken among the Republican candidates)? If so, with whom? You have to think that Romney would be the most attractive VP candidate for any of the other major Republicans because he can self-finance.
On the other hand, he appears to have run the most aggressive campaign, so has he burned too many bridges?
Disclosure:
I support Fred. Romney is my second choice, followed by McCain and Huckabee.
And it would be a definite NO if Crist is his running mate. Crist is the farthest thing from a "thoroughbred conservative." He makes McCain look like Michael Savage.
I have no problem supporting McCain, Crist or not, but Crist is very pro-Crist. I haven't been able to figure out what else drives him.
Anyhow, that said, he's got roughly the same chance of being picked VP as I do.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
my understanding is that McCain needs money as badly as anyone. Rudy is probably the worst fit, as he is sitting on a relatively large war chest, plus there is the regional issue.
As an aside, what does Romney do if he does drop out? There's nothing left in Massachusetts for him, and it's hard to see him running for president in 2012 without something in-between.
Losing by this much is a problem for him... especially when one of your biggest selling points was that you were electable and had a clear path to the nomination. I think the guy has a plenty of luckwarm support that will go for somebody like Fred if Romney doesn't look like the guy to beat.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
However, I would not be blown away if the son of George Romney pulled out a close won in the Wolverine State.
"I believe in grace, because I have seen it. In peace, because I have felt it. In forgiveness, because I needed it."
-George W. Bush
Romney will be in trouble if he loses New Hampshire. He will be in big trouble if he loses Michigan. But NdP has a very interesting question, "can you win a presidential nomination by coming in second place everywhere, even in a highly fragmented race?"
I'm not writing Romney off, even if he loses elsewhere and in Michigan, but his options will be severely limited. The fascinating part is what happens when a few wins go to Huck, a few to McCain, a few to Romney and a few to Giuliani, heck Fred may even get a few. Yet, Romney will get many second place finishes. With many states losing their delegates as punishment for calendar changes to their voting, things will be mathematically fascinating.
District delegates are the key to this Primary and many states are not "winner takes all". Thus with Romney winning many second places and only a few first places like the rest of the field, then this becomes a brokered contest. Either way, I don't see Romney dropping out by Michigan unless his further defeats put him at under 15% turn out in multiple states with third and forth finishes. Multiple second place runs do not finish a candidate in this contest.
It's just getting interesting and Romney will continue to be the slow turtle with lots 'o cash that just learned an important lesson about using it more effectively.
It is just a matter of when he will give it up.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Positivist Pastafarian for the alliteration alone.
Romney winning New Hampshire puts him exactly where he should be: well on the way to the nomination.
With Wyoming and Michigan following, Romney should be in very good shape come South Carolina....if he wins New Hampshire.
"Don't ever be afraid to see what you see." ~Ronald Reagan
Romney only lead Iowa when no one was running against him. Huckabee made a stand after Rudy, Fred, and Mac left. Romney only lead in NH because Rudy and Fred weren't there and McCain was perceived as dead. Now Romney is limping, there is blood in the water, and McCain is surging.
Romney is dead in NH and in the country. He's dead and it is a matter of him accepting it. He will never ever be president.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Positivist Pastafarian for the alliteration alone.
will probably make the primary there a reasonably dependable referendum on what they all thought of Romney as a governor.
Remember, Romney's lead in NH was when McCain was dead in the water and no other major candidate was competing. Now McCain is back and Romney is weak.
Romney is gone.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Positivist Pastafarian for the alliteration alone.
Though NH is trending blue NH and MA are still very, very, very different states. The primary results in NH won't be a reasonably dependable referendum on anything that happened in MA.
The primary will have much more to do with how many Indies pull a GOP ballot now that Obama won tonight and how many of those votes will come out of McCain's hyde.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
but they ought to know somewhat better than most of us. I do wonder if Mitt's reasons for serving one term were just to run for president or if he wanted to play it safe.
You'll notice that none of the GOPers managed to hang around for very long. Dealing with those idiots (5-1 Demo to Republican) should earn one combat pay.
Really, living here it's not hard to understand.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
With the big loss in Iowa. The bright side for Mitt is that Obama won... I think that will hurt McCain by depriving him of independents and Democrats... the question is will it be enough?
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
1) He gets a win in New Hampshire, claims "1st among real candidates" in Iowa, pretends Hucakbee never happened, and continues on with his original strategy.
2) He hangs on, surviving due to the support he has built a lot of early states, winning a couple, and making it to a brokered convention, where he has a decent chance.
3) He loses NH by a large margin, is crushed in Michigan, loses most of the early state support he had built, and is crushed so decisively that it is clear there is no point in sticking around.
I would give #1 a 35% chance, #1 a 60% chance, and #3 a 5% chance.
I've been a long time Romney supporter and tonight's second hurts. I'm disappointed that Iowans choose a Bigotted Populist at that the expense of the 08 election. So evangellicals won't elect a Mormon huh? A Catholic? A Scientologist? Jehovah's witness? Maybe Romney should run an independent campaign with all his money and take the fiscons and securicons and all those religions the Evangelicals consider unfit, and run a new inclusive, conservative party. Enough of that rant....My first thought was that Mitt should reach out to Fred and join forces. Fred/Mitt would then have a solidly conservative, well financed, organized and energized campain. Mitt is young enough to wait 8 yrs for the job. Then we would have a 16 year legacy without selling out any part of the reagan coalition. We would stop Huckabee, Mccain and Guilliani.
There's gonna be a lot more Romney -> Fred movement than Fred -> Romney movement due to Romney's poor showing here. I had Mitt as #1 for a while based on the fact that he appeared to have a great path to the nomination (beating Huckabee and McCain)... if I'm going to support someone with a questionable path to the nomination, I'm going for Fred, because I greatly prefer him to Mitt.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
cfgeek
If the social conservatives succeed in getting the nomination for the Pastor in Chief, then Democrats will only have the White house for 4 years, then Mitt can run again.
Once and for all the question of driving the bus will be decided and the social conservative single issue voters can then form their own National Religious party and be done with the rest of us.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
why would he have a better chance in 2012, especially if he isn't the VP candidate in 2008?
If a D wins in 2008, what would stop Bobby Jindal from getting the nomination in 2012? You'd probably need to rely on the words of another Louisiana governor to keep that from happening.
As to your other point about driving social conservatives to another party, Rush Limbaugh just commented on that to Susan Estrich on Fox. Funny, though, he seemed to think that would be a bad thing.
Obama has more surge and energy now than anybody on either side. Get ready for President Obama and another mess like 1976 to 1980. Mitt may well come back in 2012 as Reagan did in 1980 after losing in 1976.
Romney has stated that he's in at least through Super Tuesday. The latest Rasmussen national poll placed him in first and that will likely give him the hope that he has at least a chance nationally. Personally, I think he should settle for second in New Hampshire, compete heavily in Michigan, Nevada, completely skip South Carolina, and compete heavily in Florida and the Super Tuesday states. He has the money to get a just start on everyone in the Super Tuesday states. By skipping South Carolina, he will miss out on another evangelical rejection and allow Huckabee, McCain and Thompson to dish it out. Romney needs to shed the reputation as the trouble maker. If he misses South Carolina, the dirt will surely transfer to one of the competitors who do compete there. Its kind of a Rudy approach, but he might just get Michigan and Nevada before the big dance.
McCain - Needs a young, thoroughbred conservative (Pawlentey, Crist, Ensign, Steele)
Rudy - Needs a social conservative who is not from the northeast (Huckabee, Thompson, Crist) or someone with whom to run a "50 state strategy" (McCain)
Huckabee - Needs strong foreign policy experience (McCain, Giuliani)
Thompson - Romney could possibly fit the bill, along with Pawlenty, Ensign, Steele...
Spitballs?!?! / Yo No Soy Marinero, Soy Capitan