Post-Iowa Observations

As a Romney supporter, I am obviously disheartened by the results in Iowa last night. I congratulate Mr. Huckabee on his victory. Here are some observations as we move forward:

1) Mitt was able to build leads in early states where he had time to introduce himself to people who were paying attention early - people where he could define himself to them and what he stood for instead of being defined by the media. My assertion is that those leads were built early on by people who pay close attention to politics. I would further argue that these people also multi-issue voters who most thoroughly scrutinize everything about a candidate. That this group gave Mitt the lead speaks volumes about what a great candidate he is.

2) Mitt's early leads evaporated late in the game as the "average person" - someone not obsessed with politics - started to pay attention to the race. These are also good, hard-working Americans who just don't have or take as much time to scrutinize a candidate thoroughly. It seems the media is able to create political movements mostly because of this group: "Huckabee surging in Iowa" headlines yield a Huckabee surge. "McCain surges in New Hampshire" yields a New Hampshire surge. I don't want to call apolitical people sheep, but they grab headlines instead of diving into the meat of what's happening. Why else is "spin" so important? To get you the proper headline. Recent reports on the ground in Iowa with Huckabee supporters, for example, found that they didn't know about his recent Pakistan gaffes, his negative "I'm not going negative" news conference, or other missteps by him. They know what the headlines read: "Huckabee surges in Iowa."

3) Romney has not done a good job at combatting the flip-flop accusations or the assertions that he will say anything to win. He has too easily allowed the media to define him to this large group of people who begin to pay attention late in the gaem. These accusations are the negatives anyone can find about him, but if people look close at any candidate, they will find similar statements and policy changes (even from straight talking McCain who argues for amnesty by name and then says he never did want amnesty for illegals). Another related question: Do we really want a candidate that is so sure they are 100% right from square one that they are unwilling to change positions when new information presents itself or an when an internal epiphany occurs which brings a candidate around to a more correct view of old information?

4) It will be interesting to see how Huckabee and McCain's mutual admiration party breaks down now that they are going head to head. It was pretty clear to see that they needed each other to take out Romney. I suspect Huckabee will now begin to dig at McCain somewhat (if not in New Hampshire, undoubtedly in South Caroliina). That's the thanks McCain will get from Huckabee. I may be wrong if they are hoping to become the combined ticket, however.

5) I give Romney about a 10% chance of winning in New Hampshire, 89% to McCain, 1% to someone else (just in case something crazy happens). McCain was leading in polls prior to Iowa, and I doubt Romney can stop the bleeding now. The only way he wins is if Obama's win ciphers enough independents over to the Democratic primary to harm McCain. I'm not sure this will happen in large enough numbers.

6) If Romney loses in New Hampshire, I don't like his chances in Michigan either which went to McCain in 2000. If Romney is 0-3 in the first big contests (would a Wyoming win will overshadow an Iowa loss? Um, no.) I think he's done. It will take nothing short of a miracle in my opinion to right Mitt's ship at this point, and it pains me to write that.