Republicans and Iowa Straw Poll: No Meaning

Meaning of the Iowa Straw Poll: Nothing (not even enough menaing for me to use my infamous all caps).


The unfair and unbalanced network (the one calling itself "fair and balanced")( aclled the Iowa Straw Poll "crucial". Whey lied to you. What else is new.


Oh, it is a little hyperbole to call the meaning literally "nothing". The Iowa straw poll might be said to have sent a few straws into th ewind (pun intended). But it is a lot LESS iimportant than the break in the Kentucky Derby--where you can't win the race, but can lose it.


I still endorse Michele Bachmann for the nominattion, and she won. That can be a momentum builder for her, but really skhe was building momentum anyway. KHer test is whether she can keep momentum after Rick Perry is full in the race.


Nope. The showing of Ron Paul did not mean anything, except maybe our wars are even more unpopular now than in 2008 Ron Paul's people are fanatic, and he always does well in this kind of poll. Sure, he has a right to feel' "encouraged". He still has no chance (although the straw in the wind here is that Paul may have the ability to stay in to the end, and accumulate enough delegates to have an influence on the ultimate nominee--if no candidate really breaks from the pack). Paul will not be the noominee. That was true before Iowa, and after Iowa. I say that as a person who admirewsPaul, and am more ready to vote for him in a general election than I am as to most Repubicans. But you get the truth from this blog. I do see more and more why so many people truely believe in Ron Paul, and I gnerally respect those people. There is a lot to like. But I can't vote for him for the nomination, and he won't win it.


Nope. The 718 "write in" votes for Rick Perry mean nothing. There is NO situatioin where 718 votes mean anything, except in an election decided by fewer votes. It is NOT significant that Perry "beat" Mitt Romney in the batgtle of "non-candidates" in the Iowa Straw Poll. Perrry's competition in Iowa will not be Mitt Romney. It will be Michele Bachmann--with some chance of Rick Santorum making some noise, and with Ron Paul making his usual noise becakuse of the enthusiasm of his fans.


Tim Pawlenty is dead, but Tim Pawlenty ws dead before the straw poll (see this blog). It is not the place that Pawlenty finished that matters, but the NUMBER of votes. 2000--less than half of both Bachmann and Paul--is simply not enough. Pawlenty spent an awful lot of money per vote, and he was already dead. A zombie politician walking. Not a VP either, if the Republican nominee has any snese.


Newt Gingrich was already dead, despite a winning debate performance.


Mitt Romney will not win the Iowa suucuses, but Romney was never going to win the Iowa caucuses. He spent too much money to LOSE to Huckabee in 2008, and Romney has conceded Iowa this time--a self-fulfilling prophetic decision. Romney could easily finish a low as 5th in Iowa, unless he is really dominating nationally by then, and that is the danger in his strategy . Like McCain (successfully) in 2008, Romney is relying totally on New Hampshire. McCain got away with it because no one else cuaght fir. That is the danger fro Romney. Maybe Perry and/or Bachmann will catch fire. In 2008, it actually ended up that Romney HAD to win New Hampshire, and he did not. He is embracing that philsophy this time-concentrating on New Hampshire. It may or may not work. But what Romney does in Iowa is pretty much irrelevant, except to the extent it affects him in New Hampshire (enabling his opponents to build momentum). The straw ppoll means nothing as to any of this, although it does show just how little chance Romney has given himself in Iowa. He jsut better win New Hampshire. Perry is going to ambush him in South Carolina, and has a chance in Iow (maybe even in New Hampshire--depending on how his campaign goe). Bachmann COULD actually build so much momentum that she can't be stopped. And Paul is there siphoning off protest votes, and holding the votes of his fanatics. If Romney comes in with less than 30% of the vote in New Hampshire, he could lose (or win so small that it does not really help him).


Herman Cain was already fading, and will not be the nominee (despite being a man I admire, and who says a lot of good things).


Hon Huntsman never had a chance.


There you have it: the full present status of the Repubilcan field. That status was not materially affected by the straw poll. Rick Perry did demonstrate masterful campaign skill by the way he stole all of the thnder from the candidates in Iowa, without totally ruining his chances in Iowa later on. By announcing in South Carolina,m Perry may have cost himself in the later Iowa caucuses, but he is immeidately moving into Iowa. He may be able to overcome it, and really helped himself elsewhere. IF Perry avoids self-destructon, AND can dispose of Bachmann, Perry has a great chance against Romney (who has run a campaign like he is already the nominee--not one really laying a glove on him, but he not laying a glove on anybody else either). One of Perry's great psychological moves, by the way, was realizing that a meaningless write in vote could help him if he looked good in comparison with Romney (good to media types looking for earsatz "meaning" instead of reality).


I should get paid for this. It is better analysis than you will get anywhere in the media (as usual). And I am so modest, too.


P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).