Line Change!
Romney, McCain, and Frist go up, while Allen continues to plummet.
Allen's complete collapse has opened the door for "McCain alternatives" particularly Frist and Romney. Allen's troubles deepened this week, with accusations flying that he has a proclivity for using the "n word"
Frist has been active in Iowa since putting a team together here and looks a lot more serious about a run. He leapfrogs Allen for one reason. We can't find anybody in Iowa politics who thinks Allen has a better chance of becoming President than Frist. Nobody.
Romney also benefits from Allen's collapse and he has shown that he is essentially the co-frontrunner for the nomination. He brings on the Speaker of the House, his Iowa staff credentials are impeccable.
McCain brings on Dave Roederer and does well in the Register poll. He and Romney have separated themselves from the rest to a great extent.
Pataki polled suprisingly well behind McCain and Rudy, which justifies him holding at #3. He also picked up Iowa vet Craig Schoenfeld.
The results.
Romney goes up from 9-2 to 7-2
McCain goes up from 11-2 to 5-1
Frist goes up from 24-1 to 22-1
Allen falls from 18-1 to 25-1
Comment away
posted by Caucus Cooler at 9/27/2006
21 Comments:
How can you argue that Romney has better odds than McCain of winning Iowa given the following facts?
1) Romney negatives are higher than his positives in Iowa poll
2) Romney historical pro-choice position on abortion and opposition from national pro-life leaders
3) McCain domination of key Iowa players
4) McCain's solid numbers in Iowa
Hmmmmm.... Anon, let me start by saying what are you smoking?
1) "Romney negatives are higher than his positives in Iowa poll"
- The more people learn about Mitt and his record, the more they like him.
2) "Romney historical pro-choice position on abortion and opposition from national pro-life leaders"
- This again? Governed pro-life in a pro-choice state.
- Consider the opposition by conservatives, Iowa caucusers, ethanol supporters, immigration hawks etc. toward McCain. They will side with the alternative = Mitt.
3) McCain domination of key Iowa players
- Roederer was a great catch indeed, but he was an advisor to who? Iowa Commonwealth PAC Chairman Doug Dross. Point Mitt.
- Who else does McCain have in Iowa? Larson? His GOP Chairman accolades were achieved by Gentry Collins in his abscence. Point Mitt.
4) "McCain's solid numbers in Iowa"
- Solid NAME ID numbers in 2006 for heaven's sake.
You can't refute any of this, hence you post anonymously.
Anon,
McCainiacs love the phone polls . . . especially when they include Dems and Indys in addition to Repubs (like the recent Des Moines Register Poll that you are referring to).
In 2000 McCain ONLY won states that had OPEN Primaries where Democrats and independants could vote for him (as they did in droves in Michigan and New Hampshire). The problem for McCain in Iowa is that the caucus is for GOP voters ONLY . . . and many caucus goers will not forget that McCain snubed Iowa in 2000.
Another problem for McCain is that all signs are pointing to Michigan making it's primary CLOSED in 2008 . . . if that's the case, Romney will have Michigan locked up and McCain may only win New Hampshire (with Romney a VERY close 2nd--maybe even beating him there). South Carolina should be interesting with a close three way race with Romney, McCain, and whatever southerner GOP candidate comes to the forefront (Frist, Huckabee, Allen, Gingrich?)
The fact is that Mitt Romney has put together the best organization in Iowa at this time. That's what the line is, an assessment of who seems to be the most likely to win the caucus at a given time.
McCain still has some fences to mend over skipping Iowa in 2000 and with the far right wingers that make up a lot of the caucus population.
We've said all along that McCain is probably the favorite to win the nomination (even though Romney is basically a co-favorite at this point), but Romney looked better in Iowa.
Until McCain's organization grows, we're sticking with it.
"Romney negatives are higher than his positives in Iowa poll"
Let me point out that referring to polling data this far out is a WASTE of time. The truth of the matter is that Romney's image is undefined among the primary electorate. Please stop using that as a reason for saying that Romney, or any candidate for that matter, is not a contender.
quick note on SC and Open Primaries: We may (may) be able to close our primary just in time for the 2008 Presidential. There's a move afoot to require registration by party (not currently done here). That would also play into what Jeff's talking about...
How can someone who goes by the name 'Yoda" be critical of someone who posts anon?
Everyone who blogs in Iowa knows Yoda is Todd Henderson. He's quite, unanonymous.
Roederer is twice the pickup of Rants...maybe 3 times.
3:47
Hmmm... How do you figure, I wonder? To me, sense you do not make....
McCain will do poorly in Iowa.
McCain will do no better than third in New Hampshire.
McCain will do poorly in South Carolina.
No crossover and big independent vote in Michigan, big Romney history in Michigan and nonRomney moderate option in Pataki. McCain probably won't win Michigan.
Where does he get hot?
Why would McCain finish "no better than third" in a state he won by double digits 8 years ago?
Why will he do poorly in a state he did well in with no money 8 years ago, where he'll have the support of the Governor, at least one of the Senators, and a number of others?
Roederer is actually respected in GOP circles where Rants is merely tolerated.
Roederer offers sound political advice based on experience and science, Rants will offer advice based on how it will benefit himself or the House.
Roederer actually has character and integrity and chose his candidate without ever expecting political or monetary gain. Don't be naive and do the math...how much did/will Rant's endorsement cost Commonwealth?
Are you so blind Yoda? Why would the Speaker of the House endorse an '08 Presidential candidate before November '06? 1) He wants a few more bucks for his candidates 2) If things go bad this November, his endorsement wouldn't mean s**t. It's a CYA move so that he's got a job to go to if he loses the House.
Financial gain?
Commonwealth PAC advisors don't get paid.
McCain and Pataki's do.
Yes, some Commonwealth PAC advisors do get paid.
no they don't. Gross, Kochel, Yoda etc. None of which are paid to my knowledge.
Ya get what'cha pay for, I've heard.
Actually, when you are advising the guy who is going to win, being associated with him is enough.
Mitt will win.
Well I for one am very proud to live in a state where top level operatives are willing to work pro bono for a struggling PAC like Commonwealth.
Get a clue...
Why did Gross lose to Vilsack? What was the deal there? Turnout? Message? Money?
Some Commonwealth advisors do get paid. They are often paid by the Commonwealth PAC's that are based in states other than the state that the advisor is from.
Post a Comment
<< Home