As of now, I am in control here, in the White House

Romney Blows Away the Field in Iowa

Are we looking at another lackluster group of Republican presidential candidates? Is Mitt Romney nostalgia sweeping the Republican Party? Is it a little bit of both?

Romney didn’t just win a poll of Republicans asked about their preferences in the Iowa caucuses. He killed.

Again?
Again?

The new USA Today poll gives Mitt Romney 35 percent of the caucus vote, with the rest of the tally divided among about a dozen also-rans. In second place is Mike Huckabee, who won the caucuses in 2008, but he pulls down only nine percent. Jeb Bush, the supposed potential juggernaut, is at just under five percent. Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, who are supposedly catching fire, are each at five percent.

Now, let’s be clear, there are a few things other than Romney nostalgia going on here. One is simple name recognition. Another is that his enemies – the true severe conservatives – are divided, with Scott Walker, Paul Ryan, Rick Santorum, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz,  and Mike Huckabee all in the range of four to nine percent. Interestingly, Marco Rubio, for all the PR he gets, is at about two percent, and Bobby Jindal is at 1.7 percent.

But it appears Romneymania is for real. And he must know it, because he is diluting his earlier declaration that he’s not getting in the race.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on RedditShare on LinkedInEmail this to someone

24 Responses to Romney Blows Away the Field in Iowa

  1. Romney is pro-amnesty. I imagine the big guns of the Republican establishment have something to do with this. The conservative candidates don’t have the money (plus Romney has his own).

    Sad, because all those people who now say they wished they had voted for him in 2012 will NOT vote for him in 2016 either.

    • Agree. The one good thing from this poll is that the Repubs have a deep bench of possible candidates to choose next year.

      The Dems seem to have decided on the old lady as their standard bearer – the same old lady they didn’t want six years ago.

    • I probably wouldn’t vote for him in the primaries, but I’d vote for just about anybody running against Hillary or the like. I’ll try not to bash him too much.

  2. Too early. I think at this time in the 2008 campaign Obama wasn’t even on the radar yet. Bill Clinton came out of nowhere in Oct 1991 to declare his candidacy for 1992.

    I’ll go with nostalgia for Romney. If the Dems run a woman in ’16, Mitt will be slapped with misogyny as well as a rich out of touch guy.

  3. Perhaps Romney the Rino swept Iowa because Governor Sarah Palin was not offered as a candidate?

    Seriously; why should Republicans nominate someone from the Viagra wing of the Republican party, an Obama lite or light (meaning white) to be their candidate for Potus when Obama’s policies are failing so spectacularly? By this time next year ISIS will be staging mass beheadings in Times Square. (Ironically, their victims will be imbeciles who voted for Obama, so it will merely cull the gene pool and purge the voter registration rolls) At that time, Americans will be eager to elect a woman with proven wisdom and leadership capability as well as spectacularly functional ovaries to be POTUS rather ran another man with no testicles like Obama or Romney.

    • Exactly.
      I do believe he is an intelligent man…but that smirk looks (to me) like he is saying, “You little people – I know you cannot possibly understand me, but I will have compassion for you…and … as it difficult as it will be for me, I will TRY to lead you ignoramuses to the Promised Land.
      Retire, Mr. Romney…unless you can find the balls to come out with guns blazing, taking no hostages.
      Yes, NSA, I wrote “guns,”blazing”and “hostages” in the same comment. Lord have mercy, I am in a bad mood today.

      • Maybe it’s not completely fair, but I needed Romney to win SO MUCH, I needed him to NOT LOSE, and he lost–and he let that dopey Crowley gal ace him…no more chances, Mitt!

  4. Nothing against the fine folks in the state of Iowa (and New Hampshire), but I’m about tired of having those two states deciding who will or won’t be the likely nominee before the race has even started.

  5. Let me throw something out there concerning Presidential politics an amateur like “moi” sees happening but nobody, including Keith, has mentioned.

    The Democrats have seen how well having the “historic” first “black”
    President worked in getting out the vote for their man. Low information voters by the gazillions voted for him…twice.

    Now imagine 2016 with a woman Democratic nominee. Against a male GOP candidate, will not the same voters, minus some blacks but plus perhaps millions of women want to be in on the “historic” first vote for a woman President? Already women vote in the majority Democratic for President.

    It could be a landslide for the Democrats especially if their candidate turns out to be Sen. Warren and not a tired baggage laden Hillary. Sen. Warren gains no advantage right now doing anything other than denying interest.

    Presidential politics after Obama has become far less about the issues and more about personality, narrative and the candidates ability to connect with voters. A narrative of the first woman President is hard to beat. Of course this will all be sub rosa, no need to mention it, that would be crass. But it will work.

    The only thing the GOP can do is to nominate another woman to face her and fortunately we have one in Gov. Sarah Palin. And like Sen. Warren, Gov. Palin gains no advantage in doing anything other than denying interest. But she is quite obviously laying groundwork with active support of down ticket candidates across the country, a al Reagan before 1980 and she has a growing base connected on social media. 2016 is the year of the first woman President. A powerful Democratic meme, if we let it stand alone.

    Am I the only one who sees this?