Considering that he was the lone a top-tier candidate, one would think that he would have garnered a much larger share of the votes after spending millions and touring heavily across the state. Yet he managed only 32%. Does this truly reflect positively on him or is it all in vain?
2007-08-13 02:48:02 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Maybe, but you have to use what you can to further your cause. The whole concept shows how easily swayed the public is.
I think most people vote for who they think can win, not who they personally think is the best choice. That would explain why the initial primaries (caucases) are so important to getting the nomination.
Realistically, should it matter much at all what happens in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina? They are three relatively insignificant states when compared to the impact of winning in New York, California, Texas, or Florida. But when you win those early states, a lot of people jump on that bandwagon. It's kind of like a greyhound race; get out to the early lead and hope the other dogs collide on the turn and you have an easy path home.
2007-08-13 03:01:24 · answer #1 · answered by Mitchell . 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Romney is a quarter horse. He cannot and will not finish strong despite his moderate success. Your right, he has so much money and he has spent it, and yet he cannot separate himself from the pack. It's hard to say whether this reflects positively just yet. It's still a little early to start taking these polls too seriously, but any positive percentage number is good. 32% is nothing to write home about, but it's not horrible either.
2007-08-13 09:56:14 · answer #2 · answered by trapper 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It's a meaningless victory that has no consequence on the race. The Iowa Straw Poll is just a popularity contest. He will have a much harder time competing in states such as Florida, Califoria, etc.
2007-08-13 09:51:44 · answer #3 · answered by Baysoc23 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋
The Iowa straw poll means very very little. First of all people had to pay to get in to vote and then Giuliani, Thompson, F. , and McCain were'nt even in it so those for Giuliani, for example may have staid home and saved their money.
2007-08-13 10:03:29 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Congrats to Romney, he is the candidate that we need to look to for the Republican Party. Nobody else has the same drive, values and ideas that Mitt has proposed.
He has my vote.
2007-08-13 09:55:39 · answer #5 · answered by microbioguy 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
NO, he should flaunt the win, I mean Bush won in 2004 and he did the same thing. This is a sweet victory that shows who was ready and who is not. This is positive, he is unpopular, but look who he is up against. He is a good guy, give him a chance.
2007-08-13 09:57:43 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
He was Governor of Massachusetts, and I thought he was a pretty good one. He seems to be one of the truly honest politicians. Imagine a republican Mormon winning in Ted Kennedy land. Amazing!
We could do worse.... much worse.
2007-08-13 09:54:29 · answer #7 · answered by VirtualElvis 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Romney, if he wins, will become the 1st pres since Coolidge who has no sweat glands.
2007-08-13 09:55:28 · answer #8 · answered by bayfourshack 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It was meaningless. He thinks he is going to win the election, and not all the candidates have announced thier intent to run...
as of now, he is the front runner, and the GOP hopefull, but just wait till Fred Thompson decides to run...no one will touch him!!!!!
GO FRED!!!!!
2007-08-13 09:57:34 · answer #9 · answered by SWT 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋
When one has so little to celebrate, make the most of what you have thrown you way.
2007-08-13 10:03:05 · answer #10 · answered by firewomen 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋