Wednesday, January 4, 2012

Nobody knows nothing

With the results from Iowa in, pundits are falling all over themselves with attempts to explain what the results mean. Romney and Santorum finished in a dead heat (Romney won by a mere eight votes) and Paul finished third, attracting no more and no less than his base.

Some are saying this results are bad news for Romney, some are saying the results make Santorum a legitimate contender. The lower tier of candidates--Perry, Bachmann, and Huntsman--are taking shots at those above, even as they must admit that they're basically non-factors. Gingrich is fabricating new scenarios, wherein he "teams up" with Santorum or others to take down Romney.

But it's almost all--from pundit and candidate, alike--meaningless rhetoric. Jay Cost at the Weekly Standard pulls apart the internals of the results and comes to the only possible conclusion, for those not desperately trying to prove they know better:
After all, not only did Romney lack a credible challenge from his right in Iowa, he is essentially unchallenged from his left, unlike in 2008 when he had to contend with Rudy Giuliani and John McCain. Next week in New Hampshire looks to be a total rout, in no small part because there is no John McCain-style candidate in the New Hampshire race. 
Nobody to his left. No dominant figure to his right. Romney is in the catbird seat. That’s not an endorsement, just a statement of fact.
That's all there is. There isn't any more. Romney is in control. Santorum--as I've noted--lacks the machinery to go the distance. Almost no one actually likes Gingrich; he's rotting on the road. There's no special knowledge needed here, no unique insights to be had from these results. They are exactly what they look like, nothing more.

Cheers, all.


  1. Well... Granted I am far less knowledgeble of American politics, I think you overlook a couple of things here. Yes, Santorum lacks the machinery in other states, but maybe he doesn't need it (I don't think he would win, but I think he might become a more serious competitor to Romney than previously expected). The Iowa performance, especially if a couple of others drop out might actually boost him (and possibly Newt) to be credible (in competition terms) alternatives to Romney. This might, obviously, not happen, but it is a possibility. Not becaus he is such a great candidate, but becaus there are still plenty of people who don't like Mitt and have nobody else to vote for. By the way, I do agree with some of the pundits who say that as the voting goes to states with higher unemployment, Mitt should fair better.

  2. The thing is, Romney will also fair better in the Northeast and the West Coast. The primaries aren't the same as a Presidential Election; States that the repubs have no hope of winning still have a lot of say in the Primary process. And remember, most people--most voters, even--aren't paying that much attention yet.

    Happy New year, Dm!

  3. Well, I agree that Romney is probably going to win. All I am saying that Santorum probably going to be a much stronger candidate than previously expected.

    By the way, all this talk about Rubio for VP slot on AW... He came on the O'Reily Factor and flat out said he wouldn't do it even if offered. Christie, on the other hand, waffled on the issue.

    Happy New Year to you, too