The Republicans have a long tradition of nominating the next candidate on the list. George HW Bush, Bob Dole, John McCain and now Mitt Romney. George W Bush was an exception, but for the most part it's whoever came second for the nomination last time.
As for Iowa, it mainly served to indicate how strongly Romney has the nomination locked up. He hardly campaigned in Iowa, and it's caucus system tends to give more support to outsider candidates. Even the $10,000 bet failed to diminish him. But he still won (or came a close second, depending on how you count the votes). He's enormous amounts of money to spend in other states, and he'll easily take the nomination. Most fundamentally, he's the only candidate they have whose poll results against Obama aren't a complete embarrassment. He'll still lose, it just won't be a complete rout.
One thing Obama and his team have been consistently good at is timing. He needs to look strong in October and November, but right now it's to his advantage to let the Republicans hog the limelight, because it's only going to make him look good in comparison.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-09 06:03 am (UTC)As for Iowa, it mainly served to indicate how strongly Romney has the nomination locked up. He hardly campaigned in Iowa, and it's caucus system tends to give more support to outsider candidates. Even the $10,000 bet failed to diminish him. But he still won (or came a close second, depending on how you count the votes). He's enormous amounts of money to spend in other states, and he'll easily take the nomination. Most fundamentally, he's the only candidate they have whose poll results against Obama aren't a complete embarrassment. He'll still lose, it just won't be a complete rout.
One thing Obama and his team have been consistently good at is timing. He needs to look strong in October and November, but right now it's to his advantage to let the Republicans hog the limelight, because it's only going to make him look good in comparison.