Iowa still trumps Florida
TAMA, Iowa -- Sorry, all you political junkies in Florida, New York, California, Michigan and any other state maneuvering to have more say in picking the presidential nominees. Your opinion on the presidential contenders simply matters less than the view of Judy Huff, a retired pharmacy worker from Grinnell, Iowa. Your state leaders may not admit that, but most of the candidates and their political pros know it, and so does the earnest Huff, who makes a point of meeting as many presidential candidates as possible.
"Yes, we get sick of all the phone calls from the campaigns, but we take this responsibility very seriously," said Huff, waiting recently to see Republican Mitt Romney in a rural coffee shop. "It's very fun to be able to see so many candidates in person and learn all we can learn first-hand, instead of relying on newspapers and TV to educate us."
For all the mad scrambling by states, including Florida, to snatch early presidential attention from Iowa and New Hampshire, there's no sign yet that Hawkeye or Granite staters are losing influence. Far from it. More here.


"Field of Dreams" for candidates.
Posted by: politicalspectator | August 24, 2007 at 08:36 AM
Just look at the history of who won Iowa. Doesn't make much difference.
The big "MO" will come with the winner of Florida.
Iowa really amounts to little.
Posted by: | August 24, 2007 at 08:42 AM
8:42
You are wrong, plain and simple.
GO MITT GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: | August 24, 2007 at 08:49 AM
It's not just about Iowa for Mitt. If he wins Iowa and follows it up with wins in New Hampshire and Michigan this race is going to be done and the Rudy people know it. Look for them to make a strong push in one of those first three states.
Posted by: | August 24, 2007 at 08:58 AM
It's not just about Iowa for Mitt. If he wins Iowa and follows it up with wins in New Hampshire and Michigan this race is going to be done and the Rudy people know it. Look for them to make a strong push in one of those first three states.
Posted by: | August 24, 2007 at 09:21 AM
Yeah, but Thompson getting in this race really hurts Romney. No longer will he be the most conservative top tier candidate. I guess you could say he never was, he just was playing one for the cameras. Anyway, I digress, Thompson hurts Romney in all those early states, especially Iowa and South Carolina. Huckabee and Brownback voters fall to Thompson as the field whittles down, as do McCain voters who just don't like Rudy or Romney, and know their guy won't get there.
Posted by: | August 24, 2007 at 09:39 AM
9:39
While it's true Fred Thompson initially may siphon votes Romney; Romney will win first in Iowa and his Mitt-mentum will be hard to stop.
You are completely underestimating the fundraising advantage Romney has and the excellent ground teams/organization Romney's had for a long time in many states.
Thompson has no significant record that makes him qualified to lead this
country and after his initial take-off, I believe Thompson will stall & Romney will continue to increase in the polls.
Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan = Republican nominee 08
Posted by: | August 24, 2007 at 09:48 AM
You no doubt bring up some very important points, fundraising has to be job one for the thompson team, and Mitt has put together a strong early state organization. I guess the big questions are if the money is there, and if the Romney campaign can hold down their activist base and keep them at home, no defections to Fred. I'm already hearing about a strong team put together in FL, and what's guaranteed to be a nice rollout of endorsements from THompson. Will that turn into activist support, which then equal votes?
Posted by: | August 24, 2007 at 09:53 AM
Romney's Fl team is at best third string. What have they done?
Posted by: | August 24, 2007 at 10:04 AM
Romney's Iowa bump is history. Back down to 11%
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/082307_approval_2008_web.pdf
Posted by: | August 24, 2007 at 10:08 AM
Anyone knows that the Governor of Massachusetts is a weak governing office. The folks that run the Commonwealth are ensconced in the legislature.
Posted by: | August 24, 2007 at 10:10 AM
10:04 Romney's Team in FL at best... third string? That's wishful thinking.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
See you in Iowa!
It all begins there.
The Rominator Express... non-stop to Washington D.C.
Posted by: | August 24, 2007 at 10:45 AM
10:45 Imitating Howard Dean does not become you.
YeeeeeeeEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAHHhhhh
Mitt is the master of straw polls!
Posted by: | August 24, 2007 at 10:58 AM
FOX NEWS has Romney at 11%
You can perfectly trace the temporary Iowa bump at Real Clear Politics.
Mitt better keep sponsoring straw polls everywhere.
Posted by: | August 24, 2007 at 11:05 AM
10:58 Howard Dean screamed and I am laughing.
Making incorrect analogies does not become you.
Mitt went to Iowa over 200 times. He has been in FL only 14, just watch.
Posted by: | August 24, 2007 at 11:06 AM
Anybody that makes fun of Romney's staff is just sad cause they are miserable with their own job and life. His staff is doing a great job considering where his name ID was back in February. I personally know a few of the field staff and they are not only more qualified than Rudy staffers but more educated as well. Remember all you Rudy Fans living in SE Florida and Miami can't vote cause you are independents or democrats.
Posted by: | August 24, 2007 at 11:11 AM
Name at least one first stringer for Romney if you are able to.
Posted by: | August 24, 2007 at 11:34 AM
11:06 Look at your 10:45 entry. You essentially quoted Howard Dean verbatim. Look it up and weep.
Posted by: | August 24, 2007 at 12:14 PM
12:14 nope, I did not.
But I'm still laughing about your original post.
Have a great day.
Posted by: | August 24, 2007 at 01:05 PM
Not only are we going to New Hampshire, we're going to South Carolina and Oklahoma and Arizona and North Dakota and New Mexico, and we're going to California and Texas and New York … And we're going to South Dakota and Oregon and Washington and Michigan, and then we're going to Washington, D.C., to take back the White House! Byaaah!!!
Posted by: | August 24, 2007 at 01:17 PM
1:17 that sounds familiar, you sound like Howard Dean!
I mentioned the first 3 primaries where Romney is currently ahead and the final destination for the nominee in 08. That hardly constitutes Dean not that your interpretation matters.
You are embellishing, a liberal trait to be sure.
Posted by: | August 24, 2007 at 01:56 PM
You want a field staff first stringer or not? And what do you define as first string moron?
Posted by: | August 24, 2007 at 02:07 PM
Obivously no one can name a first stringer
Posted by: | August 24, 2007 at 04:01 PM
1:56 Self delusion is precisely what gets folks in trouble. Bet you watch your words more carefuly, else you catch foot in mouth disease again.
Posted by: | August 24, 2007 at 04:02 PM
Not only are we going to New Hampshire, we're going to South Carolina, Michigan and Florida... And then we're going fold our tent faster than Michael Vick copping a plea agreement. Then we going home to Massachusetts to lick our wounds. Then it is on to Washington with our dog on the roof to watch Rudy and Fred take their oaths of office (and pray that I get offered a cabinet position). Gosh, I love America!!
Posted by: | August 24, 2007 at 04:07 PM
Nick Hansen, Brandon Patty, Patrick McQuillan
Posted by: | August 24, 2007 at 05:26 PM
The best you can come up with is three unknown irishmen?
Posted by: | August 24, 2007 at 05:48 PM
Hmmm... three Romney household names. Romney will definitely win with this trio.
Posted by: | August 24, 2007 at 05:58 PM
Geez buddy get a life. The guy that probably knows those folks is off the blog now. Instead of being a liberal basher of people that work on another campaign, why don't you direct compliments. Obviously, you support a D or different R. We get it already, you like your staff better, wooopee, great, now get a life, its Friday, get a girlfriend, which I doubt you have, and go hang out with Rudy's 40 year old field staffers with kids.
Posted by: | August 24, 2007 at 06:12 PM
6:12 I agree with your comments, but there is nothing wrong with 40 year old field staffers. They have more credibility with REC members (most of whom are much older)
Posted by: | August 24, 2007 at 07:03 PM