Amid the news vacuum that Romney created with his speech this week is a detailed look at the ground games in Iowa by Politico. Jonathan Martin was tasked with taking on the Romney and Huckabee camps. I'll have more in this later. For now, take the first paragraphs from each piece. It gives you a good idea about the massive differential between the campaigns:

ON MITT: "Mitt Romney has built the most formidable Iowa operation of any GOP presidential candidate on what might be described as three legs of a campaign stool: time on the ground, top local talent and cold, hard cash."

ON HUCKABEE: "Either Eric Woolson is a master at lowering expectations or Mike Huckabee is taking a gigantic gamble that his skeletal Iowa organization can still somehow earn a victory on Jan. 3. "

Its obvious from the NIE blindside earlier this week that Huckabee is clearly lacking in staff (or at least needs to pull up Drudge every now and then on the Blackberry). But the INS craziness today points to something different altogether.

Regardless, Huckabee is a threat to Romney. But I believe the speech will do some good in the next week. As Mike's rise has shown... anything can happen now that people are paying attention.

Labels: Jonathan Martin, mitt romney, Politico

Jonathan Martin has a piece up about the fundraising race for the second quarter. Mostly it talks about the expectation gaming that each candidate is doing. Some (i.e. McCain) have more pressure than others to lower the bar so as to exceed expectations. Obviously each campaign is working furiously to get as much as possible. Martin had one note in particular that I found amazing:

While his public schedule has been markedly light, at least compared with Romney and McCain, Giuliani has kept up the fundraising pace. His campaign declined to say how many total events they did for the quarter, but said they’ll do around 50 in June alone.

Romney had 30 events scheduled for June. McCain had 35. Obviously, McCain and especially Rudy are doing their best to generate cash.

I think the point of all this, for us Romney supporters, is that we need to increase our efforts to support Romney. Personally, I think Romney is the president that this country needs: smart, innovative, a strong and effective executive, personally upright, god-fearing, and most importantly has the vision and message to confront the challenges that face us now and in the future. He's really the type of man and leader that comes along only about once a generation. That he is running for president is really amazing. Thus, we should seize the chance to help in Romney's efforts to lead this wonderful country.

There are several ways to donate. Here at MMM or over at the official campaign website. Help make the second quarter as successful as the first quarter!

Labels: fundraising, Jonathan Martin, Politico

Much has been made of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s recent switch from Republican affiliation to unaffiliated. Of course the question right away has been “Who does this hurt?” Chuck Todd has his thoughts:

Looking at voting patterns and the strength of both parties' bases, a true three-way race may help the Democrats more than the Republicans. Why? It’s simple -- the South. The irony of a Bloomberg candidacy is that it could make the Democrats more competitive in the South because their 35% base vote in the South is made up of die-hard Democrats.

Jonah Goldberg at NRO counters this thinking:

Moreover, is it inconceivable that the logic Todd & Co. use about the South might also have applicability in the Northeast and California? Splitting the limousine liberal vote in New York, New Jersey, Conn., California and Mass. could change the dynamics for a Republican quite favorably (depending on the Republican). Indeed, the Republican contender wouldn't need to actually win all or almost any of these states in this scenario. He could however force a Hillary or an Obama to spend time and money in areas a Democrat should have locked up.

Personally I think that Goldberg is too conservative in his assessment. A piece by Ben Smith at the Politico sums up some of Bloomberg’s positions on issues:

His political and personal views are more in line with moderate Democratic Party politics: His first major act as mayor was a large property tax increase, his most controversial was a citywide ban on smoking, and the signature accomplishment of his first term was an education reform that mixed centralized control with increased spending.

Vocally opposed to remarriage for himself, he favors the right to same-sex marriage and has confessed not only to smoking marijuana but to enjoying it.

Does this sound like someone taking the votes of social conservatives, foreign policy hawks, or fiscal disciplinarians? It seems unlikely at the least. Rather, assuming that Bloomberg is against the war in Iraq, it seems likely that Democratic-leaning independents would vote for Bloomberg rather than Republican-leaning independents. People are presented with two options for an anti-war, big government, socially liberal candidate. None of those positions lines up well with Republican voters.

Of course, all the fanfare is much ado about nothing given that we all know that Romney will win, regardless of who he’s pitted against.

Update: Marc Ambinder follows my logic, here.

Labels: Chuck Todd, Michael Bloomberg, national review, Politico

...in the case of Mitt v. Facts. Jonathan Martin reports that the McCain camp will not be launching the attack website.

Why the change in direction? Perhaps it would have violated McCain-Feingold. We all know how McCain is principled on these types of things.

Labels: John McCain, Jonathan Martin, Politico

Jonathan Martin reports another poll showing a statistical tie in Iowa.

Labels: iowa, Jonathan Martin, Politico, Polls