I was watching the returns on Fox News who got the first interview with Mitt Romney. Mitt pointed out that he was down by 22% just a few weeks ago and was able to close the gap to 8% (31% to 23% with 41% of precincts reporting) in the last few weeks. He also points out how he substantially beat Giuliani, Thompson, and McCain and does not expect Huckabee to be a major player going forward. Oh and don't forget that Rush Limbaugh hates Huckabee. Romney is still well positioned for the nomination.

Labels: iowa, mitt romney

I've been looking over the 2006 Senate race polls that Rasmussen did right before the election. On average, they were 2-3% points off... but all in all they did a pretty good job calling the state level elections. My gut feeling tells me that Rass. polls are leading indicators and that other polls will start showing the same trends shortly in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Those trends are:

1. The Huckabust is indeed coming (don't tell Abe)


2. Romney is holding well in New Hampshire and building strength in Iowa and


3. McCain is back.

I'll churn out some New Hampshire details tomorrow. But here are the key points from the Iowa crosstabs:

• Huckabee lost 11% points since last week. Romney gained 4% and McCain 8%


• Gender breakdown: Oh, the fickle female race. Huck lost 20% points from women (McCain gained 13 of those in turn). Compare that to an 8% point loss from the male column for Huck. (Don't show my wife this post :) )


• Age bracket: The young upstarts (18-29) are pretty settled on their choices now according to Rasmussen. But the 40-49 crowd are on the move, shedding themselves of Huck by 27% while 21% have hoped over to McCain. Huck lost 21% of the 50-64 crowd which dispersed across the entire crowd of folks.


• Political leanings: Wow! Did the full throttle hammering from the other candidates really work? Looks like it. Huck lost a whopping 38% of the conservative vote. Mitt actually wins this round by picking up 24% vs. McCain who picked up 14%.


• Married with kids: These folks abandoned Huck as well. 24% and 26% respetively. There must be something to this because the single / no kids demo didn't move away from Huck hardly at all.


• $$$. Huck lost double digit % points in almost all the wealth brackets. Once again, McCain and Romney traded gains from these groups.


• Religion. OK. Drumroll please.... Evangelical Christians matched the Conservative demo and left Huckbee by 35%. Yikes.


• People are generally fickle as well. 25% of those who said they were certainly going to vote for Huckabee changed their minds. Note this. Mitt now leads the "certain" pack with 32% of people indicating they are staying put. Compare that to Huck with 16% and McCain with 17% certainty.

Bottom line. Remember those religious women having trouble deciding who to vote for and taking a hard look at Huckabee? They changed their mind. McCain is taking about half of the crowd leaving the Huck auditorium. Romney takes about 30% and the rest peter out among Ron Paul and Rudy.

McCain shows some real momentum and Romney has regained his former standing. Here's McCain's problem in Iowa... he needs Huckabee to absolutely bottom out before he can even meet Romney head to head. With Thompson's King endorsement and newfound life this will be a fight.

Are we bored yet? :)

Labels: iowa, iowa caucus, poll, rasmussen

Jim G., Jonathan Martin, and Soren Dayton are talking up the Mormon factor in the upcoming primaries, particularly in Iowa.

Let me give you the Mormon perspective on all this. The 22,000 number being thrown around is a bit misleading but the impact of the Mormon vote can hardly be ignored.

Let's set the baseline semantics so we get things right here.

• A Ward is the equivalent of a parish. Mormon congregations are organized strictly by geography. At any Mormon chapel you might pass there are typically 2 to 4 wards that meet there. So, for example, in my Virginia suburb of Ashburn there are 4 wards. We all meet in the same building on Sunday and throughout the week. Each ward is comprised of roughly 400-600 members. A Branch is a smaller congregation that you might find in remote areas or that caters to ethnic groups (for example, a "Spanish Branch").
  
• A Stake comprises about 9-12 wards (Think of "tent stake"). This is the local leadership structure that helps with regional activities and needs.
  
• Mormons will sometimes refer to "active" and "inactive" members. Wards and Stakes track the "activity rate" (% of the ward that regularly attend Sunday meetings). This can range between 40% and 70%. As I understand it Iowa activity rates are somewhere between 50% and 60%.
• In Iowa there are 7 stakes; 35 wards; 32 branches with roughly 22,000 members.
• Potential caucus goers? When you subtract the number of eligible voters (Mormons have a lot of kids), take a chunk away for "inactive" members, and the narrow down that group to registered voters you get about 10,000 potential caucus goers. But Mormons love football as much as the next guy (the Orange Bowl happens to be that night with Kansas playing) and even with "their guy" in the race I wouldn't expect a dramatic 90% turnout from the Mormon base.
  
• Also, consider, this isn't a lockstep vote. I know plenty of Mormons who are die hard Ron Paul fans.
  

Bottom line: I expect no more than 3000 extra votes for Romney from the Mormon base in Iowa. Still, that's roughly 6% of overall caucus voters and could mean the difference the race the way things are shaping up.

Labels: iowa, iowa caucus, Mormon

Sorry that I didn't get much up on debate thoughts as promised. The newest little Romney-bot had a tough day yesterday that required my attention.

Look, Romney had a great day yesterday. He was substantive, positive, and highlighted his record of accomplishment, all key strengths to his campaign. It is unsurprising that after such a debate focus groups such as Luntz's would find him to be the winner. Also he drew distinctions with other campaigns even as the moderation discouraged such exchanges. Notably on education, Romney was able to offer substantive ideas that made Huckabee's "kids are dropping out because they're bored" look silly. Additionally, his retort about the comparative excellence of Arkansas schools to Massachusetts schools was one of the few debated points of the night.

I thought in some ways Huckabee got off easy last night as the moderators took off the table two soft points to his candidacy: Foreign policy and immigration. I'm not sure what prompted that decision, but Huckabee really lucked out. He also got embarrased by Tancredo over the federal role in education. Also, did Alan Keyes call out Huckabee for not being religious enough?

Thompson had a fine night, although apparently everyone else missed it that as he was giving his answer on NAFTA he admitted not having anything to say, even as he kept talking. I appreciated his refusal to answer the hand-raising questions. Hoepfully that will discourage others (I'm looking at you Chris Matthews) from asking those types of questions again.

I don't remember a thing that anyone else said, although I remember Alan Keyes perpetually embarassing himself. Rudy seemed fine, but has failed to excel the way he did earlier in the year. McCain, like Huckabee, lucked out that the debate didn't cover immigration. Tancredo and Duncan Hunter...uh...were there. Ron Paul was Ron Paul.

Labels: debate, iowa

For those watching the debate in 1.5 hours, I'll have some of my own comments to go along with the debate. Keep an eye on MMM for updates and comments.

For those with just internet access, you should be able to watch the debate at Fox News, CNN, C-SPAN3, the DeMoines Register, or Iowa Public Television.

Labels: debate, iowa

Listen to my appearance on Hugh Hewitt last night here.

In the past 12 hours I have had to deal with and debunk yet one more crazy theory that Romney is really behind all this push polling.

After RedState publishes their non-apology, non-recanted post about yesterday's egregious "push poll" theory, Erick Erickson couldn't help but delve once more into the fever swamp and pull out a self-admitted "off-the-wall theory", that only Romney people are the ones complaining about the poll. On top of this Soren Dayton implies that Romney planted the people who reacted negatively to the Mormon poll from his own paid staffers.

You see, in a few press accounts, Marshan Roth and Rose Kramer told their stories of receiving the anti-Mormon polls. But wait! ALERT! Roth and Kramer have been paid by the Romney campaign. It seems they might be staffers! It's true.

So, I pull out my arsenal of exclusive tools and skills (my forefinger, a phone and a brain) and I look up said Marshan and Rose and find them at home (I woke them both up, sorry ladies).

I conjured up my own theory as I read the Erick's post. I'm thinking these ladies actually received the bad polls, called their local Romney office (which they knew well) and told their stories. The Romney office made a note of it. When the press comes calling looking for people who got the phone calls the Iowa office point them to Marshan and Rose.

Shocker! I was right. Marshan and Rose, who are both seemingly retired, roused enough to confirm my story.

Please remove your tinfoil hats! There will be no more conspiracy theories!

UPDATE: Lots of complaints now. "Why didn't they reveal their status with the campaign?" I asked Marshan that last night. Her reply: "What? Why? What do you mean? Why do they want to know that?" Folks, these are non-political septuagenarians. They just were answering a phone call and telling their story to someone in the press. My guess is they went to Ames and they help out at the local office stuffing letters.

Labels: Alex Gage, iowa, marshan, mitt romney push poll, push poll, redstate, rose, target point consulting, targetpoint, western wats

We've spoken on numerous occasions about the unique innovations that Romney has used to drive his campaign forward. Tonight, I spoke at the Leadership Institute's Internet Fundraising Forum... when I get back to my email I see that the Romney campaign has redefined fundraising once again.

One of the fundamental principles of fundraising is trust. How do I know (as a contributor) that you're going to use the money I give you in the right way. Well... now you know.

Introducing the Victory Fund. The Romney camp gives you the ability to buy an actual ad in a local early state market. (see graphic below)

Just like you buy a brick to build your local library. Now you can buy a brick in the Romney media machine as he drives toward victory!

Try it out!

Contribute $175 to buy a 30-second TV ad in Charleston, South Carolina.

Contribute $300 to buy a 30-second TV ad in Florence, South Carolina

Contribute $425 to buy a 30-second TV ad in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

Contribute $800 to buy a 30-second TV ad in Des Moines, Iowa.

Contribute $1,275 to buy a 30-second TV ad in Manchester, New Hampshire

Labels: ads, fundraising, fundraising team mitt, iowa, online fundraising, south carolina, tv

Romney is out in front BIG on both of these. First, from New Hampshire, Rasmussen shows Romney up by 15:

Romney 32 (+4 vs. last poll Oct. 23)
Giuliani 17 (-2)
McCain 16 (nc)
Huckabee 10 (nc)
Thompson 7 (+1)


Second, Zogby shows Romney's lead at 16 points in Iowa:

Romney 31 (-2 vs. 8/18 poll)
Huckabee 15 (+7)
Giuliani 11 (-3)
Thompson 10 (-2)
McCain 8 (+2)


Also, don't miss today's article in The State talking about Romney's surge in South Carolina in the last month:

As recently as late September, Romney was polling consistently in the single digits and was typically in fourth place. But recent surveys show the former Massachusetts governor surging, as voters have gotten to know Romney and he has earned the endorsement of key evangelicals such as Bob Jones III, former Chancellor of the fundamentalist Greenville university of the same name.

Romney, who is Mormon, has spent considerable time wooing Christian conservatives here and elsewhere and convincing them he’s strong on social issues.

The effort apparently has paid off.

Labels: iowa, New Hampshire, Polls

Romney's up big time.

Romney 36 (+9 vs. Aug. 5 poll)
Giuliani 13 (+2)
Huckabee 13 (+10)
Thompson 11 (+8)
McCain 6 (+3)

Labels: iowa

Iowa's favorite klown is back, with a post on the recent judicial activism overturning Iowa's Defense of Marriage Act. Highlights:

Romney was the first to respond. “The ruling in Iowa today is another example of an activist court and unelected judges trying to redefine marriage and disregard the will of the people as expressed through Iowa's Defense of Marriage Act. This once again highlights the need for a Federal Marriage Amendment to protect the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman."

In addition to his statement Romney also helped organize a konference kall with Iowa legislators and pro-family leaders in Massachusetts last week. The purpose of the call was to share suggestions and insights as Iowa policymakers and pro-family organizations consider options in defense of marriage. Krusty Kudos to Romney for helping get our leaders up to speed on the issue.

Summary: Romney and Huckabee win, Rudy loses, and Fred is STILL not a candidate yet.

Labels: DOMA, gay marriage, iowa, krusty

Well that surge, too, but I was meaning the continuing Romney surge in Iowa. Strategic Vision has new numbers showing Romney doubling up his competition.

Republicans
Romney 31 (+8 vs. last poll June 22-24)
Thompson 15 (-2)
Giuliani 13 (-1)
McCain 8 (-2)
Huckabee 8 (+3)
Undecided 13 (+2)

Labels: iowa, Polls

Countdown to the Ames Straw Poll: 32 days

Uh, in case you didn’t realize it, we’ve got essentially 1 month before the Iowa straw poll. That’s not very long. With that in mind, here’s a few thoughts about the Iowa straw poll:

The front loading of the calendar has forced two schools of thought on the candidates. One has been to discount the role of the early states. This has been the Giuliani premise. It argues that with so many big states right after the early states, the momentum garnered from winning Iowa, New Hampshire, or South Carolina is negligible. Thus, the resources that would normally be used there can be more effectively used to win big states like Florida and California. There is some logic to this thinking.

The other school of thought is that there is added significance to the role of the early states. This has been Romney’s premise. It argues that there is less time to recover from an early defeat in the first primaries. Thus, it is pivotal to win the early states because you won’t really get a second chance.

Certainly each has its gambles, but it seems like the Giuliani plan is significantly more risky. In essence Giuliani is saying that money is more important than momentum. In the world of politics, that seems doubtful at best.

Which brings us to the Iowa straw poll. There are very few times where we get to compare presidential nominees. We’ve had a few so far with the debates and the ongoing money race. There have also been a few local straw polls here and there. Most of those straw polls are of a few hundred people at most. The “controversial” Young Republican straw poll this last weekend was of 366 people. By comparison, the Iowa straw poll is several