With Newt Gingrich still polling at a strong lead in Iowa, the Romney campaign is scrambling to lower expectations ahead of the upcoming caucus:
Asked if the former House Speaker is the front-runner, Romney replied bluntly: “He is right now.”
Romney made it clear that he would rather lose than make incendiary charges about Gingrich that could help President Barack Obama in the general election. And the former Massachusetts governor said the nomination “is not going to be decided in just a couple of contests” and “could go for months and months.”
So the Romney campaign’s “inevitability” strategy is officially over. But could his preparation for a drawn-out primary be just as intimidating to the other candidates? Gingrich may be leading in the polls, but it’s hard to believe he’s prepared to fight Romney in every primary until June.
A drawn-out race would likely favor Romney over Gingrich, since Romney has spent more than a year building an operation to compete in each primary. His self-discipline will also be an advantage – except for the $10,000-bet comment, Romney’s had few slipups. Clearly the Romney campaign also expects that a long race would give Gingrich more time to say something controversial and torpedo his own campaign.
Romney’s self-diminishing comments could also be designed to pump up Gingrich, who has already been calling himself the “big-margin front-runner.” The Romney campaign may have good reason to believe that Gingrich’s confidence will end up backfiring. After all, the former Speaker hasn’t spent much time in Iowa or built a strong get-out-the-vote network there. Success in Iowa relies heavily on strong grassroots organization — without that, Gingrich may want to be careful about raising expectations.
"His self-discipline will also be an advantage – except for the $10,000-bet comment, Romney’s had few slipups. Clearly the Romney campaign also expects that a long race would give Gingrich more time to say something controversial and torpedo his own campaign." n nThis is the kind of vetting that made has made nonsense out of previous election cycles – with the Bush-Clinton one coming to mind. n nWhat have we seen in recent presidential races? People too afraid to open their mouths. Spineless people with campaigns void of substance. Debates so generic and uninformative, with candidates trying hard not to offend any potential voting block, and promising everybody everything, to the point you have no idea what the candidate stood for. n nI've said before — I wanted a Gingrich-Hillary match up last time, because both were well known and polarizing and could lead the nation into an important fight about what direction we wanted to go in the first half of the 21st Century. We didn't get that. We got McCain, who was known but a "maverick" in his own party who'd gained favorable media coverage in his career for going against the majority in the party. And we got Obama, and unknown who the media vehemently protected by keeping under wraps and the voting masses in the dark. n n"Shhhh! Don't tell us what you really believe" is not a good campaign strategy for the party or people. n nGingrich has taken heat and harmed his chances by telling what he truly believes concerning immigration. Good. That is the way it should be. The candidates should be open and honest with the voters to allow them to make a real choice. n nBut what we normally get is, "Shut up and don't offend anybody" or "Say what the biggest voting block wants to hear and then do whatever you want once elected." n nIt is one reason why the masses dislike politicians and our government.
n nYes, because in the last cycle the decision in Iowa went to Romney who spent US$11m and 6 long months organizing in the state. Oh, wait, no it didn't. It went to Huckabee, who had no money at the time, and no organization.