First news item I saw this morning said that Mitt's win in Michigan muddies the Republican race and that now there's no frontrunner. Ha! Well, although I predicted this sort of silly negative spin, I was happy to see that most of the news was positive and fair.
But the observation invites the question: what's your criteria of a frontrunner?
Here are a few observations from the good folks in South Carolina:
Significance of Michigan victory:
* Largest state so far - Romney’s margin of victory could be more votes than the total number of votes either Huckabee or McCain earned in their respective wins.
* Significantly more total votes cast in Michigan than Iowa and New Hampshire combined
* Most delegates so far (tied with Iowa)
* Michigan is a swing state and the GOP needs it in November
* Michigan voted with economic issues as their top priority
* Most significant victory in terms of demographics so far (see below)
* Beat John McCain where he won in 2000 by a huge margin
* Beat Mike Huckabee among evangelicals!!
* Largest plurality for winner (Romney’s 39% in MI vs. McCain’s 37% in NH
vs. Huckabee’s 34% in IA)
Demographics of Michigan different than other states:
Iowa - Huckabee won with one-dimensional appeal to Evangelical voter
New Hampshire - McCain won with one-dimensional appeal to independents and liberal
Michigan - Romney won across a broad spectrum of conservative voters, following his pattern of second-place finishes where he had similar broad conservative appeal.
So... if winning more states than the competitors, more votes than the competitors, by the widest margin, with broad appeal, and with the best organization, if that doesn't qualify Romney as the frontrunner I don't think anything short of finalizing the nomination ever will!
No comments:
Post a Comment