Romney to skip Ames

[Rowan]

Mitt Romney will skip a key early test for Republican presidential candidates by forgoing the Iowa straw poll in mid-August, a decision that could recast the contest in the nation's first presidential nominating state.

The Iowa straw poll, held in Ames, is one of the landmark events of the nominating contest. Mr. Romney's decision sends the clearest signal yet that he doesn't want to wade deeply into the social issues that carry particular weight with Iowa Republicans and instead intends to present himself to voters nationally as a successful businessman who can improve the economy.

Mr. Romney's campaign said he would still compete in Iowa's caucuses, now slated for February, 2012. But the former Massachusetts governor's absence from the Aug. 13 straw poll will likely diminish his chances, some Iowa officials say, while raising the odds that whoever wins the poll will be best positioned to claim the status as Mr. Romney's top rival for the nomination.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304778304576375940207952076.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

He wants to focus on New Hampshire, Florida, and possibly even South Carolina.

[California8429]

Smart. If you're the frontrunner, try for Ames and don't win...it's an epic fail.

Cain will probably win or pull a Huckabee

[Joe Republic]

Can't say I blame him.  He won the last one by 13.5 points, and then lost the caucus by 9 points.  It's pretty much worthless.

[Phony Moderate]

Can't say I blame him.  He won the last one by 13.5 points, and then lost the caucus by 9 points.  It's pretty much worthless.

....and it took place about five months before the actual caucus was held.

[Mr. Morden]

Can't say I blame him.  He won the last one by 13.5 points, and then lost the caucus by 9 points.  It's pretty much worthless.

Huckabee's rise in the polls in 2007 pretty much started with his surprise 2nd place showing in Ames.  There's definitely some correlation between the straw poll and the caucus results, and in fact the winner of the caucuses has always been someone who finished in the top 2 in the straw poll.  And it's probably more predictive of the eventual caucus results than polls taken at the same time.

Though of course, correlation does not imply causation.  If your campaign is like that of Romney 2012, and not reliant on a win in Iowa, then it makes sense to skip the straw poll.  But if you're one of the candidates who's desperate for a win in Iowa, then I think playing in the straw poll makes sense.

I would assume that the straw poll will now likely be won by either Bachmann, Cain, or Pawlenty.  Though that assumes that neither Palin or Perry runs and participates in the straw poll.  If either of them run, then I guess it could scramble things somewhat.

[izixs]

I wonder if this is a play by Mittens to get someone he wants to be his prime competitor more attention or to provide a couple of the folks he sees as big rivals to turn their attention against each other. Possibly both. Strategies that can work multiple ways in your favor can be useful.

Assumptions: Romney's biggest perceived threat is either Pawlenty or a Palin/Parry/Strong-Tea Person. We'll call these two rivals Paw and Tea. There is also weaker candidates that for some reason are effectively doomed. We'll call them effectively candidate Doom.

Case 1:
Paw or Tea win and the other comes in second.
Likely result:
Paw and Tea see each other as natural rivals with regards to Iowa and both need Iowa to move forward to challenge Mittens. Paw and Tea start hitting each other hard, thus reducing their attack focus on Mittens, giving him a chance to solidify his support where he thinks it matters (NH). Bonus for Mittens if Tea is both in a strong position and regarded widely as an unreasonable choice or fringe candidate by the media, in which case he can point to the straw poll results as pointless as obviously Herman Cain (or who ever) isn't a real candidate.

Case 2:
Paw beats Doom, Tea is further down.
Likely result:
The bonus of above except more so. Mittens can claim the Ames straw poll is not only pointless because the doomed candidate did so well and further diminishes the impact Iowa will have on the rest of the race. So even if Tea or Paw wins Iowa then its already in folks minds that Iowa doesn't matter much. If Paw wins there is a chance it could provide him more attention, but comparing him to Doom will diminish that a bit.

Case 3:
Tea beats Doom, Paw is further down.
Likely result:
Romney can point out that Iowa is run by those unreasonable Tea party folks who demand purity instead of results. Paw can be dismissed entirely and becomes a non-starter. Tea person might get a boost if they know how to play this win right to become the real anti-Romney. Oddly enough, this result is probably the worst for Mittens because of that.

Case 4:
Doom wins
Likely result:
Mittens, Tea, and Paw probably all try to down play the straw poll, but Mittens' will go further to point out that the electorate of the Iowa GOP is uninterested in serious candidates. So even if Tea or Paw wins Iowa they have the taint of the Iowa results not being reflective of a reasonable electorate.

Case 5:
Romney does well at all (or even wins?!?)
Result: Everyone is flabbergasted. Mittens claims that the Iowa GOP realizes that focus or no focus in Iowa, they're with the program for a serious program.

[angus]

My impression is that the ISU straw poll is just a chance for Iowa Republicans to hoot and holler and raise a little cash--the cost 35 dollars per plate, and about 15 thousand plates are served--and basically see who they like and who they don't.  Gives them a chance to talk about candidates and sway others if necessary.  The press may see it as a test of organizational strength in the state that holds the first primary, but internally I don't think this is what it is.

There may some correlation between the straw poll and the caucus results, but it isn't a very strong correlation.  Here's a little table I put together of straw poll (SP) results and caucus results.

Candidate and SP rank        SP result   Caucus result
1 Mitt Romney                       31.6%     25.2 %
2 Mike Huckabee                    18.1%      34.4%
3 Sam Brownback                   15.3%   
4 Tom Tancredo                     13.7%      0.0%
5 Ron Paul                               9.1%      10.0%
6 Tommy Thompson                   7.3%      13.4 %
7 Fred Thompson                       1.4%   
8 Rudy Giuliani                          1.3%      3.5%
9 Duncan Hunter                        1.2%      0.4%
n/a  John Mccain                                   13.1 %

The blank spaces in the SP column are for candidates not competing there.  The blank spaces in the caucus result column are for candidates who dropped out before the caucus was held.  Note the discrepancies between the actual caucus results and the SP results.  A better predictor was the Des Moines Register poll taken from December 27 through December 30, 2007, which had Huckabee at 32%, Romney at 26%, McCain 13%, and Paul and Thompson at 9% each. 

Of course Bush won the SP in 1999 and Bob Dole won it in 1995, but those may quirks rather than the norm.  In 1987 GHW Bush came in third at the SP.  Pat Robertson won the SP and Bob Dole won the state's GOP caucus.

Personally, I think Romney should come to Iowa.  I think he's a decent candidate and any exposure, unless it involves embezzlement or a sex scandal, is good exposure.  At the end of the day, it's delegates at conventions who pick the nominee, and getting a few delegates from Iowa is better than getting none.  According to the Green Papers, in 2008 Romney got 10 of Iowa's 37 delegates.  He could probably beat that this time, but his absence at the SP will not help him in that regard. But that's just my impression.