If Romney wins Iowa, it's over, right?

[Oakvale]

Seems to be the conventional wisdom. Or if Paul wins, Romney wins the nomination, too, since there's no clear anti-Romney and it's not going to be Paul.

Slightly disappointing that Mitt's going to cruise to the nomination after all. No fun.

[tmthforu94]

You're probably right. And at this point, I'd say there's well over a 50% chance Paul or Romney wins Iowa.

[RogueBeaver]

You're probably right. And at this point, I'd say there's well over a 50% chance Paul or Romney wins Iowa.

This. Though we have to admit seeing the rollercoaster of ABRs was in its way amusing.

[pbrower2a]

It's probably over. There just isn't anyone who can come from the back bench and win. Except for Mike Huckabee, who departed the Presidential race for more lucrative activities, and who would have to abandon those lucrative activities to run for President, everyone who has had a high profile at any time as a high-profile candidate for President as a Republican except Mitt Romney has shown a severe weakness.

Tim Pawlenty showed at most imaginary ability as a technocratic type.

Sarah Palin showed herself in touch with an America that no longer exists and out of touch with modernity.

Donald Trump showed himself an impresario of demagoguery.

Rick Perry showed himself... not intellectually up to the job.

Herman Cain showed showed tragicomic, yet proud (in the derogatory sense) ignorance on issues that make the difference between war and peace, or if war the difference between victory and defeat.

Newt Gingrich has been exposed as a corrupt insider from an earlier time who became a corrupt insider again.

Ron Paul has shown his irrelevance even if he is brilliant.

John Huntsman never had a chance.

Chris Christie and Bob McDonnell, two of the most effective Republican Governors, apparently don't want the nomination this time. It is too late for someone to come from seemingly nowhere and join the fray.
 
It is a long time until November. The winner of the Republican nominee is going to face media scrutiny as no challenger to the President has experienced before and a political apparatus now in mothballs that will show how it won in 2008. Political attitudes may not have changed much since 2008 even if many of the voters of 2008 went into hibernation in 2010.

[Eraserhead]

If Paul wins Iowa and Romney comes in third or worse, I don't think it's over. But it'd probably be a worse thing for Gingrich and the others than Romney.

If Romney wins it straight up, MSM will declare him the nominee.

[bgwah]

Romney winning the nomination in January would be the most disappointing and boring outcome possible. I want another 50 state brawl, please!

Can anyone really say that the 2008 D primary wasn't one of the most interesting elections they got to personally watch? The general was a total bore in comparison.

[J. J.]

If Romney wins, he'll need a southern primary to close the deal.  If Paul wins, the same, Romney will need a southern primary.  If Gingrich wins, he'll need either NH or a southern primary.

[Oakvale]

Romney winning the nomination in January would be the most disappointing and boring outcome possible. I want another 50 state brawl, please!

Can anyone really say that the 2008 D primary wasn't one of the most interesting elections they got to personally watch? The general was a total bore in comparison.

Yes. If that happens this will be the most boring election since 1996.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

No, if it's a very unconvincing win because there is a split field, the primary battle will continue. The average GOP primary voter just won't accept Romney as the nominee and will coalesce around the one anti-Romney who performs well in Iowa (probably not Gingrich because he has no momentum and it won't be Paul).

One thing is for certain:
1. Paul will drag this thing out as long as possible and his supporters won't give up.

The MSM doesn't matter and has tried to crown Romney as the nominee for over a year now. Their opinions are invalid. If they mattered, Cain would have never been the frontrunner for over two months.

[Keystone Phil]

He'd roll to victory in New Hampshire and I don't see how someone could emerge in time to stop him in South Carolina so...yeah, unfortunately, it would be over.

One thing is for certain:
1. Paul will drag this thing out as long as possible and his supporters won't give up.

Ok but that's meaningless when it's 90% vs. 10%.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

One thing is for certain:
1. Paul will drag this thing out as long as possible and his supporters won't give up.

Ok but that's meaningless when it's 90% vs. 10%.

I'd say it's more like 70-30 or 65-35 which is still fairly meaningless but it would still give us something to watch. Maybe Paul could win Montana one on one against Romney.

[Joe Biden 2020]

The Obama Campaign, I'm sure, wants a long, bruising Republican nomination so that Romney or the eventual nominee is so damaged, tattered, and torn that he becomes an easy punching bag and Obama can go to bed early the night of November 6.  A long primary also leaves the nominee with little time before the conventions and debates to put up too much of a fight.  The Republican Nominee wants it to be over in January to give him a good 8 1/2 - 9 months before the debates to prepare.

As an Obama supporter and a political junkie, let's drag this out well into the summer and may Utah, the last state to go, decide the nominee.

[greenforest32]

It would be so lame if Romney won Iowa. The only thing I could hope for then is for Bachmann, Santorum, and Perry to drop out and their supporters line up behind Newt

Obama v. Romney will be so boring

[Oakvale]

It would be so lame if Romney won Iowa. The only thing I could hope for then is for Bachmann, Santorum, and Perry to drop out and their supporters line up behind Newt

Obama v. Romney will be so boring

I know. It looks like we're going to end up with a  competent pragmatic Democrat versus competent pragmatic Republican, both with scandal-free personal lives. I can't imagine a less interesting election.

[Joe Biden 2020]

It would be so lame if Romney won Iowa. The only thing I could hope for then is for Bachmann, Santorum, and Perry to drop out and their supporters line up behind Newt

Obama v. Romney will be so boring

I know. It looks like we're going to end up with a  competent pragmatic Democrat versus competent pragmatic Republican, both with scandal-free personal lives. I can't imagine a less interesting election.

I'm sure the media will dig something up on Romney.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Watching Obama beat Romney would be very satisfying as I've grown to hate Mittens with a passion so I'd be okay with that election.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

New Hampshire has a history of bucking conventional wisdom and resisting leadership coming out of Iowa. Those same rules could apply to Romney, as they have to many other past candidates.

[argentarius]

I think Paul will win Iowa. If he wins Iowa, then NH is a must for Romney, because if Paul/Huntsman (and I think for Paul a Huntsman win would do no harm because it splits up the field, one of the requirements for a Paul nomination) wins NH then the winner of SC becomes the favourite. If Romney wins Iowa then I'd say he wins NH and I still don't think the mainstream republicans will support him and the winner of SC/FL has a great chance. I don't see Romney winning.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Bill Clinton lost Iowa and New Hampshire in 1992, but pulled a victory most everywhere else.  I think the primary will shape up to be like that, if Romney wins Iowa.  Correct me if this is a bad way of analyzing it, though.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Romney winning the nomination in January would be the most disappointing and boring outcome possible. I want another 50 state brawl, please!

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

New Hampshire has a history of bucking conventional wisdom and resisting leadership coming out of Iowa. Those same rules could apply to Romney, as they have to many other past candidates.

Huntsman just received the endorsements of a few minor papers in New Hampshire; his momentum is continuing there. I suppose it's possible that he could have a last minute surge if he actually put some attack ads on the air. His failure to do so could cost him the race.

[Keystone Phil]

One thing is for certain:
1. Paul will drag this thing out as long as possible and his supporters won't give up.

Ok but that's meaningless when it's 90% vs. 10%.

I'd say it's more like 70-30 or 65-35 which is still fairly meaningless but it would still give us something to watch. Maybe Paul could win Montana one on one against Romney.

Are you out of your mind? You think 30-35% of this party identifies with Ron Paul? Please get serious.

[argentarius]

One thing is for certain:
1. Paul will drag this thing out as long as possible and his supporters won't give up.

Ok but that's meaningless when it's 90% vs. 10%.

I'd say it's more like 70-30 or 65-35 which is still fairly meaningless but it would still give us something to watch. Maybe Paul could win Montana one on one against Romney.

Are you out of your mind? You think 30-35% of this party identifies with Ron Paul? Please get serious.

Are you out of your mind? You think 30-35% of this party identifies with Mitt Romney? Please get serious.

[pbrower2a]

Romney winning the nomination in January would be the most disappointing and boring outcome possible. I want another 50 state brawl, please!

Can anyone really say that the 2008 D primary wasn't one of the most interesting elections they got to personally watch? The general was a total bore in comparison.

Yes. If that happens this will be the most boring election since 1996.

The 2012 Summer Olympics and the baseball postseason should be good for relieving the boredom that the 2012 election might bring. If you want your politics exciting (in all the wrong ways), there is Syria.

[Torie]

Paul isn't relevant. What would help Mittens is if he comes in ahead of Newt, even if in second place to Paul. But I suspect Mittens will come first in Iowa. If he does, ironically, that would give a boost to Huntsman in NH, since some voters there will think they can "afford" to vote for Huntsman, because it won't run the risk of reanimating Newt. The thing is, at this point, or at some point, is whether a majority of GOP primary voters in these early states, if they had to choose, would prefer Newt or Mittens as the nominee. If Newt is out, NH has this predilection to cause matters to drag out a bit more.

Yes, I know, I am not making totally seamless sense here.  Maybe I will better compose my thoughts on this later.