If Romney Wins New Hampshire, Can He Still Lose?

1:29 pm EST December 23rd, 2007 | News | 4 Comments

The Romney campaign was flailing at Mike Huckabee last week as Huckabee overtook Romney in the Iowa polls. This week, Romney is flailing at John McCain – who’s eating into his lead in New Hampshire. But even if Romney wins, he could lose. Romney was the governor of the neighboring state, and especially with the symbiotic relationship between Massachusetts and New Hampshire – they know him. John Kerry parlayed that into a 13% victory over Howard Dean in 2003 (the margin would probably have been higher had Dean not also been a northeastern pol). If Romney beats McCain in New Hampshire but by less than 10%, doesn’t that make him pretty weak?

Topic:

Related Posts

«
»

4 Responses to “If Romney Wins New Hampshire, Can He Still Lose?”

  1. C.S.Strowbridge says:
    December 23, 2007 at 4:29 pm

    It depends on how well McCain does in Iowa and how well Huckabee does in New Hampshire. If McCain does really poorly in Iowa and Huckabee does surprisingly strong in New Hampshire, McCain might not get a bounce out of a third place finish.

  2. Jay Tea says:
    December 23, 2007 at 8:00 pm

    There’s a bit more to the Romney-New Hampshire relationship than “he was the governor of the state next door.” That didn’t do Howard Dean a hell of a lot of good in 2004.

    Romney was the Republican governor who actually managed to occasionally get something done when nearly every other aspect of the state was held by Democrats — including over 85% of the legislature. (I once ran the numbers — one out of five Democrats in the legislature could stay at home, and they’d STILL have enough votes to override his vetoes.) Also, Romney is a property owner here in New Hampshire, so we saw him a bit more than other candidates.

    I dunno if I’d call the New Hampshire-Massachusetts relationship “symbiotic.” They think we’re a bunch of backwards hicks, we see them as the bluest of the blue states, the epitome of the nanny-state, Government Knows Best, the ultimate expression of the Peter Principle in politics. (Mike Dukakis, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and Deval Patrick — need I say more?)

    At the same time, a lot of New Hampshire people work in Massachusetts, and every year more and more Massachusetts people move here. This leads to the maddening situation where they come here to get away from the Mass. insanity — and promptly try to re-create it. That has been a big factor in the “blue-ing” of New Hampshire over the past few years.

    So yeah, I think Romney’s New Hampshire ties and his history as Massachusetts’ governor will help him a bit here. But to simply attribute it to mere geographic proximity is a bit shallow.

    But I am NOT going to make any predictions about the actual primary results. If there’s one thing I know about my fellow New Hampshirites, it’s that we are unpredictable — and like it that way.

    J.

  3. midderpidge says:
    December 23, 2007 at 8:28 pm

    Wasn’t there something about Romney abusing his power by illegally restricting access to the lake where his vacation home was in New Hampshire? I expect that story might make the rounds yet.

  4. midderpidge says:
    December 24, 2007 at 11:03 am

    Via Josh MArshall

    There’s a nice anti-endorsement of Mitt Romney by the staff of the NH Monitor. They don’t endorse anyone, but they sure expose Mitt:

    “When New Hampshire partisans are asked to defend the state’s first-in-the-nation primary, we talk about our ability to see the candidates up close, ask tough questions and see through the baloney. If a candidate is a phony, we assure ourselves and the rest of the world, we’ll know it.

    Mitt Romney is such a candidate. New Hampshire Republicans and independents must vote no.”