The media have to talk about something, so they talk about polls in the absence of any real information.
I guess Iowa and New Hampshire are still part of some candidate's primary strategies, but they are looking increasingly irrelevant, particularly for Republicans were South Carolina is a far better indicator of their prospects for winning the nomination. McCain won New Hampshire, lost SC and disappeared--there is little reason to expect a win in NH for anyone to cinch the deal.
A new poll has Guiliani actually leading McCain, with Romney and Gingrich a distant third and fourth. Its rather interesting that Romney would be doing so poorly considering that he is the governor of the neighboring state whose media dominates New Hampshire and provides considerable exposure.
On the other hand, that may be the reason he's doing poorly in New Hampshire. The Globe in particular never lose an opportunity to slam the Republican governor of a very blue state. The latest agenda item is Romney as a failed governor.
Romney himself admits that a number of his goals remain unmet. His inability to lower the nation's highest unemployment insurance rate, to secure merit pay for teachers, and to reinvigorate the Republican Party were among the frustrations he listed.So his departure leaves many others frustrated. When he announced last December that he would not seek a second term, Romney said, "I've got the job done I set out to do." It sounded as if he should have borrowed the giant "Mission Accomplished" banner from President Bush. But the data tell another story.
Seduced and abandoned may be too strong a phrase, but as he departs for the national campaign trail, many have an unsettling feeling of having been used by Romney's fling with Massachusetts.
In a related story, Globe reporters do man-on-the-street interviews and get remarkably similar criticisms from this totally random cross-section of voters.
But Watson, Kenny, and Waterman, along with the majority of people interviewed for this story, said Romney seemed to lose interest in his job soon after he was elected, preferring instead to concentrate on building his national profile to lay the groundwork for a presidential run. Just 10 of the 17 people interviewed who voted for Romney in 2002 said they would vote for him for governor again.
Frankly, I find it amazing that Romney was able to accomplish anything in such a moribund and hostile political environment. Nevertheless, the mantra of failure has to constrast with the conquering hero press of fellow yankee Rudy Guiliani.
More relevant were the polls for the Democrat candidates as Obama makes up a 23 point gap to come dead even with Hillary.
"I'm not surprised, because Barack Obama got five days of constant media attention in New Hampshire," said Jim Demers, a lobbyist and former Democratic lawmaker who accompanied Obama throughout the senator's New Hampshire visit. "Obama has demonstrated to the people of New Hampshire that he's a top-tier candidate."Although Clinton commands considerable support among likely Democratic primary voters, she struggles in general election match-ups, according to the poll. If the contest were held today, both Arizona Sen. John McCain and former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani would prevail over Clinton. Obama, in contrast, would eke out a slight win over both Republican candidates. Former Democratic vice presidential nominee John Edwards is neck-and-neck with the Republicans.
These early polls seem to reflect a common paradigm--the media is annointing the front runners, and a distracted electorate is responding to what's in the wind rather than any serious look at the candidates.
Ultimately, the ground war is going to decide the question and on the Democrat side, I would be loath to bet against Hillary. On the Republican side, it would be foolish to count out anyone in the top tier and even some not currently considered front-runners (Gingrich).
Ironically, the top tier is named such for good reason--it reflects the more fundamental measurements of performance at this early date--money, organization and talent. Barack Obama gets breathless coverage, but as a fund-raiser, he's about par for the senatorial course, not the presidential race. In 2006, Obama raised 6.5 million for himself and others, but Hillary raised nearly twice that.
Money is an important consideration not just because of what you can do with it, but what it means when people give it to you. People writing $25,000 checks are looking for something more substantial that a winning personality.
I know I'll be watching the boring news about fund-raising and staff hires with considerably more interest than what the polls say...















