Romney Crushes Apparently Weak GOP Field

Mitt Romney is apparently crushing the GOP field in New Hampshire. Like, really bad.

A new WMUR Granite State Poll finds Mitt Romney way ahead in a Republican New Hampshire primary with 40%, followed by Rudy Giuliani at 10%, Mike Huckabee at 7%, Tim Pawlenty at 7%, Sarah Palin at 6%, Newt Gingrich at 6% and Ron Paul at 5%.

That's a certified beat-down, made even worse when you consider the weakness of Giuliani, who is in second. This shouldn't be surprising though. Apparently, the GOP field is very weak. Case in point, talking about the ratings of this 2012 field:

As compared to the other examples that we’ve looked at, there’s an awful lot of red in that chart — meaning, candidates whom the public views more unfavorably than favorably. Two exceptions are Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney, who are slightly into positive territory. On the other hand, Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich have especially poor ratings.

Several other candidates, like Mr. Thune and Mr. Pawlenty, are not yet terribly well-known — which means that they have plenty of room to grow. Nevertheless, their numbers were worse than someone like John Kerry, who was also not all that well-known, but who elicited favorable (rather than ambivalent) reactions from those voters that did know him.

And this...

Meanwhile, the Republicans have two candidates in Ms. Palin and Mr. Gingirch whose net favorability ratings are actually in the double-digit negatives, something which since 2000 had only been true of Pat Buchanan and Al Sharpton.

How much will they matter? Conventional wisdom is that they won't. Common wisdom says re-elections are about Presidents. I guess common wisdom is not privy to 2004's election. I think that this President's personal likability will allow him to survive unless the GOP has a candidate who's at least sane. Right now, they have a very weak field.

538 Graph: How The GOP Field Relates To Each Other

I'll let Nate Silver explain this himself:

One dimension is obvious: we can classify the candidates from left to right, from relatively more moderate to relatively more conservative. But another dimension that is often salient in the primaries, and perhaps especially so for Republicans next year, is what we might think of as the insider/outsider axis: whether the candidate is viewed as part of the Republican establishment, or as a critic of it.

There are two more kinds of information embedded in the chart. First, the area of each candidate’s circle is proportional to their perceived likelihood of winning the nomination, according to the Intrade betting market. Mitt Romney’s circle is drawn many times the size of the one for the relatively obscure talk-radio host Herman Cain because Intrade rates Mr. Romney many times as likely to be nominated.

Finally, the color of each circle reflects the region the candidate is from: blue for the Northeast, red for the South, green for the Midwest, and yellow for the West.

I think this is useful for one reason, and one reason alone. I don't necessarily typically agree with the Beltway crowd's labels on candidates, as a useful tool for looking at these primary fields for President. Rather, I think what matters is how they relate to voters, and the perception voters have of them. This is really, really important in these early states, where particularly, the perceptions amongst activists really matter. In the Iowa Caucus, having a core group of active supporters early on is as important as having a lot, hence why Mike Huckabee, who leads right now, isn't a lock to win. To be fair, Huckabee will have hard-core supporters too. This sort of shows why a Palin or Bachmann, or even a DeMint or Santorum, might be really appealing candidates, in the early states. New Hampshire and Iowa activists do this every four years, and winning them over might be more important at first than winning the masses.

Poll: Huckabee Leads Iowa, Romney New Hampshire

GOP consulting firm Strategic National polled Iowa and New Hampshire. Their results?

Iowa:

Mike Huckabee 28%, Mitt Romney 19%, Sarah Palin 12%, Newt Gingrich 12%, Tim Pawlenty 4%, Michele Bachmann 4%

New Hampshire:

Mitt Romney 34%, Mike Huckabee 14%, Sarah Palin 13%, Newt Gingrich 9%, Tim Pawlenty 5%

What this says? Romney is the front-runner, Huckabee the top challenger. Palin, Gingrich, and Pawlenty all have a chance, but probably only if they show very well in Iowa. This leads to the main question, should Romney go for it in Iowa, or lay-up and take some delegates? If he goes for it, and comes in behind anyone besides Huckabee, it may kill him in New Hampshire, where he looks strong. For Gingrich or Palin, simply beating Romney may catapult them in this race. The wild-card here? Huckabee says he won't enter until summer. So, is he going to enter at all? Or, will he be weak then? If he's a non-factor, it's wide open. Interestingly enough, no sign of Haley Barbour here. I would think he needs to be a competitor in Iowa.

Anyone Awake In Iowa And New Hampshire???

It's January 27th, 2011. No one's running for President yet. Apparently, the polls aren't moving yet either. PPP Polling suggests no one has gone up more than 3% in Iowa or New Hampshire since May. No one. Not even Sarah Palin, who some are declaring is politically "dead." Welcome to the 2012 election.

Here's Iowa:

Candidate May 2010 January 2011 Shift
Mike Huckabee 27% 30% +3
Sarah Palin 17% 15% -2
Newt Gingrich 16% 13% -3
Mitt Romney 15% 18% +3
Ron Paul 7% 6% -1
John Thune 2% 3% +1

Got that? Here's New Hampshire:

Candidate April 2010 October 2010 Shift
Mitt Romney 39% 40% +1
Mike Huckabee 11% 13% +2
Newt Gingrich 11% 10% -1
Sarah Palin 13% 10% -3
Tim Pawlenty 3% 4% +1

So what's it mean? Well, first off, it means that no one's paying attention to people who aren't declared candidates. Shocking, I know. This also means that fundraising totals for the tier twos- Pawlenty, Bachmann, Thune, etc.- will be crucial. Could there be room for a late run at this? Yeah, but only for funded candidates. My sense is that this favors the front-runners. Romney, Huckabee, Palin, and Gingrich all will gather lots of attention no matter the early polling, and to be ahead means they will squeeze others out. It could hurt them too, if they all stay stagnant for months. We'll see in due time I guess, but clearly no one has the early mo'.