Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, at a news conference, Tuesday, Nov. 13, 2007, in Sioux City, Iowa. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall)
by Mark Silva
Mitt Romney, campaigning for the Republican presidential nomination with a name less known than Rudy Giuliani, says he will win his party's nod the old-fashioned way.
The traditional campaign strategy of focusing on the premier contests in Iowa and New Hampshire is a proven recipe for success, Romney says in an interview with the Associated Press. Writer Liz Sidoti reports from Sioux City, Iowa, that the former Massachusetts governor believes he is "just following the same path that every nominee for president has followed.''
That's unlike the path that Giuliani is exploring, with the well-known, former New York mayor suggesting that there is more to be gained in the big-state primary contests that follow Iowa, New Hampshire and others in early February. Of course, Romney is leading in the early Iowa and New Hampshire polling in his party's contests -- so both Romney and Giuliani are hewing to formulas that appear driven more by circumstances as they exist today.
"Clearly, someone like myself, who's not a household name across the country, I want to do well in the early states to drive the attention to my campaign and my message," Romney told the AP in the interview Tuesday. Romney did not mention Giuliani by name, Sidoti reports, "but the contrast was clear... Unlike Romney, Giuliani's campaign plan is based more on math — winning bigger states to get the most delegates — and less on momentum.''
"Absent Giuliani's starpower gained as a mayor of New York City, Romney has struggled to make himself known to the country as a whole and substantially boost his national standing even though he has been on the covers of major weekly news magazines, appeared repeatedly on wide-reaching TV news programs, and otherwise received top-tier treatment in the media,'' she reports. "Romney rejected any notion that he is failing to connect with the broader GOP electorate.''
"The places where I do have ads, where I do speak to crowds and where I do have a ground team and where people have heard my message, I'm doing well," he said.
A new CBS News/New York Times poll shows Romney claiming 27 percent of the support of Iowa's likely Republican caucus-goers. However, Mike Huckabee, former governor of Arkansas, now threatens Romney's lead with 21 percent of those surveyed. Giuliani claims 15 percent, while Fred Thompson, a former Tennessee senator, holds 9 percent and Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who wrote off Iowa in his first campaign in 2000, lags in the Hawkeye State.
So Romney already is starting to temper expectations.
"They're all going to be concentrating here," Romney said during his interview in Iowa. "My guess is they're going to be shooting rockets off in my direction. It's going to get very narrow. I'm going to be facing stiff competition from one or more of the candidates... This is one where easily it could tighten up, I could find myself a few points behind."
Romney declined to say if he has poured additional personal funding into his campaign. As of the Sept. 30 quarterly reports, the venture capitalist had invested $17.5 million in himself.
He also dismisses the criticism of rivals that he is buying victories.
""I'm outworking them. That's what I'm going to do," Romney said of his Republican rivals. "They have the advantage of long-term name recognition and political history, and I'm a relative newcomer. I'm a come-from-behind guy. I'm doing my best to catch up." .
• 
• 
• 
Comments
I'm truly ok with what Mitt is spending. The fact that it's his own money and not special interest money is a big plus.
It's not like he's buying some special advantage over his foes...Rudy was the 9/11 mayor...he got more coverage than Mitt could ever buy...and Thompson is a media star. It takes big bucks this time around...bigger than usual that is...to get competitive name recognition.
Posted by: NotBothered | November 14, 2007 9:27 AM
Does anyone else find Rudy's method really cynical? Anywhere he has presented his message and other candidates have presented their messages, Rudy lags. He's counting on states where no one has directly dealt with candidates and gotten to know them as his buffer. Many people don't like the primary system but you have to admit that it allows for some up-close campaigning where a national primary, which is essentially Rudy's strategy, is more about name recognition that personal politics. How ridiculous is it that this is a credible scenario? He will win in states where he has not been questioned, has not been evaluated, has not been tested. There's a year between these primaries and the generals. Do people who find this scenario credible not realize that Rudy's policies and abilities WILL be questioned during that time? The primary system is supposed to be a micro version of the kind of scrutiny a general election candidate will face. If he can't win in any of the states where campaigning has taken place, how can he win the country? Ridiculous.
Posted by: Mike | November 14, 2007 10:57 AM
Just a minor nitpick: Iowa is the "Hawkeye State." Ohio is the "Buckeye State."
Posted by: Dan | November 14, 2007 11:16 AM
The buckeye state is OHIO not Iowa.
Posted by: Dan | November 14, 2007 11:29 AM
Mike, you make a GREAT point. It's pretty ridiculous.
Posted by: NotBothered | November 14, 2007 12:29 PM
A vote for Romney is a vote for torture!
http://www.reason.com/news/show/121088.html
Posted by: Tracker | November 14, 2007 2:36 PM
When you look at the polls in the early states that are looking at the candidates up close, it's true. Romney is outworking them and he has to. Name recognition being low and the added religion factor, he has to out work and outspend to get his message out. I am fine with anyone who wants to work and I believe Romney has run a tireless and well organized campaign. His history of going in and finding what's wasteful and wrong within an organization and then making them profitable, is just the type of person Washington needs. A smart, tireless and good man the US people would be proud to have in the White House.
Posted by: Mike | November 14, 2007 3:44 PM
Romney is outstanding. I am impressed with him, and he is a virtual lock at this point for my vote. Guliani is sour grapes about his chances of catching the well orchestrated, organized work of Romney. If this is any indication of Romney's ability, the country will be lucky to have him.
Posted by: Bryan, Boston MA | November 14, 2007 3:52 PM
I don't know why the media ever characterizes Romney as "buying" these early states.
Posted by: Joseph Antley | November 14, 2007 3:58 PM
An actual Swamp article on a Republican!
Romney is a good man and a proven leader with executive experience--experience Rudy Giuliani has, but that the 3 leading Democrats don't have.
Posted by: Bruce | November 14, 2007 6:02 PM
Tracker, if we analysed everyone who works for a presidential candidate, I doubt we would have any candidate running for office in any party. But, in terms of raw strategy, I think Mitt Romney will win the GOP nomination simply because of the expected media he will get from winning Iowa, New Hampshire, possibly South Carolina, and even Florida, and California. If by chance he gets these states, it is all over for the other candidates.
Posted by: David A | November 14, 2007 8:25 PM
Go Rom-dawg!
Posted by: jaytee | November 14, 2007 9:57 PM
Follow the money David. Sembler is the world record holder in fundraising. You're looking at 4 more years of Bush. This country is going down the toilet if Romney gets elected. http://dfaf.org/about/founders.php
Posted by: Tracker | November 15, 2007 12:13 AM
Romney is incredible. He has my vote and will be a great President for all Americans. What an oustanding organization. How about Huckabee as VP?
Romney/Huckabee 08. Sounds good to me.
Posted by: Mike | November 15, 2007 2:03 AM