Another good thought from Liz Mair:
The first thing, beyond the results themselves, that bears mentioning here is that in 1999, when (as I recall) pretty much the entire then-declared field played at Ames (unlike this year when Giuliani, McCain and Fred Thompson-- i.e., 3 out of the 4 frontrunners-- did not)-- making a 30%+ win at Ames something very noteworthy and indicative of much greater organizational prowess and popularity in Iowa itself-- George W Bush won with 31%.
In other words, Mitt Romney, playing a field uncrowded by other presidential heavyweights, only managed to pull off the same percentage as Bush did in 1999, when Bush was competing against the likes of Steve Forbes and Elizabeth Dole (who were treated as credible candidates at that time-- Patrick Ruffini notes that Steve Forbes threw millions at the straw poll in 1999, something Huckabee clearly did not do this year, and something that Romney apparently did). So, while a win for Mitt is a win, him taking 31% isn't really that much of a big deal. In some ways, when he was competing against a number of go-nowhere candidates, you might have expected him to do better.
Hopefully I will stop posting about Ames soon, because part of me really doesn't care. But deep down, I'm a true elections-by-the-numbers nerd, and I think Mair makes a good point: Romney won, like everyone expected him to. And he won with pretty much the same percentage as Bush did. But Bush competed against other viable candidates. Romney, frankly, did not. It seems pretty clear that Romney is doing extremely well in Iowa, but it's a good nuance.
