http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/11/romney-wins-maine-caucuses/?ref=politics
Mitt Romney dodged a bullet by barley winning Maine's non-binding caucuses. After loosing three states to Rick Santorum, Romney needed to win Maine. The vote was very close between Romney and Ron Paul, but Romney slid by and pulled of the win. If Romney had lost in Maine, he could have had some potential problems; being the former governor of Massachusetts. His victory could have saved him from a lot of extra stress. But only about 2 percent of the Republicans in the Maine showed up to vote. So this was obviously not a clear victory. Paul said that he wasn't worried, and rightly so. More people will show up to vote when it actually matters and the outcome could be very different. But the same goes for the three states that Romney lost. Romney needed to win Maine in order to maintain his image and answer the question of his being able to secure votes. But this race is far from over.
The writer of the article clearly shows that he doesn't believe these caucuses really have any importance. Ron Paul barely lost Maine and he stated that he wasn't going anywhere. The race is still very much open and any one of the candidates can come out on top. The fact that Romney lost three states in a row before barely winning Maine shows that the race is open. Especially since not nearly as many people show up to vote in these early caucuses as do in the later elections.
I believe that winning Maine was essential for Romney especially after losing 3 states in a row. At this point in the race you image can be just as important as your own political points and views made at the caucuses. I believe thats why the media focuses so greatly on candidates slip ups and out of context statements. The actual statement of losing 3 states in a row already puts a negative mindset on those who are not educated voters.
ReplyDelete