I and others disagree that it’s just a matter of money. Romney has vastly outspent his rivals in Iowa, NH, Michigan and SC and will win only one. (Yes, I’m not counting uncontested caucuses in Nevada and Wyoming.) Money didn’t buy him evangelical support in Iowa nor convince voters in his own backyard of his bona fides. The better argument is that if he had no money he would be in the worst position of any of the remaining contenders. Coming in third in SC (at best) leaves a fundamental problem: where is he going to win on February 5? The Red states of Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, and Arkansas don’t seem any more accessible. Is he going to best McCain and Rudy in NJ, NY, California and Illinois? It seems unlikely. More importantly, he simply has never caught a surge, a bump of national excitement like any of the other candidates and remains mired in third place in national polls (which are the closest approximation to the landscape of February 5 out there). Could he win? Yes, but money is not the key or he’d be the undisputed frontrunner already.
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://spectatorworld.com/.
The offer renews after one year at the regular price of $79.99.