Hey, call him late for dinner if it makes you happy... no one calls Mitt the front runner, because... well, he's not. If McCain had won Michigan had won Michigan, he'd have shown that Romney probably can't win anywhere; that's major. Romney's win answers nothing, and it does nothing to explain his failure in New Hampshire, where he should have similarly succeeded (it's a high bar when you were the Governor of Massachusetts and the most significant demographic change in NH is... that a lot of Mass residents moved over the border). Romney's win shows that with enough money and a few well chosen remarks, plus a dash of personal history, he can win something. It's hard to call that exactly running out front, or to suggest that Romney's road from here is clearly him out front. If he loses South Carolina that's a big deal. If he loses Florida, I'd say he's back to square one. And I don't think it's at all clear that those scenarios are out of the question. Front runner? It's possible, and really, who on the left wouldn't love to see him win at this point? He seems eminently beatable... in which case call him King of the World, for all it matters.

"Why isn't Mitt Romney being treated as the overwhelming frontrunner in the Republican race?"

Maybe because the Republicans are as skeptical as the Democrats are ecstatic about his presidential chances.

Romney failed in NH because NH is weird. No big deal.

Romney doesn't have to win SC or the South in general, as long as he's losing to Huckabee and not McCain or Rudy.

I think Romney will win FL, CA, NY and the likes, Huck will get the Jesusers and only them, McCain will win bupkes, and Rudy will be a dud.

"Moreover, Michigan differs from the other three contests in that it's inhabited by actual people, twice as many as the other three states combined."

Look, I realize that it's standard in the blogosphere to denigrate Iowans and New Hampshire folk as unrepresentative, but to say they're not actual people? Droids? Pod people? Yes, Michigan has more people than those other places, and, perhaps more to the point, it's more diverse, but it has its peculiarities as well, notably its unique economic problems [only Ohio is comparable]. I'd say Romney's win is important there mainly because, as a Midwestern industrial state, it's the sort of state that will actually decide the general election. If Republicans are looking for someone who can win, as opposed to someone who embraces their dogmas at the expense of boxing himself in with centrist voters, Romney seems to have established himself as the appropriate choice with this win.

Mitt's win suggests that one of Huckabee's lines isn't as effective as I thought. He said something to the effect that he (Huckabee) reminds people of the guy you work with, while Romney reminds you of the guy who laid you off. Michigan's got to lead the country in layoffs, with the hard times the auto industry is having, but Michiganders voted for the guy who laid them off.

We don't call Mitt the frontrunner yet because there is no frontrunner yet.

His advantage in money has kept him alive, but at huge cost. He outspent Huckabee about 20-fold in Iowa and lost by 9 points. He outspent McCain in NH and lost by 9 (despite NH being Romney's home territory).

Now Romney's won one. Good for him. Keep it up and he's the frontrunner.

Romney failed in NH because NH is weird.

Anyone who travels the United States realizes we're all pretty weird - at least to everyone on the outside. Massachusetts, Texas, Utah, Louisiana ... which one of these is supposed to be the normal one?

Another reason to wait before crowning Romney (from MSNBC):

Four in 10 Republican primary voters said Romney's ties to Michigan were very or somewhat important to their vote, and more than half of them voted for him.

You can only play the hometown boy in so many places. We'll need to see a few more wins before knowing if Republican voters nationally really like Romney over McCain.

Yes! Yes! Mitt is the front-runner! Republicans are enthusiastically embracing him and vaulting him over tired, poor McCain and chummy Huck. Democrats are rightly worried about Romney's general election appeal--"please don't nominate him!" they say. So by all means, Go Mitt!

Mitt Romney has won more votes and delegates (for the GOP convention) than John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, and Lord Vader. Those two facts would seem to be enough to say that he is currently the front-runner. His campaign may have problems, but are they more serious than McCain's (who doesn't have as much money or as large an organization and whom the party's base distrusts) or Huckabee (no organization, money, or trust from Wall Street), or Giuliani (no votes).

Mitt isn't the front-runner because he got spanked in Iowa and New Hampshire, despite outspending his opponents by millions of dollars. I think he outspent Huckabee 20 to 1 in Iowa. When you can't win with that sort of overwhelming financial advantage, you're too weak a candidate to be called the front-runner.

Mike

The 20-1 money line was from Huckabee. The press quietly noted later it was more like 6-1 or 7-1. Huck spent a lot of money in the last week because he sensed a win.

polthereal, I don't really understand how Mitt Romney can be the "change" candidate one moment and defend President Bush tooth-and-nail the next moment. Remember how Romney got all over Huckabee for his criticism of Bush's foreign policy? Wasn't Huckabee merely arguing for some change?

And imagine the commercials the Democrats would run against Romney - "Let's double Guantanamo." - "My sons serve their country by helping me get elected president." - "I marched with Martin Luther King."

I is really hard to get a straight answer out of Romney. I can vote for someone I disagree with as long as I know where a person stands. But can anyone say where Romney stands on any issue?

And most damaging of all, how would Romney avoid the "flip-flopper from Massachusetts" tag?