January 3rd, 2008
09:30 PM ET
10 years ago

Quiet night for Romney

Mitt Romney spoke in Des Moines, Iowa Thursday.

Mitt Romney spoke in Des Moines, Iowa Thursday.

DES MOINES, Iowa (CNN)- Supporters of former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney are trickling in to the campaign’s Iowa headquarter in West Des Moines.

It's a very subdued crowd here, some still watching big TV screens, others just walked away from them after the results were projected. An adviser to the campagn points to the strong evangelical turnout among caucus goers for Romney's loss. That was the big wild card for Romney despite campaigning here for nearly a year and spending over six-million dollars on ads in Iowa.

Romney's family was with him on the campaign trail today. The campaign said he was watching results with them here at the hotel. We are waiting for him to come italk to his supporters.

Romney has been saying in recent days that if he comes in second, it would be a strong statement. He appeared confident earlier in the day, when he told crowds that he looked forward to debating the Democratic nominee.

–CNN's Mary Snow

Filed under: Iowa • Mitt Romney
soundoff (59 Responses)
  1. Wayne, Greenville TX

    supernovia January 3, 2008 10:40 pm ET

    Bruce Johnson

    If Mitt's goals were to stay rich, he wouldn't be trying to save the country.

    If Mitt Romney really wanted to do something good for the USA, he'd leave.

    January 4, 2008 09:22 am at 9:22 am |
  2. Wayne, Greenville TX

    Pat Howard January 3, 2008 10:21 pm ET

    I certainly hope this doesn't become a religious race. Come on America! Wake up and look at the issues for Pete's sake. Vote for what the candidates stand for, not their religious affiliations!

    And when people really look at what the candidates stand for, they'll wise up and vote Democratic.

    January 4, 2008 09:25 am at 9:25 am |
  3. Jay

    I'm not for Romney or Huckleberry, but that first comment and some of the others are ignorant. this was one state. past presidents have lost in Iowa. Romney said himself he'd be happy with 1 or 2. Iowa won't make or break anyone. I just dislike the Huckleberry candidate most. he's bad for this country. more of us need to look into Dr. Ron Paul instead of these other puppets.

    January 4, 2008 11:03 am at 11:03 am |
  4. Ken

    hey Richard- if you think Huckabee and McCain are good and honorable, then you have surely been easily misled. that's a joke. get your head out of the sand, sheep.

    January 4, 2008 11:08 am at 11:08 am |
  5. Richard, Ewing, NJ


    Mitt Romney is the first one to launch negative attack ads against both McCain and Huckabee, thus they attack back. Maybe you have been "conditioned" by Romney email letters, and telling you misleading information. What happened in Iowa is this. Romney outspent Huckabee 15:1 in Iowa, which mean if you live in Iowa, you would have bombarded by Romney attack ads over and over and over and over on the TV screen before you see a single one from Huckabee. Can you imagine how that would feel? Or that you come home from work and get 15 attack phone message from Romney before you even get one from Huckabee? Can you imagine that? McCain does not even have a TV ad in Iowa. Iowa people did not see any attack ads from McCain. In addition, Romney ads are filled with misleading lies, while Huckabee and McCain atlhought personal are not lies. Just to give you one example, Romney accused Huckabee foreign policy is bad and that Condi Rice has said Huckabee's policy as ludicrous. Condi Rice never said his policy is ludicrous. Romney attacks on McCain was also a lie. Huckabee and McCain on the other hand quote newspaper columns and endorsements. Those newspapers do exist, and the tests were not taken out of context at all. In short, Romney lied.

    January 4, 2008 11:23 am at 11:23 am |
  6. Tom Dedham, Mass

    "Meanwhile, Romney got the largest chunk of those who were mostly wealthy, urban moderates who cared about foreign affairs, experience, and electability, but who were not evangelicals or did not vote on someone based on his religious beliefs."

    Alan, thanks for posting the pointed breakdown, what that means is people whose brains are not stuffed with hay and can actually think about reasons and details on WHY to vote for someone OTHER THAN FAITH voted for Romney.

    Gomer will be an afterthought real soon as the bible thumping charade doesn't play well in places that people actually think.

    Not blaming the Democrats for their smart pick in Iowa, but the faith based nut job Republicans in Iowa.

    And this is coming from a Conservative Christian, just NOT one that bases decisions on faith alone.

    January 4, 2008 11:34 am at 11:34 am |
  7. Richard, Ewing, NJ


    Yes, you are very smart. Because you are able to come to conclusion without any evidence. Unfortunately, I need evidences to back my accusation. I am just that kind of uncertain people who need data and facts to back my points.

    Ha! Romney has never fought for anything. He was Pro-Choice and then Pro-Life, but he is not passion about neither. Romney was for gay rights who ran left of Ted Kennedy before against gay rights. Romney was for gun control before he is a supporter for gun rights. Romney was a independent who do not want to be Reagan/Bush before he embrace Reagan/Bush. Romney was for the comprehensive immigration reform bill before he is againt it. Romney saw his father matched with MLK before he did not see it. Romney is a religious man who is too sacred to ever talk about his own religion, and he only gave a speech about his religion (slighty) when the his poll starts to drop Has the guy ever do something just for principle? Talk about his religion because it is the right thing to do, or not talk about religion because it is the right thing to do. Support abortion because it is the right thing to do, or against abortion because it is the right thing to do. I do not need another Clinton who tell me what I want to hear. I want someone disagree with me but disagree with me with a passion with fire and storm.

    Every candidate in this race has a real passion except Romney. Huckabee passion in faith is crystal clear and his love for life is unquestionable. I am athesit and I am Pro-Choice, but I respect that passion. McCain experience in military and arms and national security is unquestionable by either party. His record of bipartisan corporation and forming coalition is proved over and over. His undying passion for the military troop surge dated back from 2003 when it was an popular idea. Duncan Hunter has a passion for controlling illegal immigration flow is undeniable. Guiliani need less to say.

    Maybe you are the one who is easily misled. No republican candidate has took on more opposite stance than Romney. Hey, I do not mind people chance their minds. However, I have problem when people change their stance for winning instead of principle. Can you name one stance Romney has changed that actually made him less like to win? McCain clearly and honesty oppose ethanol subsidies in the tall corn state Iowa, and that is a great stance. Guiliani honesty proclaim he has been Pro-Choice and is still Pro-Choice. Huckabee is unashamed of the fact he supported illegal immigrant for education. These people take accountability. McCain said , " don't have a gun now, and I do not need a gun. I know how to use one." When McCain said he does not have a gun, I believe him. When he said he does not think he need a gun, I believe him. When he said he knows how to use a gun, I also believe him. However, when Romney said he is a hunter.... Wow... give me a break.

    January 4, 2008 02:51 pm at 2:51 pm |
  8. Richard, Ewing, NJ

    Tom Dedham, Mass,

    Dream on. Next battle: New Hampshire. New Hampshire is a very secular state will a little population of religious rights. Romney is going to lose there too. I will be waiting to hear what you have to say about his lose there.

    January 4, 2008 02:53 pm at 2:53 pm |
  9. Ken

    ok, CNN, please do not delete my rebuttal to Richard again. I mean, this is the USA and there is such a thing as freedom of speech, right? so I will condense for him and direct richard to the facts by letting him visit the below links. and Richard, you are so incorrect in assuming I support Mitt. no way. just because I dislike Huckabee I am for Mitt? what? misled again pal. I am not for most of these puppets of the international bankers and corporations. here's some facts you can deal with:

    January 7, 2008 12:21 pm at 12:21 pm |
1 2 3