How Romney and Obama Stack Up on Tumblr

President Barack Obama may be the commander in GIF when it comes to his presence on Tumblr, but his competitor Mitt Romney is no slouch on the microblogging network.

In October Romney was the topic of 94.5 million posts and 3 million reblogs while Obama collected 117.1K posts and 2.5 million reblogs, according to statistics from Union Metrics, Tumblr’s official analytics partner.

“From a content perspective, nearly all of the most popular posts (those receiving the most notes) are directly comparing the candidates; more than two-thirds of the posts about each candidate also include a tag about the other candidate,” Union Metrics reported. “Most of the content is visual and sarcastic in nature, often created to poke fun at the candidates, with myriad screenshots and GIFs created from the debates.”

Obama and his campaign have made the GIF an integral part of their Tumblr arsenal. In August Obama’s campaign posted or reblogged more than 10 GIFs, each collecting thousands of notes. The campaign followed up that success on Oct. 3 with a Mean Girls GIF that got 49,300 reblogs and 21,700 likes, making it the most popular post of the month.

Romney’s most popular post this month featured photos of the former Massachusetts governor at a rally in Nevada. The post collected 8,100 reblogs and 4,200 likes.

The biggest difference between the two candidates’ Tumblr accounts was exhibited in their posting habits. Romney’s campaign made a new post about once a day this month, with an average of 539 notes (339 reblogs/post and 199 likes/post). Obama’s campaign was a blogging machine, posting 191 times in October. Each post collected an average 2,909 notes (1,692 reblogs/post and 1,217 likes/post).

Illustration courtesy of Flickr, DonkeyHotey

The Daily Dot is a Mashable publishing partner that reports on the most important and relevant topics from within, applying tried-and-true principles drawn from community journalism to the growing cultures of the Internet. This article is reprinted with the publisher's permission.

Read more >>

Tweet

The man without a plan: Romney has no real food and farming platform

By Tom Laskawy

Mitt Romney at Holland State Park, June 19, 2012, in Holland, Mich.

The election is creeping up on us fast. And while many indicators, from Intrade markets to various academic models to New York Times statistics and public survey expert Nate Silver, seem to predict an Obama victory, there is the possibility (many liberal commentators might say “a probability”) that America could elect Mitt Romney.

In preparation, then, it’s not a bad idea to take stock of what we know about Romney’s food and agriculture policy. Dan Flynn at Food Safety News has already taken to predicting who would staff the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under Romney (Hint: It’s all former GOP USDA officials and businessmen). The list was purely speculative, with names mostly drawn from members of Romney’s current agricultural advisory team. And while there’s no hard information out there to tell us who Romney might select to head the agencies that oversee food and agriculture policy, it’s worth attempting a review of his policy positions.

Of course, we’re talking about Mitt Romney here. The man is running a campaign that’s light on policy and light on facts. While his food and ag platform is not quite the blank page that his climate change policy is, there’s precious little to be found. There’s no rural policy or agricultural policy section on his campaign website. Scouring his website for references to agriculture brings up a “coalition page” called “Farmers and Ranchers for Romney.” The top post in this section is entitled “An Energy Blueprint for America” — and it doesn’t even mention ethanol! Nor will you find a mention of … food.

The campaign’s immigration page makes a nod toward easing the visa process for seasonal workers, but there’s no discussion of comprehensive reform — something that the agricultural sector wants. Romney is in a bit of a bind, of course, because Republican governors in several states have passed draconian immigration laws that have hurt farmers’ ability to find workers to harvest their crops.

And that’s pretty much it.

Thankfully, one of the main produce industry lobbying groups, United Fresh, asked both Gov. Romney and President Obama to answer a set of questions about the produce industry’s top issues: immigration, food safety, agricultural regulation, the farm bill, taxes, and nutrition. The group then posted both campaigns’ responses — Obama’s here [PDF] and Romney’s here [PDF].

Predictably, in his answers, the president pointed to many of the administration’s initiatives that benefit so-called “specialty crop” (aka fruit, vegetable, and nut) growers. For example, Obama’s response to the farm bill question, which asked the president where he thought specialty crops fit into the debate, offered the USDA’s emphasis on regional food systems and access to healthy food as a sign of his commitment.

Granted, the nutrition question, which itself invoked Michelle Obama’s Let’s Move Salad Bars to Schools program and the increase in USDA’s recommendations for daily intake of fruits and vegetables, was a softball for Obama. Meanwhile, on food safety, he pointed to new ways his administration set up systems to manage risk and cut down on food-borne illness (interestingly, he didn’t mention the Food Safety Modernization Act, the huge bill that passed last year but is currently sitting in rule-making limbo and is the center of a lawsuit by advocacy group The Center for Food Safety).

While his responses are generally supportive of food system advocates’ priorities, it’s not as if the Obama administration hasn’t disappointed them. In fact, like other recent administrations, it loves GMOs, pesticides, farm insurance, and voluntary corporate guidelines too much and sustainable agriculture, public health, and the regulatory power of the state too little.

But Obama did have plenty to say and several specific policies to promote.

Romney? Not so much. He responded to the question on “comprehensive immigration reform” with a reference to a “national immigration strategy” focused almost entirely on reducing paperwork for visas. On the farm bill, Romney had no policy prescriptions at all. But don’t despair! He “appreciates” and “recognizes” the importance of farm policy and will pursue “pro-trade” export policies. That’s it, folks. I’m not summarizing. Nada.

He didn’t have much more to say on nutrition — and didn’t even bother to acknowledge the importance of getting your fruits and veggies (not even in a questionnaire from the people who grow them!). After all, as he put it in his answer, “the federal government should not dictate what every American eats.” But fear not! Romney believes “an emphasis on a balanced diet will be crucial to addressing this crisis and public health programs in a Romney Administration will highlight the importance of healthy eating.” Obesity epidemic? Solved.

The most disturbing Romney answer, however, had to be his response to the question abut food safety. Here it is in full:

Q. With greater regulatory oversight, and greater investment by the industry into food safety for fresh produce, how can your administration ensure that food safety events (detections, outbreaks, recalls) are conducted in a way that protects public health without imposing crippling costs and liabilities on produce industry companies? Do you believe that food safety programs that are mandated by federal regulations are of benefit to the general public, and therefore should be funded largely by the federal government?

A. Thankfully, American farmers and producers, specifically the produce industry, have a long history of taking responsibility for food safety. Preventive practices are the best tool to reduce the incidence of food-borne illnesses, provide more control over the potential risks of contamination, and are generally the most cost effective. Governor Romney believes preventative practices are best developed by growers, handlers, processors, and others in the supply chain with specific knowledge of the risks, diversity of operations in the industry, and feasibility of potential mitigation strategies.

Governor Romney believes the FDA must collaborate with industry, in cooperation with state agencies and academia, to develop specific guidance for the commodities most often associated with food-borne illness outbreaks. A Romney Administration will prioritize this type of cooperation and collaboration with industry on the part of all agencies charged with protecting public health.

No one’s going to argue with prevention, of course. But note that Romney “believes preventative practices are best developed by growers, handlers, processors, and others in the supply chain.” That smells a lot like a desire to substitute strict regulation with voluntary guidance. It’s bad enough that the FDA has taken this approach to antibiotics in agriculture; most experts believe it will do nothing to address the growing threat of antibiotic resistance. But expanding voluntary guidelines to food safety? That seems, well, nuts.

You can argue, if you like, that Romney was “brave” and telling the “hard truths” by not saying to the produce lobby simply what he thought they wanted to hear. Or you can argue, as I would, that he didn’t say much because he really didn’t have anything to say. Food and agricultural policy is hugely complex and touches on people’s everyday lives in multiple and various ways. It would be nice if it sounded even remotely like Romney cared.

Tom Laskawy is a founder and executive director of the Food & Environment Reporting Network and a contributing writer at Grist covering food and agricultural policy. His writing has also appeared in The American Prospect, Slate, The New York Times, and The New Republic. Follow him on Twitter.

var OB_langJS = 'http://widgets.outbrain.com/lang_en.js'; var OBITm = '1322003100161';var OB_raterMode = 'none';var OB_recMode = 'strip';var OutbrainPermaLink='http://www.grist.org//food/the-man-without-a-plan-romney-has-no-real-food-and-farming-platform/';if ( typeof(OB_Script)!='undefined' )OutbrainStart(); else { var OB_Script = true; var str = unescape("%3Cscript src=\'http://widgets.outbrain.com/OutbrainRater.js\' type=\'text/javascript\'%3E%3C/script%3E"); document.write(str); }

Read more >>

Tweet

Obama, Romney Take Over the Web With Advertisements

Television has long been considered the dominant medium for political advertising, and that’s mostly still true — spending on TV ads by campaigns and Super PACs this year alone is expected to reach $2.9 billion. However, campaigns are increasingly putting more of their advertising budget into the web — to the tune of seven times more than they spent online in 2008.

It’s a trend that was evident across the Internet during the Republican and Democratic National Convention. Over the past two weeks, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney’s campaigns waged digital warfare to get more eyeballs on their content — and their message. Along the way, they made every effort to out-innovate the other side through new ad features and creative placement.

The Obama campaign became the first to buy a massive frontpage ad on YouTube’s masthead that included a live embed of the president’s speech. YouTube masthead placements stay live for 24 hours and receive about 23 million views in the United States.

Obama’s team also embedded convention tweets into an ad on CNN; they also did complete online ad takeovers of Tampa and Charlotte-area newspapers during both conventions:

Meanwhile, the Romney campaign became the first presidential campaign to purchase a promoted trending topic on Twitter — #RomneyRyan2012 — and countered Obama’s full-page takeovers with web ads designed to use the president’s own ads against him (those “rebuttal” ads were changed a few hours after they appeared):

An outside conservative group and the Obama campaign later joined the Romney campaign by purchasing Twitter trending topics of their own, all to varying degrees of success. Nationwide Twitter trending topics cost about $120,000 each.

The Obama ads mentioned in this post in sum cost the campaign approximately $1 million; the Romney campaign hasn’t yet provided a figure.

Are you experiencing Obama and Romney’s battle for your eyeballs and ad clicks as you surf the web?

Read more >>

Tweet

Romney Campaign Uses Twitter Searches to Advertise VP App

Mitt Romney’s campaign is using strategically placed Promoted Tweets to advertise a mobile app designed to deliver the first word of the candidate’s vice presidential pick.

Twitter searches for politicians considered top vice presidential contenders, such as Tim Pawlenty and Rob Portman, show a Promoted Tweet advertising the app:

Romney’s Promoted Tweet was first noticed by Politico.

A Romney campaign spokesperson didn’t divulge details about its digital targeting strategy to Politico. Brands, including political campaigns, can pay Twitter to highlight certain tweets relevant to a user’s search query.

SEE ALSO: Obama, Romney Campaigns Go Mobile With New Apps

The “Mitt’s VP” app was released last week for iPhone and Android smartphones. People who download the app and activate push notifications are promised to be among the first to know who Romney picks as his running mate. However, there’s always a chance that the information might leak through the press first as thousands of political journalists are scrambling to be the first to break the news.

Is this a smart use of Promoted Tweets by Romney’s digital staff? Share your thoughts in the comments below.

Images courtesy of Flickr, Gage Skidmore

Read more >>

Tweet

Romney is not a secret moderate on energy; he’s a Republican

By David Roberts

The Romney campaign lies with amazing brazenness and regularity — see, just to pick a recent example out of a hat, this whopper. Thus far, political horse-race reporters don’t seem to care. They spend their time analyzing whether the lies will “work.”

Outside the horse-race beat, however, there are still some reporters who do the old-fashioned work of assessing the truth value of political claims. (I know, boooring, right?) Take, for instance, this piece in the Washington Post from green reporters Steven Mufson and Juliet Eilperin.

Being that they are “objective” reporters, they can’t just come out and state the thesis of the piece plainly: “Romney had sane energy policies when he was governor of Massachusetts. Now he’s flip-flopped to far-right policies justified by outrageous lies that even industry doesn’t support.” But that’s what the piece shows.

What drew my attention is buried down at the bottom of the piece. It has to do with the reaction of a certain kind of person — the self-styled “centrist” or moderate — to Romney’s outrageous lurch rightward. I think there is, among those sorts of people, a lingering sense that Romney is “really” one of them, really a moderate, really the guy he was in Massachusetts, and all the loopy right-wingery is just what he has to do when he campaigns. It’s all in the game. Once he’s in the White House, his inner moderate will re-emerge. Right? Witness:

While Romney has sharply attacked Obama for investing federal dollars in wind and solar projects, [Charles Ebinger, director of Brookings Institution's energy security initiative] said that it is unlikely that Romney would cut off all federal research and development funds for renewable energy.

“In reality, he is a venture capitalist, for better or worse. He would realize R and D [research and development] is very important,” Ebinger said. “I can’t see him bowing to the right wing of the Republican Party and saying, ‘We won’t do any R and D.’”

Lots of centrist types “can’t see” Romney bowing to the right-wing of the party or governing as right-wing as he’s running. That’s because lots of centrist types are naive about American politics. (It is often, in my rather uncharitable opinion, a kind of self-imposed, willful naivety.)

As I said here, the Republican Party has been evolving steadily into a parliamentary party, which acts as a unified bloc and is driven from the legislature. As party honcho Grover Norquist put it, the president’s job is “to sign the legislation that has already been prepared.” The party agenda, not what is secretly in Romney’s heart, is what matters. And the party agenda is now entirely driven by the right wing of the party (which is, for all intents and purposes, the only wing it has left). The same people Romney is pandering to with his extreme energy rhetoric in the campaign are the ones he’ll have to please after he’s elected. They’re the ones who will staff his administration. They’re the ones who will send him legislation to sign.

The Republican Party now acts as a unit. And it is a unit with an agenda, on energy as on much else, that is wildly reactionary relative even to a few short years ago. Even assuming the hidden moderate so many people want to see inside Romney is real, it will be powerless in office. You elect a Republican, you get the Republican agenda.

var OB_langJS = 'http://widgets.outbrain.com/lang_en.js'; var OBITm = '1322003100161';var OB_raterMode = 'none';var OB_recMode = 'strip';var OutbrainPermaLink='http://www.grist.org//politics/romney-is-not-a-secret-moderate-on-energy-hes-a-republican/';if ( typeof(OB_Script)!='undefined' )OutbrainStart(); else { var OB_Script = true; var str = unescape("%3Cscript src=\'http://widgets.outbrain.com/OutbrainRater.js\' type=\'text/javascript\'%3E%3C/script%3E"); document.write(str); }

Read more >>

Tweet

Romney is not a secret moderate on energy; he’s a Republican

By David Roberts

The Romney campaign lies with amazing brazenness and regularity — see, just to pick a recent example out of a hat, this whopper. Thus far, political horse-race reporters don’t seem to care. They spend their time analyzing whether the lies will “work.”

Outside the horse-race beat, however, there are still some reporters who do the old-fashioned work of assessing the truth value of political claims. (I know, boooring, right?) Take, for instance, this piece in the Washington Post from green reporters Steven Mufson and Juliet Eilperin.

Being that they are “objective” reporters, they can’t just come out and state the thesis of the piece plainly: “Romney had sane energy policies when he was governor of Massachusetts. Now he’s flip-flopped to far-right policies justified by outrageous lies that even industry doesn’t support.” But that’s what the piece shows.

What drew my attention is buried down at the bottom of the piece. It has to do with the reaction of a certain kind of person — the self-styled “centrist” or moderate — to Romney’s outrageous lurch rightward. I think there is, among those sorts of people, a lingering sense that Romney is “really” one of them, really a moderate, really the guy he was in Massachusetts, and all the loopy right-wingery is just what he has to do when he campaigns. It’s all in the game. Once he’s in the White House, his inner moderate will re-emerge. Right? Witness:

While Romney has sharply attacked Obama for investing federal dollars in wind and solar projects, [Charles Ebinger, director of Brookings Institution's energy security initiative] said that it is unlikely that Romney would cut off all federal research and development funds for renewable energy.

“In reality, he is a venture capitalist, for better or worse. He would realize R and D [research and development] is very important,” Ebinger said. “I can’t see him bowing to the right wing of the Republican Party and saying, ‘We won’t do any R and D.’”

Lots of centrist types “can’t see” Romney bowing to the right-wing of the party or governing as right-wing as he’s running. That’s because lots of centrist types are naive about American politics. (It is often, in my rather uncharitable opinion, a kind of self-imposed, willful naivety.)

As I said here, the Republican Party has been evolving steadily into a parliamentary party, which acts as a unified bloc and is driven from the legislature. As party honcho Grover Norquist put it, the president’s job is “to sign the legislation that has already been prepared.” The party agenda, not what is secretly in Romney’s heart, is what matters. And the party agenda is now entirely driven by the right wing of the party (which is, for all intents and purposes, the only wing it has left). The same people Romney is pandering to with his extreme energy rhetoric in the campaign are the ones he’ll have to please after he’s elected. They’re the ones who will staff his administration. They’re the ones who will send him legislation to sign.

The Republican Party now acts as a unit. And it is a unit with an agenda, on energy as on much else, that is wildly reactionary relative even to a few short years ago. Even assuming the hidden moderate so many people want to see inside Romney is real, it will be powerless in office. You elect a Republican, you get the Republican agenda.

var OB_langJS = 'http://widgets.outbrain.com/lang_en.js'; var OBITm = '1322003100161';var OB_raterMode = 'none';var OB_recMode = 'strip';var OutbrainPermaLink='http://www.grist.org//politics/romney-is-not-a-secret-moderate-on-energy-hes-a-republican/';if ( typeof(OB_Script)!='undefined' )OutbrainStart(); else { var OB_Script = true; var str = unescape("%3Cscript src=\'http://widgets.outbrain.com/OutbrainRater.js\' type=\'text/javascript\'%3E%3C/script%3E"); document.write(str); }

Read more >>

Tweet

Romney energy advisor on oil subsidies: Four more years!

By Philip Bump

In an appearance before the Senate Finance Committee tomorrow, the CEO of Continental Resources will argue for preserving the billions of dollars in tax subsidies the federal government provides to oil companies each year. Given that Continental Resources bills itself as “America’s Oil Champion” (after, we assume, a difficult championship battle) this probably comes as no surprise. In fact, it’s hard to figure out why the Senate’s even bothering to hear from him, when a large blinking sign reading MORE MONEY PLS would be functionally equivalent.

But the CEO of Continental Resources, one Harold Hamm, isn’t just another energy executive. He’s also chair of Mitt Romney’s energy advisory team. The Hill got a copy of his planned testimony, in which Hamm declares that “[t]he tax provisions that let us keep our own money to reinvest in drilling are crucial to keep this energy revival going.” More directly, Hamm implies that ending the subsidies would “slow down, if not stop, America’s march to energy independence.”

A quick reminder: these subsidies are enjoyed by fossil fuel companies across the board, including the first-, third-, fourth-, and twelfth-largest companies in America. Those four companies alone made $154 a minute in 2011 – in profits. We suspect that excising the government’s largesse will still leave them with a little folding money.

Hamm’s statement is probably more noteworthy given what it reveals about the Romney campaign. Hamm doesn’t necessarily speak for the campaign, but it’s hard to believe that he would make this presentation without the campaign’s agreement. Nor would it be a surprise if Romney were interested in continuing policies so important to Big Oil, though it’s not a popular move: a poll in March 2011 indicated that 74% of Americans wanted to end these subsidies.

If Mitt Romney wins in November, there’s a not insignificant chance that Hamm could end up as Secretary of Energy or, perhaps worse, Secretary of the Interior. Feel pretty confident that Big Oil wouldn’t mind America’s Oil Champion in either of those roles.

Philip Bump writes about the news for Gristmill.

var OB_langJS = 'http://widgets.outbrain.com/lang_en.js'; var OBITm = '1322003100161';var OB_raterMode = 'none';var OB_recMode = 'strip';var OutbrainPermaLink='http://www.grist.org//news/romney-energy-advisor-on-oil-subsidies-four-more-years/';if ( typeof(OB_Script)!='undefined' )OutbrainStart(); else { var OB_Script = true; var str = unescape("%3Cscript src=\'http://widgets.outbrain.com/OutbrainRater.js\' type=\'text/javascript\'%3E%3C/script%3E"); document.write(str); }

Read more >>

Tweet

Mitt Romney won. And now he's going to lose

So the hollow man has finally firmed his fragile hold on the GOP nomination, in another of T.S. Eliot's phrases, "not with a bang, but with a whimper." In the Wisconsin primary, the whimper was Mitt Romney's margin — a derisory 4 percent for someone to whom Republicans should rally overwhelmingly since they know he will be their standard-bearer in November.

But as I've written before, Romney's will be a grudging nomination, requiring Herculean exertion and Midas-like spending to overcome a clutch of rivals who resemble the cast of Monty Python's Flying Circus. Wisconsin, like the rest of...

More

Read more >>

Tweet

Iowa Win Helps Romney, But Lacks Luster

Mitt Romney waves to supporters during his caucus night rally in Des Moines, Iowa, January 3, 2012. (Photo credit JEWEL SAMAD/AFP/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON (AP) — Mitt Romney’s whisker-thin Iowa caucus victory was underwhelming in scope and anti-climactic in its finality.

But it moves him closer to the Republican presidential nomination chiefly because of who finished fourth and fifth.

The former Massachusetts governor will gladly tout his win over Rick Santorum, who could have reversed the results with one more carload of supporters.

More important to Romney, however, was the thumping suffered by former House speaker Newt Gingrich and Texas Gov. Rick Perry.

GOP strategists had seen them as having the best backgrounds to sustain a long-term threat to Romney, who remains unable to push his support beyond one-quarter of Republican voters.

Now it’s unclear whether Perry and Gingrich can maintain viable campaigns.

Watch: Romney On CBS’ “Early Show”

Romney’s closest competitors in Iowa were Santorum, practically an afterthought as little as two weeks ago, and libertarian-leaning Rep. Ron Paul of Texas.

Santorum now must show whether he can build on his remarkable Iowa sprint to become the long-sought conservative alternative to Romney.

It won’t be easy.

Santorum, 53, badly lost his 2006 bid for a third Senate term from Pennsylvania.

He has modest fundraising and ground-game operations, and he’s largely unknown beyond circles that closely follow politics.

Paul, 76, is seen more as a libertarian crusader than a potential president. He recently said he doesn’t envision himself as president.

“Romney did what he had to do, but not much more,” said GOP strategist Terry Holt.

On the upside, Romney can argue that he not only won Iowa, but he beat expectations.

He said from the start that Iowa was a bad political fit for him, and he focused his early campaign efforts on New Hampshire.

He made a big Iowa push at the end, when it was clear that no rival had consolidated the anti-Romney vote.

He now heads to the friendly turf of New Hampshire, where he owns a home. The state’s primary is next Tuesday.

But it’s also easy to paint Romney’s Iowa finish as unimpressive. He drew one-fourth of the vote. That’s precisely the lackluster level he has pulled month after month, in poll after poll of Republicans.

It’s also the same percentage Romney got when he finished a deeply disappointing second in the 2008 Iowa caucus. Campaign veterans say Romney must find a way to excite more conservatives if he is to beat President Barack Obama in November.

“If Romney was unable to move the needle even an inch from four years ago,” despite heavy spending on his behalf, “it is hard to argue he has brought new people in or expanded the base of support,” said former Obama campaign and White House aide Jen Psaki.

Some Republican consultants, however, see the glass as half full for Romney.

Keller @ Large: Disappointing Win For Romney

“Romney is in the driver’s seat in New Hampshire,” said Terry Nelson, who advised Tim Pawlenty before he left the presidential race. “Iowa produced no serious candidate to derail him.”

Nelson said it “will be very hard” for Santorum to raise the money and build the organization he will need to compete in New Hampshire, South Carolina, Florida and beyond.

Democrats were less impressed.

Matt Bennett of the group Third Way called it a mixed bag for Romney. Santorum and Paul, he said, are “the two demonstrably least-electable candidates in this field since Donald Trump fired himself.”

But Romney’s inability to build a big plurality is a problem, Bennett said.

“Challengers to incumbent presidents cannot get merely polite applause or grudging support from their own base if they hope to win general elections,” he said.

Nonetheless, Romney is poised to do something no Republican has done in recent times: follow a contested Iowa caucus victory with a primary win in New Hampshire.

New Hampshire voters have shown contrarian streaks before. But a Romney loss there would rank as a huge upset.

Even if he carries New Hampshire, Romney won’t be home free.

His Mormonism could hurt him in South Carolina, whose primary is Jan. 21. But with Perry and Gingrich wounded, it’s unclear who can take full advantage.

Romney might be able to endure a poor finish in South Carolina and move on strongly to Florida, which votes on Jan. 31. It’s a sprawling, diverse and expensive state for candidates. Romney has proven to be the best fundraiser, organizer and strategist thus far.

Democrats were hoping for a slow and difficult start for Romney. They want to see him battered, and bled of money, for as long as possible before the summer nominating conventions.

Iowa’s results leave both parties with plenty of disappointments.

EDITOR’S NOTE — Charles Babington covers national politics for The Associated Press.

Copyright 2012 The Associated Press.

Read more >>

Tweet