I think that over all Mitt Romney is the front-runner for the Republican nomination.
The problem is that everyone seems to disagree with me.
Am I wrong, are they wrong, or are they being deceptive?
If Romney isn't the front-runner, then who is?
      
Lets look at the Iowa Caucus results
Huckabee                       34%
Romney                          25%
Thompson                      13%
McCain                             13%
Paul                                   10%
Giuliani                                4%

What about the Wyoming Caucus?
Romney                          67%              8 delegates
Thompson                      25%             3 delegates
Hunter                                8%            1 delegate



Now lets look at New Hampshire
McCain                         37%                     7     delegates
Romney                        31%                    4     delegates
 Huckabee                    12%                    1     delegates
Giulliani                           9%                    0
Paul                                  8%                   0

So lets look at what we have.
McCain can't be the front-runner because even though he won New Hampshire he came in fourth in Iowa with only 13% of the vote.
Huckabee can't be the front-runner because even though he won Iowa, he came in third in New Hampshire with only 12% of the vote.
None of the other candidates can be considered as front-runner because they haven't made a significant showing anywhere.

Romney came in first in Wyoming, and second in both Iowa and New Hampshire.  That's a more widespread appeal than any other candidate can boast.  What about delegates?  I can't find any information about how many delegates he can be estimated to win in Iowa, but it doesn't matter because his 8 delegates from Wyoming and 4 from New Hampshire add up to more than McCaine's 7. 

So why do I keep hearing that Romney is finished?  I bet he doesn't think he's done.

Besides all of this, it is too early to tell.  None of these states have very high numbers of delegates, caucus numbers can change, and in the case of "early" primary states like Michigan, Florida, South Carolina, and Nevada, it appears that as a penalty for holding primaries before Feb.5 the National Republican Party is only going to accept half of the state delegates.
 
So what we have is that Romney is in front, but there are not yet enough votes in for this status to be significant.

So why does the common wisdom keep saying that Romney is finished?

Take for example the Human Events article "Romney  Campaign at Death's Door" at  http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24373.  They make it sound like Romney is completely done, despite all evidence to the contrary.  What I find a little bit interesting is that Human Events is also endorsing Fred Thompson.  He seems like a weird choice because you have to consider electability: If Romney is dead after winning 31% in New Hampshire and 25% in Iowa, how can Thompson be considered viable with 0% in New Hampshire and 13% in Iowa?  

It doesn't make sense, so it makes me feel like much of the negative reporting is meant to just alter the public perception to make people think that Romney is dead.  

Wow.  I thought the liberals were supposed to be the drive-by media.

To make things even weirder is an article from the Daily Kos which suggested a dirty trick campaign in Michigan.
The plain was for Michigan Democrats to cross the line and vote for Romney.  The rationale was that because Michigan was an "early" state that the Democratic party was not going to count their votes, so it didn't matter if they voted at all.  Since their Democrat vote wouldn't count, what they could do to trip up the Republicans was to vote for Romney because it would keep him in the race and the more candidates there are the more the Republicans will tear into each other and make each other look bad.  Also, if Romney did win Michigan it would cast doubt on his nomination because everyone would say he was elected by Democrats.

I don't get that at all.  Did this author really think that Romney's campaign is dead, or was he expecting Romney to win in MIchigan and he was just trying to cast doubt on final results?

I feel that Romney is the man to watch for no other reason than that he has been attacked from the begining on everything except issues.  First America wouldn't vote for a Mormon, then evangelicals wouldn't vote for a Mormon, and now the Romney campaign, which is winning, is being portrayed as a dead effort.  Everyone is scared of Romney, but it is still too early to call a winner.  We'll have a better idea on Super Tuesday, but it still might be too early to tell.  

Who knows, maybe before it's all over Ron Paul will go over to the Libertarian Party and split the conservative vote and so guarantee the next president will be a Democrat.