Romney: King of Iowa?

But does it mean anything? According to Politico, Mr. Organization has attacked the state's unique caucus system like it's an HBS case study; of the other top-tier Republican candidates, only McCain has a major presence there, and given his recent free fall, including him there is little more than a courtesy. Romney's also the only top-tier candidate who has remained committed to the state's August straw poll.

But if a tree falls on a mime in the forest/if only one "real" candidate competes in Iowa - does anyone care? Romney's playing to the emotions of Iowans by suggesting that nominating anyone else would undermine the state's "first in the nation" status. But what if there's no one but Romney to nominate? If Thompson, Giuliani, and McCain withdraw from the caucus itself as they withdrew from the straw poll, Romney's victory there would be hollow and enormously expensive.

Clinton's campaign circulated (and then leaked, perhaps accidentally) a memo suggesting she do exactly the same thing - withdraw from Iowa, effectively ceding it to Edwards. However, she quickly backpedaled, insisting that she would compete there. But there are different elements driving any Democratic decision, namely labor. Skipping Iowa would likely have the effect of angering large numbers of union members (and Democratic-minded voters), which isn't a risk Hillary is willing to take (she's getting enough flack from them on the Mark Penn front anyways).

But for any Republican to pull out now may be overly hasty - as Politico rightly points out, there are still plenty of uncommitted Republican voters in the state (some polls put undecided at 30%).