The Candidates
Freddie, Newt, and Chuck: will they, won’t they, and when? We’re getting some clues this morning from all three camps.
First, Newt says there is a “great possibility” of him running for President, and says that he will not announce until the end of September.
Secondly, Freddie said he has not decided yet but is “ready to run”, and rumors are swirling now that Freddie will announce in the first week of July - most likely on July 1. The reasoning is June 30 marks the close of Q2 fundraising so Freddie could start Q3 right off the bat, and that his contractual obligations would most likely go through the end of a month - and could potentially end at the end of a fiscal year.
Meanwhile, Chuck announced his unhappiness (to put it lightly) with the GOP, and said he could see an independent Bloomberg/Hagel ticket in the 2008 race. He told reporters that he would decide in “late summer” whether or not to run.
So there you have it. It looks increasingly like Freddie will announce in July, Chuck will announce as an independent in July or August, and Newt will announce in September.
One thing potential candidates are going to want to keep in mind is the Ames Straw Poll on August 11. Newt clearly has no aspirations of competing there, but Freddie looks confident of his chances at the event. Remember, though - it cost Dubya at least $800,000 to win in 2000 and cost Forbes $2 million for his second place finish. This year, the Iowa GOP expects more than twice the participants (50,000 up from 24,000), and they’ve raised the price of entry ($30/ticket up from $25). It’s conceivable that a first place victory at Ames could cost a candidate at least $2.5 million this year. Freddie will have to assemble a statewide organization and fundraise that much money, on top of other operating costs, in five and a half weeks. That’s one confident candidate.
May 14th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
Great, this will make a lucky 13 participants in the debates. I thought 10 was crowded.. The more the merrier right?
May 14th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
cwpete,
Don’t worry - I could see at least one candidate dropping out after the 2Q fundraising numbers (Gilmore?), and a couple more after the Ames straw poll (Huckabee and T Thompson, specifically).
Candidates like Paul and Tancredo will stay in no matter how pitiful their numbers are (money or polling), because they feel like they have a message to convey. It will be interesting to see Hunter’s support in the straw poll and how he responds to them.
Starting in the fall, however, we’ll see the debates limited to fewer candidates, based on poll numbers. Then the complaints from the Tancredos and Pauls will begin in earnest - happens like clockwork every campaign season. The fall debates will be among four or five candidates.
May 14th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
Hagel and Bloomberg won’t be invited to any Reublican debate if they are running as 3rd party candidates.
Gingrich will bring up some great new ideas for the party but I don’ see getting the nomination
I see it as a 3 way race between, Rudy McCain and Romney
I can’t wait for the debate tomorrow though, hopefully it will set someone apart…
May 14th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
A Bloomberg/Hagel ticket would be awful, and I suspect it’d hurt the GOP candidate, even though Bloomberg’s a bigger lefty then anyone on the Democratic side.
May 14th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
I disagree. Bloomberg will push gun control and force the dem to talk about it in the debates….
May 14th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
Most of national polling indicates that we lost the middle in the last election by as much as 23%.
Bloomberg will become a threat if the GOP moves to the right, by nominating FDT or Newt. With FDT or Newt on the top of the ticket Bloomberg would be the Ross Perot of 2008.
May 14th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
Freddie will have to assemble a statewide organization and fundraise that much money, on top of other operating costs, in five and a half weeks.
Hmm. If Thompson does pull this off, it would make a huge splash. But what are the downside? If Thompson mkaes a real effort to get the straw poll but doesn’t do so well, it could hurt his campaign. He needs that aura of inevitabilitity. He might be better off writing off the straw poll.
May 14th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
I disagree TM. Bloomberg is LEAST threatening if the GOP nominates a strong conservative. Bloomberg is a liberal. His only hope of appealing to conservative independents or Republicans, is if the Republican candidate is relatively moderate. Then, using the Republican label, he can cast himself as an moderate outsider. After 8 years of Bush, who would most of the country rather have: a moderate independent, or a moderate Republican? It doesn’t take a genius to figure out the answer to that one. In fact, I think about the only scenario that would propel Newt to the White House, is if he were facing two New York Liberals: Hillary and Bloomberg. If it’s Hillary, Rudy, and Bloomberg…well, take your pick really.
May 14th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Matt,
Bloomberg only works if you have two extremists like:
Hillary vs Newt/FDT
I think Bloomberg will wait to see who becomes our nominee and then decide about running. He does not need to raise the money, so he can afford to wait. If Newt or FDT becomes our nominee I can almost guarantee you that Bloomberg will run.
May 14th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
If it’s Hillary-Rudy-Bloomberg I’d consider returning to my grandparent’s homeland (AKA Ireland) for the next 4-8 years. Listening to an annoying New York accented President would be a given in that situation (when Hillary’s not trotting out her annoying faux Southern accent).
May 14th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
econ grad stud,
Ireland is a socialist haven.
May 14th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
Socialist haven or not, EGStud has excellent taste in ancestry.
May 14th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
“excellent taste in ancestry”
Unfortunately, that’s all that we may have if Hillary wins.
May 14th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
I don’t see Bloomberg/Hagel hurting the GOP as much as it hurts the Dems. Both are “cut and runners”. They could win some electoral votes, but that is all. They couldn’t win the election. As for which party they hurt more, I think it depends on who the nominees are. If Hillary is elected, many people to the left of Hillary would vote for Bloomberg since he is a liberal and wants out of Iraq now. Obama also is hurt because he would be the no experience candidate with the same positions as Bloomberg. Edwards and Gore still get hurt more than any GOP nominee, but they wouldn’t lose nearly as many votes to Bloomberg. All of this is of course assuming that Bloomberg doesn’t moderate his views in order to win.
Of the GOP, it hurts Rudy the most, but I still think he would win based on the GWOT and Iraq. It could be trouble though because Rudy alienates so much of the base that he would have trouble energizing them.
May 14th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Dskinner,
We need to do much more than energize the base, we need to win back 23% of the middle.
According to the polls Rudy appears to be able to do both.
May 14th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
TM, I agree we need to do that in a 2 candidate race, but in a race with Bloomberg/Hagel we would need the base more than ever because so much of the middle would already be taken, even if we ran Rudy.
May 14th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
New Poll out today…. Romney back in single digits…
http://americanresearchgroup.com/
May 14th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
Who’s on top of the Hagel/Bloomberg ticket? That may decide who it hurts more. With Hagel on top it may affect the GOP because he’s very conservative except for the war. It gives people in both parties a chance to vote Republican without voting Republican. But Bloomberg on top helps us because he highlights the conservative side of anyone we put up, even Rudy. But. . .will it be a co-presidency? Only a third party ticket could get away with proposing that, although I find it to be a bad idea.
These two are so far apart from each other on abortion, gun control, abortion, etc. It would be like they’re running against themselves. All they have in common is that they’re both anti-war and both power hungry. A leftist mayor and one of the most conservative Senators in Congress on the same ticket? I suppose that’s the Unity08 ticket but I just don’t see how it works.
May 14th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
Gingrich up 3% while Romney and Thompson drop 4 and 3 points? uhhhh… ok.
May 14th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
Jake (#18), Romney’s fall is largely due to Gingrich’s rise. What accounts for this?
May 14th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
their state polls are at odds with every state poll that’s been taken by local affiliates. It also doesn’t look like they polled accurately throughout all 50 states, from what I can tell from their website.
May 14th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
Tommy (#22), the other interesting point is that the number of undecided is trending up, which is also counterintuitive. What is ARG’s reputation for accuracy?
May 14th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
I’m not sure… let me check… these numbers don’t add up, at this point.
May 14th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
ARG and SV give me the willies as far as polling firms go.
May 14th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Giuliani +1
McCain +1
Gilmore +1
D. Hunter +1
Ron Paul +1
Gingrich +3
Total +8
Romney -4
Thompson -3
Undecided -1
Total -8
Doesn’t add up…. Are Romney and Thompson losing support to Gilmore, Paul, and Hunter? While most accounts have Huckabee on a slight upswing, he’s stable here. As is Brownback.
May 14th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
EGS,
I always suspected that you were an elitist, intellectual snob (poking fun at Rudy’s accent). Now I know for sure.
JAKE,
Romney is back to single digits because he is the teflon candidate: nothing good sticks, and neither does plastic!
May 14th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
I’d wait on the Rasmussen poll tomarrow, or the Bloomberg (whenever it comes out). Most state polls have been very thorough when done by the capital’s polling firms.
May 14th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
I think that Bloomie’s only impact would be to destroy any Rudy candidacy.
From those who know them best (via NY Daily News poll):
“”Some 56% of voters said Bloomberg has been as the more effective mayor, and 29% picked Giuliani. An additional 10% ranked them about the same, and 5% didn’t know.” In addition, city voters “overwhelmingly chose Mayor Mike over America’s Mayor as their pick for President, 46% to 29%.”
A Bloomberg candidacy destroys the Republican party. For quite some time now we have been witnessing a very slow dropping of the other shoe (the first shoe being the migration of southern conservatives to the GOP). The other shoe is the migration of traditional moderate to liberal Republicans (especially in the NE, but also Midwest) to the Dems. Bloomberg would peel away lots of mod-lib Republicans from the party. He may not deliver them to the Dems, but it would break their alliegance to the GOP, and they would be swept up in the 2012 Dem reelection landslide.
At least that is something that I suggest y’all worry about.
May 14th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
And the numbers vary greatly between ARG’s state polls, and the ones done locally. Also, this poll has been very inconsistent each month, so I wouldn’t put much stock into it.
May 14th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Tano, what does the Democratic party have to offer moderate to liberal Republicans? The assumption would be that those people still count themselves Republicans due to fiscal conservatism, but the Democratic party isn’t offering that. So why would they switch?
May 14th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
Also, it looks like the only state they’ve polled recently in the south is Florida. All the others are months old.
From what I gather, they are taking the numbers from their recent polling regions, which trends to states that favor Giuliani, and McCain. Romney is, by most accounts, leading in NH, at the moment, but their recent poll of NH has McCain up by 5.
May 14th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
If they feel fiscal conservatism gets snubbed by both parties, then it makes sense to gravitate to the Dems, where at least you can kill babies without having a bunch of Jesus freaks wave their Bibles at you.
May 14th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
These polls don’t matter until 4 or 5 days after the debate… then we will get a good picture of what the race really looks like.
May 14th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Tano,
I agree, but I think that Bloomberg’s real appeal would be if we had two extremes like, Hillary vs. Newt/FDT.
I don’t think he would get much traction with McCain or Rudy on top of the GOP.
May 14th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
Henry Heavner (#33), they won’t do that, because the GOP hasn’t snubbed them. The GOP cut taxes twice by huge amounts during the Bush Presidency. The Democrats are already bragging about how much they will raise taxes. People who think like you propose aren’t actually fiscal conservatives, so we can afford to lose them. They already vote Democrat.
May 14th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
KT, I was raised by the widow of a police man. My mom had 5 kids in the house and 2 that had already left when my pop died. We grew up in meager circumstances. I went to college because I saw half my brothers go to jail. I’m not an ‘elitist’.
As far as the New York accent, it’s annoying to me because of its excessive nasal quality.
May 14th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
OK….
Finally. I have found confirmation that ARG is a very sketchy poll. Just take my word for it on that since I don’t feel like digging through all the links I’ve been through.
Bottom line, it’s screwed up and very bias
May 14th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
TM,
I am sure that you consider Hillary an extemist, but thats an opinion shared by far fewer people than you imagine. Certainly not by the people of New York.
Now excuse me here - I just want to mention something completely off-topic.
A few days ago, in response to some “analysis” of foreign policy issues, esp. the French elections, I commented that it was rather remarkable the way that the right was so excited about Sarko’s election - that they really werent paying attention very closely, and were perhaps enthralled with the notion of someone called “conservative” actually being elected. I predicted that it would take no more than six months for understanding to set in.
I was wrong. I should have said six days.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article1784811.ece
May 14th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Tano, Sarko’s choices are extremely puzzling. It almost seems like this was a giant con pulled off by the Socialist Party, and if so, I have to congratulate it on its genius.
May 14th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Tano, a lot of Republicans got caught up in that type of thinking in 1995. Political destiny is written in sand.
May 14th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Check this link for proof of ARG’s inaccuracy:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/blog/2006/06/american_research_group_vs_rud_1.html
May 14th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Was this very likely?
From the above site:
MASSACHUSETTS
ARG (likely Republican primary voters, April 25 - May 2, 2006)
Without Giuliani
McCain: 48
Romney: 17
with Giuliani
John McCain: 42
Rudolph Giuliani: 21
Boston Globe poll conducted by the University of New Hampshire (likely Republican primary voters, Aug. 9-17, 2005)
Rudolph Giuliani: 29
John McCain: 26
Mitt Romney: 19
Now, admittedly, in both cases the Rudy-optimistic poll was taken in 2005 and the Rudy-less-optimistic poll was taken in 2006. But I haven’t seen one poll over time that’s shown such a massive drop-off in support for Rudy. This is clearly a methodology question. And ARG’s wreaks havoc with Giuliani’s numbers.
May 14th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
“I am sure that you consider Hillary an extremist, but that’s an opinion shared by far fewer people than you imagine”
Tano that’s exactly what I’m afraid of. The mainstream media will paint Hillary as a centrist.
I believe Hillary has a very good chance of winning, unless we have a very strong candidate like Rudy who can compete in Blue states.
May 14th, 2007 at 4:27 pm
Rudy on the Sean Hannity show today…
http://72.32.244.240/051407RWGonHannity.mp3
May 14th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
TM,
Give a rest to this MSM nonsense. You guys so often end up sounding like conspiracy nuts. Hillary won reelection in New York in a huge landslide. And that is NY state, not just the city. She has lots of appeal amongst Republicans who acutally know her work, as opposed to just listening to the incessant HDS drone from the commentariat.
May 14th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
In the unlikely event of a Rudy-Hill-Bloomie threeway race, Rudy may well come in third, in his home base. Thats pretty stunning to contemplate….
May 14th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
Tano. . .That’s not so stunning actually. All three are popular New Yorkers, and one will have to come in third. If, as you say, Rudy is ranked lower than Bloomberg, and Hillary is so popular even among NY Republicans, then why is it shocking if Rudy - a Republican, and one who now highlights his Republican credentials when doing so as mayor of NYC would have sunk his candidacy - comes in third in NY? I like Rudy, and he’ll wage a good fight in the increasingly liberal New York, but it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if he loses NY, even if he does come in third.
May 14th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
Interesting that Bloomberg is a much more popular Mayor of New York than Giuliani. It makes it very likely that Giuliani if elected would have to do so without his home state. Hard work for anyone. If Hillary isn’t the Dem nominee Bloomberg will get in the race - he’ll build off NY’s college votes & try to collect the commuter country (NJ, Conn.) in a bid for the magic 270.
May 15th, 2007 at 9:29 am
Henry Heavner (#33), they won’t do that, because the GOP hasn’t snubbed them. The GOP cut taxes twice by huge amounts during the Bush Presidency. The Democrats are already bragging about how much they will raise taxes. People who think like you propose aren’t actually fiscal conservatives,
No, they aren’t actually *well-informed* fiscal conservatives. But the majority of the electorate isn’t well-informed.
May 15th, 2007 at 10:10 am
Tano,
I agree that Rudy will not win his home state, but more importantly he will put many swing Blue states in play.
Rudy will win back the Pawlenty Democrats in the Midwest.