The Candidates
Apparently Gov. Tommy Thompson is now reconsidering his participation in the Ames Straw Poll in light of yesterday’s events:
Tommy Thompson said Wednesday in an interview that he would have to “completely rethink” his strategy of using the Aug. 11 Iowa straw poll to boost his dark-horse presidential bid after two leading Republicans said they planned to skip the event.
In past races, the straw poll has drawn heavy media attention and helped winnow the GOP field before the first nominating contests.
But with Giuliani and McCain now pulling out, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is the only top contender participating, rendering the event a potentially hollow political exercise.
Unfortunately for Thompson, the former Wisconsin governor has been building his uphill quest for the nomination around a surprise showing at the straw poll in Ames. Thompson was hoping that, by camping out in Iowa, organizing intensively and knocking off one or two of the top contenders Aug. 11, he’d reap donations, attention and momentum going into the January caucuses.
Asked Wednesday about that strategy, Thompson said: “I’ve got to rethink it now, completely rethink it. We were expecting to beat both McCain and Giuliani (in the straw poll). Now that they’re not in, it doesn’t have as much value, unless I can turn it into something. And that’s what I’m still thinking about.”
In repeated interviews and statements, Thompson has been quite candid about just how much he was counting on the straw poll to change national perceptions that he’s a “second-tier candidate” and to help him raise money.
With Giuliani, McCain, and Gingrich definitely not participating (and Fred Thompson unlikely to do so), the second thoughts of the lower-tier candidates have to make you wonder who exactly be left in the straw poll by the time Aug. 11th rolls around.
June 7th, 2007 at 9:41 am
That’s a bad result for the Iowa GOP. The straw poll is their big fund raiser and many candidates pulling out is going to hobble the Iowa GOP. I don’t envision candidates who hobbled the Iowa GOP’s main fund raiser from getting much support from the caucus goers in January.
June 7th, 2007 at 9:47 am
I really hope a good finish by 2nd tier candidates get interpreted in context because we really need to trim the candidates down one way or another.
However, I totally disagree with T. Thompson, this is his chance to potentially come in 2nd in Iowa, before his best chance was to come in a close 4th.
Anyone know when Fred Thompson will announce what his plans for Ames are?
June 7th, 2007 at 9:51 am
Econ,
was thinking the same thing.
The best scenario for Romney is everyone pulling out and Romney looking invincible and the one guy who cared for the Iowa GOP. If McCain and Giuliani get blamed for hurting the Iowa GOP they will have absolutely no chance there.
June 7th, 2007 at 9:52 am
Dskinner,
If Thompson is smart he would come. He would look good as long as he came in second. IF he looses to Brownback or Huck, than that’s bad.
Needless to say, if Romney lost to one of them, that would be real bad.
June 7th, 2007 at 10:00 am
So Kavon,
Your admitting Rudy and McCain are Ames tragedies?
June 7th, 2007 at 10:09 am
Regardless of the effects of which candidates decide to drop out of Ames, don’t you all think it would be better for Iowa and New Hampshire to not have such a disproportionate say in who our nominees are? What do you all think of a national primary? Why shouldn’t it be where candidates of each party have to compete in each state to win the greatest number of delegates to be determined on the same day? Honestly, why should Iowa voters and New Hampshire voters have a greater influence than voters from Pennsylvania or Maine or Missouri?
June 7th, 2007 at 10:11 am
I think it would be really foolish for FDT to compete in Ames (no matter how much I would like to see him down there myself.)
He is going to announce sometime around July 5th-7th. There is just no way he can turn around and organize an effective ground game in one-month. Not to mention the fact that he will have to burn $3 million dollars of is precious new funding to really make a go of it. And to do all of that for a straw poll with no Rudy or McCain in it? It would be utter foolishness.
June 7th, 2007 at 10:14 am
In terms of casualties, I was thinking that McCain’s and TT’s decisions were the result of Rudy’s.
June 7th, 2007 at 10:18 am
I expect that McCain and Giuliani will eventually also pull out of the Iowa primary.
I think its a close call for Thompson. If he announces that he’s going to participate because “serious candidates don’t run away from a fight,” but minimizes expectations on the grounds of his late entry, he could deal a serious blow to Giuliani and McCain while doing little harm to himself. But its a close call, because he would also help Romney this way and there’s a risk that if he does real bad it would hurt him.
Thompson is a slow, cautious guy so I’m betting he doesn’t participate.
June 7th, 2007 at 10:26 am
Henry, I think you meant Iowa caucus.
June 7th, 2007 at 10:29 am
Iowa = increasingly irrelevant.
June 7th, 2007 at 10:29 am
I bet Thompson doesn’t participate because he isn’t a hard worker and the only way he could show well in Iowa is if he moved there for half of July and August.
I personally think having Iowa, NH and SC decide the nominee isn’t nearly as bad as people think and it is much better than a national primary. Those voters really pay attention, they meet the candidates and they study the issues much more than the rest of the states.
Even though corn based ethanol won’t ever be done away with because of this format, these voters do put in much more time in getting to know the candidates than the rest of us and for that we should be grateful.
June 7th, 2007 at 10:31 am
If Edwards and Obama keep strong in the Democratic race, I think it will hurt McCain and Rudy by draining independents from the GOP NH primary. In 2000 independents were about half of the voters in the GOP primary. As the independent’s share plummets it’s going to hurt the moderate candidates and help the conservatives in the race.
June 7th, 2007 at 10:38 am
I wrote #13 which might seem unrelated to point out that events are conspiring to rob Rudy or McCain of early victories. Gambling on Feb. 5th is an interesting position because it neglects national media buzz and focuses on local media and advertising.
That’s a more expensive route to the nomination than simply winning the early states and becoming the front runner. Instead you’re letting another candidate become the front runner in the race in hopes you’ll be able to come back from behind.
Giving up on early victories is either a brilliant strategy or a desperate one.
June 7th, 2007 at 10:42 am
“I bet Thompson doesn’t participate because he isn’t a hard worker and the only way he could show well in Iowa is if he moved there for half of July and August.”
Dskinner, let’s not take anything for granted, no matter what has been said earlier. Saying he’s not a hard worker at this point is premature in regards to the primary. Let’s wait and see what happens
New North Carolina Poll out, if I’m correct, they are now part of Super Tuesday:
North Carolina Poll
Public Policy Polling
PPP surveyed 593 likely Democratic primary voters and 603 likely Republican primary
voters on June 4. The surveys have margins of error of ±3.9% and ±3.9% respectively.
Other factors, such as refusal to be interviewed and weighting, may introduce additional
error that is more difficult to quantify.
Republican Primary:
Fred Thompson 37%
Rudy Giuliani 25%
John McCain 14%
Mitt Romney 14%
Other Candidate 9%
Undecided 1%
http://www.worklifeexpress.com/PPP/pdf/surveys/PPP_Release_060507.pdf
June 7th, 2007 at 10:44 am
They’re handing an opportunity to Romney to stand out to voters here, just by participating and trying. That sure looks better than the rest of the pack who just gives up. Maybe he won’t have to spend that much money in Ames anyway if he doesn’t have to worry about competition.
June 7th, 2007 at 10:52 am
Here is the “elephant in the room” about the whole thing.
In making this decision, Rudy, McCain, Newt, and Fred have placed themselves at a disadvantage vis-a-vis the Iowa Causus; of that there can be no doubt.
But here is the other byproduct- Romney will now be expected to win Iowa by everyone. So what happens if he doesn’t? My opinion is that Mitt’s campaign will not survive an Iowa loss now, where it would have before.
That is why this isn’t such a foolish decision on the part of the four of the “Big Five” that are skipping Ames (is it really that hard to believe that FDT could pull out a 18% to 16% victory over Mitt or something along those lines in the end?)
No one will be expecting Rudy, McCain, Newt, or FDT to win Iowa now. These candidates will be able to survive losing the Iowa caucuses. What would happen to Mitt’s “Mo” in NH if he loses in IA after all of this?
June 7th, 2007 at 11:07 am
Rudy and McCain are trying to redefine the republican party by the positions they taken on abortion, immigration, campaign financing, etc…,and now, it seems to follow, in order to get the nomination they will have to break tradition as well. It will be interesting to see what other brilliant campaign strategies unfold as they continue to lose ground and momentum.
June 7th, 2007 at 11:17 am
Perhaps McRudy’s next strategy should be to pull out of the official primaries in states that don’t favor them. It could save a lot of cash, and they could minimize the importance of every state except the northeast.
June 7th, 2007 at 11:49 am
who cares what thompson says anyway. i wish he would drop out. the only cadidate i wish would drop out more is gilmore. somethign about him just drive me up the wall. i think it is how he talks with his head tilted.
June 7th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
States that don’t support Rudy = irrelevant states.
June 7th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
Below this post is a link to a piece by RealClearPolitics’ John McIntyre that largely echoes much of what I said yesterday, when I wrote:
“I see this not so much as an attempt to conspire to take down Romney, but perhaps a situation in which some of the top-tier candidates have colluded to diminish the significance of Iowa, a correcting or readjustment, if you will, of the historically disproportionate political value that’s been assigned to the rather sparsely populated state. Giuliani stands to benefit most from the atrophying of Ames, as this tempers the importance of the social conservative vote in the early voting states.”
If there was a National Primary Day, the outcomes in what are currently the early primary/caucus states like Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada would obviously be of little to no consequence.
It is my estimation that Giuliani, McCain and Thompson have reached a consensus that we are witnessing a paradigm shift in the primary process.
Ask yourself this…Do you really think all of these states, in this race to be relevant, that have gone to great legislative lengths to move up their primary dates, are aligning together to vote on February 5th, only to maintain the flawed status quo, relying on a few predominantly white, homogeneous, scarcely populated states to render a decision once again on their behalf?
Not only has the time come for a national primary, but it’s time to break the mold in which Democratic and Republican contenders don’t face off until the general election. Conventional wisdom in presidential politics dictates that you run to your base during the primaries, and to the middle for the general election. This encourages pandering of the worst sort; setting up well-qualified candidates as unprincipled flip-floppers.
On National Primary Day, which could be held the week prior to Memorial Day, when weather won’t adversely affect turnout or impact plans of summer travelers, there should be one election in each state, which would allow the one-third of the electorate, registered independents, that are presently disenfranchised for the most part from the ‘closed primary’ nomination process, to participate. Only those averaging a minimum of five percent in their respective party’s national polls would be eligible to compete. If this were to occur today, every American’s primary ballot, regardless of state, would have the following nine options to choose from:
Rudy Giuliani
Hillary Clinton
Barack Obama
John McCain
John Edwards
Mitt Romney
Fred Thompson
Al Gore
Newt Gingrich
The top candidate from each respective party would advance to the general election. The debate process must also be modified and returned to a substantive forum in which the exchange of ideas and challenges to one’s thoughts serve as the goal to educate prospective voters. The process should actively seek to weed out those who are more style-over-substance (e.g. Barack Obama, John Edwards). The time has come for our Ritalin-dependent country to move beyond vapid, abstract platitudes, talking points and 30-second soundbites.
June 7th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
Rudy’s Ames Decision a Blow to Romney
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printpage/?url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/06/rudys_ames_decision_a_blow_to.html
June 7th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
Rudy’s Ames Decision a Blow to Romney
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/06/rudys_ames_decision_a_blow_to.html
June 7th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
It is my estimation that Giuliani, McCain and Thompson have reached a consensus that we are witnessing a paradigm shift in the primary process.
I see zero evidence to support this at all. Giuliani is withdrawing from Iowa because he’s losing badly there, not because of any grand strategy to redesign the process. To the extent he does have a strategy, the strategy is to marginalize social conservatives.
McCain is also withdrawing because he’s losing, badly.
Thompson is mulling not competing because he’s coming late to the race and doesn’t think he has the time or money to make a competitive showing.
The only one who’s concerned for “the primary process” at all is Giuliani, and his effort to make the process more socially liberal is bad for the GOP base.
June 7th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Aron,
Do you actually think that it’s bad news for Mitt that Rudy expected a loss so bad that he dropped out rather than face the pro-life voters?
June 7th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
What many here ignore are two key issues that make this election different. 1)Money and 2)Time.
those combined have created a new environment for the election. This election has taken off extremely early. Warchest building has started much earlier than before. Not being as prepared as they should Giuliani and McCain don’t have enough funds to go toe to toe with Romney. They are quickly realizing that Romney’s first quarter warchest building wasn’t a flash in the pan, but a sustained effort through superior planning and logistics. McCain has been taking a beating over the past few months as he has had to fire several staff members and hire new ones to try and compete.
These two candidates are at a loss as to how to tackle Romney who is beginning to loom larger each debate, each political event and in each state where he takes an earnest effort in building the right team.
Don’t be fooled into believing that these two candidates are attempting to take the wind out of Iowa’s importance in the election process. NH while not a sure victory is pretty close to one for Romney already, and he is coming on strong in South Carolina, and his team in Florida is stronger than either Rudy’s or Mr. McClain’s.
Only a close victory or loss in Iowa for Romney would effectively take the wind out of his sails.
With 17 months left before the general election, they are going to have to get serious and fight hard for the GOP vote. That means better planning, more money and a willingness to go toe to toe with Mitt. Their leaving Iowa isn’t going to reflect well on the Iowa voters, but it will also reflect poorly in other early states. It is a sign of weakness regardless how you cut it. No amount of sugar coating will hide that fact from voters.
June 7th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
It is a classic scorched earth policy - if you can’t hold it, destroy it’s beneficial aspects for the opponent.
June 7th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Henry,
I’m not sure where we’re in disagreement. The strategy is, as I said, to temper the importance of the social conservative vote in the early primary/caucus states. This is accomplished by nationalizing the primary process. If all states were on equal footing entering the primaries, there would be little reason for Giuliani, McCain, Thompson, or any presidential candidate for that matter to ever spend much time campaigning in relatively insignificant states like Iowa, New Hampshire or South Carolina.
Murphy,
I think the actions by the other top-tier candidates are a calculated move to diminish the value of winning Iowa. So, is it bad news for Mitt that he has now sewn up the Hawkeye State? Certainly not. You take what you can get. However, winning the state of Iowa next January means a lot less today than it did yesterday morning before Giuliani played trendsetter, knocking Ames out of the equation. You, yourself, acknowledged this last week when you said “Romney would prefer his opponents to be present when he beats them.”
Based on the results from the recent Winthrop South Carolina poll, it appears you are characterizing pro-life voters as more rigid or absolute in their beliefs than they claim to be.
78% of Republicans think a woman should be able to obtain a legal abortion in certain circumstances. Only 18.4% do not.
72% of the poll’s pro-life respondents also agree that a woman should be able to obtain a legal abortion in certain circumstances; with just 24% disagreeing.
Over 48% of South Carolina Republicans do not agree with the statement that they would have trouble voting for a candidate whose views on abortion were different from their own.
June 7th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
Aron,
As I’ve said previously (thanks for the quote), the best case scenario would be for Romney to beat his opponents in person. What we have here is still a very good scenario for Romney, though not as good as it potentially could have been. To call this a “blow to Romney” is pure hype and spin.
June 7th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Aron,
you see it as a concerted move by the candidates to return some fairness to the primary process. I see it–and the vidence supports me, I think–as a purely self-interested move to avoid losing. In Giuliani’s case, his self-interste happens to coincide with trying to marginalize social conservative influence in the GOP and the electorate at learge. That’s why in the last debate Giuliani described the GOP as made up of national security conservatives and fiscal conservatives. He deliberately excluded social conservatives and their concerns from his version of the GOP.
June 7th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
Aron,
Your #29 post is missing the mark on the abortion statistics.
Of course most Republicans and most pro-lifers believe there should be legal abortion in certain circumstances. These circumstances are generally rape, incest, and to save the life of the mother. These exceptions are NOT circumstances where the father’s rubber broke, the mother would prefer to not have several months of back pain, or the child’s feet are dangling towards the ground while a doctor jams a pair of scissors into his or her brain.
I’m quite sure that you’ve seen the polls where many of Rudy’s supporters do not realize he’s an abortion rights advocate. And while 48% may not have a problem with that, 52% do have a problem, and nearly half of those 52% have yet to realize it.
June 7th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
I think Rudy’s power to make Iowa insignificant is over-rated (make no mistake, this isn’t just about Ames). The problem for Rudy is that the Democrats are gonig to go into Iowa full blast. The contest really will mean something for the Democrats. So it will get lots of media play, which will make it difficult to simultaneously treat as unimportant. This isn’t a move that helps Rudy. Its just a move that limits some of the damage.
June 7th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
murphy,
I did not call this a “blow to Romney”, RealClearPolitics’ John McIntyre did. I simply provided the link to his article.
In fact, I prefaced my comments by saying “I see this not so much as an attempt to conspire to take down Romney…”
Henry,
Again, we don’t seem to be in disagreement. I see it as a concerted act of self-preservation by the candidates, and that the means of accomplishing that — returning fairness to the primary process — is an incidental neither Rudy, Fred or McCain are pre-occupied with. I’m not of some delusional belief that these top-tier candidates are acting strictly in good faith for the interests of American voters in 46 or 47 other states.
June 7th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
In what sense is it an act of self-preservation except primarily to peg Romney down a notch?
June 7th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
What hilarious spin! “Its put more pressure on Romney. Now if Romney doesn’t win he’s dead”
The problem with this analysis, is that its now impossible for Romney to lose. The Iowa GOP will be grateful to him for helping their fundraiser, he will have acted Presidential by puytting himself up to scrutiny, etc. They won’t punish him for being the only big name to turn up.
And I think the 2nd tier really need to turn up and go for 2nd place. It would still be a good boost to their campaigns in the national press, even if the others aren’t there…
June 8th, 2007 at 12:14 am
With Giuliani & McCain, it’s just sour grapes and I think it is time to drop them in the power rankings. They obviously have no “power” if they can’t stand toe to toe with Romney.
I am SHOCKED that Tommy Thompson is considering dropping out though. This may be Thompson’s and Brownback’s only chance to break into the “first tier”, and Thompson is thinking about skipping it? If Tommy Thompson skips Ames then he is done, they should drop him from the debates just on principle.
June 9th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
Come on, Tommy! Oh, not you, Tommy the poster, but Tommy the Candidate! Even if Rudy and McCain won’t be there in persons, their names still will be on the ballot! You still have the chance to wipe the floor with them! Give them such a good scare! They both need to swallow their egos, and you are the best person to do it. More so than Mitt! Because of your low rank. You will show everyone that not only are they afraid of Mitt, but that they also are scared of YOU! So, go to Ames!
June 9th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Regarding #22, does not the National Republican Committee have the final saying on the schedules of the primaries/cacuses? I mean, they do have some leverage, much more than we all realized. Now, if paradigm shift in the primary process is truly needed, NRC would be the one to do it. NDC (National Democratic Committee) did it, rearranged a few primary schedules. If this is true, then I’m sorry, but this argument of McCain/Rudy/Thompson doing the “dirty” work to shift things around won’t fly! They are overstepping their boundaries, rather than work throught the system.
June 9th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Aron, you quoted Murphy thus: “You, yourself, acknowledged this last week when you said ‘Romney would prefer his opponents to be present when he beats them.’”. Funny thing, but the names of Rudy, McCain and others are still on the ballot. They not being there in person do not change the fact that they will be voted on. They may have the chance before (McCain especially with his good grassroot organization there), but now, they will see their numbers dropping. So, Romney still can beat them.
June 9th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
JayPE, I concur with you, especially if Mitt does not slow down his efforts in Iowa. I have seen some suggestions bounced around — like, since he already reserved all of the buses in the state (over 150 of them), why not fill the remaining spaces with those who donate to his campaign between now and Aug 11. As long as he does this sort of things, people will vote for him out of gratitude, if not in favor for him, at least! This is the southern manners at its finest — you pat my back, I will pat yours!