September 27, 2007
Romney Internal Memo: Slow and Steady Wins the Race
A new internal memo from Romney’s lead strategist, Alex Gage is making its rounds.
Among other items Gage notes that they expect Romney to remain in single/low double-digit national polls all the way up to the election. He notes, correctly, that history includes some excellent precedents that bode well for the Romney early primary strategy. Here is a chart from the memo:
Gage goes on to concee that a New Hampshire/Iowa one-two punch is not a shoe-in:
By no means do we expect to win both Iowa and New Hampshire-no Republican in the modern era ever has. Giuliani is already on the air with radio advertisements in both states, and McCain is about to begin his television and radio ads in New Hampshire; we know we will have an uphill battle.
Gage concludes:
Remember too that wins in the early states will give the victors an unprecedented earned media bonanza that no amount of advertising in the subsequent states could ever hope to match. Just as Aesop wrote, slow and steady still wins the race.
http://race42008.com/2007/09/27/romney-internal-memo-slow-and-steady-wins-the-race/trackback/
September 27th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Looking at Carter’s numbers, it would appear that Huckabee has this race all but wrapped up!!!
September 27th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
They are all Democrats. Have Republicans ever changed their mind so greatly about a candidate in January? Only time will tell.
September 27th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
Justin,
For this to be relevant, we would need numbers from Republican nomination history to back up the assertion, as the parties have very unique histories in this regard.
This comparison is apples to oranges my friend.
September 27th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
If there ever was a time when the Republican nomination process looks more like the traditional Democrat nomination process, that time is now.
September 27th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
Kavon, on the other hand, statistically speaking, there is not a statistically significant number of data points to conclude Dems and Republicans behave differently, or that the GOP has just happened to have an heir apparent in a handful of circumstances. Because a handful of circumstances is all the data points we have.
A more relevant question: Were these 4 Democratic wins all surprise wins, this major news in the expectations game? Were any of them polling with a big lead for months before the event? An expected win is not likely to create a new wave of support. In that sense, it may be good for Mitt for NH to be close, if he can win it. Better yet it both IA and NH become close. IF he wins them.
September 27th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Nothing is gaurenteed, but I expect Romney to win both IA and NH. For now however, I think its going to remain close – and Romney is probably going to trade the lead back and forth with Giuliani for a little while – though a strong debate performance two weeks from now could certainly help him.
Romney is, however, going to have to go back to New Hampshire once he gets over whatever it is he picked up on Mackinac – to rebuild a comfortable lead there. My main fear is not that he fails to win NH, but that campaiging there will prevent him from really focusing on SC.
September 27th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
The Republican race may be more like the Democratic race, because we don’ t seem to have as clear of a front runner as we usually
do. Democrats on the other hand have a clear front runner this year. I think you are making a mistake if you expect history to
absolutely repeat itself in regards to each precedent. Some historical precedents are going to be broken.
September 27th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
ACT, it would be a waste of Romney’s time to focus on SC. Those of us supporting other candidates can concede there are states our candidate cannot win in the primaries. Do you really believe Mitt could win in every one of the 50 primaries?
September 27th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
The compressed schedule is not going to give Romney hardly any time to get a bounce in NH from winning Iowa.
September 27th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
Does anyone know when each of the early states begins its early voting?
In CA we are casting ballots starting Jan 5.
September 27th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
Also note that Clinton LOST both Iowa and New Hampshire…so why is he included? You could just as well
say that the Clinton experience means Giuliani or McCain will win the race (or have their national poll ratings go up to 50% in a month)
Because say McCain could come in 5th in Iowa, a close second in New Hampshire, and then proclaim himself ‘the comeback kid’!
September 27th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
“The compressed schedule is not going to give Romney hardly any time to get a bounce in NH from winning Iowa.”
Or the reverse, an IA win gives him a big bump, and no other candidate has time to counter the momentum before the NH primary.
I don’t know, it will deffinately be closer than Iowa – at least in pre-election polls, but, even with the recent drop, I think Romney still has the best shot at winning.
September 27th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
Wow, I make a couple of points favorable to Mitt in #5 and nobody notices. Maybe they all had heart attacks at the keyboard.
September 27th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
Metro,
I think you still have more penance to do..
September 27th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
Didn’t Ambinder publish this under the title “Romney tries to calm fears of NH Poll?”
September 27th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Tommy, indeed. Interesting contrast in titles.
September 27th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Laurent,
That is a great point.
I never bring up the fact of Clinton losing IA and NH and going on to win the nomination (when Mitt Guys conclude it would be impossible for someone to do it on the GOP side in ‘08) because it’s DEM history.
Apples to oranges.
September 27th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Yes, but he faced a homestate opponent in IA and thus wasn’t expected to compete, and a MA candidate in NH, and thus wasn’t expected to do better than second there. He won the expectations game.
We have the same scenario in NH, but Mitt has smartly generated a large lead in IA, which sets this year up differently.
September 27th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Somehow, Kavon gets me to defend Mitt. Mysterious powers?
September 27th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Kavon – Actually, the comparison is pretty significant. Carter, Clinton and Dukakis were all small state, no-name Governors running a first-primaries campaign strategy. I think it holds up pretty well.
September 27th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
There’s also not enough data to prove that winning both IA and NH gives you the nomination. A historical pattern could be broken in that regard, too.
As I have said, as long as Rudy wins 1 state before FL, FL sticks with him. As long as FL sticks with him, CA and IL stick with him on Mega Tuesday. NY, NJ, CT and DE do no matter what. Then he’s pretty much got it in the bag.
Mitt would have to beat Rudy in every single state before FL, and it’s harder to win all of those than for Rudy to just win 1.
September 27th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
All,
Looking at the schedule it might be possible for Romney to win the first 5 states before the SC primary, has anyone ever won the first 5 states and gone on to lose the nomination?, Not saying it will happen but Mitt definitely has
a good chance to do it, if he does it will surely be difficult to stop him. That being said, I’ll agree with most people on here that if Mitt loses 2 or 3 of the early states he may be finished, this race is just starting to heat up!
September 27th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
Sorry my bad, it’s 4 states in front of SC, my apologies.
Sat. 1/5 – Iowa
Tue. 1/8 – New Hampshire
Sat. 1/12 – Nevada (moved from 1/19)
Tue. 1/15 – Michigan (no Dem delegates, 1/2 GOP delegates)
Sat. 1/19 – South Carolina
Tue. 1/29 – Florida (no Dem delegates, 1/2 GOP delegates)
September 27th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
Then Maine, then Mega Tueday.
September 27th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
I don’t know if anyone else noticed this, but Rudy has also been build up support in own of the oddest states for him; North Dakota, and I’m still not sure why. I think it is his way to show broad support win a southern state (FL, sorta) a midwest state (IL) the Northeast (NY, NJ, DE, etc.) and a plains state (ND). Romney appears to have the same strategy (win a little everywhere) but I don’t see how Thompson gets enough delegates for to win the nomination, particularly if more candidates stay around longer
September 27th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
Well, this is the great question of the race isn’t?
What Justin and other Mitt supporters are suggesting has never happened in the history of the Republican nomination process. Never. Not once.
George H.W. Bush did not have his momentum from winning Iowa in 1980 carry him to victory over heir apparent Ronald Reagan. Bob Dole did not use his momentum from winning Iowa in 1988 carry him to victory over George H.W. Bush. Pat Buchanan did not have his victory in NH lead him to defeat Dole in 1996.
As far as winning both Iowa and New Hampshire. We don’t know. Because it has never happened. Not once.
I believe it hasn’t because of unique characteristics of Republican primary voters. Republicans have always loved their frontrunners and heir apparents.
Since 6-2006, when this blog began, I have contended that either John McCain or Rudy Giuliani will be the Republican nominee, because that’s what Republican history has shown us will happen.
September 27th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
Where is Wyoming?
September 27th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
in the west, just north of Colorado
September 27th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
“Since 6-2006, when this blog began, I have contended that either John McCain or Rudy Giuliani will be the Republican nominee, because that’s what Republican history has shown us will happen.”
Well, there is logic to that, but neither were, before 2006, the real heir apparents – that position was supposed to go to Allen.
September 27th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
John McCain is this race’s heir apparent by virtue of him coming in 2nd place the last time.
September 27th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
ACT, WY still on Jan 5 as far as I know. But they are only awarding about 1/3 of their delegates, and it is a party committee member vote, not a popular vote. So it won’t really register as a headline.
In recent cycles, DE and AK leapfrogged IA or NH, but nobody really noticed. WY will matter even less this time.
September 27th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
OK, Louisiana leapfrogged both IA and NH in 1996, and AK had a straw poll between IA and NH in 2000, but it was their only event (no later caucus or primary).
September 27th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
And DE’s move was to come in right behind IA and NH.
September 27th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
It looks like if Romney takes Iowa and New Hampshire it’s pretty much in the bag. No one has ever done it before and it will give him more momentum. He is positioned well in several of the other early primary states like Michigan and Nevada. If he were to take Wyoming as well that would be 5 consecutive states. I say it’s a done deal at that point.
September 27th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
Since no candidate in the past has won both Iowa and NH, it’s pretty clear that no candidate has ever won the 1st 4 or 5 stataes, depending on whether you count Wyoming or not. THAT kind of raw momentum has never happened before. It can happen in January. Shock and Awe.
September 27th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
How many of those nominees listed above would have been the nominee if in those years CA, NY, NJ, others, had their primaries on Feb 5th?
Wait and see. The early primaries will be considered, at best, the playoffs. They will eliminate but not crown. They then will be discounted and opinion and media will look to Super Tuesday.
September 27th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
Off topic, but American Solutions is starting online, in about 1 minute. Americansolutions.com if you’re interested.
September 27th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
Clark, I refer you to #21.
I also refer you to the fact that McCain, in 2000, after being defeated 3-7 by Bush in the first 10 contests (2-6 if you don’t count AZ), went on to win 3 Northeastern states… BY THIRTY POINT MARGINS.
How do you reconcile margins of that magnitude with the momentum argument? To me, that says cultural (or geographical) identification trumps momentum.
September 27th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
Off topic, but has anyone thought about when Mitt is going to or when should he give a JFK like speech.
In my view now or in the next few weeks is the perfect time. Right now the evangelical community is on the sidelines for the most part, but from reports, it seems like they want to unite behind a candidate in order to defeat Giuliani. With FDT stumbling and Newt debating entering the race, now the the perfect time for Mitt act.
Mitt could give the speech on a Thursday from a venue in an early state and publicize it ahead of time in order to get good coverage. Then he could make the rounds on radio and FoxNews on Friday and with Russert and Chris Wallace on Sunday. He would get huge media coverage and hopefully put the issue to rest.
Also if he planned it well he could get his prominent evangelical supporters to issue releases and go on TV and radio as well. What could make the speech an even bigger deal is getting Dobson to endorse him, or at least getting Dobson, Land, etc. to endorse the principles of his speech.
September 27th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Metro,
You and sampo defend Romney on the same day..What is going on !!!?????
September 27th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
Slow start for Newt in American Solutions, but absolutely wonderful finish!
September 27th, 2007 at 7:34 pm
The full memorandum can be found here (Thanks to Aron for finding it):
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/Gage%20Memo%2009%2027%2007.pdf
September 27th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
#5 In that sense, it may be good for Mitt for NH to be close, if he can win it. Better yet it both IA and NH become close. IF he wins them.
Thanks, Metro!!
September 28th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
The early state strategy is generally the best one. The last nominee to lose both Iowa and New Hampshire was Bill Clinton in 1992. Before that, you would have to go back to 1972. I know Muskie won NH. I’m not sure whether or not McGovern won Iowa. On the Republican side, no nominee has gone 0-2 in both states. In the case of Clinton, it wasn’t the same guy who won both states, so that helped him. Harkin won Iowa. Tsongas won NH. Then Clinton went on and won a bunch of other states and went on to win most big states. That is what Giuliani is hoping to do. I think if the same guy wins both states, it will be very difficult to stop him. If you have a scenario where Romney wins Iowa and Giuliani wins NH, you could have no clear favorite and Thompson could win a bunch of states in the South and become the frontrunner. Another scenario would be if Romney wins Iowa and McCain somehow comes back in NH, then there could be an opening for Giuliani. If Romney or anyone else does win both states though, they will be very difficult to stop.