I don’t hold out much hope for Fred Thompson at this point, and I frankly think his supporters would be better off going elsewhere, but I’m holding off on dropping the axe because of how quickly this race has changed. It’s now not difficult to imagine a scenario where Rudy isn’t even much of a factor by February 5th. Let’s imagine he limps into Iowa, burdened by these sorts of scandals and poor debate performances. Huck and Romney beat him easily there. Romney then holds off Huck in NH, and McCain manages a surprise second or third place showing (with Rudy in fourth).
I don’t think Rudy can survive a third place finish in Iowa, and a fourth place finish in NH. After such a scenario, Mitt probably wins Michigan, and Huck probably wins SC. In some ways, a Romney vs. Huck narrative is more damaging to Rudy then a narrative that sees Romney winning all the early states. Because, even if Romney wins all the early states, he still needs a rival. Narratively speaking, the media and public will not let one figure “run away” with the race, without pushing someone forward as a clear challenger. Rudy was the obvious choice for that role, in the event that Romney racked up big early state wins, for two reasons. One, he was a national figure, and his numbers could conceivably sustain a series of losses. Two, he was specifically casting his strategy as focusing on “Super Tuesday”.
But, if Romney wins NH and MI and Huck wins IA and SC, there’s no longer a need for Rudy. The media has their “two-man race”, and Rudy’s poll numbers could dissipate incredibly quickly. Sure, he still wins NY and NJ, but he’ll gain no momentum from such wins. Now is any of this likely? It’s hard to say. Rudy probably finishes no worse then third in NH, even with a Huck win in Iowa. And if the race in Iowa isn’t close, the narrative might simply turn into “Big Iowa winner vs. National Front-runner” which could damage Romney significantly in NH. Rudy’s still likely to be the big man on campus on February 5th. But, with Romney up 15 points in the New Hampshire RCP (up 19 in the latest poll), even in the face of Rudy’s ad barrage (which was supposed to eradicate Slick Mitt), IA is looking losable for Romney. And for the first time in months, I can imagine a race without much room for Rudy Giuliani.
November 30th, 2007 at 11:41 am
Romney and Huckabee both lose the general election–Hello Hillary.
November 30th, 2007 at 11:44 am
Matt, whoa. Rudy’s blitzkrieg is only beginning and is designed to reach a crescendo at the holidays, not in November. Endorsements and more still under craps. One week of the intro ads is not what was “supposed to eradicate Slick Mitt.”
I disagree with the the thesis. A split field keeps FL with Rudy. If Mitt were poised to win ALL the pre-FL states, then Rudy needed to win 1 of them to keep FL with him. However, a Huck-Mitt split field helps Rudy because he has no strong opposition.
November 30th, 2007 at 11:46 am
In short, the longer the GOP race remains in chaos and fluid, the better it is for Rudy, who’s support has been fairly constant for months.
November 30th, 2007 at 11:46 am
Grant,
Republican general election polls are going up across the board. Polls show Americans believe we’re making progress in Iraq, and a number of polls have shown Hillary as uniquely vulnerable (McCain beats her almost everywhere these days). When John Murtha admits that things are improving in Iraq, it’s obvious that the Democratic Party is doing a hurried two-step to get themselves out of an untenable position on the issue. And it might not work. It’s possible that, come next year, almost any Republican will be reasonably electable. This obviously harms Rudy, though frankly, Rudy’s lost in so many important general election polls of late, he’s no longer even a particularly compelling choice for those who do think electability ought to be paramount.
November 30th, 2007 at 11:47 am
As I posted in another thread:
As I’ve said all along, what does it take to keep FL voters in Rudy’s column? All it takes is a single win by Rudy pre-FL, if the alternative is Mitt winning all of them. Could be NH or MI or NV or SC, doesn’t matter.
BUT if Huck wins Iowa then the pre-FL contests will be split, and that keeps FL with Rudy.
If Huck wins IA, the remaining contests probably break down in one of the following fashions:
IA: Huck, NH: Mitt, MI: Mitt, SC: Huck, NV: Mitt
IA: Huck, NH: Rudy, MI: Rudy, SC: Huck, NV: Rudy
IA: Huck, NH: JMac: MI: JMac: Sc: Huck, NV: MMac
Notice the pattern. Odd how “Rudy McRomney†are in a 3-way tie for 2nd and Huck is the constant, IF he wins Iowa. Even so, I don’t believe Huck can win in states outside of the South and the Plains.
November 30th, 2007 at 11:48 am
NH Results:
1. Romney
2. Huck
3. McCain
4. Paul
5. Rudy
November 30th, 2007 at 11:50 am
RayinNH: LOL.
November 30th, 2007 at 11:51 am
Metro,
“In short, the longer the GOP race remains in chaos and fluid, the better it is for Rudy, who’s support has been fairly constant for months.”
Sure. If by fluid you mean, different candidates are, without any particular pattern, winning the early states. But, a race where Romney and Huckabee, two men, win all of the early states, with Rudy consistently shut out, isn’t a fluid race. It’s a, narratively speaking, two-man race. A fluid race, one that might benefit Rudy, would look something like this. IA: Huck, Romney, Rudy. NH: McCain, Romney, Rudy. NV: Romney, Rudy, McCain, Huck. SC: Fred, Huck, Romney, Rudy. MI: Romney, Rudy, McCain, Huck.
November 30th, 2007 at 11:52 am
i have actually been thinkin the same thing along these lines. it seems that it might come down to a huck mitt battle rather than mitt giuliani.
November 30th, 2007 at 11:52 am
I agree with Matt E with a slight modification. It is going to be a Mitt, Huck, Rudy race. All others will be eliminated by Michigan. Rudy will be severely diminished by FL but he will remain significant enough to hold onto NY and California and New Jersey and that will be it.
November 30th, 2007 at 11:54 am
Matt, I disagree. FL wants Rudy, where he has an excellent ground organization, and if the small states are split among other candidates, that’s reason for FL to give LESS weight to each, than to Mitt if he won all pre-FL contests.
November 30th, 2007 at 11:56 am
What’s funny is that the REAL thing we are looking at, is Mitt on the verge of being a non-factor.
His whole strategy was built upon winning IA+NH. If he loses the first contest, he’s running from behind. If he loses both, he’s done.
Rudy’s the national frontrunner with the big, delegate-rich states, and a big war-chest. He can survive early losses. Mitt can’t.
Matt, you’re normally quite perceptive, but I’m very surprised you have not recognized Mitt’s immense vulnerability here. Hasn’t his need to win IA+NH been the theme of a million posts?
November 30th, 2007 at 11:56 am
Rudy will not survive to Florida without an earlier win. No candidate in the history of primaries in either party has been able to survive such a poor start. What is so unique about Rudy?
His national poll number lead is not all that high for a front-runner. George Bush had over 40% nationally and had to fight hard to outlast McCain (who was in single digits nationally before New Hampshire) in 2000.
If this is what Rudy supporters truely believe and Rudy can’t win before Florida, his supporters will be in for a rude awakening.
November 30th, 2007 at 11:56 am
Ron Paul will finish in NH with double digit percentage in votes. It’s going to happen. The maverick independents from 2000 who all flocked to McCain are flocking to Paul this year – regardless of what comes out of Iraq in the next 6 weeks the war remains a major downer up here so an anti-war libertarian is going to be very very popular and will do better than anyone expects.
November 30th, 2007 at 11:56 am
I would agree that the rise of Huck hurts Giuliani more so than Romney. Regardless of Huck’s surge in IA, Romney seems to have developed a floor of support around the 26 level. He bounced off of it a couple of points in the ARG poll.I think the surge in Hucks campaign is mainly coming at the expense of Rudy/McCain/Fred. As far as NH is concerned, the fact that Rudy’s ads have started and Mitt goes from +15 to +19 tells me that Rudy isn’t headed in the right direction there. There is still room for a Rudy surge in NH, but with performances like the last debate, where his performance was rated lukewarm at best, he will have to REALLY make up some ground in order to even have a chance in NH. I think that Rudy’s big state strategy could be beginning to blow up in his face with the advent of a surging Huck. I think that the early states, and the media crave a 2 man race, and it is looking more and more like that race will be between Romney and Huck in the early states, barring a miracle on Rudy’s part.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
Metro,
There hasn’t been a GOP nominee who has won BOTH states in I think the past 50 years or so. To state that Romney HAS to win both is nonsense. Granted people probably thought he would walk away with IA, and struggle for NH, but it looks as though the opposite is shaping up. Romney is far from a non-factor, and I would expect a Rudyite to try and shift the problem to another candidate. The reality, as Matthew points out, is that Rudy’s unproven strategy is shaping up to remain just that, unproven.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
A Future Without Rudy?
A Democrat Future.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
Jared, did you know that on Super Tuesday 8 years ago, after Bush had defeated McCain 7-2 (not counting AZ), McCain won 4 states? 3 of them by ~25-point margins? They were Northeastern states that did not identify culturally with Bush. That trumps momentum in a big way.
McCain simply did not have enough of these that were big enough, early enough, and didn’t have Rudy’s frontrunner status.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
Huck vs. Mitt? Sorry, but I don’t see that happening.
I’m not speaking as a Rudy supporter here. The thing is, certain matchups simply aren’t plausible, and this is one of them. Why? Because both candidates are actively campaigning for religous conservatives, so there is too much overlap between the potential primary voters each candidate is competing for. Its the same reason you’ll never see a Rudy/ McCain showdown, since both candidates are competing with each other for the moderate and national security voters, or a Huckabee/ Thompson showdown, since both candiates are campaigning as the favorite son of the south.
The plausable showdowns are Rudy/ Romney, Rudy/ Huckabee, Rudy/ Thompson, McCain/ Huckabee, McCain/ Mitt, and (maybe) Romney/ Thompson. There are several possible scenarious there, and not all of them involve Rudy. But Huckabee/ Romney isn’t one of them.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
Metro,
We’ve been over this before. Mitt Romney has a perfectly respectable cultural connection to voters in the Northeast, the coasts, and upper midwest, all the sorts of states Rudy might be expected to win in your hypothetical scenario. And frankly, a Romney/Huck matchup gives the media a North vs. South matchup as well. It’s not as elegant as a Rudy/Huck matchup, but no doubt it’ll do in a pinch (the pinch being Rudy loses all the early states).
November 30th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
Regarding the Bush/McCain race in 2000. Steve Forbes had higher poll numbers than McCain nationally and Forbes fell off the earth after New Hampshire. What gave McCain life were wins in New Hampshire and Michigan before the big primaries. The media was clearing touting that two man race on the strengths of both candidates earlier victories.
Barring some earlier wins by Rudy, he probably will still carry New York and New Jersey on Feb 5th and nothing else.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
Matt, Mitt doesn’t have have the cultural connection to the South that Rudy does. A tough New Yorker is more like a southerner than a WASPy CEO. Also, Mitt doesn’t go over well in the coastal states at all: you’re wrong here. Most people in these states (and I’ve lived in a number of them) think a socially conservative Mormon is a laughable candidate.
Huck doesn’t have the cultural connection to most of the states, especially the delegate-rich ones. Rudy does.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
Also Matt, you should respond to Sean P’s very good point about the implausibility of a Mitt/Huck matchup.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Sean P,
Romney’s a wildly successful businessman. He can play the strong fiscal conservative as well as Rudy. No doubt he’ll scale back his religious overtures, if it looks like a Huck/Romney race. I’ve said for some time that Romney is the only candidate that could plausibly be a foil for any of the other candidates. If it’s Rudy/Romney, Romney emphasizes his social and personal conservatism (his family). If it’s Romney/Fred, Mitt emphasizes his Upper-Midwest and Northern roots. If it’s Romney/McCain, Mitt emphasizes his establishment support, and general conservatism. And if it’s Romney/Huckabee, he emphasizes his business background, fiscal conservatism, and his cultural ties to the midwest, the upper midwest, and the Northeast.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
SteveT, and isn’t Rudy set up quite nicely to win the expectations game by winning an early state, now?
November 30th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Matt, the problem is, Romney chose to introduce himself to the public as the newly minted SoCon who is bashing other candidates over the head with his SoCon credentials. Not just Rudy, but Fred, McCain, etc. He’s now MR. SO-CON. Mr. Mormon SoCon.
That was incredibly stupid.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
The confidence people have in Romney doing well in Michigan is astounding. I understand that he’s got family connections to the state, but it’s an open primary and the Democrats are not contenting the state this year (It’ll be a knock-down, drag-out fight between Hillary and…um…Chris Dodd). Any of the polls of “likely voters” or even of Republicans, out of Michigan, are worthless.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
How’s the business project going Metro?
November 30th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
That should read that Dems are not *contesting* the state this year; I’m sue they’re content with it.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
Wow! Rudy Panic among his supporters is definitely going on! Not counting polls, almost all posts on this site today and yesterday has been about Rudy!
November 30th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
#13,SteveT: No candidate in the history of primaries in either party has been able to survive such a poor start.
Could you list the primaries in the order they occurred in 1976 and what happened in the end?
November 30th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
I agree Metro, that Rudy is still very capable of winning an early state and the nomination. One or two early state wins (with one before Florida) before Feb 5th is probably all he needs to stay competive for the Feb 5th primary. It will get interesting.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
EGS, you’ll notice I’m largely absent the 2nd half of the day… compared to previous months.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
The fates are conspiring against Giuliani. A more manageable Iraq, and consequently a diminished focus on national security, makes the economy and some social issues rise in importance. That helps Romney and Huckabee and hurts Giuliani.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
This article and others to follow are really going to hurt Huckabee. By the same token, Huckabee has already done enough to hurt Giuliani in some of the early states.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071130/NATION/111300094/1002
November 30th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Feltcher: I disagree. Makes NYC’s incredible turnaround more relevant.
Rudy’s saying, I made people rethink what New York could be, and fundamentally revived it. I will do the same for America.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
My two cents (as the McCain-site publisher)-
I think that we exaggerate the “momentum” of victories, at the expense of looking at the candidates. I don’t think that a voter goes into the caucus or primary believing that “Candidate Red won in ______, so I must vote for him/her today.” I think it’s more along the lines of “I want to vote for Candidate Red, because of _____.”
Accordingly, candidates’ victories and defeats will turn largely on their appeal as candidates. I agree w/ Sean P’s point that a Romney vs. Huck showdown is implausible, for two reasons:
1) Such a battle would completely leave out huge swathes of the party’s coalition;
2) Neither candidate has enough support from the coalition for all the other contenders to simply fade out of the picture…
The Rasmussen nation poll is showing Mitt and Huck – combined – with 26% of the vote. Rudy – alone – has as much support. Not to mention McCain, Fred, Paul, and all of the undecideds. I find it very difficult to imagine that 74% of the GOP electorate is going to embrace those two candidates simply because they come in 1 and 2 in Iowa…
Thoughts are welcome…
November 30th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Matthew you hit the nail on the head. I’ve been saying this for months. The rise of Huck is the kiss of death for Rudy & Fred.
Huck will steal most of their support in the south. So where does that leave them? Where will they win? Rudy needs FL or SC. Huck will be the natural choice in both of those predominantly Baptist areas.
I suspect that Rudy will implode sometime between NH and SC. His support is based on the idea that he is a winner that will defeat Hillary. That image will be shattered to pieces if can’t do better than third place early on. Rudy will have to attack Huck and perhaps McCain. His number one priority at the moment is to not let them finish ahead of him anywhere.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
Matthew,
“Rudy probably finishes no worse then third in NH, even with a Huck win in Iowa.”
Well according to the Rasmussen Iowa and NH polls (NH out today), Rudy could finish 4th in both Iowa and New Hampshire.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
If you don’t believe in the power of momentum, then you need to explain away Huckabee’s rise in polls across the board. Its not his money, and its not endorsements. He is getting momentum just from performing better in IA. Imagine what an actual win would do.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Metro,
If Romney’s introduced himself as THE SOCON candidate, then NH doesn’t seem to mind, despite having very few so-cons. Romney’s attempted to run a fusion candidacy, centered around his business background, his personal values, and his socially conservative actions. And he’s been rewarded by strong support in two diametrically opposed early states. Indeed, if those states are any indication, Romney’s been considerably more successful in selling the Northeastern, fiscal conservative segment of his persona. Notice the 80% favorability he has in the Rasmussen NH poll. Romney can easily stay in that persona if he’s left fighting only Huckabee.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
The rise of Huck helps Rudy, most clearly in Iowa.
But here is the storyline: Rudy’s been the national frontrunner all year. First, McCain was supposed to be the anti-Rudy. Then, it was Fred who was supposed to be it. Then, it became Mitt. Now, it’s becoming Huck.
The storyline is, the anti-Rudy forces cannot settle on a viable opponent and they’ve switched among FOUR of them, now.
Meanwhile, Rudy stays on top nationally, dominates the big states, and has the most money in the bank (not counting self-funding).
November 30th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
Matt, he also bought the airwaves at saturation level and his support in most polls is weakest.
Let’s see what NH polling is looking like a month from now, when it matters.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
ElectionNightHQ, the primary voter wants to nominate a winner. All else is luxury. That’s why Rudy is ahead despite of all his “moderate” positions. Past history shows that the undecideds rush to the winners and the supporters of the candidates that drop out also rush to the winners. That’s why Iowa and New Hampshire are the king makers. Rudy is already walking on thin ice if he finishes second. If he finishes third he is toast.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
#42. Right, Metro. The buzz has been going on for two months that Romney’s early state wins will knockout Rudy, and yet he can’t improve his national numbers above 15%. Huck by doing well in IA alone has managed to catch Romney in national numbers, so it is not that name-recognition alone is the reason for Rudy’s 2 to 1 advantage.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Argamenon, if Rudy finishes 3rd he is toast? Have you missed all the punditry involving this campaign? Were you in a coma when the big states turned the primary calendar on its head — you think that’s meaningless? Have you noticed that investors have millions of dollars riding on Rudy being the most likely candidate to win the nomination at Intrade — by a longshot?
November 30th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
While the author of this post envisions a future without Rudy, many GOP voters in big coastal states are envisioning a future without the religious right.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
Metro, the flaw in your argument is that you think Huck will only do well in the places where Rudy’s opponents are ahead.
If Huck wins in Iowa, SC and FL will be a cakewalk for him. Iowa is more catholic, more anti-immigration and more yankee than both of those states. Rudy might get to supertuesday with no victories. Then it will be a bloodbath for him no matter what the current polls say.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
#47: BINGO.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
FL a “cakewalk” for Huck? What are you smoking? Parts of FL, sure. Not the big metros — and the guy has no money.
Please, let’s have a little more informed handicapping, here.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Matt:
You are assuming Mitt can compete for the “Glenn Reynolds Republicans”(conservative/ libertarian on fiscal issues, libertarian on social issues, and hawks on national security). I submit to you that his complete transformation on social issues has completely turned off the GRR vote, to the extent he could never get their support. NOt only do GRR Republicans disagree with Mitt’s newfound social conservatism on the merits, many believe it revealed Mitt to be a phony. (side note: yes I am one of them, but that isn’t my point here, my point here is that many Republicans believe this, and if you don’t believe me, check out Eye on 2008 or AnkleBitingPundits for proof). The only way that Romney is going to have enough support to make it to the final showdown is if he consolidates the so-con vote, and the only way that’s going to happen is if he knocks Huckabee out of the race.
I understand your positioning argument, but I don’t think it will fly. The only candidate who could plausible position himself is Fred Thompson. He could run as the true conservative against Rudy or the federalist consensus builder against Romney. The difference is that Romney is too married to his newfound social conservativism to re-pivot. I call it “Kerry’s law”: a politician can never get away with more than one flip flops on the same issue. This is probably because in a candidate’s initial flip, he is forced to sound even more convincing on the issue than he would otherwise need to if he were expressing his views for the first time. Bottom line, Romney has already flipped from a social moderate to a social conservative; there is no way he can go back.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
Sean P,
Has Glenn Reynolds checked Romney off his list? A few months ago, when I last checked, he seemed to view Romney reasonably favorably.
November 30th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Hello, Argamenon (#44)-
I think you have a valid point. I certainly acknowledge that momentum does exist. Let me clarify on what I think is going on w/ Huck in particular:
Momentum, I believe, is a much bigger factor when the candidate is unknown. Name recognition is the single biggest obstacle to a campaign. Huck’s name recognition nationally has been very low all year. So he has a lot of “upside”. He’s a long way from his potential ceiling. Voters are still hearing of him for the first time.
Conversely, the well-known candidates (Rudy and McCain) have ceilings. They’re already universally known. They might not have hit their potential ceilings yet in any given state, but they are not likely to show rapid upward climbs, in the same way that Huck can. Huck has a lot more room to grow.
In Iowa and NH, where Mitt is now universally known, the same point applies. (He isn’t as well known nationally as McCain or Rudy, but he is in the early voting states). Since he’s been campaigning there and spending money there for a very long time, I think it’s fair to say that Mitt probably now has every voter there that he could possibly get (although, as you accurately note, the candidates who drop out – their support has to go to someone, and it often goes to the winner).
But winning either Iowa or NH doesn’t necessarily guarantee subsequent victories. Obviously, in most cycles they split their decision, and since only one candidate ultimately gets the nomination, momentum stalls. Pat Buchanan won NH in 1996. McCain won it in 2000. Bob Dole won in Iowa in 1988. The first President Bush won in Iowa in 1980. Obviously, none ultimately won the nomination.
Perhaps that clarifies my reasoning… thoughts?
November 30th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
“if you love RINOS like Arlen Specter…., Rudy may be a good choice for you. If you’re sick of social conservatives and would like to see their agenda rejected,”
Arlen Spector did more to further the SoCons agenda then a couple of dozen true blue SoCons.
Without him, Thomas, and maybe Roberts and Alito would never have gotten to the Court.
November 30th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
As much as a race that jettisons both Rudy and McCain would make me gag, I also can envision Matthew’s scenario coming to pass as one of many plausible ones. And Romney fans need to bookmark this post. In a race that’s reduced to solely two candidates, Romney and Huckabee, where there’s no hope of Rudy coming back, no hope of McCain coming back, and no hope that we can take things to the convention and nominate Condi Rice or someone similar, i.e., if my only choices were to endorse Romney or endorse Huckabee, I would have to back Romney. As readers know, I think Romney’s a fake. I think he’s basically a Northeastern corporatist Republican who became a so-con to win votes. I think he’s trying to buy the nomination because he can’t win grassroots supporters any other way. But at least Romney knows on which side his bread is buttered. Romney would govern as a conservative even when he didn’t believe it. He would irritate me with his social views, but please me with his economics and probably his foreign policy actions. Huckabee would please me with nothing. He would govern from the heart, and he is the polar opposite of what I am. As such, if it comes down to Romney and Huckabee, the unthinkable occurs. I endorse Romney. This should be a warning to those who think that Huckabee can ever, ever get the votes of fi-cons, libertarians, hawks, and secular conservatives.
November 30th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
I just watched part of a Romney IA townhall. Two questioners began by stating, “Gov. Huckabee is for” or “Gov. Huckabee has proposed…” Another questioner said Ron Paul and Huckabee are in favor of returning power to the states. This was the first time I have heard so many other candidates spoken about favorably at a Romney event. I don’t think any of them were plants and one woman was wearing a Romney button. I don’t know what it means, but it must be disconcerting to Romney.
November 30th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
ElectionNightHQ.com Publisher (#37):
No, but you are not quite correct either. The voters won’t have the time to study every single candidate. So, they will go like this: “I have only time to look at 2 or 3 candidates. Who should I look at? How about _____ and ____ because they did well in early states, so they must have something for me? Umm, I like that candidate because of ______ so I will vote for him.”
November 30th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Maybe Glenn Reynolds wasn’t the best choice as spokesman, because I doesn’t say much about ANY of the candidates. From what little I can gather, he was initially tentatively in Thompson’s corner, but has since found himself dissappointed; he is generally dismissive of McCain, though he does credit him where the surge is concerned; and he is very dismissive of Paul (last I heard, he compared him to a demented crank waiting at the bus stop). I seem to recall him taking a swipe or two at Huckabee’s nanny tendencies. But I honestly don’t recall him saying anything about Rudy or Romney.
November 30th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
I meant to say “Yes”, not “No” in my #59 comment. The momentum won’t lead to the nomination, but it definitely will get the voters to look at you and search for something in you to see if you hold up to their light.
November 30th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
I will restate my long held belief. This is going to the convention. I wonder what happens then?
Matt, any thoughts?
November 30th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
A couple of thoughts;
1, Huck is surging based on hot press without a lot of scrutiny. I think his fiscal liberalisim and past ethics charges may come back to haunt him. We may find that he peaked too soon.
2, Rudy is in the middle of a scandal. How well will he recover from it, and will the press dig for more dirt.
3, The MSM is predictable. They will try to weaken any and all Republicans that may emerge as the candidate. I believe they may focus all barrels at Rudy, Mitt and Huck. There is not much left to throw at Mitt, but the other two may be vunerable.
November 30th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
“While the author of this post envisions a future without Rudy, many GOP voters in big coastal states are envisioning a future without the religious right.”
Giuliani supporters of this site: please get your dialogue straight. Will Giuliani kick so-cons out of the party, or is he their best bet to preserve their values in the face of a Hillary presidency?
November 30th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
MellowFellow, your logic is flawed. If you kick SoCons out of the party prepare for uncontested Democratic rule. What have religious candidates done to you? Has Bush tried to convert you? Do you think religion has anything to with Bush’s shortcomings?
A Guliani nomination will not make the religious right leave, but will impact the grass roots effort that is vital to GOP victory.
November 30th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
“Giuliani supporters of this site: please get your dialogue straight. Will Giuliani kick so-cons out of the party, or is he their best bet to preserve their values in the face of a Hillary presidency?”
Giuliani is the best bet to preserve so-con values because he has the best chance to win against Hillary and Hillary would be far worse on policy for so-cons. But it’s not Giuliani that will kick so-cons out of the party. All that’s being suggested is that many of *his supporters* in urban coastal states would love to see the so-cons get the boot.
November 30th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
“Has Bush tried to convert you? Do you think religion has anything to with Bush’s shortcomings?”
Bush has just angered the center with his so-con nonsense. The convenient rhetoric around election time about a constitutional amaendment to ban gay marriage was just that…convenient. Bush had no intention of following through. That’s why he pushed social security form and immigration reform during his second term. Not a peep about the one so-con issue that Bush exploited to get the Jesus Brigade to the polls in 2004. Also the Schiavo thing was a huge overreach. The vast middle of the country has been turned off to Bush and Republicans generally because of hare-brained schemes like these.
November 30th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Bobinator said:
“MellowFellow, your logic is flawed. If you kick SoCons out of the party prepare for uncontested Democratic rule. What have religious candidates done to you? Has Bush tried to convert you? Do you think religion has anything to with Bush’s shortcomings?”
Actually my logic is flawless, and you agree with me.
I don’t know if you’ve been blogging long, but in formats like these, you often quote the person you’re responding to before responding, so they know it’s a response. Kind of like I’ve done here for you, though I’ve also included your name since you seem new to this.
Now go back to my other post and read what else I put in quotes. Then read what I didn’t put in quotes. That’s right, I’m on your side!
You are supposed to be directing your ire at MetroRepublican (#49) and Big S. (# 47).