The Candidates
Featured Archives
Patrick Ruffini is of the opinion that the newest Mitt/Huck fight helps Rudy Giuliani. He has a new article out, to that effect. I think this premise is fatally flawed. Ruffini writes:
A few weeks ago, Romney rolling in both Iowa and New Hampshire was the nightmare scenario for all Republican candidates not named Romney. Romney could only go from 10% in national polls to the nomination with a Kerry-like burst of publicity arising from a 1-2 punch out of Iowa and New Hampshire.
Now, Mike Huckabee, armed with little more than a sling-shot, is casting serious doubt on that strategy.
That gives Rudy some breathing room. He is not where he needs to be in the early states, but short of one outright win in the first two contests, his February 5th strategy will rely on a split decision from the Hawkeye and Granite States. Mike Huckabee provides the best hope for that, by far.
I’m not convinced by the bolded point, but let’s just accept it for a moment. What are the most likely Iowa/NH splits? Either, Mike Huckabee fairly wallops Romney in Iowa, and sends his NH numbers careening downwards, thereby propelling John McCain to a NH win, or Mitt manages to hold on in NH. Those are the only two “split” possibilities that don’t involve Rudy winning NH. Thompson has no chance there; neither does Paul. If Huckabee wins, there’s clearly no split and Rudy’s, under Patrick’s premise, in an awful lot of trouble. So let’s just consider that, as I begin to address the remainder of his piece. Patrick continues:
Let’s go back in time to 1996. Bob Dole was a weak frontrunner who couldn’t break 27% in the first few contests. He had about as bad a run in the early primaries as you can have without losing the nomination. He eeked out a win in neighboring Iowa. He was then humiliated in New Hampshire by Pat Buchanan. He lost Delaware. He lost Arizona…but here’s what Dole had going for him: the opposition was fragmented. Pat Buchanan won in Louisiana and Iowa. Forbes won in Delaware and Arizona. Lamar! had a Huck-like burst of momentum out of Iowa. Conservatives couldn’t settle on a single anti-Dole candidate. Had such a candidate swept the non-Iowa races up to South Carolina, they probably would have won. But the field was split.
I think this prompts two large questions: 1.) Does Dole make any sense as an analogue for Rudy Giuliani, and 2.) Is this field likely to be “split” in any comparable way? The first question practically answers itself; Rudy Giuliani is no Bob Dole. Dole’s strength was also his weakness; he was the establishment candidate. That made him vulnerable to populists like Buchanan, but it also allowed him to marshal the resources of the establishment candidate. Hefty organization, large funds, a general positive undercurrent within the GOP electorate, a sense of inevitability, and strong institutional support.
Rudy Giuliani is the non-establishment establishment candidate. He’s been the front-runner so long, he’s seen as the establishment choice. But, he has few of the advantages of an establishment candidate. His social positions have prevented him from crafting strong institutional support from conservative leaders; last I checked, Romney and McCain both surpass Giuliani in the “endorsement” race. As far as I can tell, Romney has the best on the ground organization in most states, and it’s doubtful that Rudy’s strength here even approaches Dole’s in 1996.
In terms of money, Rudy seems to be doing well relatively speaking, but it’s a poor money cycle for Republicans and relative money doesn’t buy air-time. Winning a bunch of early states means you don’t have to buy it. Dole was the next in line, he was THE guy, and he had the organizational and institutional apparatus necessary to survive some early losses. Rudy’s aura of inevitability, about his only shield, has already worn off, and there are many Republicans who are breathing a sigh of relief. Without the additional buffers Dole had, I see no reason to believe Rudy could survive a string of early losses, even in a divided field.
But, this brings us to that second question: 2.) Is this field likely to be “split” in any comparable way? And I’d say, not really. The early states aren’t going split randomly. Either McCain wins NH, and becomes the anti-Huckabee until Rudy wakes up (assuming he ever does) or Mitt wins NH, and becomes the anti-Huckabee, etc. Both of them compete with Huck in predictable ways. If Mitt wins, he goes on to victories in MI and NV. Probably the same can be said for McCain. Huck wins South Carolina regardless, and probably knocks Rudy off in Florida.
If McCain’s the victor of the Mitt/McCain NH death-match, Rudy is an utter irrelevancy by 2/5. Unlike Romney (according to some), McCain can sell himself to independents; he can suck all the air out of the room for a fiscally minded unorthodox Republican (if there was any air to begin with). If Mitt wins in NH, Rudy’s potential role increases, but only minimally. The upshot of either scenario is this; when Huckabee wins two early states, the GOP establishment, all of those who are fiscally minded, all of those who care remotely about security, will panic. They’re going to be looking for a winner. They’re not going to hop aboard Rudy Giuliani’s train after 5 losses; he’s currently polling just 23.6% over at RCP. How low does that go before Florida if he hasn’t won anything? And why should the GOP establishment, which has never been enamored with Rudy anyway, back a loser?
December 7th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
Rudy and McCain surpass Rudy in the endorsement race, because Rudy’s withheld most of his for the final weeks. You know, right when the voters make up their minds. You know, like this latest Iowa poll shows — everything is up in the air.
Re ground organization, you seem uninformed about Rudy’s massive ground organization in FL and CA, for starters, formed months ago.
Rudy’s inevitability has not worn off. What we’re seeing is the anti-Rudys flailing crazily from McCain originally, to Fred, then to Mitt, now to Huck. While Rudy sits atop them all, the one constant in the race, with the highest polling and highest favorables.
Regarding specific scenarios, will address those shortly.
December 7th, 2007 at 7:30 pm
#1 metro -
Ill say in again – The only thing fresh coiming out of rudy’s closet is another skelton. You are the king of wishfull thinking. Just look at his news postings on this site. Not only is he not doing good he is doing nothing. The last video I saw him – he was so haggered he was about to keal over.
Rudy has not remained constant – he has been dropping in the polls. Nice Try.
December 7th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
Metro, Rudy’s favorables have fallen through the floorboards. He’s now at 44% favorable and 49% unfavorable in Rasmussen. That compares to 63% favorable, and 27% unfavorable a year ago. Huckabee is viewed favorably by 40% and unfavorably by 36%. Even the hated Mitt Romney approaches Rudy on favorables, with a solid 40/48. Fred Thompson is at 40/42. I haven’t seen much better numbers within solely the GOP primary.
December 7th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
#1 – Metro – you’ve reach a new level of hyperbole hyperventilating.
December 7th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
The second comment on the Ruffini article has a hilarious point. Here it is:
“Huckabee may have made the crazy strategy slightly more workable. It should have been a warning to the Giuliani camp that their cunning plan was essentially identical to Fred Thompson’s goal of winning South Carolina and then going on to win in many February 5 states. It should have been clear early on that a campaign strategy that bore strong resemblance to Fred Thompson’s was not going to work.”
December 7th, 2007 at 7:35 pm
Ajay,
Funny. But, I miss Fred. I wish he’d come back, and send this Huckster packing.
December 7th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
well, as I recall, when Reagan was beaten in Iowa his numbers did not go careening downwards in NH. In fact he went on to win it.
The Rudy supporters are in complete denial about the ongoing implosion of the Rudy campaign. It’s happening as we speak. You won’t find a single poll where Rudy is not declining. Romney will still win this thing. Huck’s campaign does not seem ready for prime time.
December 7th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
I asked in the earlier thead where Metro went, and I find him on this thread with the same song and dance. “Rudy is holding back until the last week. Rudy is going to floor us all with his flood of commercials/endorsements the last week.” I can HARDLY wait. So let me ask Metro, does he already have every commercial slot during the last week of the year already booked? I can see it now. I am watching the New Years parades, and EVERY COMMERCIAL is Rudy Giuliani. Let me know how that glass of Kool-aid tastes Metro.
December 7th, 2007 at 7:42 pm
OK, specific scenarios. First off, these are possible and great for Rudy in FL:
IA: Huck, NH: Rudy, MI: Rudy, SC: Huck, NV: Rudy
IA: Huck, NH: Mitt, MI: Rudy, SC: Huck, NV: Rudy/Mitt/Huck
IA: Huck, NH: JMac, MI: Rudy, SC: Huck, NV: Rudy/Huck
I think it’s at least 50/50 Rudy breaks through in a single state, given that he is the only candidate who has designed his campaign to peak around New Year’s, which is when, in fact, over half of the early-state voters will make up their minds. We can see from recent polling in Iowa their minds are nowhere near made up.
More problematic scenarios (assuming IA: Mitt is now impossible):
IA: Huck, NH: Mitt, MI: Mitt/JMac, SC: Huck, NV: Mitt
IA: Huck, NH: JMac, MI: JMac, SC: Huck, NV: Huck/JMac
In these scenarios, Team Rudy goes into FL saying the small states are split among the small candidates, and the big story of 2008 is the new primary system where big-state voters finally get to express their influence.
In the case of the first scenario, Rudy emphasizes his foreign policy gravitas against a Huck/Mitt alternative, reminding voters this is a wartime election.
The last scenario is hardest of all for Rudy, I agree. In that case he’s got to simultaneously tap into GOP voters distrust of John McCain and Huck’s position problems. The best tact here is to focus on TAXES, as Huck was a net tax raiser, and JMac nearly singlehandedly sabotaged the Bush tax cuts. I assure you that, no matter how much the GOP has changed, tax cutting is still a winning platform in a GOP primary.
In all cases, Rudy will try to stay above the fray, since the other candidates will be attacking one another trying to become the anti-Rudy. This is a great dynamic for Rudy.
December 7th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
Another McCain nugget from today. “The winner of two of the three, IA, NH, SC, will be the nominee.” That pretty much eliminates Giuliani.
December 7th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
Argamenon, why do you keep blindly repeating Rudy’s candidacy is dead, when over a million dollars is at stake at Intrade, and the smart money still considers him twice as likely to win as Mitt or Huck? What do you think their reasons are? Think about that for a bit.
December 7th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
Your posts are always full of so many assumption. They make me laugh.
December 7th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
“Giuliani’s been stalled in the national polls for a while now. He’s still ahead, though by a diminishing margin. But he’s running a distant third in Iowa and third in New Hampshire. He hasn’t been gaining in either. No one has won the nomination in modern times without at least a second-place finish in at least one of those first two states.”
http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/12052007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/nys_08_hopes_226530.htm We’ve never had a three-time divorcee either.
December 7th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
Jared, since we know over half of early-state voters don’t decide until the last week, why on earth would Rudy have planned to be peaking now?
If you read his history, you will know he understands timing/peaking, and the expectations game.
He originally didn’t want to release the 12 Commitments until November, but had to start coming out with *some* stuff early since everyone else was. But he’s held back most of it, and you’ve seen that with his late entry onto the airwaves.
December 7th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
Also, you folks are forgetting that Mitt is going to suffer a Dean-like implosion. The guy who was supposed to win Iowa all year long, coming in at 18%. There will be a massive ripple effect.
December 7th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
Rudy’s campaign had better stop trying the new and improved ways of winning the Presidency. I think if Rusy even hopes to have a chance at this point, he needs to focus on tearing down the monster that he has helped create . . Mike Huckabee. Huck is a SERIOUS threat to Rudy, and he had better start pulling the trigger now on his much anticipated commericals/endorsements, or his attempts with 1 week left will be seen as a desparate attempt by a losing campaign to try and win.
#10 – That pretty much eliminates McCain as well. LOL
December 7th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
#14 – Dean imploded because of his now infamous stage scream. I laugh every time I hear it re-played on Rush, and Hannity. Dean is nowhere near the statesman that Romney is, and Romney would never make a fool of himself like that. I echo the sentiment that you are a wishful thinker Metro. Good luck with that line of reasoning.
December 7th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
#8
The reality is this: after Rudy started airing ads in New Hampshire he slipped to third place and is now only 5 points ahead of Huckabee. Soon he’ll probably be behind Huck there as well. But according to the rudybots that’s all part of his strategy!
December 7th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
“Rudy’s campaign had better stop trying the new and improved ways of winning the Presidency.”
This about sums up everything.
December 7th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
Jared, Dean got 18% in Iowa hours BEFORE his scream.
December 7th, 2007 at 7:54 pm
#13 metro – Rudy and Metro are the only ones that knew anout the last week voters. Thats incredible. Or could it possibly be the other campaigns are planning for it as well? It’s a poor line of debate metro.
December 7th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
MR, there is another factor you also kept denying, in additional to human factor, and it is the fact that Rudy started this race virtually known to every one. His likability factor once was amazed. Everyone knows he’s though on criminals. Really, everyone “knew” Rudy, even though they do not understand his stances. His current RCP average of 23.6 is not a good sign, giving this very factor. From now on, he can goes bam, bam and bam with his plan after plan, policy after policy, endorement after endorement between now until Florida primary. But the simple fact remains, people think they know Rudy. They may consider him, but they won’t be paying as much attention to him as other less-familiar candidates.
And I am curious, you have said often that Intrades are 99% accurate on the day before the election. I am curious, how accurate is it a month before and a quarter before?
December 7th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
steve, other campaigns didn’t withhold ads, endorsements, arguments. They put the bulk of their stuff out there already. Nobody else was disciplined enough to hold back, except Rudy. Don’t you remember all the people here making fun of him for holding back, week after week after week?
December 7th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
SGS, I think it’s just the reverse. People know who Rudy is, but they don’t know WHAT HE HAS DONE. And that’s what they are about to find out — that he waged dozens of battles on a daily basis with the liberal NYC/NYT establishment — AND WON.
He is the most successful conservative — ever. And there’s a ton of concretes to prove it and fill ads with.
December 7th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
MR (#14), Perhaps, but that’s one polls, and from a source we know to be very biased (Newsweek). The other polls from earlier this week does not show Mitt has imploded. Let’s wait and see if it is not an outlier.
December 7th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
SGS, I don’t know that anyone’s done a study on Intrade’s accuracy a month out. The point is, Intrade is a very accurate picture of the race on any given day, FOR THAT DAY.
And today, Rudy’s doing twice as well as Mitt or Huck. While people like Argamenon say he’s dead.
December 7th, 2007 at 7:59 pm
“He is the most successful conservative — ever. And there’s a ton of concretes to prove it and fill ads with.”
Are you auditioning for the job of “Rudy’s Hugh Hewitt”?
December 7th, 2007 at 7:59 pm
#13 – I still think that given the fractured state of the GOP, this is the MOST risky strategy Rudy could take. I think that people will be Hucked out and have already made up their decisions. I think that with the advent of sites like YouTube, and blogging, information is disseminated much quicker now than it ever has been, and people who would have otherwise remained in the dark until right before the caucuses are getting informed via the internet/blogs etc. He had better start releasing his “arsenal” now, or I believe he will go down in flames.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
SGS,
I wouldn’t confuse political leanings in articles in Newsweek with polling results. This may yet be an outlier but Newsweek polling has a better track record than other outfits, like ARG for example.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
Matt, you are objective enough to admit there is no conservative who has waged more battles, with more successes, in a more hostile environment, than Rudy. Not even close.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
Adam, not to mention, Newsweek commissioned a professional pollster to do this, Princeton Research.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
Newt Gingrich comes to mind.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
Adam (#28), I do not know the polls firms well. It’s just that each time we saw the polls from Newsweek, there always was a few comments about how they seeded their polls with more Democrats than Republicans, to skew the results left. Am I wrong?
December 7th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
#22 – ” They put the bulk of their stuff out there already”
How do you know this metro? do you work in their campaigns? TO say that Rudy is the only one “disciplined” enough to hold back is naive thinking. Any of the campaigns could say the same thing – It would only make sense that all them all planning for the final week bonanza. thats why its not a good line of debate
December 7th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
Feltcher, he might be a distant 2nd. He got a few things done.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
Rudy will probably finish fourth in both Iowa and New Hampshire. Here’s a likely Iowa order: Huckabee, Romney, Thompson, Rudy, and here’s a likely NH order: Romney, McCain, Huckabee, Rudy.
The gifted politician that he is, Huckabee will manage to play the populist/protectionist card enough over the next several weeks to notch a mid-teens finish in NH.
I don’t see how Rudy survives two-straight fourth-place finishes to start the race. His numbers will plummet in other states. At this point, I think Huckabee, Romney and McCain all have a better chance at the nomination than Rudy does.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
steve, clearly Romney pulled every stop to try to be the early-state inevitable candidate. He hasn’t had a new message or major endorsement in ages.
Rudy held back as much as he possibly could, and now you can see the intensity of his campaign building day by day… and he is smart enough to peak in the right week.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:06 pm
Marksal, you’re a smart guy. Why do you think the smart money at Intrade sees it differently?
December 7th, 2007 at 8:06 pm
Adam (#28), there also is the question of how the questions are asked, how samples are distributed throughout the surveyed area, how well random are the samples, and such. We still need to see polls from at least 3 different firm to confirm the trend (Mitt’s imploding in this case).
December 7th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
Metro,
Am I? Ever’s a pretty long time. If I don’t agree with you, does that mean I’m not to be trusted as an analyst? Cuz that might give you a leg up on your competition.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
#36 metro – all I see his is campaign crumbling day by day in the polls. he has no MO anywhere. I think you may be naive to think Romney or any other candidate has pulled out very stop
December 7th, 2007 at 8:08 pm
Matt, LOL. Want to go with the last 50 years?
December 7th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
steve, haven’t the last couple weeks shown you how fast a candidate can jump in the polls?
December 7th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
I’ll say this, I am more uncomfortable about Rudy’s divorces, pro-choice candidacy and social issues positions, but I do admit how he closed down that Brooklyn art exhibit featuring bodily fluids and religious icons. He’s got heart, and with all this moralistic, anti-mormon stuff going on I just don’t feel welcome in Huck’s tent right now.
I’ve always thought Rudy would have some huge hurdles to jump, though.
I’m feeling nostalgic for Fred as well.
Romney still has a very good fighting chance, though. One thing I am sure of, however, is that Huckabee won’t ask Romney to run as VP, and neither will Romney ask Huckabee. I might be suprised though.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
Metro, I myself am in the investment-advisory business. I essentially make a living advising people to buy low and sell high. Actually, if I were investing money in this race, I would be buying McCain on Intrade. He has a chance to become the consensus candidate, and he’s definitely priced too low. (That doesn’t mean I want him to win, only that his chances to win are discounted too much on Intrade.)
Rudy hasn’t made positive news in many weeks. If he has any in the can, he needs to release it before the holidays.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
The Newsweek has too small of a sample, and too high of margin of error. Comparing it with other Iowa polls from earlier this week:
- Newsweek: Survey of 275 likely Republican caucus-goers was conducted December 5-6. The margin of error is +/- 7 percentage points.
- Strategic Vision GOP Iowa Caucus: Survey of 600 likely Republican caucus-goers was conducted November 30-December 2. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points.
- Zogby Republican Iowa Caucus: Survey was taken Nov 29-Dec 1 of 508 likely caucus goers and has a 4.4% MoE.
As such, we should wait and see other polls before declare anything for anyone on what’s going on in Iowa.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
Metro,
I don’t know. I’m not very informed about non-national figures who haven’t governed in, say, the last 10 years. But, I’ve always found it fairly compelling to say Rudy Giuliani was one of the most successful conservatives of his era; if we exclude a fairly large segment of conservatism. Rudy wasn’t abysmal on social issues, in terms of actual action, but he wasn’t terribly impressive either. And for me, that’s a strike against him. But, I’ve the Prince of the City, and I’ve studied the Broken Windows theory. And Rudy Giuliani did some terrific things for NYC, without question.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:15 pm
Marksal, but you didn’t answer the question. Why do you think investors at Intrade are not dumping Rudy?
December 7th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
Matt, the fact that he did not act much on a small segment of conservatism does not deny the absolutely massive accomplishments he had in others.
By the way… isn’t crime a social issue?
December 7th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
#36 – “He hasn’t had a new message or major endorsement in ages.”
David Keene – Endorsed Romney 11/29 . . But that was “ages” ago. According to your logic, we still have “ages” until the caucuses. I guess that means Rudy will be waiting “ages” until he starts releasing his warehouse of ads/endorsements.
New message – Does his Faith in America speech count as a new message?? I think that was a pretty compelling message, and I am curious as to when Rudy/Huck/McCain or any other candidate out there has come out with a newer “message” than the one delivered so eloquently by Romney the other day.
Metro, you are quickly making yourself a laughing stock on this site (If you aren’t there already in some others eyes). Please calm down a bit, and realize that you are a RudyBot to the same extent you accuse Romney supporters of being RomBots, and your logic is just as flawed as you claim theirs to be.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
And if there was some obscure Republican mayor of a small city who had an amazing record… that would compare to turning around New York City? The 3rd largest government in the U.S.? 85% Democratic? Having to fight and beat the NYT on a daily basis?
December 7th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
Metro, I think “they” are not dumping him because they are behind the curve, like most crowds.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
SGS,
“there always was a few comments about how they seeded their polls with more Democrats than Republicans, to skew the results left. Am I wrong?”
You’re absolutely NOT wrong. But just about every pollster does that. I used to argue the same point, but after 2006 there is no guarantee that the number of Democrats at the polls won’t outnumber the number of Republicans. 2004 was the only year where the numbers were equal and previous GOP wins came from doing well with Independents. I’m not saying I take this poll to be the final word and it might well be an outlier. I just think that Newsweek is no better or worse than ABC/Wapo, CBS/NYT, NBC/WSJ, AP-Ipsos, Fox or any other media commissioned poll.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:20 pm
Jared, I’m not a RudyBOT, inasmuch as I’ve taken him to task at times, like last night, on global warming… or a couple weeks ago, on attacking Romney on his Sanctuary Mansion rather than effectively dealing with his own record on illegals.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:20 pm
Metro,
I’d wager they’re not dumping Rudy, because they’re still trying to assimilate this Huckabee thing. Alot of people lost a bunch of money when the lunatics pushed Fred into first on Intrade, earlier this year. And there’s probably a feeling that maybe Huck’s rise is sort of like that; bound to fizzle. Which is why he’s having a hard time crossing 20. If you think there’s a 30% chance someone will totally collapse, you’re going to be reluctant to push them above a certain point. And while people may feel anxious about Rudy, they don’t see anybody other then Huck who’s “on the ascendancy” who they might buy instead. It’s a holding period. My guess is, unless Rudy has a very good debate performance next week, he’s going to be below 35 before Christmas, and perhaps as low as 25-29.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
Marksal,
McCain will benefit from a Romney collapse and could easily pull out a win. Then its he and Huckabee in SC. So not a bad bet.
SGS,
And no poll can reflect a candidate’s organization and apparently Huckabee’s is one of the worst (although I guess he can count on churches).
December 7th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
Marksal, not a convincing argument. Intrade numbers move within minutes of new polls, endorsements, scandals, etc. Trust me, I’ve tried to stay ahead of that curve, and it’s not easy.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
#42 – Hucks rise is by and large due to the fact that he has been an unknown, and until this point there was no candidate to fill the gaping hole Fred left when he went on vacation during the campaign season. Huck “meteoric” rise is hardly something that will take place with Rudy. He has been EXPECTED to win since this thing began, and all I have seen is a drop across the board. Please show me 1 poll in the last month where Rudy’s #’s have gone up. IS there such a poll??
December 7th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
Feltcher, why would you say that? There is minimal overlap between McCain and Romney.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
Metro, I’m a Romney guy, and for a long time (though not anymore) Rudy was my second choice. I saw firsthand in New York how excellent he was as mayor, but I have decided the GOP needs at least a moderate-right conservative on social issues to keep the party together. So now my second choices are Thompson and McCain.
However, if the race comes down to Rudy vs. Huckabee, I will support Rudy enthusiastically. Huckabee is such a lightweight on the issues that he makes me sick. Here’s my question for you: Given that Mitt’s temperament is obviously more libertarian than Huckabee’s, will you support Mitt if the GOP race comes down to Mitt vs. Huckabee?
December 7th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
Jared, scrolling thru the Pollster graphs, Rudy’s been moving up in NV and FL. Although RCP contradicts the FL rise.
The reason is that he his holding back. He wants to peak the first week of January, not the first week of December.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
Marksal,
Nah, he’ll take his ball home.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
Metro,
I have given you the benefit of the doubt that you are just a zealous Rudy supporter, just as I am a zealous Romney supporter. I too don’t think I am a RomBot, so let’s bring the conversation back down to logical levels. This poll, especially with the smaller sample and MOE, HARLDY gives IA to Huck with that degree of margin of victory. At least you can agree with me there, that this poll seems a little “off” at best. I agree with SGS and others, let’s see how the polls look with larger samples of voters, and smaller MOE’s over the next week. I will eat crow if I have to, and I would expect the same of you. Deal?
December 7th, 2007 at 8:26 pm
Metro,
Did you notice that Rudy is only 1 point ahead of Ron Paul in this poll? I’ve tried to explain the concept of negative momentum previously, but you’ve never indicated you have any clue about it. Let me ask you this: What would finishing 5th in Iowa do to Rudy’s chances of winning later on? Do you really think that Mitt finishing in 2nd place in Iowa would hurt him more than Rudy’s finishing 5th in Iowa would hurt him? How is Rudy immune to negative momentum? Also, what does Mitt have to do to beat expectations in Iowa now? My guess, on this last question, is not much.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:26 pm
Feltcher,
“although I guess he can count on churches”
He most definitely can. I’m not just saying that because I want Huck to win (I don’t want him to win). But after looking at some of the past results of the caucus (Pat Robertson at 25 % for second place in 1988) I have to think that the GOTV of the Evangelicals will surpass anything Romney can cook up. Especially since Evangelicals have only further consolidated their standing in the GOP over the last twenty years.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:26 pm
If it comes down to Mitt vs. Huck, I won’t be voting GOP in either case, so I wouldn’t care about the primary.
So… Matt’s right.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
Jared, even if this poll has the spread too high, Huck’s winning IA. The curve is too steep. The Intrade numbers. The post by Rich Lowry from IA insiders. Etc.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
I will mark down on my calendar to watch that 1st week of December and I will withhold any further comments that attack Rudy. I challenge you to do the same regarding Romney until AFTER IA. Can you do that? Your logic assumes that Rudy is the only one holding back until the last week. And following that logic, let’s both agree to not bash the other’s candidate until we see what happens AFTER 1/3/08. Deal?
December 7th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
Dave, because nobody’s expected Rudy to win or place in IA. You only get negative momentum if you’ve created the wrong expectations game for yourself.
In the interest of objectivity, I have admitted several times in the last week that, not to any credit of his own, Mitt is now positioned PROPERLY in the Iowa expectations game.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
Jared, but I can’t help but bashing Romney.
No worries though, I’m doing a lot less of it now that he’s going to lose Iowa.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
For a chuckle
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/215/gallery/22475-a22724-t3.html
December 7th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
I agree that Huck winning IA is becoming more and more likely, but I disagree that it will destroy Mitt’s hopes in NH and beyond. I think BECAUSE the person winning in IA is Huck, that the rest of the party will tend to dimiss a victory there as a “Religious Protest” vote. I may be wrong here, and can accept the fact that I am if that is the case, but If I lived in NH and I was listening to the tone of Huck’s campaign a la “I am God’s choice” I would be more prone to dismiss a win there due to the large Evangelical vote that will be cast there. I would be more likely to say, “Well that just shows that those Evangelicals came out in droves supporting one of their own” You catch my drift?? Again, I could be wrong, and I have a tendency to take the role of Devil’s advocate sometimes, but it is worth considering.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
Hey Matt, on the original topic, apparently McCain said today he would drop out if he did not win NH outright. Presumably that would accompany his endorsement of Rudy, and the bandwagon would begin to stop Huck. Fred would join. Then Mitt.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:35 pm
Jared, I think you are right and Huck will not get a major bounce in NH. However, I think Mitt may be seen as damaged goods by a number of voters, and Rudy is the 2nd choice of most Mitt voters in NH.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:35 pm
#69 – I see
All in all, I appreciate your views Metro, I just know when I tend to spew nonsense in support of my candidate out of excitement, and I have a pretty good sense of when that is happening with someone else. Today was definitely a blow to Romney in IA, regardless of the MOE etc, because this is the story that the MSM is going to headline, and not the great speech that Romney delivered the other day. It may have muted the upside of Romney’s speech. I still think though that Romney will finish strongly in IA, and that he will win in NH. We’ll see.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
“I think BECAUSE the person winning in IA is Huck, that the rest of the party will tend to dimiss a victory there as a “Religious Protest†vote”
But if Huck wins IA, what happens to Romney’s chances in SC?
December 7th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
What we are seeing now is a wide-open race. Everyone is milling around within 10% of each other. As we have seen in the past few weeks, 10% means almost nothing.
So we fall back to the old “Three tickets out of Iowa, Two out of New Hampshire.” Giuliani is currently third in Iowa and second in New Hampshire. As of now, he is in the running to get two of those all important tickets.
If he gets third in Iowa and only third in New Hampshire, he will not be the nominee. The odds are just too great. He will be considered damaged goods and will have nowhere to go.
No one has ever placed worse than second in New Hampshire and gone on to win it. No one. People lose interest in you. You become yesterday’s news. Endorsements flee. Money dries up. Crowds disappear. The media assigns their “A” and “B” teams to your competitors. You’re lucky if they send you their “C” team.
No, Metro, it’s not fair, but who said life was fair? Your man HAS to get those two tickets out of Iowa and New Hampshire or he is finished. Sorry, but dem’s the rules. Cry, moan, curse, scream, rail against fate all you want. It makes no difference. Welcome to life. Welcome to reality.
By the same token, Huckabee can win Iowa, but if he can’t get that second ticket out of New Hampshire, he will be considered a flash-in-the-pan. He will certainly be in a better position than Giuliani who hasn’t won anything — a win is a win after all. But many a shooting Iowan star has flamed out in New Hampshire.
So now we are down to bare-knuckles, raw strategy. Gather popcorn, everyone, and enjoy the show.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
Metro, got a link for the McCain “dropping out” quote?
December 7th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
marK, experts like Michael Barone say that the 3tix/2tix is not an iron-clad rule.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
#75
I think that SC would also go to Huck if Huck were to win IA, but I think if Romney can hold on and win in NH, that he will go on to win NV, MI, and WY. That is a lot of headlines that will read, “Romney wins”. That may be hard for Huck to defeat even with a win in IA. I think SC will come down to how close of a race IA is, and how well Romney does in the other states prior to SC.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
Marksal, will try to find it after dinner. Someone posted it in a thread earlier today. Back in a bit.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
marK,
Great assessment! I agree with how you break it down, which is why I feel Rudy’s approach of untested paths to the White House is the riskiest strategy to take, and in arguably one of the tightest primaries in decades. If Rudy does have this treasure chest of endorsements/new messages, he had better start whipping them out now, or it will be too late I think.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:43 pm
metro’s irrational exuberance is funny to watch. he sees the world only through his rudy goggles. comments like the one made in 23 are priceless. ‘ever’
I don’t think that people are taking into account the fact that when mccain drops out after getting second in new hampshire, a lot of that support will flow to mccain. this makes it a romney and rudy battle for the ‘rational’ voters (those not voting for God’s candidate pers se)yes i am referring to hucakbee, just ask him, heis God’s candidate. i think i just threw up.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
#82 – “yes i am referring to hucakbee, just ask him, heis God’s candidate. i think i just threw up.”
ROFL
December 7th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
marksal,
McCain did not say he would definitely drop out; only that it was evident that he had to do very well (1st or close second) in order to continue. He said this in an interview on Fox this afternoon.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
why does metro keep refering to mittas ‘damaged goods.’ i can think of a lot of reasons why Rudy would better fit that category….. alot
refusedto disclose ties to the sheik his company was helping
hid his security expenses provided to protect him while he was cheating on his second wife (or third wife, harto keep track).
the fact that he is dropping in every early state accept florida.
the fact that his national leadis down to 7 points
appointed a criminal to homeland security…
damaged goods indeed.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
I can’t imagine why McCain would drop out after finishing second or third in NH and endorse somebody (Rudy) who quite likely finished below him. Wouldn’t McCain endorse somebody who had finished above him in Iowa and NH?
December 7th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
McCain did not say anything about an endorsement. That is in metro’s fantasy. I think he might wait to see what happens in SC.
On the subject of endorsements, at this point I think only a couple meaningful ones remain, such as Colin Powell. And everyone knows he favors McCain.
December 7th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
[...] Matthew Miller over at race42008 doesn’t think too much of Ruffini’s analysis. What Miller doesn’t remember are three states in different areas of the country where Giuliani is strong and where GOP Convention delegate numbers are many: New York, Illinois and California. Rudy will make it to February 5th. The question is will be who will be there with him? Previous: [...]
December 7th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Problem for Rudy is that he’s not gaining points as Romney tanks and Huckabee rises. Thompson and Romney supporters, fed up with the pseudo-conservatism of those two, will certainly not move to Rudy.
http://www.political-buzz.com/
December 7th, 2007 at 9:21 pm
86, based on McCain’s temperament and ego, he won’t endorse anyone.
December 7th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
Metro, two points about Florida that aren’t often mentioned. Floridians will be able to vote in the primary as early as January 14th, which is the same day as the Michigan primary, and 11 days before the SC primary. Also, the other item on the Florida primary ballot is a yes/no on Governor Crist’s property tax overhaul plan.
December 7th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
Huckabee’s poll numbers, if confirmed, will shock a lot of Iowans who are turned off by Huckabee, and they’re not all currently Romney people by any stretch. Since Romney is the only guy anywhere close to Huckabee, a number of people will head Mitt’s way as a means of stopping Huckabee. If Romney can get close enough, he will win on organization. Mitt has already headed back to Iowa. It might be tough, but he won’t write off the state, and if the equal and opposite reaction is strong enough, the caucuses might still be salvageable. The big unknowable is, of course, how many people are in that category. The other big unknowable is what Huckabee’s ceiling is….I think he must be close to it.
December 7th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
There is a month left, an eternity. But if I were advising Romney I would tell him to secure his firewall. I’d also send someone down to Arkansas to snoop around.
December 7th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
Matthew,
I agree with your assessment. The notion that Rudy’s support in Feb. 5 states is somehow invincible seems crazy to me. The viability issue is always important, and if Rudy hasn’t won a state BEFORE Florida, even his Feb. 5 and Florida supporters will notice. I don’t know why people think he gets a free pass to Florida with no possible negative consequences. “Everyone else has to win to survive but not Rudy.”
Why? Because he’s running second nationally?
BTW, the Newsweek Iowa poll shows that Paul might beat Rudy, and knock him down to FIFTH in Iowa!
Rudy could be facing a fifth in Iowa and a fifth in New Hampshire. If he’s fifth in Iowa, the fifth in New Hampshire becomes more likely. If that happens, Rudy won’t even see South Carolina, much less Florida.
December 7th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
Dave,
“Huckabee’s poll numbers, if confirmed, will shock a lot of Iowans who are turned off by Huckabee, and they’re not all currently Romney people by any stretch. Since Romney is the only guy anywhere close to Huckabee, a number of people will head Mitt’s way as a means of stopping Huckabee. ”
You guys are getting more and more fanciful in your wishful thinking.
Face it, Romney is facing a desperate situation in Iowa, which is prompting such desperate hopes and “predictions.”
December 7th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
Feltcher, the digging has commenced.
http://www.arktimes.com/blogs/arkansasblog/2007/02/hard_driving.aspx#comment-75621
December 7th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
I wouldn’t say desperate, MWS, but then you will notice I’m not scrounging for every possible Romney rosy scenario, either.
“Three tickets out of Iowa. Two out of New Hampshire.” It is a wide-open race.
December 7th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
Now that Mitt succeeded in getting national attention, wonder how he’ll hold up to national media scrutiny?
Seems he was sounding a tad combative today, first off by smacking down questions about The Speech, and then by passing the buck on his very own, personally vetted and approved, gardening contractor for his Better Homes and Gardens.
You’d think after basking in the glory of gushing press coverage for his lackluster speech, he’d be bending over and puckering up to some more major media cheek. Where’s the love, Mitt?
December 7th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
I don’t think a Romeny loss in Iowa hurts him in a huge way in NH. The theory behind momentum is that people hear about a candidate winning in an earlier state, and then move to that candidate either because he looks good, or because they like his ideas (which are getting more publicity at that point).
The idea that Romney supporters would jump ship to anybody other than the winner of the Iowa Caucus really can’t be backed up, and the idea that throngs of NH voters would jump ship to Huckabee is not backed up by their general positions (Conservative fiscally, indifferent socially).
Lets consider the following situation:
Huckabee wins Iowa, and Romney comes in second. Romney is still leading in New Hampshire at that point, and by at least 12%. Why would a Romeny supporter, in that situation, jump to McCain or Giuliani?
December 7th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
MWS,
It is obviously true that there are people in Iowa who are turned off by Huckabee and who are not currently in Mitt’s camp, or strongly wedded to anybody else’s camp. Will this be enough to put Mitt over the top? I have no idea. I don’t even know if it will be a major factor or a minor factor….but if I was guessing, I would guess it’s significant. Huck’s big rise tends to unite his potential opposition against him. He becomes something of a boogey man. A fear factor gets generated. Momentum gets changed. Let’s see how it plays out. I’m curious.
December 7th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
Lookit: Here Mitt refuses to acknowledge that a Boardroom Jockey ever bears any responsibility for any decisions made by his underlings even on his own personal estate. And his Lordship, er, Gov. Romney does not appear to brook any impertinent questioning from the lesser, laboring classes!
December 7th, 2007 at 10:53 pm
They played that on CNN. Not a good moment, but maybe he got a preview of the newsweek poll.
December 7th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
No, I would not say that Romney is desperate yet. If he fails to win Iowa, it will be a blow, but certainly not a knockout blow. Romney has prepared defensive positions he can fall back to. There’s New Hampshire for starters. If he fails there, he still has Michigan and/or South Carolina to fall back on. No, he isn’t desperate…Yet.
No, the person probably feeling the most desperate right now is Giuliani. His whole strategy was to go into the primaries with a commanding lead in the national polls. This buffer would allow him to give up ground through the early states, and then counterattack starting with Florida. Well, the latest polls show him fallen down into the rest of the pack. His buffer is gone. He no longer has any ground he can give up. Where before he could say that he didn’t have to worry about momentum, now he is just a mere mortal subject to the 3Tix/2Tix rule just like everyone else.
December 7th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
rudy is the only chance republicans have, anyone else loses to the dems by a landslide. romney will lose around 40 states, and huck might lose all 50. president huckleberry? gimme a break. romney be nothing more then a stepping stone for barrack hussein or hillary. he is a weak and boring, and no one likes him. after spending more then everyone by leaps and bounds, he’s 10% nationaly. mitt will likely mean not only a dem president by a 60 vote fillibuster proof senate for the dems. its rudy or the dems win. thats the only scenario that matters.
December 7th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
Iowa evangelicals may respond differently from southern evangelicals. One, approximately 20-30% of Iowans are one-issue value voters, who tend to vote conscience rather than electability. 2) Romney can write off a close Iowa loss to anti-Mormon sentiment. This will help him in NH as voters identify with Mitt and vote against values voters. 3) Southern evangelicals will have had the benefit of three elections, including possibly 2 Mitt wins. For southerners, nothing overcomes religious bigotry like momentum and electability. 4) Southerners will have had time to absorb Huckabee’s liberal record. So just because evangelicals go for Huck en masse in Iowa doesn’t mean he will get the same crowd in SC.
December 7th, 2007 at 11:14 pm
I’d like to see Mitt start out-populisming Huckabee. Huck is supposed to be a populist, but he sides with illegals and rapists over American citizens??!? Where is the candidate who is going to put American interests first? Mitt is right on the issues, but he hasn’t turned this around on the other candidates yet. All the candidates, with the exception of Rudy have been willing to sell us out. Our sons and daughters are dying fighting for ungrateful foreigners in Iraq, but our own citizens with concealed weapons permits can’t bring their lawfully obtained weapon into a mall to defend themselves when these shooting rampages occur? Where is Huckabee on gun control? What does the Jesus juice tell him on that issue? Huck wants to control CEO pay. How about something realistic, like meaningful market-based health care reform?
December 7th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
Giuliani is unacceptable. Period. Treating the city treasury as his personal bank account and the NYPD as a chauffer service for his mistress sounds like something from a banana republic.
December 7th, 2007 at 11:27 pm
Asparagus,
1) Mitt isn’t a populist.
2) The recent poll in North Carolina showed a massive gain for Huckabee.
3) The poll that just came out in South Carolina showed Huck jumping from 10% to #1.
4) Mitt isn’t in any danger in New Hampshire.
5) Iowa could help Mitt win Michigan because Huckabee won’t play well there.
6) Your point about giving Southerners time to absorb Huck’s liberal views while Mitt is winning in New Hampshire and Michigan is spot on.
7) It would be a lot better to start reversing Huckmania in Iowa.
December 7th, 2007 at 11:27 pm
As I stated elsewhere, do Rudy, McCain, and Huck fans realize that early voting in NH starts monday. This at a time when he has a lead by 15.7% in RCP, and some polls show him up by 19%. This after he gave what some are calling the best speech of this campaign season, or several previous. A speech that got praise from almost everyone.
I think he will do well in IA, and that Club for Growth ads, along with the effects of the speech will bring Romney back into a tie in IA going into Jan 3. But I think Romney will win NH regardless because he is ahead by a mile at a time when his supporters can start voting. How does Rudy counter the Mitt machine in NH bringing his supporters to the polls.
December 7th, 2007 at 11:28 pm
ROFLMAO, #100 MarkG.
you are so determined to smear that you have lost all perspective.
December 7th, 2007 at 11:34 pm
So here’s my prediction. IA could be won by either Mitt or Huck, it will be close whatever the outcome. Huck gets momentum. Rudy a distant 3rd. Thompson 4th, McCain 5th.
NH will be won by Mitt by double digits because of very strong early voting. Mitt gains momentum. McCain gets 2nd, but is broke after NH and drops out. Rudy 3rd, Paul 4th, Huck 5th, Thompson 6th.
The outcome of that will be lots of momentum for Mitt, and end for McCain and Thompson. Paul will remain Paul. And Rudy start to become irrelevant. Mitt should follow with wins in IA and MI, and bring the showdown to SC where Huck and Mitt face off one more time. Mitt wins NV, but SC becomes anyones guess. My guess is that Rudy will do so poorly in IA and NH, and take such heat, that he will do what he has always shown to do. When he took it on the chin this year from Mitt on any turf (IA, Ames, NH, etc), he has always walked away from the challenge. Rudy will bail on MI, SC, and NV seeing his momentum slip and focus solely on Florida (in vain). Romney wins Florida I think.
Am I wrong? Where?
December 8th, 2007 at 12:34 am
I’m concerned that Mitt is going to try and go negative to bring down Huckabee’s numbers. When 89% of your supporters are firmly committed to you, no amount of negative campaigning is going to sink you. I’d like Mitt to spend December returning to the stump speech that earned him the lead in the summer- a strong economy, a strong military, and strong families. At the same time, go negative against the Congress who have failed to confront our nation’s priorities. He’s been successful in bringing Guiliani down to the rest of the field. Now he needs to return to Iowa, stay on message and outwork Huckabee. He may still not win, but if he’s there every day for the next month, he’ll take 2nd and everyone will wink at Huckabee and say, well, its just those value voters. Huckabee will continue to be marginalized on talk radio by Lara Ingraham and Rush(?), etc.. Huck will continue to make gaffes like intimating that God wants him to win, so there’s no need for Mitt to go negative in Iowa.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:43 am
asparagus, it’s well known in politics that Iowans (upper Midwesterns, technically) absolutely hate negative campaigning. Mitt went negative on everybody in the last debate. Huck cracks jokes. Should it be any surprise Mitt’s being swamped by Huck in Iowa? It’s his own damn fault!
He ignored the peaking to early rule, ignored the expectations game, why should we be surprised he’s ignored Iowa’s #1 rule?
And given all that, how the heck do people fall for the line that Mitt is a brilliant strategist? As Jay Cost recently wrote, his campaign is the most amateurish of all.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:44 am
husky, you’re wrong in so many places I don’t know where to start. Look at #9 for an example of being honest and objective rather than pollyannaish regarding your candidate.
You’d think given what just happened to Mitt’s “ironclad” lead in Iowa, you’d have learned that lesson.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:54 am
Metro
How would you handle Huck if you were Mitt? Is evangelical support for Huck so strong that attacks on immigration, taxes, and Huck’s tendency to pardon violent criminals will be as effective as bullets against Superman? In other words, would you be making a play to solidify NH, rather than spend time in Iowa? How do you control the spin after a Huck win?
December 8th, 2007 at 12:56 am
To 114:
Yes, but he has Hugh Hewitt. So that counts for something.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:57 am
asparagus, I hate Mitt so much I would not volunteer my advice in a public forum.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:12 am
In an ordinary election year, Mitt would be forced to negative on Huckabee to avoid the disastrous MSM spin that would result. But as John Lennon said, “So this is Christmas”. He can’t go negative at Christmas. It would ruin all the good his speech has done him. I suggest he stay positive and continue to turn heads after his historic speech.
As for Mitt and Rudy, they are quite alike, in fact. The big difference is that as a former prosecutor, Rudy reaches a conclusion (this guy is guilty) and builds a case for that outcome. Mitt as a management consultant says “Show me the data” and then we’ll come to a conclusion. I think these strategies are being played out in the campaign. What data could Rudy have possibly used to justify waiting until Florida to win a state? Neither candidate is perfect, but I agree with others that Rudy is making a mistake in getting into bed with Huckabee in Iowa. I agree with your position that Rudy should relish a one-on-one fight with Mitt. He is such a skilled debater and comes off really authentic. Unfortunately, it doesn’t look like that is going to happen. Who could foresee that God would intervene and raise up a “Christian leader”??
December 8th, 2007 at 2:19 am
Metro,
Sounds like a personal problem.
December 8th, 2007 at 3:16 am
Unless Rudy finishes second or better in NH or Michigan I don’t see him any competitive state afterwards.
The media has been ignoring him since Mitt’s speach and Huckabee’s rise. If the story out of IA is Mitt or Huckabee and the story after that is two people other than Rudy versus each other than by the time Rudy comes to Florida he will have been ignored by the media for 3 weeks as a failed 2008 version of Steve Forbes (circa 1996). Rudy’s lack of charisma makes it hard for him to get positive attention without buying it.
December 8th, 2007 at 4:45 am
On #100 which posed the question: why would a Romney lose in Iowa cause a Romney voter to switch to Rudy or McCain.
Two reasons.
First, some NHites might have viewed this as a Romney/Rudy race. Romney loses Iowa to Huckabee it’s more clear it’s and it’s a wide open race. That’s a reason someone might switch from Romney to McCain and I think part of McCain’s recent bump in NH has to do with Huckabee’s surge in Iowa.
Second, some NHites might vote Romney because they think he’s electable / a winner. They see his large leads in the early states and think this is someone who can beats Hillary. He then loses to “no money no organization” Huckabee and he is thus diminished. That would be a reason a Romneyite might switch to Guiliani or McCain.
December 8th, 2007 at 4:46 am
On #121. EGS wins the award for silliest comment of the night. Rudy has no charisma??? Where did that come from?
December 8th, 2007 at 8:15 am
Dave,
” Huck’s big rise tends to unite his potential opposition against him. He becomes something of a boogey man. A fear factor gets generated. ”
I think the bubble we “live in” here on Race42008 may be misleading. Most of us here are hyper, over the top, committed voters (like me). I don’t think there is a big group of people out there rabidly opposing Huckabee. Not like there is here. I doubt anybody has run a poll like this, but I don’t think the “anybody but Huck crowd” would be much more than 10%.
December 8th, 2007 at 8:18 am
EGS,
I think your #121 os spot on, except for the part about Rudy’s charisma. I think he has lots of charisma. I’ll never vote for him, but he seems like a neat guy to sit next to at a bar, or Thanksgiving dinner. But more to your point, all the charisma in the world won’t help him if he isn’t getting attention, and on that point, you are right. Rudy is kind of the odd man out right now. And short of wearing his SNL drag outfit while delivering a speech in front of the J Edgar Hoover building, I don’t know how he gets it back.
December 8th, 2007 at 9:00 am
Rudy will try tomorrow on MTP. Here is what I expect him to say. First, the world is calmer but not safe or at peace. The “surge,” the NIE report saying Iran stopped its nuclear program in 2003, and relative calm in Pakistan has allowed the focus of the campaign to turn to domestic issues. Giuliani will say that is the same attitude that prevailed before, yes, 9-11.
Second, Giuliani will of course say its no time to raise taxes or impose “socialized medicine.” I think Russert will call him on this. Also, I will be interested to see if Giuliani agrees with Bush’s socialist mortgage plan.
The tough part of the interview will concern the security billing records. Giuliani’s response at the debate that everything was done properly will not fly. Russert will ask, “Was it fair for NYC taxpayers to pay to chauffeur and protect both your wife and your mistress at the same time?” Ouch. He gets hit with marital and fiscal infidelity.
December 8th, 2007 at 9:06 am
MWS,
I ran a poll here long before Huck starting getting all this attention (and criticism). Huck was the last choice of more then 1/3rd of Race42008′ers. A higher then Rudy. Well over half had him in last or second to last. Redstate had a similar poll, with even worse findings for Huckabee; with Huck getting nearly half of the last place votes. That sounds like “anybody but Huck to me”. And if I had to guess, if we did that poll again, at least 2/3’s of the people not currently supporting Huckabee would have him in dead last, and more then half of that 2/3’s wouldn’t vote for him in a general election. I think I have a pretty good sense of the pulse of race42008, and other online sites, and Huckabee is dead last just about everywhere outside of DailyKos.
December 8th, 2007 at 10:23 am
MWS,
The question isn’t so much how many “anybody but Huck” people there are now, but how many there will be in 3 1/2 weeks. Most of Huckabee’s supporters have come to him in the last 2 or 3 weeks. How committed could they be? Fred’s support was super committed, and look what happened to it. Right now, Huck is the man to beat, but there is always a lot of volatility in the last weeks before the caucuses….just ask President Dean.