The Candidates
Featured Archives
Rudy made an accident. It happened on two levels: strategically and tactically. On the strategic side, Rudy’s plan to wait for a win until Florida was a huge mistake. Pat Buchanan said it best:
Whoever thought up this strategy is the kind of guy who plays Russian roulette with four bullets in the chamber.
That is an apt description. Why? Because just as a game of Russian roulette with four bullets in the chamber relies on something out of your control to decide your destiny, so does a strategy that consists of hoping no one will emerge as leader from the early state primaries and caucuses. Hoping that Romney, Thompson, and others would split the early states was not a plan, it was a roll of the dice.
Where the miscalculations of the early states proved to be a high-risk gamble, the tactical mistake of pushing Huckabee was indeed an err of hubris. It was born out of the idea that Guiliani was an institutional front-runner, today’s Florida Rasmussen poll shows he clearly is not.
The Rudy campaign made two deep miscalculations of what the American electorate’s response to Huckabee would be. They figured Huckabee, a social conservative, would pull from Mitt’s social conservative crowd. They also figured that it would be minimal, only in Iowa, and perhaps somewhat in South Carolina. They were utterly wrong.
In fact Huckabee supporters turned out to have two characteristics that Giuliani underestimated 1. Hard Core Evangelicals, 2. People who prefer rhetoric to substance. In fact neither of these groups were likely Romney supporters. People who like Romney love concrete answers and details. They love the efficiency of his whole persona. Romney’s supporters aren’t worried about a Gordon B. Hinckley puppet president, or at least they don’t view their vote in a Republican primary as a Christian war against a secularist MSM.
Hard-core Evangelicals never preferred Rudy, but rhetorical carnivores did. They fell in love with the guy who put Ron Paul in his place, and found it just as easy to fall in love with the preacher who joked of Jesus not being in politics. Then they gave added legitimacy for the Evangelicals.
In the end (or at least three weeks prior to it) we see that the tactical err on Guiliani’s part of giving up the rhetorical loving voting population in Iowa was the impetus that drove Huckabee’s Evangelical base to him. This tactical error is what exposed the strategical disaster you and I have come to know as the Guiliani Campaign.
December 14th, 2007 at 7:42 pm
Jason,
Not Robertson. Thas was buchanan.
December 14th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
Yeah, saw that and fixed it right away.
December 14th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
I have to agree with you Jason (but let’s leave Gordon B. Hinckley out of this
)
The question now becomes, will these two constituencies be enough for Huck to win a few early states, then Florida? If so, heaven help us all.
December 14th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
Freudian slip with Pat Robertson, eh Jason?
You know, he’s the Rudy endorser.
December 14th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
and now because of it, we’re stuck with suckabee. thanks a lot rudy!
December 14th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
I posted this in the prior thread, but it actually belongs here.
You know, I’ve been thinking about this on and off all day. Isn’t this (tomorrow) a strange time to pick for a “major†speech? Most of the Sunday papers’ stories will be already set. Monday’s political stories (both print and TV/Radio) will be focused either on Mitt’s MTP performance (whether it’s good or bad) or on the scandal du jour from the Huckabee camp.
This just strikes me as another in a series of campaign missteps by Rudy. Am i wrong?
December 14th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
There’s another aspect of this that Rudy’s campaign completely whiffed on.
What happens if Huckabee starts picking up steam in the early states? Not only does he pull Rudy’s rhetorical carnivores away (love that phrase), but the thought of President Huckabee freaks out some of Rudy’s stronger supporters into lining up behind someone who can compete with Huckabee pre-Feb5.
December 14th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
Murphy,
Well they do “eat” it up and they will “swallow” anything.
December 14th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
Jason,
I wonder how much overlap there is between rhetorical carnivores and the “I-wanna-win” crowd. I imagine there are a bunch of rhetorical herbivores who might migrate to Huckabee for no reason other than he’s the new frontrunner.
December 14th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
Jason, I think Rudy’s biggest miscalculation, more than two you have mentioned, is that he did not recognize the significance of the pro-life crowd. I mean, we have many of the Republicans who were pro-choicers, and changed to pro-lifer before the POTUS campaign – Reagen and Bush (both), among some. Rudy could have made the compromise, and say, I am personally pro-choicer, but I recognize that pro-life issue is important for you, so I will fight for you on this issue. That’s all he has to do. But he did not. He said he was a pro-choicer, and then go off about how he will appoint judges who MIGHT override a good law, Roe vs Wade.
Also, the other mistake he made was that he did not hammered in his chance earlier this year. We have heard all the time about how much cash on hand he had. He did not go after those who know him early and often, like Mitt. He has been busy campaigning, true, but mostly, it was private fund raising events. There were not much of interactions with the regular voters until late summer. He had the opportunity to hit it home, but he waited too long.
December 14th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
As a Giuliani supporter I’ve never been thrilled with his campaign strategy from the get-go. I never thought he would be that competitive in Iowa – it’s a socially conservative electorate and his positions on social issues, with which I agree, are anathema to that voting bloc. But he could have been much more competitive in New Hampshire, Florida and Michigan. He should have ignored Iowa and gone on the air earlier in the other 3 states.
I think Huckabee is a flash-in-the-pan. Maybe he wins Iowa and maybe in South Carolina but in the long run conservatives will come to realize he isn’t an ideal general election candidate. That will leave us with a candidate almost as bad – Mitt Romney.
December 14th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
Another load of ecstatic Rombotic manure.
Where, pray tell, do you find evidence of Rudy supporting Huckabee? Nowhere.
The Rombocamp is apparently unwilling to admit Mitt’s own miscalculation in having titillated the religious belly of the SoCon base and making it hunger for more. You guys set Mitt up as the aquapedestrian candidate that could be all things to all people with conservative values. And along came Huck and poached this part of his base overnight!
Maybe someone can post a PowerPoint demonstration for you guys finally to comprehend how you and Mitt totally bungled!
December 14th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
#11 Dan – and why is Romney almost as bad as Huckabee? Care to elaborate?
December 14th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
MarkG (#12) How about what Rudy has to said about Huckabee and McCain, unlikely what he has said about Mitt and Fred? Also, there were splash of press everywhere that his supporters had donated to Huckabee. What did he do about it? Nothing. Sometimes, your commitment of support is in omission.
December 14th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
It is understandable that Giuliani would skip Iowa because of the religious vote and NH because its Romney’s backyard. The SC primary is also dominated by socons. So, one can argue that Giuliani was smart not to be his head on the chopping block in those states. He probably also counted on two or three candidates splitting the first few contests and therefore he would remain viable until Florida. So, while his strategy was problematic, its hard to imagine a different one.
December 14th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
Feltcher, #15.
True, but contrast that with Romney who has been everywhere, even in South Carolina which is supposed to be a place he is going to lose.
Romney isn’t afraid of competing in contests where he might lose. Giuliani avoids them.
Draw your own conclusions.
December 14th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
Giuliani doesn’t have Romney’s money. The reason McCain and Thompson won’t be a factor much longer is because they are running out of money. Huckabee also needs money for GOTV and advertising. I suspect that Romney will spend a ton on negative ads in SC against Huckabee.
December 14th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
“Romney isn’t afraid of competing in contests where he might lose. Giuliani avoids them.”
That’s what I said when Rudy announced he was going to skip Ames.
December 14th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
Why can’t Rudy win Florida? He has the money, organization, endorsements, and transplanted New Yorkers. I believe that it’s too early to declare his “Firewall†dead. However, he needs to start regrouping or he is in serious trouble.
Rudy needs to win Nevada in order to build momentum going into Florida.
Remember, Yogi once said “it’s not over till it’s overâ€.
December 14th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
So did I, bj.
December 14th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
Pete#19, True, very true, At this point, the contest is wide open.
Oh, I believe the actual Yogi quote is, “It ain’t over, ’til it’s over”.
December 14th, 2007 at 9:06 pm
What a load of c**p. Has any of the wannabe pundits here ever actually followed a full competitive primary season before this year? History is full of examples of candidates losing a string of states before breaking out and even winning the nomination. Even after the sudden emergence of Huck which showed how poor are predictive abilities of the punditocracy, the wannabe pundits have no shame indulging in the idiotic pontifications once again.
December 14th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
First off, when do you see Kavon or any of the Rudy main posters create a thread to dump on another candidate? (In fact, it violates the agreement Kavon has with the main posters.) But the Mitt minions do it multiple times daily.
What does that say to you, dear reader, about their character?
December 14th, 2007 at 9:17 pm
Secondly it is such a load of ironic hubris for Romney supporters to say it’s been Rudy rather than Romney who appeal is RHETORIC. Romney is all canned sound bites, and we all know it.
December 14th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
Metro,
Having a rational discussion of the candidates campaign strategy is open here. If Kavon contacts me I will gladly take it down. But I ould see why you would want to stop this kind of discussion.
December 14th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
Thirdly, it’s everyone ELSE’s campaign that could easily get derailed, whereas Rudy has the most room to come back, in the NY area states, in winner-take-all states, in the delegate math, etc.
December 14th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
Colin,
History is full of examples, huh? I will grant you the fact that a candidate can lose the first two in a row and still win. The phrase, “Three tickets out of Iowa, Two out of New Hampshire”, didn’t just appear out of thin air. But I hardly call two in a row a “string”, would you? Now three in a row would be a better string. Would you care to give us an example where a candidate loses the first three in a row and comes back to win the nomination?
December 14th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
I have no problem with this being discussed. But you create a whole thread to dump on another candidate. Multiple times. When have Rudy authors done that to Romney?
December 14th, 2007 at 9:21 pm
Metro,
Didn’t mean to imply this was the end of Rudy, either, just talk about the inherent weakness in his campaign. It’s not a hit peice. I cn see why you are defenive though.
December 14th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
#27. Read up on 1976 Rep. primary season.
December 14th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
Metro,
First, I would say that whatever agreement between Kavon and the frontpagers is between Kavon and the frontpagers. If you have a problem, I suggest you take it up with Kavon. He is very reasonable, other than being a died-in-the-wool Rudy fan, but I won’t hold that against him.
Second, this sort of rhetoric does not become you. It sounds like desperation — which is exactly how the so many of the Romney folks sounded just last week.
So chill dude. Rudy is not finished yet. It is a wide-open race. If he wins, as you have been steadfastly predicting for months and months, you have earned the right to crow all you want. If he loses, then kindly be prepared to eat crow like a man.
December 14th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
Jason, thanks for switching topics, AGAIN. You have a hard time answering questions.
December 14th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
Colin,
Do you have a link on that?
Any others? You did say that “history is full” of them. One in the past forty years is hardly being “full”.
December 14th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
Colin, great example, thanks!!!
December 14th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
#17 feltcher – “rudy doesn’t have the money that romney has” i thought they were neck in neck in fundraising, and rudy talks about how wisely they spend their money?
December 14th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
Defend me as a disingenuous troll, please.
December 14th, 2007 at 9:37 pm
#33. I have posted about this before. I am not about to spoon-feed you again, the point is posters have no business in pontificating without studying the primary races of many years.
December 15th, 2007 at 1:14 am
I’ll say it again,
John McCain could end up the winner of all this uncertainty right now.
Although he for sure isn’t the most loved Republican, he is one of the MOST ELECTABLE and is TOLLERABLE to most of the SoCons and economic Conservatives as well as solid on foreign policy and seeing the light on immigration.
He could well end up the compromise choice.
December 15th, 2007 at 1:39 am
#27: In 1992, Bill Clinton lost the first three events (Harkin won Iowa, Tsongas won New Hampshire, and Kerrey won South Dakota) but still won the nomination.
December 15th, 2007 at 1:42 am
#36: While Rudy has raised slightly more money from other people than Mitt has, and Rudy had considerably more cash on hand at the last reporting date than Mitt, Mitt has access to his personal wealth which is significantly greater than Rudy’s. So if it comes down to “who can spend the most,” Mitt would have the advantage.
December 15th, 2007 at 2:02 am
“Whoever thought up this strategy is the kind of guy who plays Russian roulette with four bullets in the chamber.”
Hey, I’m the lil’ gun controlling liberal Dem here, so what do I know – but how is it that you fit four bullets into a chamber?