GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
This is going to be a tremendously exciting January. It could well be that pollsters will not have sufficient time to track changes in voter perception in the small gap between one primary and another. So, it could be that we won’t be able to predict anything after Iowa (and I have serious doubts that we can accurately predict Iowa).
1. Romney: If I was to pick one to give the edge to, it’d be Romney. In addition to Romney’s superior Iowa organization, both he and Huckabee have had a tough few weeks, but Romney’s already been through the media assassinations. Huckabee’s in his first round of them. It’s hard to say how it will all wash out for him. I’d also point out the obvious: Romney is in the lead, or within the statistical margin of error in both Iowa and New Hampshire, and is polling very strongly in South Carolina and Michigan, where he has strong organizations as well. Add in the money advantage over Huckabee, and Romney wins this near coin-flip.
2. Huckabee: It’s amazing that Huckabee’s momentum and appeal to a wing of the party have carried him far enough to challenge Romney, in spite of the Romney advantages I’ve outlined above. It remains to be seen if his organization is strong enough in Iowa to overcome Romney’s. The real question is, if Huckabee polls surprisingly poorly in Iowa or even if he takes a disappointing second there, does he stay alive until South Carolina after likely poor showings in NH and Michigan, or does his support depart to Romney in the North and Thompson in the South… He’s NEARLY the frontrunner, and the biggest wild card in the race, except maybe for…
3. John McCain: It’s simple really. Everyone knows all his warts already. He has a solid base of support nationwide, and everyone knows he’d win a general election. People dissatisfied with the entire field are increasingly defaulting to him. If he can beat Romney in NH (and if Huckabee beats Romney in Iowa), this could quickly collapse into a two-man race between McCain and Huckabee. Or it might not. So, I guess it’s really not that simple. But, of all the candidates, McCain is the last of them with a plausible, even reasonably likely path to the nomination.
4. Giuliani: Strong national support and name ID are pretty much all he has now. It’s become clear that when people get to know him better, they like someone else more. His “Florida and February 5th” strategy is looking increasingly implausible as he drops to fourth or worse in the early states. It seems unlikely that anyone could survive 5th in Iowa, 4th in NH, 4th in South Carolina, and still win Florida. And, of course, he shares with Huckabee the very real prospect of shattering the conservative coalition - which might not be a bad thing in the long term - though I think that shattering is less likely with Giuliani than with Huckabee, who angers a solid half to 2/3 of the Republican base.
5. Thompson and Ron Paul: It is a sad indictment of how far adrift the party has come that the two candidates with any serious conservative intellectual heft are both supported by a loyal, but relatively small core of the party. Meanwhile, the rest of the field has more support, but has to convince everybody that they will do exactly what everybody knows without a doubt Thompson and Paul would do. Thompson brings to mind 1994. Paul could be the next Goldwater…a man who is himself unable to win the presidency (or in this case the nomination), but whose mere presence on the political landscape could realign the political map for generations. Both of these guys could call their campaign “An Inconvenient Truth,” because they are the only people talking about responsible fiscal policy - Paul with his “War on War and Welfare” and Thompson with his eloquent reminder that we can’t afford welfare, medicare, social security, medicaid, and the military at their current rate of expansion. I weep for the loss of these two.
December 26th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
Looks dead on target to me. You forgot Hunter though. Mind you, so does 98% of the electorate
I still wonder how big the Ron Paul factor will be. If he gets to 10% in Iowa, and 15% in NH he could start to get some serious media attention (”little known congressman defeats America’s Mayor” etc) He won’t win, but as preparation for a 3rd party run its pretty magnificent.
If Huckabee & Clinton were to win. Whats the chances of a Bloomberg/Paul ticket preaching fiscal conservatism? I think its as likely as Bloomberg/Hagel, and Paul certainly would add something to the ticket as VP. The question is, would he take it given Bloomberg’s record…?
December 26th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
I’d rank Romney as #1. He has the most money, he has the largest best-funded organization, he’s good looking. You can’t underestimate how many vacuous people will vote for Romney because he’s a pretty man.
#2 Huckabee- He’s has a sincere message that appeals to working class voters. He’s also appealing to social conservatives who are uncomfortable with the other candidate’s recent social liberalism.
#3 McCain- He’s the beneficiary of Rudy demise. McCain has unassailable honor and integrity. He’s also absolutely got to win NH.
#4a Thompson- He’s got a chance but it’s small.
#4b Rudy- He’s nearly blown his shot. He’s got another week before he’s shut out of any attention. He either begins shock and awe now or he’s not a factor.
December 26th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
I don’t think that Paul would play second fiddle to anyone - except MAYBE Thompson, and I don’t think Thompson would have him.
December 26th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
You know, I figured Paul would be doing better in New Hampshire by now. I had him pegged to get into the 20s about 6 weeks ago.
December 26th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
Giuliani is getting an endorsement in Florida on Friday…..
December 26th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
Here are the primary senarios I have come up with:
S1 S2 S3
IA - Romney IA - Huckabee IA - Romney
NH - Romney NH - Romney NH - McCain
WY - Romney WY - Romney WY - Romney
MI - Romney MI - Romney MI - ???
SC - Romney SC - Huckabee SC - Romney
NV - Romney NV - Romney NV - Romney
FL - Romney FL - Huckabee FL - Romney
S4 S5
IA - Huckabee IA - Huckabee
NH - McCain NH - McCain
WY - Romney WY - McCain
MI - ??? MI - McCain
SC - ??? SC - Huckabee
NV - Romney NV - McCain
FL - ??? FL - Huckabee
December 26th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
D****T!
Sorry about the above mess. That look much better when I was typing it. Let me know if you understand what I was trying to say.
December 26th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
ACT, nice scenario analysis.
Whats clear is that its down to Huckabee/Romney/McCain, with Romney the only player in both Iowa & NH.
I can still see FDT winning this, by getting a top two in Iowa as Huckabee collapses, and then taking a convincing win in SC by picking off Huck’s support. Then he sweeps the south & slowly tidies up in time for the convention. Not likely, as it means Romney & McCain have to kill each other off in NH (ie. win without getting momentum for SC)
December 26th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
I like Michael’s assesment. I was listening to Rush’s show today, and Mark Levin and Hugh Hewitt on the drive home and came to this conclusion…
Huck and McCain are distrusted by too many conservative voices. There is a real opening for an “anyone but McCain and Huck” out there. Each have alienated some of the base. I think Romney fills that void right now, and will remain if he wins IA and NH. If he falters, I think Rudy will be a major player again. Either way, I think there will be a real movement to stop Huck or McCain from getting the nod.
December 26th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
Husky, FDT has a chance to fill that gap if he does well in Iowa. That would make SC the show down make or break state.
I don’t think Rudy will fill it, the winner from a SC race billed as the decider (see 2000, Bush vs McCain) will get too much momentum.
And I don’t think Ron Paul will fill it, no matter how well he does. 15% looks like his ceiling to me.
December 26th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
Lawrence, not only are you wrong but you completely forgot Hillary:
NYC Weather
36° F & Rain
Log in / Register
Newsletter sign up
The Real Star of the G.O.P. Primary: Hillary
by Jennifer Rubin | November 13, 2007 | Tags: PoliticsFred ThompsonHillary ClintonMitt RomneyRudolph Giuliani
This article was published in the November 19, 2007, edition of The New York Observer.
Getty Images
The most influential noncandidate in the Republican presidential primary is not Pat Robertson, Paul Weyrich or any other supposed kingmaker.
It is Hillary Clinton.
She has been a star of the G.O.P story line so far, standing as a reference point for the primary field and recurring theme in the rhetoric of the leading candidates.
Mr. Giuliani’s success in maintaining his front-runner status this fall has been in no small part due to his ability to seize on and magnify Mrs. Clinton’s missteps and turn them into media events.
Whether leaping on her refusal to condemn MoveOn.org’s General Petraeus ad, or creating an online mock-up of her “Baby Bond,� or chastising her for hedging on driver’s licenses for illegal aliens, Mr. Giuliani has jumped at the chance to portray his potential general election opponent as out of touch and unfit for the presidency. His response to a debate moderator who asked him whether he was sufficiently different from Mrs. Clinton on policy issues was a succinct “you gotta be kidding.�
His use of Mrs. Clinton as a foil has delighted the conservative base. It has also allowed him to argue that even if they disagree with some of his policy positions, they should not doubt his willingness to take on their most loathed foe.
Mr. McCain’s recent comeback, meanwhile, has been greatly aided by a debate moment in which he lampooned Mrs. Clinton’s legislative earmark for a Woodstock museum. He parlayed his jibe into campaign ads and a wholesale indictment of the 1960’s counterculture (which still drives conservatives to distraction). Having fun at her expense has a serious purpose for Mr. McCain, establishing him on common ground—and with a common enemy—with conservative primary voters.
Mrs. Clinton has had an impact on the Thompson campaign too, but it has largely been a negative one. In the context of a looming matchup with Mrs. Clinton, Fred Thompson’s candidacy has looked that much more alarming to conservatives looking for a nominee who can actually stop her.
Does he have the energy and the verbal arsenal to go toe-to-toe with the formidable Clinton campaign? His dropping poll numbers indicate that primary voters think not.
But it has become necessary for each of the would-be Republican nominees to set themselves up in contrast to the former first lady. In the wake of Mrs. Clinton’s convoluted performance in the most recent Democratic debate, for example, the Republican candidates were just as quick as her actual primary opponents to seize on her waffling.
And Mr. Giuliani and, more recently, Mitt Romney have each taken to criticizing Mrs. Clinton’s lack of business and administrative experience to bolster their own credentials. Mr. Giuliani reminds voters that Clinton hasn’t has had responsibility for the “safety of others�; Mr. Romney mocks her for never having managed so much as a corner store.
It’s not overstating things to say that even before she has won her own party’s nomination, Mrs. Clinton is reshaping what G.O.P. voters are looking for in their candidate. The result is that the current Republican primary contest is being steered away from usual considerations of ideology and conservative bona fides, and more towards a single, pragmatic question: Who can beat Hillary Clinton?
2 comments
Print
EmailNaughten says:
HILLARY THE LEFTIST PUPPET CANDIDATE
Lacking for a strong real candidate, the dominant Leftist Democrats have run Hillary. The problem is that she has long been observed to be emotionally and intellectually deficient.
Their clever solution is to systematically change her image; under the assumption that the American People are for the most part too simple minded to know the difference between realities and illusions.
To make the Hillary-puppet appear to be compassionate, meticulous studies are made of the social and economic needs of various social and economic goups, such as homosexuals and low income elderly voters. To see who does the research for the emotional Hillary-puppet displays, Google: Mark Penn.
To make the Hillary-puppet appear to be mentally superior, questions must be planted and answers must be rigorously rehearsed. To see who does the research for these brilliant questions and answers, Google: Mark Penn.
The fatal flaw is that the small group of Leftist Democratic masterminds behind this Hillary-puppet Show is just not quite clever enough to successfully pull off their scam. Moral depravity and intellectual bankruptcy are their self-limiting handicaps.
The World is closely watching the American Cultural War; Google: Who Would the World Elect.
November 15, 2007 2:18 PM
replyflag thisreport as spamA.J. (not verified) says:
Subject: Is this the Flip Flop Experience Hillary is claiming to have ???? We need Free and fair trade not a Lobbyist pressured trade agreement , which hillary says she takes Lobbists money so how will we see Trade policy wrote in the future ???
News Clippings 3/30/2007
Bloomberg
Clinton Breaks With Husband’s Legacy on Nafta Pact, China Trade
by: Kristin Jensen & Mark Drajem
One of President Bill Clinton’s enduring legacies was his hard-fought push for trade deals with Mexico and China. His wife is heading in another direction.
Senator Hillary Clinton, the front-runner for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, wonders why the North American Free Trade Agreement is “continuing to drive hundreds of thousands, even millions, of people from Mexico into our country,’ she said in an interview. “We just can’t keep doing what we did in the 20th century.’
Somewhere along the Clintons’ “bridge to the 21st century’ — their 1996 campaign mantra — they parted ways on trade. Bill was a champion of the global economy and prodded Congress to approve Nafta in 1993 and China’s entry into the World Trade Organization in 2001. Hillary, 59, says new deals may need to be put on hold pending a review — an idea she calls “a little timeout.’
Comments like that align her with union members and anti- globalization activists who say U.S. jobs are being sacrificed in the name of free trade. Clinton has expanded her circle of advisers beyond pro-trade associates such as former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, 68, and Deputy Secretary Roger Altman, 60, her top economic adviser, to include AFL-CIO officials and other free-trade critics.
`A Careful Line’
On the stump, she’s more skeptical about globalization’s benefits than her husband was. She “is walking a careful line,’ said Jeff Faux, who supports the idea of a pause in trade deals and is the founding president of the Economic Policy Institute, a labor-affiliated research group in Washington. “There’s a difference between Hillary and Bill on this.’
A moratorium on trade agreements — which would be used to beef up labor and environmental protections and provide more aid for domestic workers displaced by foreign competition — is backed by labor leaders and some economists, who call it a “strategic pause.’
The idea was rejected by Altman and Rubin as detrimental to the American economy at a forum in Washington last year. They didn’t return telephone messages left at their offices.
Clinton’s positioning on trade reflects the changing nature of the debate in the U.S., which increasingly focuses on concerns over outsourcing and the shift of jobs to other nations such as China and India rather than on the benefits of tariff reductions.
Grassroots Sentiment
It also — as with Republicans grappling over illegal immigration — demonstrates the extent to which grassroots sentiment can alter candidates’ platforms.
A Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll conducted in January found 39 percent of Democrats believe free trade hurts the economy; only 18 percent say it is a benefit.
Both parties agree that a backlash on trade helped Democrats in the 2006 elections. West Virginia Senator Jay Rockefeller, a Democrat, said U.S. workers have been “so decimated’ by unfettered competition that “I think the American people understand they will be hit by it.’
Clinton promoted her husband’s trade agenda for years, and friends say that she’s a free-trader at heart. “The simple fact is, nations with free-market systems do better,’ she said in a 1997 speech to the Corporate Council on Africa. “Look around the globe: Those nations which have lowered trade barriers are prospering more than those that have not.’
Praise for Nafta
At the 1998 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, she praised corporations for mounting “a very effective business effort in the U.S. on behalf of Nafta.’ She added: “It is certainly clear that we have not by any means finished the job that has begun.’
Clinton “is committed to free trade and to the growing role of the international economy,’ said Steven Rattner, a Clinton fundraiser and co-founder of Quadrangle Group LLC, a New York buyout firm. “She would absolutely do the right thing as president.’
There was little evidence of a protectionist tilt to Clinton’s trade views during either her 2000 campaign or first years in the Senate. She stressed issues such as homeland security and children’s health care, and wasn’t a major voice in trade-policy debates.
As she began to gear up for a White House run, Clinton became less of a free-trade booster and more skeptical about the payoff of globalization.
Opposing Cafta
She voted against the Central American Free Trade Agreement in 2005, saying the pact lacked strong protections for foreign workers and that President George W. Bush was failing to enforce existing trade laws.
She also joined her New York colleague, Senator Charles Schumer, in backing legislation imposing trade sanctions on Chinese exports unless the government in Beijing agreed to stop holding down the value of the yuan. Last month, she sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke warning about China’s ownership of $350 billion of U.S. debt.
Clinton called on Paulson to adopt a proposal requiring a “plan of action’ to reduce U.S. deficits when foreign-owned debt exceeds 25 percent of gross domestic product or the trade deficit reaches 5 percent of GDP.
In 2006, Clinton helped lead efforts to condemn the purchase of U.S. port facilities by DP World, a company based in Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates. At the same time, her husband was offering advice to Dubai’s leaders, the Financial Times reported.
To help allay suspicions that she’s been hijacked by free- traders from her husband’s team, Clinton asked Thea Lee, the AFL- CIO’s policy director, and Michael Wessel, who had been a top aide of Nafta foe and former House Democratic leader Richard Gephardt, into strategy discussions to debate pro-traders.
Negotiated by Bush
In her interview with Bloomberg, Clinton was careful to describe Nafta as having been negotiated by the administration of President George H.W. Bush “and then pushed through Congress in the Clinton administration.’
Labor leaders, upset about job losses they blame on Nafta, remain suspicious that she is too influenced by Rubin, the vice chairman of Citigroup Inc. and an outspoken foe of protectionism.
“The Rubin wing of the Democratic Party is heading up policy direction’ for the Clinton campaign, said Leo Gerard, president of the United Steelworkers. That’s “going to be an issue’ with union members, he said. “We don’t need more of the same.’
Clinton supporters such as Rattner, 54, say she’s trying to address the underside of globalization as more U.S. jobs move offshore. “We all have to be sensitive to the fact that there is collateral damage,’ he said.
November 23, 2007 10:48 AM
replyflag thisreport as spam
December 26th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
Organization matters, and with a better groundgame and a Huck freefall in the IA polls, with 1 week to go I think Romney has the advantage in IA. Yes things may change, but Huck has had to deal with a full assult from Rush, his fill in, Levin, Hannity, Laura Ingram, and on and on. That will matter enough that I could see Romney steal a win in IA.
NH: Romney needs to hold his lead among the GOP. CNN exit polling from 2000 show McCain winning the independant vote over Bush 61%-19%. That wont happen again. Independants will vote for Hillary, Obama, Rudy, McCain, Romney, Paul, and Huck to the extent that nobody will win enough of them to make a real difference. I suspect Obama and Paul could wind up with the most, but again, nobody will get even 40% of them. So Romney’s organization and strength among the conservative base will beat back the McCain surge and give him the win. If he wins both, and Wyoming, it could be game over for the race!
December 26th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
Well, if Romney wins Iowa, I’m pretty sure he wins NH.
I don’t know, though. I want to see some more polling data before I try to make a prediction.
December 26th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
On #12. This error in citing the 2000 NH primary has occurred too many times. McCain did not win 61% of independants. He won 61% of independants who voted in the Republican primary. There were other independants who voted for Gore and/or Bradely that aren’t factored into that 61% - 19% figure.
December 26th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
JayPe- I agree that if Thompson gets 3rd, and Huck, McCain, and Romney stumble, I could see him surge too. I dont think each will happen. But my point was just that Romney, Rudy, and Thompson are exceptable to many GOP voices. McCain and Huck arent. Many, like Rush and Sean (and many others), have loathed McCain for years. His grandstanding in Sept 06 in the Senate about torture and terrorist rights, might well have cost the GOP the Senate that year. As for Huck, his surge in the polls has brought him a full on frontal assault from many conservatives. I dont think the GOP nominee should be at odds with the club for growth, conservative new media, and many others. Their needs to be a coalition and with Huck or McCain, I dont see that happening. For now, Romney will get the push to defeat both (as he has the best chance to in IA and NH). But if he falters, Rudy or Thompson will be given new life to try to defeat either.
December 26th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
Is TOM in post 11 a new front page poster? Why did he cut and paste an encyclopedia for us. Please use blogging etiquete and either post a link, or paraphrase. HOLY COW!!!!
December 26th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
Michael, I think you are right on, and I would like to add that the rankings between the top 4 are ridiculously close. The rankings can change by the day.
Act, very nice scenarios. Looking at those scenarios, Mitt has the largest room for error. If Huck loses Iowa, he is done. If McCain loses New Hampshire he is done. Mitt feasibly can lose both IA and NH and still win it all starting with a win in Michigan; although not likely. Each candidate has a firewall, a loss there with no previous victory would end all chance:
Huck: IA
McCain: NH
Romney: MI
Fred: SC
Rudy: FL
Ultimately, not only is Mitt the best positioned, he is the best candidate period. He is the kind of candidate that people wish we had in previous elections, yet now that we have him we don’t realize or appreciate it.
December 26th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
Ajay, point made. You are right. My point is just that among all independants, their votes will be segmented among 8 candidates, with nobody (on either side) winning a strong majority. Most independants in 2000 voted in the GOP race, because it was at least competitive and McCain sang their song. They gave him his solid win in 2000. If he is counting on a repeat of that this time, he is sorely mistaken. I dont see him winning enough to overtake Romneys solid support among the GOP there.
December 26th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
#11, TOM, please don’t ever post like that again. Links, man, links.
#17, Swint, well thought out. Romney is a fine candidate, and in previous elections he might have stolen the field. I think we can all agree that we have a wealth of great candidates from which to choose this time around.
December 26th, 2007 at 8:59 pm
Will an administrator please delete comment #11. This guy has never commented her before and the first comment he makes is a 75 paragraph long cut and paste.
Buh bye Tommy boy.
December 26th, 2007 at 9:00 pm
I am not sure that anyone picked up on this, but Romney picked up an endorsement in NH today.
http://www.mittreport.com/nh_whalley_endorsement.html
December 26th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Jared - it was posted on here about 6 or 7 front page posts ago. But, thanks for keeping us in the loop.
December 26th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
Not sure about the rest of you, but Im ready for more polls in IA and NH. The race being this fluid, any poll could bring unforseen results. In the end, I think Romneys support in IA and NH have been pretty steady. His poll numbers in IA for months have been about the same. Likewise in NH, where McCains support has not pealed away significant support from Romney. So the question for McCain and Huck is, how solid is your new base of support thats thrust you into competitiveness. I think MOST of it is real. But in the end, I think that 2-5% will go back to the previous choice, leaving each a little short of Romney.
The expectations game says that Mitt will only win 1 of the 2. That certainly is possible but….
December 26th, 2007 at 9:14 pm
I’m willing to make a call on NH right now.
McCain will win regardless of the results in Iowa.
Michigan and SC will determine our nominee this year.
December 26th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
As far as rankings go, here are mine:
1. Romney - I think that he will either win in both IA and NH, or come in a VERY close 2nd in both. I disagree that losses in both kills his campaign. I think that with any other candidate in this race, that is the case, but because Romney has the money he does, and the organization he does, I can see him making this a dog fight until the very end.
2. McCain - He is seen as the most viable alternative to everyone else out there - WHO CAN WIN. Those that support Giuliani/Fred will migrate to either McCain or Romney, thus solidifying their campaign support. McCain will need to translate a surge in New Hampshire among Independents to an appeal the Conservatives of the party, if he stands a chance at going much farther, but I think that the “anyone but ________ (fill in the blank)” will end up voting for McCain as things get tighter.
3. Huckabee - I was initially warming up to Huckabee until I did some research on the issues, and started to move away from him. It was his God crutch that really annoyed me, and then his anti-mormon crap that solidified my distaste for him. If he wins IA, he must prove himself again in SC, and the jury is still out as to whether or not he has the money/organization to move beyond IA with success.
4. Giuliani - He was on top for so long, mainly due to his 9/11 notoriety. As things got closer to game-time, people showed why Giuliani does not appeal to the mainstream of the republican party. His socially liberal positions were never really attacked, because he never really defended them. He kind of said, “this is what I believe, and I am not changing” and he got a pass from it due to Mitt’s flip-flop headlines. Now he seems lost in the Romney/Huckabee back and forth, and you don’t really hear much about him recently. His Florida strategy is his only prayer, and that grows less and less likely by the day.
5. Thompson - While I love Fred, he just didn’t seem to catch on. The saying I kept thinking about was “A day late and a dollar short”. I know I am not alone in that mindset either, and I think Fred can’t wait for this all to be over so he can go back to T.V. I think he would make a great V.P., and I would love to see a Romney/Fred ticket. Some say it won’t happen, but I think that would make a very formidable campaign to go against the Dems. Fred’s strengths go hand in hand with the criticisms against Romney. Fred is so witty, where Romney is accused of being plastic. Fred has the Pro-life credentials where Romney lacks. Fred appeals to the Evangelicals where Romney doesn’t. I just think it he would serve as a great V.P. to Mitt.
6. Paul - He ran a great ad today.
He has zero chance at winning, so I am going to save time.
December 26th, 2007 at 9:26 pm
EGS, based on what? A few polls that show him narrowing the gap with Romney? One of them was an ARG. Look, I think he has narrowed the gap with Romney in NH, but I dont think its sustained enough to say he has the edge yet. Romneys support remains about 30%, where its been for months now. McCain will not carry Independants by a mile this time to give him the edge. Romney, Huck, Rudy, Thompson, Hillary, Obama, Edwards, and Ron Paul will each get some independant votes. I suspect that Romney leads among GOP by about 5%, and will win by about 3%. Remember too that early voting began on Dec 10th, WHEN ROMNEY LED BY 15%. I think he probably has a healthy lead right now in votes cast. I still like his chances in NH, regardless of IA outcome.
December 26th, 2007 at 9:37 pm
Comparing Ron Paul to Goldwater? Come on. Barry was Pro-Defense. Ron Paul is stridently Anti-Defense. Plus Barry was Pro-Choice. Paul is Pro-Life.
December 26th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
Rudy Giuliani has the best shot of uniting the entire Republican Party. There are three wings in the GOP: Conservatives, Moderates and Libertarians. Giuliani has a healthy chunk of the Cons, particularly the Law & Order types, he’s got virtually all of the Mods in his hip pocket, and he splits the Liberts right down the middle with Ron Paul, the looney tune Liberts going with Paul, and the Mainstream Libertarians with Rudy.
That’s a healthy coalition behind Giuliani. But he also brings the prospects of expanding GOP outreach into the Northeastern states, beyond traditional GOP constituencies.
December 26th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
We should get a new NH poll within the next couple days, and then we will see. At this point, I think its safe to say that McCain has gotten closer, but how close he was, and how close he is now (easy come, easy go), we don’t know.
December 26th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
EGS,
I’m also curious as to why you’ve reached that conclusion. I’m a McCain guy, as you may or may not know, so I’m very interested to hear your logic on that - and what you think might then play out in MI and SC.
December 26th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
Eric, you really missed the mark there. Rudy Giuliani would tear the GOP apart at the seams by giving nothing to Social Conservatives.
You say there are three wings of the GOP, Conservatives, moderates, and liberals, and you can say that, but what you don’t say is that Conservatives make up at least 2/3 of that.
What we really need is a candidate who can promote social, fiscal, and military conservatism, (immigration is also important, but I’m not exactly sure where to put that issue) and combine that with experienced, competent leadership, and there is only one man who can do that: Romney.
December 26th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
#27, Eric, you miss the point. I’m not saying that Paul is the same as Goldwater. Read carefully. I’m saying that Paul reminds me of Goldwater insofar as among all the candidates he seems to me to be the one with a *message*, and that like Goldwater I can see his presence lasting longer than one election.
Goldwater brought the big-defense mindset to the Republican Party. It wasn’t always that way. Paul could, in the 16 year long run (same time span as Goldwater to Reagan), bring similar change to the base and philosophy of the party.
It seems like the ‘80 and ‘94 coalition is coming to an end. THe party may go in the Huckabee direction (more economically liberal but socially conservative), or could go in the Paul direction (chopping off the defense wing and adding a noninterventionist/peace wing), or the Giuliani direction (chopping off the SoCons and adding the Choicer’s). Can you recall an election since 1976 when the party had such a divergence of viewpoints each carrying double or near-double digits in the national polls.
Something is happening here. The party is changing. I don’t think this election will tell us how it’s going to end, just who’s won the first battle. I don’t think it will be clear how it will end for another 4-16 years.
December 27th, 2007 at 12:58 am
ACT, I like you’re scenarios, but I think you’re a little too optimistic for Huckabee over McCain.