Scenarios for Republican candidates

Bill Kristol has an interesting post up today on different imaginary scenarios the Republican presidential nomination could take. At the end he writes:

The key to the indeterminacy of the race is Iowa, and Iowa is up in the air, and New Hampshire is as well. One should add, incidentally, that it's also not determined that the race will be settled on Feb. 5. It might go on until Texas on March 4, probably as a two-way contest, but perhaps as a three-way (or conceivably a four-way). It's even possible no candidate will have a majority of the delegates at the end of the primaries. No one has a credible scenario as to what happens then.

Here's his different imaginary scenarios:

1. Huckabee wins Iowa (or places a very strong second), beating Romney. He then defeats at least Thompson in New Hampshire. Energized social conservatives rally to the real thing for Huckabee's showdown with Giuliani, as Thompson and Romney fade. Huckabee gets enough money flowing in to compete adequately, and beats Giuliani one-on-one on Feb. 5 and after, winning more delegates than Giuliani by doing better in the delegate-overweighted (because they've voted Republican more often recently) Southern states.

2. The Iowa result is really muddled (think a top four at 23-21-18-16). McCain pays no price for running fifth (or sneaks into fourth). The others are deflated, and McCain appeals to his old New Hampshire supporters to try to change history one more time. He flat-out wins New Hampshire, then wins Michigan, then . . . he can be Commander-in-Chief at a time of war, he was right about the surge in Iraq, he's the storybook old vet making a run for the ages, the media falls back in love--who needs money for TV ads at that point?

3. Thompson wins or runs a strong second in Iowa, as almost everyone else underperforms (except Huckabee?). Having over-performed in Iowa enough to be the story, Thompson over-performs in New Hampshire and then Michigan, and wins South Carolina. He'll then be on his way, as a center-right candidate running up the middle between Huckabee and Giuliani. (For examples of how being positioned in the center can pay off, consider Kerry in '04 between Dean and Gephardt/Lieberman, or Bush in 2000 between Forbes and McCain, or Dole in '96 between Buchanan/Forbes and Alexander.) Thompson wins Florida and most of the delegates (remember the overweighted South) on Feb. 5. In this scenario, Thompson will have exploited the distinction between what Jay Cost calls the "perpetual campaign" (or the pre-campaign) and the and the "real campaign." He will have gotten credit with voters for flouting what Cost calls "fake rules" that voters dislike (e.g., that you have to start running a year early), while obeying enough real rules (Thompson already has over 75,000 donors, few of them maxed out, and some $7 million cash on hand) to afford TV at key junctures.

It's obvious what Kristol's up to in this piece. Kristol likes McCain, which is the real point of this exercise--#2 is his fantasy dreamy heaven. The post is commenting on Fred Barnes's imaginary scenarios. Barnes writes:

Contrary to reports, Giuliani is not ignoring the early states. Well, Iowa maybe. He's campaigning aggressively in New Hampshire and leads in the Fox poll in South Carolina. If he stayed out of every state until the Florida primary, that would be fatal. The early winner would gain all the media attention and swamp him.

But Giuliani's focus is on Florida and then on the big-state primaries on February 5 in California, Illinois, New York, and New Jersey. He, too, has the funds to compete. His scenario--breaking out in Florida and blowing away the field on Super Tuesday--is credible in my view.

No. Not credible. You can't ignore Iowa. The Iowa winner will be the flavor of the month just in time for New Hampshire and Super Duper Tuesday. Giuliani will be swamped. You can't overcome the free media Iowa generates, even with millions of dollars. This is a poor analysis from Barnes and Kristol.