What was wrong with Romney's campaign? I think commentators have been generally right on in assessing what happened to him. Basically, he was vulnerable because of his record in Massachusetts. He tried to switch to more conservative positions, which made sense tactically, but opened up the vulnerability of coming off as a faker. Voters are loathe to trust their votes to a faker. This vulnerability became a festering open wound with Huckabee's rise. Here was a candidate whose strong point was his seeming genuineness--the polar opposite of Romney.
Jay Cost, the best election blogger out there, was right on when he wrote that Romney's negative attacks hurt him:
How might these negative attacks have hurt Romney? My sense is that it likely kept him from winning over those who supported McCain or Huckabee. That is, at its most basic level, it backfired; not only did it fail to convince Huckabee or McCain voters to back Romney, it alienated those voters from him.
That's exactly right. Supporters of the other candidates got angry about Romney digging the dirt on them, when at the same time he was asking them not to believe the dirt on him in his past record.
Cost has also argued that Huckabee was not taking away votes from Romney, enabling McCain to win. His conclusions go against the inside-outside theory I've held all along, about McCain's coalition being too small to win the nomination. Cost writes:
I do not think one can argue that McCain's wins have been dependent on a divided field. Independents, moderates, and Bush disapprovers have certainly formed the core of McCain's voting coalition. However, McCain has done what most winning candidates do: win his base by large margins while stealing plenty of voters from the other guy's base. McCain does not win conservatives or Bush supporters outright - but he has done well enough with them that he could probably win New Hampshire, South Carolina, or Florida in a head-to-head match up.
While it is difficult argue that a narrower field would turn any of McCain's wins into losses, the fact remains that each race would probably have been tight. Under my assumptions, McCain never would have won more than 54% of the vote - and his victory in South Carolina over Huckabee could have shrunk to a little less than one-half of one percent. So, McCain has been building a voting coalition that can trump the coalitions of other candidates - but not by much.
This analysis is true for what it's worth. But what it ignores is the bloodbath between Romney, Huckabee, and Thompson which ground down all those campaigns, leaving them short of cash, damaged from attacks, and abandoned in two cases. If the Huckster hadn't run, things would have been different for Romney and their kindling-strategy might have worked. Had Romney or Thompson not been in the race at all, or dropped out sooner, the situation would be a lot different for Huckabee now. In six contests since Super Duper Tuesday, McCain has won two by large margins, two by tight margins, and lost two. I predicted bumps in the road based on the inside-outside theory, and it has proven correct.
Showing posts with label Fred Thompson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fred Thompson. Show all posts
2/7/08
Romney's a loser
Stephen Stark articulates what I've been thinking for a little while now, and what was strikingly confirmed by the Super Duper Tuesday results:
The problem for conservatives isn't that their vote has been divided (though some of it has been split between Romney and Mike Huckabee). It's that Romney is too unpopular to be the standard bearer of anything. Romney tried to win the nomination the old-fashioned way: by buying it. Yet even though he overwhelmingly outspent all his opponents, he's never showed much vote-getting ability. In complete contrast with Obama, the more voters saw of Romney in Iowa and New Hampshire, the less they liked him. He achieved the singular feat of having failed to receive the endorsement of a single newspaper editorial board in New Hampshire. He pretty much bombed out on Super Tuesday, failing to win as many primaries as Huckabee. In fact, his most noteworthy contribution to politics this year is the way he has united every candidate in the Republican race around their personal dislike of him. Now it comes out that, despite Romney's being the candidate who has been the most supportive of the incumbent, even President Bush is angry with him for his flip-flip on immigration. Romney also faces an awful calendar in the next few weeks, since McCain should run strongly both in the DC-area primaries next week and in the larger states in early March. So while Romney and his allies may not realize it yet, he's never going to win the nomination -- and he's not gaining any friends, either, by continuing to contest the race. Better to join the bandwagon and position himself for a potential place on the McCain ticket. (Yes, that's likelier than it seems today.)The Republican campaign has been dominated by this one single fact: the establishment candidates (Romney, Thompson) are/were lousy. They couldn't convince people to vote for them. Thompson was such a lethargic campaigner, and Romney comes off as fake and just not likable. I did think that Romney would turn things around with Super Duper Tuesday, since Huckabee didn't have the cash or time to effectively campaign (I thought) and Romney was pushing the vote-for-an-electable-conservative argument, which I thought would be effective (it wasn't).
The problem for conservatives isn't that their vote has been divided (though some of it has been split between Romney and Mike Huckabee). It's that Romney is too unpopular to be the standard bearer of anything. Romney tried to win the nomination the old-fashioned way: by buying it. Yet even though he overwhelmingly outspent all his opponents, he's never showed much vote-getting ability. In complete contrast with Obama, the more voters saw of Romney in Iowa and New Hampshire, the less they liked him. He achieved the singular feat of having failed to receive the endorsement of a single newspaper editorial board in New Hampshire. He pretty much bombed out on Super Tuesday, failing to win as many primaries as Huckabee. In fact, his most noteworthy contribution to politics this year is the way he has united every candidate in the Republican race around their personal dislike of him. Now it comes out that, despite Romney's being the candidate who has been the most supportive of the incumbent, even President Bush is angry with him for his flip-flip on immigration. Romney also faces an awful calendar in the next few weeks, since McCain should run strongly both in the DC-area primaries next week and in the larger states in early March. So while Romney and his allies may not realize it yet, he's never going to win the nomination -- and he's not gaining any friends, either, by continuing to contest the race. Better to join the bandwagon and position himself for a potential place on the McCain ticket. (Yes, that's likelier than it seems today.)The Republican campaign has been dominated by this one single fact: the establishment candidates (Romney, Thompson) are/were lousy. They couldn't convince people to vote for them. Thompson was such a lethargic campaigner, and Romney comes off as fake and just not likable. I did think that Romney would turn things around with Super Duper Tuesday, since Huckabee didn't have the cash or time to effectively campaign (I thought) and Romney was pushing the vote-for-an-electable-conservative argument, which I thought would be effective (it wasn't).
1/26/08
Fredheads confused
I had a conversation yesterday with a Fredhead, and it was very revealing. He said he was now confused as to who to support.
He said he won't vote for Huckabee, because he's weak on immigration and foreign policy. But he doesn't like voting for Romney, because he's weak on the social issues. Romney is more likely to get his vote though.
As confused as the Republican race is, there is not more clarity now that Thompson has dropped out. Things will only get clarified when there's two candidates left standing.
He said he won't vote for Huckabee, because he's weak on immigration and foreign policy. But he doesn't like voting for Romney, because he's weak on the social issues. Romney is more likely to get his vote though.
As confused as the Republican race is, there is not more clarity now that Thompson has dropped out. Things will only get clarified when there's two candidates left standing.
1/25/08
Thompson voters redux
I appreciate this fascinating comment on my last post:
As a long time member of Thompson blogs and sites I can promise you very few 'Fredheads' will be going to Huckabee! And why should they? Huck's made it very clear how he feels about Fred and Rollins has been down right nasty towards Fred. Huckabee's push polling of Fred in SC doesn't help him either.
I can tell you that from the blogs and the postings I have seen that Mitt has the lion's share of support, but it’s a very reluctant support I assure you.
Steve Dinan reports the same thing. Taegan Goddard reports this: "Since Fred Thompson exited the race, McCain is up 5, Romney is up 9, Giuliani is down 2 and Huckabee is flat." Seems like Romney's benefiting, though it's tough to say so early. Jay Cost thinks the impact on Florida might be marginal only.
I can see Thompson's voters going for Mitt, albeit reluctantly. They are both conservatives in the traditional mold. It's also easy to suppose that for a lot of them Mitt is less offensive that the Huckster.
Robert Novak and this blog makes the point that Thompson's exit is bad timing for the Huckster, who could move in and capture some of Thompson's voters, but can't because he's out of cash.
Thompson hasn't endorsed anyone yet. He was an informal adviser to McCain before he ran. He endorsed McCain against W. in 2000 and might do so again.
If Romney wins Florida it will be huge for him and back for the Huckster. Huckabee has to hope that McCain wins instead.
Michael Brendan Dougherty has this on Huckabee:
Even if Huckabee fails to capture the nomination, he may still effect significant change in the GOP coalition. In 2004, Republicans nabbed three out of four white evangelical votes. Karl Rove credited them with Bush’s re-election. But just as these voters demonstrated their power, their leadership was disappearing. James Kennedy and Jerry Falwell have passed away; others like James Dobson are on their way out of public ministry. Carter believes Huckabee can easily fill the void of evangelical leadership, but he warns that Republicans shouldn’t expect another compliant pastor who will shepherd the masses to the polls then otherwise leave them alone. “Because Huckabee doesn’t come from the establishment, he doesn’t owe them any favors. He has the potential to lead a new movement—and not just evangelicals alone.”
If the affable preacher consolidates his influence over the largest bloc of voters in the GOP, he’ll have the whip hand in the Republican coalition. No wonder the establishment is wincing.
As a long time member of Thompson blogs and sites I can promise you very few 'Fredheads' will be going to Huckabee! And why should they? Huck's made it very clear how he feels about Fred and Rollins has been down right nasty towards Fred. Huckabee's push polling of Fred in SC doesn't help him either.
I can tell you that from the blogs and the postings I have seen that Mitt has the lion's share of support, but it’s a very reluctant support I assure you.
Steve Dinan reports the same thing. Taegan Goddard reports this: "Since Fred Thompson exited the race, McCain is up 5, Romney is up 9, Giuliani is down 2 and Huckabee is flat." Seems like Romney's benefiting, though it's tough to say so early. Jay Cost thinks the impact on Florida might be marginal only.
I can see Thompson's voters going for Mitt, albeit reluctantly. They are both conservatives in the traditional mold. It's also easy to suppose that for a lot of them Mitt is less offensive that the Huckster.
Robert Novak and this blog makes the point that Thompson's exit is bad timing for the Huckster, who could move in and capture some of Thompson's voters, but can't because he's out of cash.
Thompson hasn't endorsed anyone yet. He was an informal adviser to McCain before he ran. He endorsed McCain against W. in 2000 and might do so again.
If Romney wins Florida it will be huge for him and back for the Huckster. Huckabee has to hope that McCain wins instead.
Michael Brendan Dougherty has this on Huckabee:
Even if Huckabee fails to capture the nomination, he may still effect significant change in the GOP coalition. In 2004, Republicans nabbed three out of four white evangelical votes. Karl Rove credited them with Bush’s re-election. But just as these voters demonstrated their power, their leadership was disappearing. James Kennedy and Jerry Falwell have passed away; others like James Dobson are on their way out of public ministry. Carter believes Huckabee can easily fill the void of evangelical leadership, but he warns that Republicans shouldn’t expect another compliant pastor who will shepherd the masses to the polls then otherwise leave them alone. “Because Huckabee doesn’t come from the establishment, he doesn’t owe them any favors. He has the potential to lead a new movement—and not just evangelicals alone.”
If the affable preacher consolidates his influence over the largest bloc of voters in the GOP, he’ll have the whip hand in the Republican coalition. No wonder the establishment is wincing.
1/24/08
More on Thompson's voting block
Thompson got 13% in Iowa. A large majority of his voters (nearly 10%) were "very conservative." Romney beat Thompson by 12 points, but it would have been a near-tie between them if only "very conservative" voters counted. He got 1% in NH and 4% in Michigan. In SC he got 16%. Nearly half of that was "very conservative" voters, who are a third of the whole electorate.
The other thing that strikes me is the electability perception. For both Thompson and Huckabee, of the people who voted for them, nearly 9 out of 10 thought that their candidate was the best general-election candidate.
The media goes ga-ga about the Republicans nominating McCain as such a great maneuver for winning in November, but only 7 out of 10 of his own supporters in SC thought so. Do they know something the media doesn't?
When the positions of two opposing candidates are similar, the personalities and experiences they have become more important. McCain is old--he'll be 72 in August. When I saw him on TV touring a factory in SC, I thought he looked like an elderly man. Huckabee has the likability factor, which is a potent general election asset, as long as he can tone-down the religious stuff and triangulate his positions.
All this is interesting, but it doesn't tell us where the Thompson voters are going. I think they'll be split between Romney and Huckabee, with an edge to Huckabee. He's a southern politician like Thompson, his voters think he can win, and he's (slightly) more successfully cultivated the conservative vote than Romney.
This question is so important, it seems to me, because I think it will determine the Republican nominee.
The other thing that strikes me is the electability perception. For both Thompson and Huckabee, of the people who voted for them, nearly 9 out of 10 thought that their candidate was the best general-election candidate.
The media goes ga-ga about the Republicans nominating McCain as such a great maneuver for winning in November, but only 7 out of 10 of his own supporters in SC thought so. Do they know something the media doesn't?
When the positions of two opposing candidates are similar, the personalities and experiences they have become more important. McCain is old--he'll be 72 in August. When I saw him on TV touring a factory in SC, I thought he looked like an elderly man. Huckabee has the likability factor, which is a potent general election asset, as long as he can tone-down the religious stuff and triangulate his positions.
All this is interesting, but it doesn't tell us where the Thompson voters are going. I think they'll be split between Romney and Huckabee, with an edge to Huckabee. He's a southern politician like Thompson, his voters think he can win, and he's (slightly) more successfully cultivated the conservative vote than Romney.
This question is so important, it seems to me, because I think it will determine the Republican nominee.
1/23/08
Thompson out
From the NY Times:
At first blush, his decision would seem potentially to help Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas, who has competed for many of the same conservative voters that Mr. Thompson sought to appeal to. Mr. Huckabee said Tuesday that he might have come in second in South Carolina precisely because Mr. Thompson had siphoned off much of his support, permitting Senator John McCain of Arizona to win.
“The votes that he took essentially were votes that I would have most likely had, according to the exit polls and every other analysis,” Mr. Huckabee said on MSNBC.
The development could prove unwelcome to Mr. McCain.
Here's analysis from one blogger:
[On TV last night] Kondracke was of the opinion that his votes would mostly go to Mitt Romney, with some going to Huckabee. Until I heard him say that, I assumed that Thompson's votes would go to John McCain, as I see them as essentially political brothers. But Kondracke is probably right, in that the national narrative/impression is that Thompson is an orthodox conservative, while McCain is not. I actually see both Thompson and McCain as unorthodox Republicans in the same general mold of Lindsay Graham. Nevertheless, I think most of the people that were supporting Thompson were supporting him because he fit the bill on the social/fiscal/national security troika in a way that none of the other candidates could convincingly pull off. With Thompson out of the way, Mitt Romney most nearly fulfills the requirements of the troika (albeit, with some fairly severe credibility problems on the social arm).
I think it definitely hurts McCain. Thompson's voters will not vote for McCain. Will it be a boon to Romney? In SC, the bulk of the Thompson vote was self-identified conservatives. That's true for both Romney and Huckabee. It's hard to tell.
At first blush, his decision would seem potentially to help Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas, who has competed for many of the same conservative voters that Mr. Thompson sought to appeal to. Mr. Huckabee said Tuesday that he might have come in second in South Carolina precisely because Mr. Thompson had siphoned off much of his support, permitting Senator John McCain of Arizona to win.
“The votes that he took essentially were votes that I would have most likely had, according to the exit polls and every other analysis,” Mr. Huckabee said on MSNBC.
The development could prove unwelcome to Mr. McCain.
Here's analysis from one blogger:
[On TV last night] Kondracke was of the opinion that his votes would mostly go to Mitt Romney, with some going to Huckabee. Until I heard him say that, I assumed that Thompson's votes would go to John McCain, as I see them as essentially political brothers. But Kondracke is probably right, in that the national narrative/impression is that Thompson is an orthodox conservative, while McCain is not. I actually see both Thompson and McCain as unorthodox Republicans in the same general mold of Lindsay Graham. Nevertheless, I think most of the people that were supporting Thompson were supporting him because he fit the bill on the social/fiscal/national security troika in a way that none of the other candidates could convincingly pull off. With Thompson out of the way, Mitt Romney most nearly fulfills the requirements of the troika (albeit, with some fairly severe credibility problems on the social arm).
I think it definitely hurts McCain. Thompson's voters will not vote for McCain. Will it be a boon to Romney? In SC, the bulk of the Thompson vote was self-identified conservatives. That's true for both Romney and Huckabee. It's hard to tell.
1/18/08
Romney's retreat
I saw the news early yesterday morning on the Politico that Romney was ceding South Carolina and focusing on Nevada. I've been thinking about that decision since then.
My first reaction was that this was a great tactical move. He's playing the expectations game--he can't loose if he doesn't try. Nevada is much more friendly to his candidacy. Finishing fourth in SC would be a huge blow if he was campaigning hard. He can play it off as Nevada having 10 delegates more, so he looks like a business-type who's concerned about the hard results, not media fluff.
But this morning I'm wondering if this won't be looked back upon as the moment in which Romney lost the presidential race.
First of all, the "you can't lose if you don't try" means that I personally am in a great spot to win the presidency. Giuliani's trying it and it's failing. Of course it hasn't failed yet, and I could be proven wrong in my contention that it was a miserable strategic decision to skip all these early states. But you don't win the presidential nomination by shying away from the tough fights. That's what so appealed to me with Romney's kindling strategy. Don't ignore Iowa and NH but get in there, get your hands dirty, mow people's lawns for them if that's what they want, and earn every vote.
The playing with the expectations game would work better if Romney had said all along he wasn't going to contest SC. But of course that would make him look rather weak if he said earlier that he didn't think he could win the primary that's chosen the Republican nominee since 1980. It would work better if the other candidates would play along and try to contest Nevada. The expectations game is always a matter of media perceptions. The media have to play along, in other words. It began in 1988, when before the second presidential debate between Bush and Dukakis ABC News and the Washington Post released a 50-state poll announcing that Bush had an electoral college lock. Dukakis had to blow Bush away in the debate, or he was thought to be finished.
I don't know that the media's going to play along with Romney's show tune. The stories will be the Democrats in Nevada, and the Republicans in South Carolina. Oh yeah, Romney was in Nevada. What was he doing there? He knew he couldn't win in South Carolina. I don't think that this works for the Romney campaign.
What does it say about Romney's willingness to spend his own fortune? As John Ellis noted yesterday, Romney's got a huge advantage in being able to outspend his broke competitors.
I don't think it would be a damaging blow to Romney to campaign hard in SC and not do well. Huckabee did pretty miserably in NH and Michigan, and he's still in this thing.
Perhaps his team is looking at the polls and seeing not much of a possibility of a bump from Michigan, and a downward trend from early December (21%) to now (16%) with the possibility that it could trend lower. If he campaigned hard and lost to Thompson, finishing a distant fourth, that would be brutal.
But after winning Michigan, to abandon a primary everyone has always believed to be important is a strategy that doesn't settle well with me at all. Fight for everything, I say, take your lumps and try to spin the results in the concession speech.
Romney was quoted as saying that he'd be shocked if McCain doesn't win SC, that it's McCain-country. This is also expectations management. He knows McCain'll be hard-pressed to beat Huckabee, and he's trying to knock McCain out of the race. That's not a bad strategy--if it comes down to Romney vs. Huckabee, Romney will more than likely edge him out.
My first reaction was that this was a great tactical move. He's playing the expectations game--he can't loose if he doesn't try. Nevada is much more friendly to his candidacy. Finishing fourth in SC would be a huge blow if he was campaigning hard. He can play it off as Nevada having 10 delegates more, so he looks like a business-type who's concerned about the hard results, not media fluff.
But this morning I'm wondering if this won't be looked back upon as the moment in which Romney lost the presidential race.
First of all, the "you can't lose if you don't try" means that I personally am in a great spot to win the presidency. Giuliani's trying it and it's failing. Of course it hasn't failed yet, and I could be proven wrong in my contention that it was a miserable strategic decision to skip all these early states. But you don't win the presidential nomination by shying away from the tough fights. That's what so appealed to me with Romney's kindling strategy. Don't ignore Iowa and NH but get in there, get your hands dirty, mow people's lawns for them if that's what they want, and earn every vote.
The playing with the expectations game would work better if Romney had said all along he wasn't going to contest SC. But of course that would make him look rather weak if he said earlier that he didn't think he could win the primary that's chosen the Republican nominee since 1980. It would work better if the other candidates would play along and try to contest Nevada. The expectations game is always a matter of media perceptions. The media have to play along, in other words. It began in 1988, when before the second presidential debate between Bush and Dukakis ABC News and the Washington Post released a 50-state poll announcing that Bush had an electoral college lock. Dukakis had to blow Bush away in the debate, or he was thought to be finished.
I don't know that the media's going to play along with Romney's show tune. The stories will be the Democrats in Nevada, and the Republicans in South Carolina. Oh yeah, Romney was in Nevada. What was he doing there? He knew he couldn't win in South Carolina. I don't think that this works for the Romney campaign.
What does it say about Romney's willingness to spend his own fortune? As John Ellis noted yesterday, Romney's got a huge advantage in being able to outspend his broke competitors.
I don't think it would be a damaging blow to Romney to campaign hard in SC and not do well. Huckabee did pretty miserably in NH and Michigan, and he's still in this thing.
Perhaps his team is looking at the polls and seeing not much of a possibility of a bump from Michigan, and a downward trend from early December (21%) to now (16%) with the possibility that it could trend lower. If he campaigned hard and lost to Thompson, finishing a distant fourth, that would be brutal.
But after winning Michigan, to abandon a primary everyone has always believed to be important is a strategy that doesn't settle well with me at all. Fight for everything, I say, take your lumps and try to spin the results in the concession speech.
Romney was quoted as saying that he'd be shocked if McCain doesn't win SC, that it's McCain-country. This is also expectations management. He knows McCain'll be hard-pressed to beat Huckabee, and he's trying to knock McCain out of the race. That's not a bad strategy--if it comes down to Romney vs. Huckabee, Romney will more than likely edge him out.
1/6/08
Looking back at Iowa, forward to NH
The youngest candidate won on both sides in the Iowa caucuses. Obama and Huckabee offered platforms of change within their respective parties. A quote from Fred Thompson in tonight's debate sums it up: "We had some folks vote in Iowa, and now everyone suddenly comes out talkin' about change."
Huckabee calmly handled a heckler today. He continues to embrace the change mantle. This from the Politico:
“I think the Republican Party needs some repair,” Huckabee said on “Fox News Sunday.”
During back-to-back interviews on Fox and ABC's "This Week," this year’s Cinderella candidate complained that the Bush administration ignored recommendations by Pentagon brass to send more troops to Iraq after the initial invasion.
He also questioned the administration’s embrace of harsh interrogation methods. And he took a veiled shot at the White House for offering overly rosy economic assessments after unemployment rose last month.
In addition, Huckabee suggested Bush is in bed with the tax lobby in Washington. “His commission [to reform the tax code] was essentially a group of tax lobbyists,” the former governor declared in response to a question about his support for a national sales tax — a sales tax the president’s commission condemned.
Here's what I find noteworthy in the exit polls from Iowa. Here's the "most important issue" percentages for Huckabee, Romney and McCain (% of the total, the marginals are in parentheses):
Immigration (33) -- Iraq War (17) --Economy (36)
Huckabee: 36--33--34
Romney: 30--17--25
McCain: 4--25--11
Romney voters thought domestic issues were more important than Iraq. McCain voters were the opposite. Huckabee voters were even between them.
McCain won NH in 2000. But it's a different era now, and the state has different demographics. From the Dallas Morning News:
New Hampshire, once among the reddest states in the country, has undergone an elephantine demographic shift since its last hotly contested presidential primary, with an influx of new voters that could turn the outcome of both races Tuesday.
Clinton's campaign has now acknowledged that it will lose South Carolina. They could just be lowering expectations, as the polls are running even. But if black voters turn to Obama, then Hillary's toast, since they are expected to be around half of the voters in that primary. New Hampshire is thus very, very important for Hillary. After NH there's Michigan, Nevada, South Carolina, and Florida, and then Super-Duper Tuesday. Michigan is no contest on the Democratic side, as Obama and Edwards are not on the ballot there, and the DNC stripped the state of all its delegates. Hillary had an 8-point lead in Nevada around Christmas, and she still maintains a big lead in Florida. There's not a whole lot of time before Super-Duper Tuesday. The Obama enthusiasm could still be rolling by then, especially if he wins NH.
Huckabee calmly handled a heckler today. He continues to embrace the change mantle. This from the Politico:
“I think the Republican Party needs some repair,” Huckabee said on “Fox News Sunday.”
During back-to-back interviews on Fox and ABC's "This Week," this year’s Cinderella candidate complained that the Bush administration ignored recommendations by Pentagon brass to send more troops to Iraq after the initial invasion.
He also questioned the administration’s embrace of harsh interrogation methods. And he took a veiled shot at the White House for offering overly rosy economic assessments after unemployment rose last month.
In addition, Huckabee suggested Bush is in bed with the tax lobby in Washington. “His commission [to reform the tax code] was essentially a group of tax lobbyists,” the former governor declared in response to a question about his support for a national sales tax — a sales tax the president’s commission condemned.
Here's what I find noteworthy in the exit polls from Iowa. Here's the "most important issue" percentages for Huckabee, Romney and McCain (% of the total, the marginals are in parentheses):
Immigration (33) -- Iraq War (17) --Economy (36)
Huckabee: 36--33--34
Romney: 30--17--25
McCain: 4--25--11
Romney voters thought domestic issues were more important than Iraq. McCain voters were the opposite. Huckabee voters were even between them.
McCain won NH in 2000. But it's a different era now, and the state has different demographics. From the Dallas Morning News:
New Hampshire, once among the reddest states in the country, has undergone an elephantine demographic shift since its last hotly contested presidential primary, with an influx of new voters that could turn the outcome of both races Tuesday.
The Granite State gained 207,000 new residents between 2001 and 2005 – including about 90,000 who moved over the border from Massachusetts, according to a recent report by the University of New Hampshire's Carsey Institute. During the same period, 188,000 people left the state.
The turnover, along with anti-war feelings, has muddied the small state's political tableau. Democrats swept statewide elections in 2006, winning control of the Legislature and governor's office for the first time since 1911.
[...]
Mr. McCain, 71, polls best among GOP voters who have lived in the state longer than 20 years, according to a recent Boston Globe poll. Mr. Romney was favored, 36 percent to 27 percent, among Republicans who have been in the state fewer than 10 years.
Clinton's campaign has now acknowledged that it will lose South Carolina. They could just be lowering expectations, as the polls are running even. But if black voters turn to Obama, then Hillary's toast, since they are expected to be around half of the voters in that primary. New Hampshire is thus very, very important for Hillary. After NH there's Michigan, Nevada, South Carolina, and Florida, and then Super-Duper Tuesday. Michigan is no contest on the Democratic side, as Obama and Edwards are not on the ballot there, and the DNC stripped the state of all its delegates. Hillary had an 8-point lead in Nevada around Christmas, and she still maintains a big lead in Florida. There's not a whole lot of time before Super-Duper Tuesday. The Obama enthusiasm could still be rolling by then, especially if he wins NH.
12/20/07
Thompson and hyperactivity
A devastating article from Roger Simon of the Politico yesterday on the Thompson campaign. The title says it all: "Lazy as charged." There's no good way to excerpt it--the totality of the story captures Thompson's lethargy best.
Here's an excerpt from an article by Reid Wilson:
Here's an excerpt from an article by Reid Wilson:
Thompson brushed off early criticisms that he did not possess the fire in the belly necessary to run a winning campaign. Still, it does not help the laziness rumors to go shopping at a suburban Washington mall just over two weeks before the most important election of his life will take place a thousand miles away in Iowa. While he launched a major bus tour through Iowa this week and earned the backing of a top Hawkeye Republican, Congressman Steve King, it may be too little, too late.
Thompson provides two lessons for future candidates: Winning the presidency takes more than just looking like a president. And unlike national buzz, which builds for a celebrity candidate, voters in Iowa and New Hampshire really do want the opportunity to hear what a candidate has to say. It takes work to win them over, a lesson any future candidate who hopes to buy Iowa and New Hampshire votes through big advertising blitzes would do well to remember.
It's interesting that to run for president you have to be a hyperactive egomaniac to be successful. But this gives us hyperactive egomaniac presidents. And that's not necessarily good: we just might be better off if we had a little more lethargic presidents. Hyperactive presidents tend to be hyperactive in the same way they are when they campaign--hyperactive in protecting their image and political standing. And on occasion that's distinct from what's in America's best interest.12/12/07
Iowa caucus for Republicans
The Trail at WashPost has a piece about Thompson's woeful campaign. He's making a last stand in Iowa. Here's a snippet:
Thompson ranks near the very bottom of the pack in New Hampshire, averaging support from about 4 percent of the likely Republican voters there. In Iowa, he he doing better -- averaging about 10 percent support -- though he still trails the leaders, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney.
Thompson advisers say they believe he might end up being the recipient of votes from Iowa voters who become disillusioned with the increasingly negative tone of the battle between Huckabee and Romney.
Polling suggests Thompson might be the second choice for as many as 40 percent of Huckabee's voters.
"We plan to campaign vigorously and actively in all of the early primary states, but the Iowa caucus is first and that's where we will be spending our time until the people of Iowa vote," Harris said.
A quick note on this. It doesn't matter who's anybody's second choice on the Republican side, becuase they don't have a viability threshhold. Here's a rundown on how the caucuses work:
On caucus night, Iowans gather by party preference to elect delegates to the 99 county conventions. Presidential preference on the Republican side is done with a straw vote of those attending the caucus. This vote is sometimes done by a show of hands or by dividing themselves into groups according to candidate. In precincts that elect only 1 delegate they choose the delegate by majority vote and it must be a paper ballot. Democratic candidates must receive at least 15 percent of the votes in that precinct to move on to the county convention. If a candidate receives less than 15 percent of the votes, supporters of non-viable candidates have the option to join a viable candidate group, join another non-viable candidate group to become viable, join other groups to form an uncommitted group or chose to go nowhere and not be counted. Non-viable groups have up to 30 minutes to realign, if they fail to do so in that time, they can ask the for more time, which is voted on by the caucus as a whole. If the caucus refuses, re-alignment is done and delegates are awarded.
Thompson ranks near the very bottom of the pack in New Hampshire, averaging support from about 4 percent of the likely Republican voters there. In Iowa, he he doing better -- averaging about 10 percent support -- though he still trails the leaders, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney.
Thompson advisers say they believe he might end up being the recipient of votes from Iowa voters who become disillusioned with the increasingly negative tone of the battle between Huckabee and Romney.
Polling suggests Thompson might be the second choice for as many as 40 percent of Huckabee's voters.
"We plan to campaign vigorously and actively in all of the early primary states, but the Iowa caucus is first and that's where we will be spending our time until the people of Iowa vote," Harris said.
A quick note on this. It doesn't matter who's anybody's second choice on the Republican side, becuase they don't have a viability threshhold. Here's a rundown on how the caucuses work:
On caucus night, Iowans gather by party preference to elect delegates to the 99 county conventions. Presidential preference on the Republican side is done with a straw vote of those attending the caucus. This vote is sometimes done by a show of hands or by dividing themselves into groups according to candidate. In precincts that elect only 1 delegate they choose the delegate by majority vote and it must be a paper ballot. Democratic candidates must receive at least 15 percent of the votes in that precinct to move on to the county convention. If a candidate receives less than 15 percent of the votes, supporters of non-viable candidates have the option to join a viable candidate group, join another non-viable candidate group to become viable, join other groups to form an uncommitted group or chose to go nowhere and not be counted. Non-viable groups have up to 30 minutes to realign, if they fail to do so in that time, they can ask the for more time, which is voted on by the caucus as a whole. If the caucus refuses, re-alignment is done and delegates are awarded.
12/1/07
New Hampshire
Andrew Sullivan makes the point that if independents flock to Obama in NH, it's not only bad news for Hillary but bad news for McCain, since it's an open primary. But it's also bad news for Giuliani.
Rassmussen reports that Giuliani is now at his lowest level in NH, and that Thompson has disappeared behind Ron Paul in NH.
Sullivan also points to the downward trend for Hillary in New Hampshire, and Chris Bowers proclaims that for the first time Obama is leading the race. Obama is edging out Clinton in Iowa. He could translate an Iowa win into a NH win, and then lights out.
Rassmussen reports that Giuliani is now at his lowest level in NH, and that Thompson has disappeared behind Ron Paul in NH.
Sullivan also points to the downward trend for Hillary in New Hampshire, and Chris Bowers proclaims that for the first time Obama is leading the race. Obama is edging out Clinton in Iowa. He could translate an Iowa win into a NH win, and then lights out.
10/29/07
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:
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.
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.10/24/07
The Huckabee problem
Check out this brilliant post on 2008central about Mike Huckabee. I agree with everything. Here's the essential section:
At the end of the day, the majority of people vote based on a simple idea of a candidate. For example, ‘Rudy Giuliani will protect us from terrorism and clean things up the way he cleaned up NYC’ or ‘Mitt Romney will make the government function like a business’ or ‘John McCain is trustworthy and knows foreign policy best’ or ‘Fred Thompson is lazy, but capable and that means he’ll protect me from terrorists and from intrusion of the Government but he’ll also leave me alone’ or ‘Ron Paul will finally remind Americans that the constitution is real, is the law of the land and should be adhered to’. I could go on, but I think my point is clear. After following this campaign very closely, I can boil all of these candidates down to a simple statement…an idea and come election time that’s what most voters do - they boil candidates down to a simple statement and pick based on the statement that is closest to them.
I can’t do this for Mike Huckabee…I mean, I could come up with a few…but not a single statement and that’s the problem. As he has in the beginning, Huckabee is left without a motto and without a solid constituency.
At the end of the day, the majority of people vote based on a simple idea of a candidate. For example, ‘Rudy Giuliani will protect us from terrorism and clean things up the way he cleaned up NYC’ or ‘Mitt Romney will make the government function like a business’ or ‘John McCain is trustworthy and knows foreign policy best’ or ‘Fred Thompson is lazy, but capable and that means he’ll protect me from terrorists and from intrusion of the Government but he’ll also leave me alone’ or ‘Ron Paul will finally remind Americans that the constitution is real, is the law of the land and should be adhered to’. I could go on, but I think my point is clear. After following this campaign very closely, I can boil all of these candidates down to a simple statement…an idea and come election time that’s what most voters do - they boil candidates down to a simple statement and pick based on the statement that is closest to them.
I can’t do this for Mike Huckabee…I mean, I could come up with a few…but not a single statement and that’s the problem. As he has in the beginning, Huckabee is left without a motto and without a solid constituency.
10/21/07
The Republican Race is Romney vs. Huckabee
Here's an article that best sums up the state of the Republican race right now. That race is up in the air in large part because the "values voter" base of the party has not coalesced around one candidate. Romney has been heavily courting their vote. But there's the flip-flopping issue, since he is taking positions now that he disavowed in the past. Huckabee is a real option for these voters in a way Giuliani isn't because of his issue positions and Thompson isn't because of a lack of charisma.
At a values-voter summit in DC this weekend:
The results of the event’s straw poll were especially telling: Of the 5,775 votes received at on-site voting kiosks, by mail, and online, Romney won 1,595, while Huckabee was only 30 votes behind, at 1,565.
But these baseline numbers don’t tell the entire story. Voting online required only a nominal donation to the Family Research Council, the organization that ran the poll and the leading sponsor of this weekend’s summit, held at the Hilton Washington. Candidates sent out appeals to their supporters to cast an online vote in the poll -- such votes turned out to generate about 94 percent of Romney’s support.
Among people who actually paid to attend the conference, people FRC President Tony Perkins has called “influencers” within their communities and church congregations, the result was far different, and a decisive victory for Huckabee. Over 51 percent of those who voted at the conference chose the former Arkansas governor. Romney was a distant second, garnering just over 10 percent of the vote.
Tony Perkins predicted that Huckabee, who also finished second to Romney at the Ames, Iowa straw poll in August, would see a benefit once attendees made their way back home from Washington. “I believe that Gov. Huckabee will get a significant bounce out of this,” Perkins said, later adding that Huckabee could join the company of Romney, Giuliani and Fred Thompson at the front of the GOP pack.
This is the real race, between these two candidates. The only thing Romney really has on Huckabee is his funding. This is obviously a huge asset.
But other leaders within the evangelical movement are not sold on Huckabee, particularly Gary Bauer, head of American Values, one of the summit’s co-sponsors. He said Huckabee, who raised only $1 million in the third quarter of the year, doesn’t have the time or resources to compete with the top GOP candidates.
“I’m skeptical, I am,” Bauer said. “I just don’t see how you go from having $600,000 in the bank one year before the election and go on to leap-frog everybody else, beat Giuliani and then go on to beat Hillary Clinton. I just don’t see it happening.”
Will this argument sway Republican voters? It could. The Iowa voters could very well make the rational decision to go with the wealthy candidate. But they could just as well go with the personality candidate. This thing is still up in the air. If the Huckster has untold millions, it would be a no-brainer. If he starts raising money, his campaign will really take off.
At a values-voter summit in DC this weekend:
The results of the event’s straw poll were especially telling: Of the 5,775 votes received at on-site voting kiosks, by mail, and online, Romney won 1,595, while Huckabee was only 30 votes behind, at 1,565.
But these baseline numbers don’t tell the entire story. Voting online required only a nominal donation to the Family Research Council, the organization that ran the poll and the leading sponsor of this weekend’s summit, held at the Hilton Washington. Candidates sent out appeals to their supporters to cast an online vote in the poll -- such votes turned out to generate about 94 percent of Romney’s support.
Among people who actually paid to attend the conference, people FRC President Tony Perkins has called “influencers” within their communities and church congregations, the result was far different, and a decisive victory for Huckabee. Over 51 percent of those who voted at the conference chose the former Arkansas governor. Romney was a distant second, garnering just over 10 percent of the vote.
Tony Perkins predicted that Huckabee, who also finished second to Romney at the Ames, Iowa straw poll in August, would see a benefit once attendees made their way back home from Washington. “I believe that Gov. Huckabee will get a significant bounce out of this,” Perkins said, later adding that Huckabee could join the company of Romney, Giuliani and Fred Thompson at the front of the GOP pack.
This is the real race, between these two candidates. The only thing Romney really has on Huckabee is his funding. This is obviously a huge asset.
But other leaders within the evangelical movement are not sold on Huckabee, particularly Gary Bauer, head of American Values, one of the summit’s co-sponsors. He said Huckabee, who raised only $1 million in the third quarter of the year, doesn’t have the time or resources to compete with the top GOP candidates.
“I’m skeptical, I am,” Bauer said. “I just don’t see how you go from having $600,000 in the bank one year before the election and go on to leap-frog everybody else, beat Giuliani and then go on to beat Hillary Clinton. I just don’t see it happening.”
Will this argument sway Republican voters? It could. The Iowa voters could very well make the rational decision to go with the wealthy candidate. But they could just as well go with the personality candidate. This thing is still up in the air. If the Huckster has untold millions, it would be a no-brainer. If he starts raising money, his campaign will really take off.
10/14/07
Thompson held his own?
An interesting comment from Jay Cost, who got a straw poll of his readers to give their responses to Thompson's debate performance last Tuesday. They were generally skewed towards the negative. Here's the reader response he took to be about average: "Overall, I thought Thompson did what he needed to do, which was to look like he belonged on the stage. He didn't blow anybody out of the water, but he looked Presidential, didn't appear nervous, and sounded like he knew what he was talking about."
This might be a victory for Thompson in the end. The stories on the debate I heard and saw were all generally positive on Thompson's performance, and that is all most people heard. At this point, as Cost always emphasizes, the audience is the elites. The colloquy between Romney and Giuliani that also got a lot of coverage left Thompson out. That's not such a bad thing for Thompson. He's still learning how to be a candidate; as Cost points out it's a different situation for an actor who's used to memorizing lines.
So even though the comments were negative, as I believe they should have been, overall it was not such a bad night for Thompson, as long as he can improve his performances. That's the key. He's not going to make a run at the nomination if he doesn't become a better speaker, a better debater, better on the stump, and uses issues to his advantage, as I said in my last post. The likelihood of this is low, which is why I'm so down on his candidacy.
This might be a victory for Thompson in the end. The stories on the debate I heard and saw were all generally positive on Thompson's performance, and that is all most people heard. At this point, as Cost always emphasizes, the audience is the elites. The colloquy between Romney and Giuliani that also got a lot of coverage left Thompson out. That's not such a bad thing for Thompson. He's still learning how to be a candidate; as Cost points out it's a different situation for an actor who's used to memorizing lines.
So even though the comments were negative, as I believe they should have been, overall it was not such a bad night for Thompson, as long as he can improve his performances. That's the key. He's not going to make a run at the nomination if he doesn't become a better speaker, a better debater, better on the stump, and uses issues to his advantage, as I said in my last post. The likelihood of this is low, which is why I'm so down on his candidacy.
10/11/07
Thompson's position-taking
Dick Morris, the master of triangulation, had an interesting comment on Obama towards the end of last month. He wrote: "what Obama misses is the ability to use issues in a political campaign to win votes."
It's entirely possible to take all popular positions on issues for the constituency you're trying to appeal to and still lose. The problem comes when you alienate the people who are on the other side of the issue. Even though they are a minority, if they care enough about the issue and get ticked off that you oppose them, they won't vote or will vote against you. If all your positions command majority support, but the issue is more salient for those who hold the opposing view, and the opponents on the various issues are not all concentrated together, then even though you agree with them on other issues, you end up offending nearly everyone on their pet issue. It is therefore not good strategy to take majority positions on every issue that comes your way, especially without considering the positions of the other candidates. Being selective in who you offend, and going after voters who are offended by the positions of other candidates, is good strategy. Jay Cost had a great post on this in the summer, which I discussed here.
Pew had a survey out yesterday of Republican views and compared them to the positions that Fred Thompson is taking. Thompson seems to be following the take all popular positions model. This is not good strategy. Being all things to all Republican primary voters will not work in the end, unless you are a clear front-runner with only the wind in your face between you and the finish line. Thompson is not offering red meat to any Republican constituency, and this is a problem.
It's entirely possible to take all popular positions on issues for the constituency you're trying to appeal to and still lose. The problem comes when you alienate the people who are on the other side of the issue. Even though they are a minority, if they care enough about the issue and get ticked off that you oppose them, they won't vote or will vote against you. If all your positions command majority support, but the issue is more salient for those who hold the opposing view, and the opponents on the various issues are not all concentrated together, then even though you agree with them on other issues, you end up offending nearly everyone on their pet issue. It is therefore not good strategy to take majority positions on every issue that comes your way, especially without considering the positions of the other candidates. Being selective in who you offend, and going after voters who are offended by the positions of other candidates, is good strategy. Jay Cost had a great post on this in the summer, which I discussed here.
Pew had a survey out yesterday of Republican views and compared them to the positions that Fred Thompson is taking. Thompson seems to be following the take all popular positions model. This is not good strategy. Being all things to all Republican primary voters will not work in the end, unless you are a clear front-runner with only the wind in your face between you and the finish line. Thompson is not offering red meat to any Republican constituency, and this is a problem.
10/10/07
Thompson on the economy
Fred Thompson gave a very unsurprising sub-par performance at the Republican debate. He blundered during his first response on the economy. He had a long pause during his answer, which is not atypical for him, and his rainbows-and-lollipops picture of the economy was such a weak answer to the question of why two out of three Americans don't think the economy is going well, especially compared to the answers given by Romney right afterwards and Ron Paul and the Huckster later on.
Giuliani gave a pro-free-market answer in between Romney and Paul, and he spoke with conviction and credibility, while Thompson just seemed like he answered because he had to. Politicians have to speak in generalities. The whole art is to do this while at the same time seeming to speak one's mind with passionate conviction. It's a difficult thing to do: inspire people to agree with you who might not if they really knew your concrete positions, motivate the people who agree with you already while not alienating too many on the fence, speak dispassionately and with gravitas on issues that divide people without giving the impression that you'll say and do anything that will get you elected.
Giuliani gave a pro-free-market answer in between Romney and Paul, and he spoke with conviction and credibility, while Thompson just seemed like he answered because he had to. Politicians have to speak in generalities. The whole art is to do this while at the same time seeming to speak one's mind with passionate conviction. It's a difficult thing to do: inspire people to agree with you who might not if they really knew your concrete positions, motivate the people who agree with you already while not alienating too many on the fence, speak dispassionately and with gravitas on issues that divide people without giving the impression that you'll say and do anything that will get you elected.
10/8/07
Republicans in Iowa
Here's the results of the latest Iowa poll and commentary from Jonathan Martin of the Politico:
Romney: 29
Thompson: 18
Huckabee: 12
Giuliani: 11
McCain: 7
Others: 14
Unsure/Uncommitted: 9
What is interesting, per the Register's write-up, is that Huckabee is strongest among those Republicans who have made up their mind. Of the 1/4 of those sampled who said they had made up their minds, Huck gets 19 followed by Romney's 16 and Thompson's 15.
This is big. In the time we have before the caucus, Huckabee is going to gain ground while Thompson looses it. The real question will become, can Romney win a big enough victory. Huckabee's in a really nice spot here. His fund-raising is down, yes, but there's no expectations for him. That's key, because he could leverage a second-place finish into a "comeback kid" narrative for the media desperate for an angle. "Romney does just about as well as expected" is not an interesting angle. The comparisons will also be there with the other governor from Hope in NH fifteen years ago.
Romney: 29
Thompson: 18
Huckabee: 12
Giuliani: 11
McCain: 7
Others: 14
Unsure/Uncommitted: 9
What is interesting, per the Register's write-up, is that Huckabee is strongest among those Republicans who have made up their mind. Of the 1/4 of those sampled who said they had made up their minds, Huck gets 19 followed by Romney's 16 and Thompson's 15.
This is big. In the time we have before the caucus, Huckabee is going to gain ground while Thompson looses it. The real question will become, can Romney win a big enough victory. Huckabee's in a really nice spot here. His fund-raising is down, yes, but there's no expectations for him. That's key, because he could leverage a second-place finish into a "comeback kid" narrative for the media desperate for an angle. "Romney does just about as well as expected" is not an interesting angle. The comparisons will also be there with the other governor from Hope in NH fifteen years ago.
10/4/07
Thompson flounders while Huckabee's underfunded
Thompson's campaign in Iowa received a harsh assessment by the New York Times yesterday. It's well deserved. I was starting to be skeptical of Thompson in early July, after his poll numbers started moving up a few weeks earlier. But it was the Midwestern Republican Leadership Conference in late August really crystallized it for me. Thompson was so shaky, and Huckabee so charming, that I understood why Huckabee had placed second in the Iowa straw poll.
This shakiness has continued. Thompson can't connect with people. If he had come out of the box and declared his candidacy in July or August and sparkled in debate, he would have raised a ton of money and been the front-runner. But running for president is hard! You can't do it in a laid-back fashion. You have to know your stuff. You have to show people that you want the job and that you can handle it.
This is Huckabee's problem--is he up for the job? He hasn't convinced the donors that he is. Here's the report on third quarter fundraising from the WSJ:
[Ron Paul's] $5 million is half the approximate $10 million that Messrs. Giuliani and Romney each are expected to report, although neither candidate has officially released numbers. Former Sen. Fred Thompson is expected to report around $8 million in third-quarter fund raising.
[John McCain] has struggled financially and is expected to report numbers on par with Dr. Paul. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee also leads Dr. Paul in the polls, but raised an estimated $1 million in the third quarter.
This shakiness has continued. Thompson can't connect with people. If he had come out of the box and declared his candidacy in July or August and sparkled in debate, he would have raised a ton of money and been the front-runner. But running for president is hard! You can't do it in a laid-back fashion. You have to know your stuff. You have to show people that you want the job and that you can handle it.
This is Huckabee's problem--is he up for the job? He hasn't convinced the donors that he is. Here's the report on third quarter fundraising from the WSJ:
[Ron Paul's] $5 million is half the approximate $10 million that Messrs. Giuliani and Romney each are expected to report, although neither candidate has officially released numbers. Former Sen. Fred Thompson is expected to report around $8 million in third-quarter fund raising.
[John McCain] has struggled financially and is expected to report numbers on par with Dr. Paul. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee also leads Dr. Paul in the polls, but raised an estimated $1 million in the third quarter.
9/30/07
State of the race
From super-blogger Chris Bowers comes the above charts on the state of the race so far. A couple notes. First of all, Romney should be considered the front-runner, not Giuliani. The national polls don't matter, and Romney can finance his own campaign to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, so the cash on hand is no impediment for him. Wins in Iowa and New Hampshire, and Romney would have a huge edge on Giuliani. Secondly, Obama is making inroads in Iowa at the expense of Edwards. Hillary's lead in Iowa could change as the campaign steps up, and as Obama starts spending his cash. These races are up in the air.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
