Redstate

The only two candidates I can't really pull the lever for are Romney and Rudy, so I hope your predictions fall short!

...given that Huckabee is probably the only candidate I would have a hard time voting for.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

We need to stop Romney. This guy is a huge disaster for the Republican party. And I think it is fundamentally un-American for him to try to buy the party nomination.

If you are in Iowa, vote Huck. Romney is a flip-flopping disgrace.

I wouldn't expect anything less than such in depth analysis from a Huckabee supporter.

* PRIESTCRAFT is thus defined: “The stratagem and frauds of priests; fraud or imposition in religious concerns. Management of selfish and ambitious priests to gain wealth and power, or to impose upon the credulity of others.”

Ahem.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

Dan there is no question that you can give in depth analysis on this topic, but Michael C and his "un-American" comments sound like Saturday morning cartoons.

...strategy. He enjoys referring to people as greedy fat cats or what have you. I've got news for you, Huck, Romney is probably the most ethically pure candidate on either side of this race, he earned his fortune by working hard and being good at his job. Huckabee chose to go the "Clinton route" of making money, which consists of political kickbacks, setting up a wedding registry after he had been married for over 20 years, selling pardons, etc.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

I support him - has he "bought" me?

It's an insult for Huckabee to even attempt to gain the GOP nomination, what with his populist class warfare rhetoric, sleazy ethics issues, bone-heading foreign policy (his foreign policy advisor is apparently Chuck Norris or Ric Flair), and overt exploitation of Christianity for political gain.

I'll take Fred, McCain, or Rudy. Mitt is my top choice.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

You may need to.

You've obviously got a vested interest in helping Huckabee get elected, so spill it.

Is it because you share Huckabee's unique interpretation of Christianity?

Is it because you buy the "Huck-a-hype" about him being the only "real Christian" in the race?

I got news for you. Every candidate running for office this year is at least nominally Christian. You wanna know who gets to decide who the "real Christians" are? God alone. Not you.

Anyone can throw out a few lines from the Bible and pander to evangelicals. Only God knows whose heart is truly Christian.

And yes, Mormons are every bit as Christian as you and Huckabee are. Learn a little more before you go on the attack.

Romney/Barbour 2008

only God knows.

I am not a Huckabee supporter. I support McCain (w/ Rudy as my secon choice, Fred third).

But Huck will not win the nomination. I am afraid Romney may. And that guarantees defeat in November. Like Rational Liberal said, Romney is our Dukakis.

And Romney is buying the election. He is outspending every candidate with his own money. That is the only reason he is leading in the early state polls. This is not good for democracy.

Has Romney somehow "bought" my support?

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

He hasn't spent a dime on me. In fact, it has been the other way around. I bought his book, a yard sign, and a bumper sticker. That's about a net loss of $40-$50 to me. Nope, not a dime from Romney.

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
-Winston Churchill

Romney has a very meager record to run on. He has flipped his positions only when politically convenient. He believes only in the acquisition of power. He has few core convictions.

The only reason he has a lead in the early states is because he sunk MILLIONS of dollars, more than any other candidate, to get his publicity up. He is completely self financed.

The point I am making is that Romney has not really earned his support, he has bought it. He may not have bought you, but he has increased his publicity only through self-financing. he has outspent his opponents by HUGE margins.

The precedent this sets is that anybody with a marginal record can be a legitimate Presidential candidate if they have enough money. That is not good for democracy.

He has been an excellent fundraiser. Take away any contributions he has made to his campaign, and he still has been one of the best fundraisers, along with Giuliani.

Please explain to me how Romney is qualified to be President?

But better yet, please explain how he wins a General Election?

He can't. He will be our ruin.

....he has run large business enterprises and been governor of a state. I'll stack his experience up against anybody else running on either side. Bill Richardson comes close.

He'll win a general election by pulling together social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, and defense conservatives. He'll also win because he has the best campaign of any Republican running.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

Romney pulls in all the major conservative factions of the party. Of our other candidates, Thompson and probably McCain could also do this.

Romney appeals to independents as a technocratic leader. Of our other candidates, Giuliani also has good claims to executive leadership, although I think Romney can deliver this message to independents better because of his professional image, his raw intelligence, and his variety of academic, professional, and political successes. McCain appeals to independents as a maverick.

Romney runs a strong, smart, stable campaign. Of our other candidates, Giuliani might get credit, although he's excused himself from many opportunities to face Romney in contests, and I don't think too much of a strategy of winning by absence (this is also Clinton's approach). McCain gets credit for a comeback, but hasn't shown an ability to strategize. Huckabee is a boom-bust candidate who focuses too closely on local victories. Thompson is the worst of the pack, who had the nomination handed to him on a silver platter and still couldn't get his hands on it.

Romney is a great fundraiser. Of our other candidates, Giuliani gets credit here, too.

I view these as four vital ingredients for winning.

Romney has all four.
McCain has two or three.
Giuliani has two or three.
Thompson has one.
Huckabee has none.

It's well known Romney had to inject a lot of his own $$$$$$$ to keep his campaign afloat.

I like Romney and I have no problem voting for Romney if he is the nominee or if he's the only alternative to Huck. But Rudy is by far the smarter stronger candidate, National Review's premature endorsement notwithstanding.

It will be fun to see how this plays out over the next 50 days or so, but I'd put my money on Rudy over Romney.

He completely loses on immigration (based on his previous action), has no foreign policy experience, and is a huge target in the general (stealing furniture, paroling murders and rapists, etc).

We need Fred.

...and as someone who lived through it... not much fun.

The odd rules of the Democrats in IA make it less likely HRC will win there.

She is sinking in polls. And other polling that tests "second choice" support is showing that Biden/Richardson/etc. voters who are likely to see their guy fall below the threshhold (and therefore, who get to cast a second choice ballot) are going more heavily to Obama and Edwards than to Hillary - so she's actually going to lose ground there rather than gain it back.

If she's not careful she's liable to not only NOT win Iowa but fall into third (which is already where she is in the latest IA poll there).

I don't expect Fred to finish in the top 3 in either Iowa or New Hampshire.

He'll finish in the top 3 in SC, but he won't be on top.

My predictions:

Iowa GOP:

Romney - 38%
Huckabee - 23%
McCain - 10%
Thompson - 10%
Paul - 5%
Giuliani - 5%
All others - 9%

Iowa Dem:

Obama - 38% (thanks to John Edward's girlfriend)
Clinton - 36%
Edwards - 15%
All others - 11%

NH GOP:

Romney - 38%
McCain - 34%
Huckabee - 9%
Giuliani - 8%
Thompson - 9%
All others - 2%

Romney will lock up the nomination on Super-Tuesday.

Florida may go to Thompson.

Romney/Barbour 2008

Huckabee will be all but finished if he loses Iowa. I'm not saying it's a done deal, but I think the odds are in Mitt's favor 55%-45%.

Huckabee's boom is based on the "someone else" factor. He's a fresh face, a good communicator, he received glowing press (until now), etc. Huck is experiencing what Fred Thompson felt this summer before he fizzled. Thompson used to have leads in several primary states, plus many national polls.

Mitt's support has been steady for several months. He is not the product of a "bubble" like Fred and Huck are. To be sure, Huck has a devoted following of Christian conservatives, but in the end, it won't be enough for him to wage a protracted primary fight and win the nomination.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

I agree with you St Louis Conservative, that if Huck does not win Iowa, after his huge surge in the polls, he has lost all momentum and is done. I just wanted to see what others thought about that.

Huck - 28
Romney - 27

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

...has been a mantra of supporters of other candidates for the past 9 months or so. While most other candidates have had large boom and bust cycles, Romney's support has grown more gradually but more constantly, with fewer peaks and valleys.

would show that in fact Romney peaked at about 30% in early November and has hit a low in the low 20's recently (now back up to 25% or so). So in fact, his support has not grown and looking at the data back to August, Romney is in exactly the same place now as he was then (but is now in 2nd place).

Romney tends to build support slowly, rather than boom and bust.

Iowa is an interesting case because it was the platform for the Huckabee surge. This is significant because:

1) Huckabee aimed directly for Romney's social conservatives, and went up 20 points.

2) Despite "losing" 20 points of social conservative vote to Huckabee, Romney has no net loss. The balancing 20 points must be coming from somewhere.

3) The Huckabee bubble appears to be popping in Iowa. The two most recent polls suggest this, anyway. How many of those 20 points will go back to Romney?

This is why Huckabee made his Christmas ad. He wanted to distract the social conservatives with religion and warm fuzzies long enough to come out with the win, and he wanted to create a ceasefire ("anyone who runs political ads after mine don't understand the true meaning of Christmas") to slow the flow of information about him.

Romney has been jetting all over the country campaigning and fundraising in all the primary states. He has had by far the most ambitious and rigorous travel schedule.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

Rudy must doubt his strategy at some level.

You can't sit out Iowa and NH and then jump back in the race.

A 4th place or lower finish in both Iowa and NH will end Rudy's campaign.

He should be trying to at least place 2nd in NH.

Romney/Barbour 2008

I think the "Late State Strategy" is bunk ... you already see Rudy's poll numbers eroding, and not one vote has been cast. FRED is now campaigning by bus, a late but correct assessment that the early states do count. I *DO NOT* count out FRED by any stretch.

Romney - If he wins IA and NH, he will probably pick up MI, have a dcent showing in SC, and roll to victory in FL and on Feb. 5.

Huckabee - I disagree. If Huck wins IA, he doesn't need a strong showing in NH, which I don't think he will get. However, he would need a good win in SC, and he can deliver a good win in SC.

McCain - Needs Huck to win IA, and he needs to win NH. MI will be important. I don't think he can carry SC, but FL would be a real possibility. (Come on McCain, you can do it! Sorry, objectivity vanished for a moment.)

Rudy - If the field remains fragmented, he can win. I think he needs to pick up WY or NV or something to cheer about before FL though.

Thompson - Can win. The polls don't look favorable right now ... I don't believe that FRED is actually that low in the polls though. My own personal polling of friends and family shows that FRED is still very much alive.

Finally, are the polls accurate? Even if they are, if most folks make up their mind 1-24 hours before ... be careful what you read into them. My gut tells me Huck is going to crush Romney in IA, and I see FRED doing well there as well. Polls on caucuses are pretty lousy, in general ...

MOlsen6
Proud supporter of McCain '00 and McCain '08

...which is why I feel Romney will win Iowa. He has a machine in Iowa, which is what you need to organize caucus goers.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

I know what you are saying about Romney's organization. He will have a captain in every precinct. The information that I found interesting however, is that according to one of the polls (I've misplaced the link) Huckabee's support comes primarily from Evangelicals who have a long, strong history of participating in the caucuses. Romney's folks appeared less experienced. It looks like a leadership versus rank-and-file issue. I always bet on the rank-and-file, particularly in a situation where there is direct antagonism between the candidates.

MOlsen6
Proud supporter of McCain '00 and McCain '08

Romney looks even stronger amongst "highly likely caucus goers". I'm almost convinced that Huckabee is riding a bubble - I definitely could be wrong, but that's my take.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

Others have EXTREMELY minimal chances of winning.

I say this as a Huck supporter.

IA is a tossup, yes I see the current essential tie, but thats after a week where the attacks couldn't have been much worse and before the Thompson/McCain mini-surges have had chances to register in fiscal conservative consciouses, but there and in southern bible belt states, current polling does (and will continue to) underestimate christian conservative churchgoing vote for Huckabee. (See Karl Rove and insider campaign mgrs for corroboration on this factor). Many people answering polling random phone calls will not actually go out there and vote; on the flip side, evangelicals are well-known to work to get out the vote in states with significant evangelical organizations that will make the difference on a cold early January night in IA, and in evangelical SC and GA.

The winner of IA will win probably win the election, and right now its Huck's electability/likability v. Romney's advertising unchallenged by Huck's 'no negative ads' strategy (a big miscalculation that may cost him the election by not advertising Romney's liberal record socially AND fiscally AND on judges).

Another factor is whether Romney is able to coalesce the establishment-conservative-anti-Huck vote early enough (Fred supporters and McCain supporters truly think they can still win, which currently helps Huck).

If this remains a 5-man race for a few months, Huck wins by a plurality.

If this turns into a Guiliani-Huck race, Huck wins.

If this turns into essentially a Huck-Romney race before Super Tuesday (as Guiliani's drop continues), Romney wins.

My head says Romney, my heart says Huck as an incredible communicator will get his sea legs and eventually be able to show how Romney is essentially not to be trusted as much more (I'd argue NO more, but too late for that to be believed by the GOP voters at large) fiscally conservative or significantly more on the right on immigration to the bulk of voters in post-IA debate.