It is becoming a Rudy v. Fred race
By Erick Posted in 2008 — Comments (78) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
It really is Rudy v. Fred now. One of the few polling companies that I truly respect and pay a lot of attention to is Mason-Dixon. When last they polled South Carolina, and this was back in June, they had undeclared Fred at 25% and Rudy at 21%.
Today there is a new poll out from Mason-Dixon targeting Florida. The poll has a margin of error of 5%, so keep that in mind. But it shows Rudy at 24% and Fred at 23%. An Insider Advantage poll of Florida shows the same thing.
This is important because Mitt Romney, who is hovering around 11% in all these polls, has gone with a traditional Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina strategy on the assumption that the momentum of victory from the earlier races will boost him in the later races.
Fred and Rudy are taking a different approach. They are gambling on South Carolina and Florida to get their start. Fred has managed to get very close to Rudy quickly down in Florida, so I expect a fight between those two there. It also wouldn't surprise me if some of the other candidates try to spoil their fun with a movement to deny Florida's delegates a vote, due to Florida moving up its primary. I don't, however, expect that to happen.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Thank you Governor Romney — Comments (9) »
It is becoming a Rudy v. Fred race 78 Comments (0 topical, 78 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Romney's peeps took the age-old "Win Iowa and New Hampshire, gain momentum, cruise to victory" tack. I've thought this foolish, as the old "First in the Nation" dynamic has been turned on its head. People who vote on REALLY HUGE TUESDAY are not going to walk into the polling booth with the thought: "Gee, I think either Giuliani or Thompson would make a great President, but I'd better vote for Romney; I mean, he's inevitable because he won up there in New Hamsphire."
Giuliani and Thompson, Erick indicated, are looking more to fire their opening shots in South Carolina and Florida.
Mitt Romney is leading in Iowa and New Hampshire because he's the only guy on TV. Soon, he won't be, and he'll never have the airwaves to himself in other States. How is he going to become well-loved there?
With the caveat that this is just beginning and that anything can happen, it looks to me like this is shaping up to be a Giuliani-Thompson race. Would Rudy serve as Fred's veep if promised a strong anti-terror portfolio?
If Romney does win IA and NH, the SC/FL polls will change. He might not win, but he very well could. National numbers or numbers for the 3rd and 4th states are less useful than IA and NH numbers, which show a strong Romney campaign right now.
OTOH, if Romney loses both IA and NH, he probably can't come back.
______________________________________
Bobby Jindal Saves Louisiana
...with a front loaded and compressed primary schedule I think these contests, that would traditionally have a great impact, may prove not so significant this cycle.
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Senior writer for The Hinzsight Report
...I've heard pollsters and pundits argue passionately on both sides of that argument. We won't know until this thing is all over. One thing I do know is that Mitt is the only candidate that has built leads and raised a lot of cash from almost zero name recognition.
I have nothing against Fred, and will support him if he is out nominee, but he receives unbelievable fawning support on Red State while his campaign stumps have continued to receive tepid reviews. If Fred wins, he's got what it takes. If he doesn't, George Will and all the others will have proven to be correct. Either way, you really can't expect to get an objective look at Fred! on this site.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
Rudy and Romney enjoyed a lot of cheerleading on this site in the past as well.
and this:
Mitt is the only candidate that has built leads and raised a lot of cash from almost zero name recognition.
Governor of Mass. and his success with the Olympics is hardly "almost zero name recognition."
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Senior writer for The Hinzsight Report
The way I see it, the primary results from early voting states is similar to a telephone poll of say, a thousand voters. It's simply an indication of what the nationwide trend is likely to be. I don't think people make their decisions based on what people in IA and NH think, but rather they've already made their decision and IA and NH just happen to be the first states to tell the rest of us what they've decided.
www.scottbomb.com
Click here to donate to the Fred Thompson campaign.
Remember that there is a week or two between the primary. The media will cover the winner a lot. People who are undecided (yes there are many more of them than people here expect) will respond positively to a "winner." They will consider him more and on the margin, it will bring voters to him.
Is it enough to overcome a 10 point deficit; I think that is likely. Is it enough to overcome a 25 point deficit; I think that is unlikely.
Nevertheless, the point is that Romney is NOT out of the race regardless of how much poster like or dislike him.
______________________________________
Bobby Jindal Saves Louisiana
New Hampshire does get that one week gap before Florida.
On the other hand, we all know New Hampshire never picks the winner because all these non-Republican come in and skew things, so...
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
Rudy and Fred are cashing in on their celebrity status for now but next year the dynamics of this race will change. Social conservative leaders like Dobson and Weyrich have already rejected these two as well as McCain. In South Carolina this is relevant. We are going to see the usual massive direct mail campaign in the final weeks before the primaries with "voter guides" filled with info about lobbying work for abortionist groups, opposition to the marriage amendment, cross dressing hobbies, etc.. McCain was far ahead in SC back in 2000 but got shot down by these groups. Rudy and Freddy will go down the same road.
Hold it... hold it... Whew. Wow.
Dobson & Weyrich have virtually no influence. If you think otherwise, your simply fooling yourself. And as for McCain imploding in 2000, he didn't get "shot down" (poor pun) by "those groups", he shot himself. His problem was NOT his position on any issue, it was telling California Republicans one thing and telling SC Reps exactly the opposite thing. He got exposed for the pandering old fool that he is, not for his position on an issue.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
I must confess that I have not read them, but I am not to sure of anybody who has either.
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/7/29/130232.shtml
Wubbies World, MSgt, USAF (Retired):
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("An argument is a sequence of statements aimed at demonstrating the truth of an assertion.); }
Beckster, I have to disagree. Campaign finance reform was indeed a big issue in 2000 that cost McCain with the base, both directly and indirectly. The indirect part was that much of the antagonism coming from Pat Robertson & Co. was really due to McCain's position on campaign finance reform, which they viewed as a threat, even though much of the attack took place on the abortion front (in other words, yes, I'm saying that the "indirect" part was that some folks used abortion and other issues as a pretext for attacking McCain because their real gripe was campaign finance reform).
It had more to do with the fact that he couldn't count on Democrats crossing over to vote for him in SC like they did in NH. That was his real problem. His strategy during the primary was to count on the votes of Democrats and "independents" who didn't have their own primary to vote in. That's why he floated that "Roe shouldn't be overturned" lead trial balloon during the campaign.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
ok.. keep telling yourself that. You have obviously missed the last 30 years of political history if you think the Christian coalition has no influence in the republican party. And Dobson has no influence over his millions of listeners, right? I guess that's ok. That gives you another 3 months or so for you to continue deluding yourself with all that wishful thinking about how the primaries will turn out.
We don't file the religious right into their little folder "People of Faith," appoint a spokesman, then expect all the people in that folder to obey the spokesman.
We're not collectivist like that.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
You are missing the point. If you say "we" as in "you are part of that group" then you probably care about those issues I mentioned before.
I'm not implying that someone gives an order and others obey. What I'm saying is that if you are an evangelical Christian in South Carolina and a week or so before the primaries you receive some direct mail with the information that candidate X used to lobby for a pro abortion group and is against a constitutional amendment defining marriage between a man and a woman, then you are likely to not vote for that person as a matter of principle.
You should look into some of the direct mail they sent about McCain in 2000. He dropped something like 20 points in ten days and I remember McCain took one of the pamphlets to a debate and accused Bush of being behind it, he denied and McCain went berzerk, etc.. It was a debate with McCain, Bush and Alan Keyes moderated by that Larry King from cnn. Look into it. McCain never recovered.
I blindly do whatever my direct mail tells me to do. That's why I have 13,000 credit cards and have refinanced my mortgage 1,000 times in the past year. The hypnotic powers of direct mail are amazing.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
BWAHAHAHA! Touché
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
That's the idea that Huckabee or Brownback or anybody else who showed up at the "debate" will suddenly be qualified to be POTUS.
Nobody's saying that the Republican Party hasn't been impacted by religious conservatives. But the way it's worked is that they have worked to influence policy with the candidate. It's NEVER worked where the RR "selected" a candidate. If that was true we'd be talking about President Robertson. Pat didn't even manage to draw well among Christians in a weak field.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
That's the idea that Huckabee or Brownback or anybody else who showed up at the "debate" will suddenly be qualified to be POTUS.
Nobody's saying that the Republican Party hasn't been impacted by religious conservatives. But the way it's worked is that they have worked to influence policy with the candidate. It's NEVER worked where the RR "selected" a candidate. If that was true we'd be talking about President Robertson. Pat didn't even manage to draw well among Christians in a weak field.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
I think all you Fred Heads are frankly simply in denial. First, here is the scathing commentary about him by Dick Morris...
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/09/thompson_is_clearly_in...
Yesterday, Dobson gave another scathing criticism...
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hmMAuwqXONV6giFylwbgSh-58_fA
Say what you will but if Fred is not attracting Social Conservative leaders who exactly is he attracting?
He is doing no interviews. He hasn't done any debates yet. He has not come out with a single policy paper or statement. We have seen absolutely nothing.
This is not a two horse race. Rudy leads and the pack is jumbled for second.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
The record seems to be stuck
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
let's see him campaign, let's see him debate, let's see him run his national organization, let's see who endorses him...etc.
I believe McCain and Romney are not out of the game, either.
(My preferred candidate is Rudy, but I wouldn't have the slightest problem voting, enthusiastically, for one of these four.)
Not being endorsed by Dick Morris or Dr. Dobson are pluses for the Fred campaign.
1) Dick Morris - 'nuff said
2) With all due respect to Dr. Dobson, I beleive most Evangelical Republicans look more to Dr. Dobson for biblical matters than they do political matters. Although the left likes to make the allegation, Dr. Dobson doesn't control the party and I have to much respect for individual Evangelical Christians to view them as mind numb droids who vote in lockstep or somehow don't posses the capability to think for themselves!
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Senior writer for The Hinzsight Report
has endorsed no one, or at least no one I know. That said, he is an astute political observer. It is not merely that he doesn't endorse, but clearly points out flaws in his candidacy that show that reality is a lot different than what his supporters have dressed him up as.
As for Dobson, we have gotten the not so unexpected marginalization of Dobson. I don't know what his influence is and frankly I don't care. Thompson was supposed to be the savior. He was supposed to get all of those traditional Republican voters that found something objectionable in all of the other candidates. I don't think you get any more traditional Republican than Dobson and he is not only not supporting Thompson, but is down right viscerally repulsed by him. For anyone to try and pretend as thought this is no big deal is to be blind to reality.
Thompson is no outsider, he is a lobbyist. He has no accomplishments. He has been in the race for several weeks now and has appeared on almost no media. He still hasn't debated. We have no policy from him. He has already made several gaffes. His fundraising is weak. He is leading not following on everything. His campaign is just not what you all claim it to be.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
...you're welcome to your opinion but I beleive you to be wrong on all accounts!
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Senior writer for The Hinzsight Report
And he will say whatever it takes to get an appearance on a TV or radio show. His analysis and predictions are worthless and have been for a long time.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
You may have missed it, but he doesn't care for your guy either. So far he's eliminated from consideration just about everybody who has any chance at winning the nomination.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
however, Rudy seems to be leading despite the conventional wisdom. In other words, no one expected traditional Republican voters to go for Rudy. Thompson ain't going to get many independents and liberals to vote for him. If he doesn't firmly have the base he has no one. It is one thing for Dobson to reject Rudy, we all expect that, and that is why some are shocked he still leads, but when he rejects, viscerally, Thompson, then, one might ask, who exactly is going to vote for Thompson?
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
In other words, no one expected traditional Republican voters to go for Rudy.
Except everyone expected Rudy to make a decent showing and be a top tier candidate. And to do that you need lots of "traditional Republican voters" supporting your candidacy.
Thompson ain't going to get many independents and liberals to vote for him.
And neither is Rudy. We have a contested primary on the Democrat side this time around. There's not going to be waves of liberals and moderates voting in the Republican primary like there was in 2000. They'll be too busy voting for Obama.
It is one thing for Dobson to reject Rudy, we all expect that, and that is why some are shocked he still leads, but when he rejects, viscerally, Thompson, then, one might ask, who exactly is going to vote for Thompson?
The same people that are going to vote for Rudy. There's not a lot of difference between Rudy supporters, Thompson supporters, or Romney supporters. They just assign different weights to the virtues and flaws of their candidates. Their base of support in the primary are all mainstream Republicans. They are all counting on support from a lot of conservatives to get anywhere, Rudy included.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I misspoke, I should have said, Social Conservatives. Look, Rudy has beaten conventional wisdom. No one figured that given his socially liberal record he would still be leading. The people that are attacking him that are traditional Republican influencers are people that everyone expected to attack him and one reason why people never expected him to still be leading. That is not true of Thompson. Whatever you all are saying now, I am certain that all of you expected someone like Dobson to fully embrace Thompson, and only after he didn't did the attacks come.
Rudy is running his campaign in an unconventional way. Thompson is supposed to draw his support from all of the normal sources of Republican voters. Morris points out a plethora of shortcomings that will be exposed that should give pause to plenty of people, and Dobson exposes that the same voters that many here said Fred would now take on are actually turned off to him.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
Dick Morris is a tedious former Clinton staffer with a foot fetish.
He thinks Hillary is unstoppable.
attacks on Morris, it is clear no one bothered to even skim the article. Your opinion of Morris is not all that important.
First, he points out that the outsider label Thompson will try and pull off will be hard to manage given his twenty years as a lobbyist in Washington. He pointed out several gaffes Thompson has made already.
Here is the rest...
He refuses to take a pledge not to raise taxes;
•He lobbied for an abortion advocacy group before becoming a U.S. senator;
•He employed his son in a no-show job for $170,000 for four years at his political action committee after leaving office;
•As a lobbyist, he helped the attorney representing the Libyan terrorists who blew up Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie,
Scotland, to fight requests to extradite them to the U.K. to stand trial;
•His other lobbying clients included Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the leftist Haitian dictator who, but for a lack of oil, would have been the Hugo Chavez of the last generation;
•He skipped and is skipping the first two debates of his presidential candidacy and said he was looking forward to attending the Oct. 14 New Hampshire debate -- the one that was cancelled weeks ago;
•He is taking this week off from presidential campaigning;
•He does not know enough about the details of the Terry Schiavo case to comment.;
•He is also unfamiliar with the proposal to lower soaring insurance premiums Floridians must pay for home storm coverage since the hurricanes;
•He said that Iraqis were supporting us because of al Qaeda's ban on smoking;
•He's run through three campaign managers and as many communications directors in just three months;
•He fell short in the fundraising competition, coming up with only a net of $2.8 million by the end of July;
•After leaving the Senate, he picked up his lobbying career by representing Equitas, an insurance company he helped dodge paying for asbestos/cancer claims;
•After negative publicity about his comments suggesting that Cuban immigrants were potential suicide bombers, he blamed Hillary Clinton for causing the publicity by "releasing a statement that she made trying to capitalize on something when she knew better";
•He didn't know enough about drilling in the Everglades to comment.
Not bad for the first two weeks of a presidential campaign!
Now, you can dismiss all of this and attack Morris, but it ain't going away. You think that Thompson won't have to answer for his son's no show job. You think that he won't have to explain all of his dubious clients as a lobbyist. There is an awful lot here. It won't just go away because you seem to think he is the second coming.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
•He said that Iraqis were supporting us because of al Qaeda's ban on smoking;
He said it for a reason, Mike. It's true.
http://www.drum.army.mil/sites/installation/pao/drumDaily/newsItem.asp?i...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1893921/posts
and I can go on.
There is a contact button at the top of the page. Use it when you decide you've grown up.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
we've had a long standing, or at least several months old policy of not allowing this type of gratuitous attack on candidates (we don't really include Ron Paul in that universe of worthies). Those front pagers who have declared a favorite, right now I think of only two, keep their candidate related material in the diaries and generally refrain from bashing other candidates.
What Volpe did here was simply a cheap hit. Most of these questions have been addressed in detail and reanswering the same questions that Volpe hasn't taken the time to research serves no purpose. Some, like the one above, are blatantly untruths. Most are pretty irrelevant. Lobbyists lobby just like lawyers litigate and brokers handle stocks and bonds. It is a business.
The only other person who has run afoul of this rule was banned, reinstated, warned, warned, and rebanned. He won't be back.
Quite honestly, the Giuliani guys are taking on a lot of the worst traits of the Rombots.
Now we're going to have to support one or the other of these guys in November 08, I'm not going to allow a circular firing squad to form beforehand.
Volpe knows he can come back. Whether he avails himself of that opportunity is totally up to him.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
"Now we're going to have to support one or the other of these guys in November 08, I'm not going to allow a circular firing squad to form beforehand."
I'm certainly glad of that. I know the other person you mentioned, and he definitely would not stop.
I suppose I just hope to discern that principled objections and ongoing disagreements can continue. I am argumentative, as many others here are, and the candidate issues can pale in comparison to certain other issues for bad blood between redstaters. Perhaps I was too quick on the draw in observing whether anyone else was too quick on the draw. I, of course, defer to the observations of those who are more involved than I am.
absentee
candidates positions is perfectly okay. I don't think this last post qualified as anything but a string of rather half baked accusations which, even if they were all true, couldn't be matched by any other candidate in the race in both parties.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
...questions about Fred's history are "cheap shots" while questions about Rudy and especially Mitt are "serious inquiries" and "reasons to not support them". I'm almost convinced that Fred! could come out in support of the Reid-Feingold surrender bill and many here at RedState would find some way to justify his position.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
Streiff, with respect, I hope you reconsider that blam. I've seen worse things said about McCain many times without even a hint of disapproval, let alone blamming. And IMHO, which probably doesn't count for much but hopefully is not counterproductive, Mike has contributed intelligent commentary and reasonable debate on various threads.
I could give a flying whatever.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
All of that was pretty much cut and paste from my memory.
Or has it become bannable to knock Fred at all?
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
That's a subject line I never really expected to be using.
I'll just add that in addition, I've seen equally vicious things said about Rudy that were no more on-topic, again without a hint of disapproval let alone blamming without even a warning.
---
(Formerly known as bee) / Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
you will have to help me here, I don't know what button I am supposed to press. This is truly surreal. I have been here for months. I thought I had earned the right to speak freely without the risk of someone being so offended that they would ban me, of course, it is just absurd that I was banned because I cut and pasted, and linked, an article published by Dick Morris. This of course is an article published not only on his own web site but on Foxnews, Realclearpolitics among a host of places all over the web.
The fact that many of the points in Morris's piece have been refuted is all good and well, however politics perception is reality, and while on this site we have the opportunity to go through and debate things ad nauseum, in the real world someone hears that Fred gave his son a no show job and they aren't going to like it. They won't like him representing terrorists, and they won't like him claiming to be an outsider and also lobbying for twenty years.
You will excuse me if I didn't realize that there were specific rules against attacking candidates since my candidate, Rudy Giuliani, is attacked regularly and since just two weeks ago a diary which stipulated that based on an off handed remark about the specifics of the law on illegal immigration, that his campaign was done. I guess I construed that overwhelmingly popular diary as an attack. I guess since I saw my candidate attacked endlessly I figured that it was all right to attack Fred especially when the attack consisted of nothing more but the link to two other articles from what I consider perfectly credible sources. Frankly, I feel like this is Devonshire grade school all over again, and we are arguing over who plays where during kick ball.
But you would have been better off clicking the Contact link and appealing the decision that way. This way... well.
Nothing personal.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
I also don't think that we are down to a two horse race yet although I think we're going to see more of this press.
Thompson has not been articulate about what he believes and it's really rather simple -- Fred is a Federalist.
That's why he's against a Constitional Ban on Gay Marriage, which is what Dobson (mentioned above) has the most trouble with.
I really hope the evangelical leaders like Dobson come around for the general election and support the Republican as the best choice even if they don't have a strong desire to support them. For all of you have been saying that Thompson was the only hope to unite the party, you may want to check your hole card.
For me, I want to see Fred in a couple of debates and see if there is any fire in his belly. If I don't see what I like then I'll throw my lot in with Romney for the primary.
At this point, any of the top five Republicans will be fine with me in the general and I am starting to think that Guiliani wouldn't make a bad president despite my unease with him on social issues. Our next president will likely get only one term (can't see 16 years in a row of the GOP) so I could probably live with a one term Guiliani/Thompson combo.
he will be a very strong contender. His risk is that, having led for so much of 2007 in these two states, he won't win-or he'll win very narrowly. If Romney wins solidly, he will have real momentum and that will help him in Michigan and SC. Under this scenario he might not win it all on 1/29 and 2/5, but he probably would win a nice slice.
I think his weakness is similar to Dean's last time. There are three other candidates who could surprise him and give him a run in either IA or NH or both. Then he's in trouble.
Thompson reminds me a bit of Gore in 88; someone who might have trouble getting a toehold in the early contests who then gets branded as a regional candidate. What happens if Thompson finishes fourth or worse (behind Huckabee) in IA? How does he survive NH and stay strong for SC and FL? On the other hand, if Thompson can finish third or better in IA, he can try to turn SC into his own mini-firewall (he can't wrap it up on 1/19, but might be positioned to win the lion's share on 2/5).
Thompson cannot win the general election. We nominate him at our own peril.
We are going against Hildebeast!! We need a fighter, and Thompson's lethargy will hurt him in the general election.
We need someone who is passionate and willing to stand up for what he believes in AND take the fight to the MSM and the D's. Rudy is our best choice.
Fred reminds me of Bob Dole - A nice enough guy, but incapable of taking on the Clinton machine.
I think Rudy is the stronger general election candidate, but give Fred some time to prove he can fight.
Bob Dole was probably going to lose anyway for a variety of reasons, but he was nice by choice rather than by nature - he might have run a better or at least more satisfying campaign if he'd been his caustic self.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Seems that states where Romney spends ad money and gets his message out, he goes to the top of the polls. That may not win him the nomination, but it's not a bad position to be in.
Source: The Green Papers.
January 5: Wyoming County Conventions select 12 delegates
January 14: Iowa Caucuses
January 15: Michigan Primary
January 19: South Carolina Primary
January 19: Nevada Caucuses
January 22: New Hampshire Primary
January 29: Florida Primary
February 5: About half our delegates are chosen
I know that the press love to push their storyline, but I think this is just too much going on for the press to push Iowa/New Hampshire this time. By the time New Hampshire even comes around, the networks will be putting up delegate counts from 5 other states.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
Thompson will get both South Carolina and Florida. Romney will get New Hampshire. McCain takes Nevada. I don't see Rudy favored anywhere by next Winter (I think Thompson will overtake him in FL).
If any of the big four take both Iowa and Michigan, they go into Super Tuesday with at least a 1 touchdown lead. Thompson is the only guy here who would still merit serious consideration if both Iowa and Michigan went to anyone else.
It's a bit ironic, but the rush primary schedule still leaves Iowa a kingmaker.
We're talking about over a thousand delegates awarded on the new Super Tuesday. Iowa isn't even a safety.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
we're voting for a President. Which is why they don't count...
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
The dates for Iowa and New Hampshire have not been set yet. Those dates you posted are temporary until all the other states pick their dates. By state law Iowa has to be the fist caucus and New Hampshire the first primary, so they are waiting for all the other states to pick their dates so they can get in front.
With this compressed calendar whoever wins the early states will get the nomination. There will be no time for the losers to spin their defeats and get their acts together like Clinton did in 92 with the comeback kid narrative. In two weeks this will be over. And all the polls of states coming after New Hampshire are irrelevant because McCain and the rest of the also rans will drop out early and their supporters will migrate to the early state winners.
I realize that many people would like to believe that these primaries will be different from all the others because of some new age theory about the power of the internet but they are just deluding themselves. It's pure wishful thinking. No candidate who gets defeated in 3 or 4 states in a row is gonna come back. They will be pretty much dead.
It seems to me that the big, big, big reason people would drop out after 'losing' two states, is that their money would dry up.
The problem now though is that there just isn't *time* for the money to dry up before the next states either show the candidaste's still on track, or show he's toast.
Super Tuesday, and its four-digit delegate count, is the weed out day, that I can see. Barring some horrific showing from Thompson in South Carolina, Giuliani in Florida, or Romney in New Hampshire or Michigan (that is, the states the frontrunners are *supposed* to do well in).
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
The whole primary season is getting messed up compared to old standards.
Assuming Iowa and NH move to maintain their lead it will go:
Iowa, NH, Michigan, SC, Florida.
That means that Romney is currently (it could easily change) positioned to win the first 3 contests- including Michigan which can not be written off as unimportant. Michigan is home to the "other" typical Republican.
I think that after that it is very likely that Thompson will win SC, and Rudy will win Florida. Leaving us going into Super Tuesday with 3 viable candidates.
We could easily see a split of the Super Tuesday states, and have a long campaign.
Alternatively, Romney (assuming he maintains his leads) will be able to use his early wins to knock Fred and Rudy out of the race. (I don't see this as likely, but it's possible).
On the other hand- if Romney does win the first three races, I find it hard to imagine SC and Florida knocking him out of the race- setting up viable alternatives sure, but how do you dismiss someone who wins both Iowa and NH, and adds Michigan to top it off?
I think some Thompson fans are getting unrealistic hoping that early states won't matter at all and national poll numbers will somehow fill that vacuum.
Romney is also in a good position in Nevada (and Wyoming, for what it's worth).
If the 3-way fight is prolonged, I think Romney and Thompson spoil each other and Giuliani takes it. If Thompson's bubble bursts early enough, Romney will have a very strong hand, and will likely win. Thompson needs a stand-out performance in the early states to win the 3-way contest.
McCain seems to be stalled, but his 10-15% is pretty large.
When he drops out I really see him endorsing Thompson.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Unless McCain makes a great NH comeback I figured he'll be done afterwards. I'm assuming his Mich. support goes to Romney, while his SC support goes to Rudy and Thompson.
Just my best guess about what happens.
Anyone know why Rasmussen consistently has Fred in a better position vs. Rudy nationally than do the other polls? Is it due to some difference in sampling criteria?
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
Thanks, Neil. I didn't say he did. I'm just asking, since it's somewhat relevant, folks on this thread may know the answer, and the answer is probably quick and brief. That ok with you?
I find it rude to ask in unrelated threads because you didn't get an answer quickly enough in a related thread.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
Oh give me a break. It's not "unrelated". Find something better to do than pretending to be a (bad) cop.
I'm not pretending.
Neil gave you good advice. Why don't you just pipe down and listen to it?
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
He uses "Likely Republican Primary Voters". Others use "Likely Republican Voters" and most are using "Registered Republicans". Rasmussen has said that the more you narrow the group to the people who will vote in the primaries, the better Thompson does.
that Romney is losing a lot of support in New Hampshire. The RealClearPolitics site shows Romney falling from 31.3 to 25.7 over the last few weeks and Giuliani gaining. There has only been one large poll taken in Iowa since Thompson got into the race. I think it is very likely that Romney will not will New Hampshire and possibly not Iowa. If he fails in those two states, he will be done since that is where he is putting all of his eggs.
I agree with Erick--with those trends, I think that it will be either Fred or Giuliani. Romney basically gets no traction and both Fred and Giuliani are more interesting candidates. McCain is supposedly only going to raise $3.7 million in the third quarter, which will just about put the fork in him.
Rudy v. Fred?
We have no other choice?
I don't think so.
Nice job focusing on the national polls rather than Iowa and New Hampshire. Don't get sucked in by national polls this early. Where was Bill Clinton in September of 1991? Where was John Kerry in September of 2003?
These polls are all about name recognition. Once the voters in Iowa and New Hampshire have spoken, we'll know which candidates can get actual votes.
Romney/Thompson 2008