Monday, July 23, 2007
|
|
What Do Rudy's Ads Mean?
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
5:08 PM
|
CNN and the Washington Post both report on the new Rudy ads running in Iowa and new Hampshire. I'll play them on the program today, and ask: "What do they tell us?"
The Post's Chris Cillizza writes that "[t]he moves by Giuliani show that his campaign understands (or at least believes) that the race has changed fundamentally. With McCain bounced out of the top-tier, Giuliani is likely to get a lot more attention from his potential rivals -- as evidenced by the memo sent out by Romney's campaign over the weekend."
"The battle to define Giuliani's identity will be the preeminent struggle on the Republican side in the next few months," concludes Cillizza. "Expect more barbs thrown Hizzoner's way and watch how hard (and how quickly) his campaign pushes back."
A second take is that Rudy recognizes that he can't adopt a "nothing matters until Florida" approach to the primaries, and that he's got to win somewhere early or watch the early contests greatly impact the early voting (which starts the day after the Iowa caucuses) and absentee voting in many places. The decision to go on the airwaves in the first two states telegraphs some alarm at Romney's momentum in both places, and raises the stakes for Fred Thompson as well. With two of the big three battling it out, the prospects of Thompson taking a bye are greatly diminished.
|
|
I wasn't dissing Mitt. I think he's a solid candidate. In fact, next to RG, he's my favorite. But the fact is he has no national pull at this time. All of his support is in states where he's spent a lot of money on ads.
Generally, advertising-driven support is not deep. This is especially true seven weeks - much less seven MONTHS - prior to an election. Traditionally, advertising-driven voters don't settle on a candidate until 2-6 weeks prior to an election. I used to work on campaigns and, whether big or small, the two-week mark is generally the benchmark.
So why is Mitt spending so much of his war chest on keeping what can only be described as a cosmetic lead in two small states and touting his lead in Nevada, which is a little like Mitt touting a lead in Utah, if you understand Nevada's demographics? So far, it's been the only way he can keep himself in the "serious" category in the media's eye. Does that mean he can't become a strong candidate? Of course not, but so far, despite his national media attention, he hasn't resonated with the public at large.
Bottom line, July polls in Iowa and New Hampsire won't matter much in Iowa or New Hampsire, much less the rest of the country. If Mitt can't get some national traction between now and December, I don't see those little states being much of a help, and even support in those states will begin to slip. |
|
BG and HH specialize in making oracular pronouncements about what they think/wish will happen. Yet when I post a poll result - Romney 4% - this is dismissed as my "hoping" that Romney won't gain any traction.
I just don't get why BG is "hoping" (his words) that FT has topped out, unless he's Mitt's campaign director or something. I'd like to see as strong a candidate as possible facing Hillary, whether that means McCain or Romney or one of the others. And even if I were dying to see McCain get the nomination, I wouldn't want him to get it simply because the other three & Newt all suffered major blows. What good will it do anyone for Mitt to get the nomination by default just because RG and FT implode McCain-style as HH and DB and BG frankly wish for?
What good will all that do anyone other than Hillary, I mean. |
|
Your analysis of the "odds" is correct.
MR is sustained by his wealth in the campaign ... but that is ok. In the expectations game, he HAS to win Iowa big. I think MR is very vulnerable in NH due to Independants. Also look at what happened to MR in Mass where he de facto lost control of the delegate process ... not a good omen.
There are simply too many unknowns around Thompson e.g. raising money, where he gets a win (SC is no lock), health, really not identified other than Arthur Branch to most people etc etc. He is so easily painted negatively (who in his immediate family is or was not a lobbyist?)and I still never get an answer to any specific accomplishements of his.
I doubt he runs in the end.
Despite mis-steps, pounding by Lib (and some right wing media), RG has incredible favorables among Republicans, only slightly less among Independants and strong on Dem's. This sperates him from everyone. More mundane, he has several major "lock" states on 2/5 where he has to spend zero money and time to get 18-20% of delegates for nomination.
JM and what he does must also be factored.
I think it is RG's to lose |
|
when Guiliani needs to "define" himself, and when Romney maintains a tenuous campaign by virtue of his massive wealth.
Too bad Hugh (and other great thinkers) have been so assimilated into "the machine" as to ignore the unignorable power of Thompson's un-campaign. Screw what the people want...I wrote a book on Romney! |
|
I only caught one of the radio ads today on Hugh's show ('had a Rush concert to catch and now I've got this smile plastered across my face and a satisfying ring in the ears to prove it...) It was the one with the ill-advised music nearly drowning out his voice, in which he talks about lowering taxes and spending.
What was exasperating about it was that his argument was made entirely from pragmatism, not ethical principle.
What I heard were recitations of his success in increasing overall revenues by lowering taxes, followed by the tepid appeal of "Lowering taxes and controlling spending are what's needed to stimulate the economy."
What I didn't hear was anything remotely resembling Reagan's simple point that "The money belongs to us, not them." I needn't hold my breath waiting for Giuliani to champion the idea that confiscating a person's property by force is flatly evil, regardless of whether it's to line one's own pockets or the pockets a "poor" person. That would be the argument from ethics and a sure indicator of someone who is *not* a business-as-usual RINO.
'Tis a crying shame that Mr. Paul is so terminally confused about foreign policy. On virtually every other issue...
~sigh~
If this is the best the GOP "leadership" can do, I'll have to throw my vote on Judge Janice Rogers Brown as a write-in, just to keep my conscience clear.
|
|
Rudy is running ads for one simple reason. He can not afford to look bad after stiffing the straw poll and needs to finish 2nd in front of Thompson and especially Brownback, Huckabee and McCain.
McCain is to broke to run ads and Thompson can't run ads. If Rudy runs 3rd or 4th in the IA straw poll it questions his front runner status and causes his national polls to droop.
On the odds, Rudy is back near his top of last spring (maybe a double top). Thompson has leveled out but has upside potential. I keep hoping he has topped but that may not have happened yet. Romney has a oscillating trend line that move up nicely. He goes up and then comes back down to his upward trending line. He is near his trend line now. He should be oscillating up again pretty soon.
In spite of Thaale's hopes Romney will start to get more traction in SC. He is just starting to campaign there. He has some upward movement in FL if you look at the same pollster for the last 4 months or so.
A bad straw poll showing could really hurt Rudy and Thompson. Even though they are not officially trying, they are the national front runners and the expectations are that they will run 2 and 3. If they get beat by a second tier candidate or two that will look very bad. |
|
Trend (last 10 days) has been RG up significantly, FT level to slightly down, MR down a lot, JM down through the floor
2008 Republican Pres Nominee(Others on Request)
GIULIANI
Rudy Giuliani to be the Republican Presidential Nominee 40.0 +1.3
2008.GOP.NOM.THOMPSON(F)
Fred Thompson to be the Republican Presidential Nominee 32.6 -1.0
2008.GOP.NOM.ROMNEY
Gov Mitt Romney to be the Republican Presidential Nominee 16.2 +0.7
2008.GOP.NOM.MCCAIN
John McCain to be the Republican Presidential Nominee 5.0 -0.1
|
|
Iowa is an organizational challenge. MR will pour everything into winning there and likely will unless MR, FT, JM and other minions get in a multi way split and RG slips in. Unlikely.
NH is determined by the Independants AND Republicans. I think RG wins and MR is bye bye. Look at what happend to MR in Mass last week as a clue
SC is close between FT and RG which is all RG needs.
Florida - RG wins and it is now all over but the shouting
All of this is about the future which no one knows the intervening events. I really don't think FT runs |
|
For a guy who pretends to hate MSM and the old media, Hugh often cites them.
What Hugh - couldnt find anybody from the new media to get this info on Rudy's campaign and his ads? |
|
You're underestimating Romney and overestimating Fred who has a serious lack of substance. I see his support slipping as people realize his lackluster qualifications and that he's not all that conservative. He lobbyied for abortionists and lied about it. What else don't we know about him? I still think McCain-Feingold will hurt him. It's the only real think he can claim to having done in the senate.
It's a race between Rudy and Romney, with Romney having the better overall credentials. |
|
Rudy knows that voters, even those in Iowa and New Hampsire, aren't paying much attention right now and these polls are meaningless.
Mitt's lead in the small states, and his poor standing everywhere else, is because he's the only one flooding the airwaves with ads right now. If Mitt doesn't win big - very big - in both Iowa and New Hampshire, he gets ejected from top-tier status.
Mitt needs the big lead now in the small states to keep from becoming irrelevant. But the early lead means nothing. In fact, it's too early to even think about knocking Mitt off. And given Mitt's ad-driven support, it won't be hard to chip away at his lead once the others start putting up ads - just watch the trends starting in November.
Rudy doesn't need to worry right now about the polls in these two states, but he does need to worry about letting other candidates define him. That's the only reason for Rudy or Fred to spend a dollar on advertising in Iowa or NH between now and November.
When the big ball falls in Times Square ushering in 2008, it'll most likely be a two-man race between Rudy and Thompson with Mitt on the outside looking in. |
|
I almost completely agree with you that "nothing matters until Florida." A minor quibble: South Carolina matters a little, and the battle between Giuliani (28%), McCain (20%), and Thompson (17%) may be a tight one.
When Gingrich (6%) and Romney (4%) are dropped from the polling soon, we should get a good picture of how the Palmetto State is leaning and what the chances of each of the Big Three are. |
|
|
|