Friday, August 10, 2007
|
|
Aiming At Ames
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
8:06 AM
|
If Senator Brownback or Governor Huckabee don't topple Governor Romney at Ames, the pressure on them to bow out of the race will be huge, and the financial realities even larger. (A race against Senator Pryor would see a flood of donations to Governor Huckabee from thousands of folks impressed with his upbeat performance on the campaign trail but pledged to a different presidential contender.)
At an audience forum last night at Philly's Constitution Center, my standard Q & A with the crowd revealed one Huckabee supporter among a couple of hundred GOPers, and a lead for Giuliani, followed by Romney and Thompson in a distant third. The Fred Fad seems to have gone flat, as Bill Bennett was discussing with Byron York on his program yesterday. The effect of Fred's fan dance and the debates is to make this increasingly a Rudy-Romney race. The good news about that is the camps behind both men seem favorable to the other should their guy not get over the line. The dust-ups between now and February 2 may change that, but when the question came about a "Romney-Rudy" or "Rudy-Romney" ticket there were many, many nods. This is the base, and they want to win, badly. Both of the leaders have enormous energy and purpose, which the average GOPer knows will be need in the matchup with Clinton Inc.
It was also an evangelical-Catholic crowd. When asked who would prefer not to vote than vote for either Romney or Giuliani, not one hand appeared. The fear of the stay-at-home evangelical voter may not be a complete myth, but it is greatly overstated.
From the WSJ.com this morning (subscription required):
Mitt Romney is pouring big money into tomorrow's nonbinding straw poll in Ames, Iowa, even though the former Massachusetts governor's chief rivals for the Republican presidential nomination aren't participating.
Although there is little doubt he'll emerge the victor, Mr. Romney is marshalling a massive show of strength in hopes of not just winning but winning big. It's part of his effort to cement a growing perception among party activists and donors that he's the most driven and best organized in a crowded field of Republican candidates. The former venture-capital executive hopes his campaign's reputation for ruthless business efficiency will show Republicans he could assemble the best machine to defeat the Democratic nominee next November.
A win is a win is a win, and the margin won't matter, though Romney does have to fear that Giuliani, Thompson and McCain will work overtime to direct their troops to Huckabee, Brownback, or Tancredo in an attempt to take some shine off the day.
|
|
Romney will win the IA caucus. Rudy and McCain recognized the month ago. They and Fred will try to make it look good before the caucus but that is to keep up appearances and insure that they do not run behind Huckabee, Brownback and Tancredo in the actual caucus. If they do they are really damaged nationally.
Romney can win the early primaries with his GOTV (organization). Fred is in real trouble if he can not get his organization hitting on all cylinders very quickly. Rudy seems to be relying on his image and saving most of his money for ad wars.
Romney can do well in FL because there are so many large suburbs. It will cost him blood but a win in FL will put him ahead of Rudy nationally. He has time to get his organization into place and run the right ads. Rudy support is soft and Fred's support is softer. |
|
|
I'm inclined to agree with you that Mitt and Romney are 2 of the 4 best candidates that we've got! I also think that you have the odds against Hunter winning the nomination pegged about right, although I might have added a couple of more zeros before the 1. As for Fred, I noted that you did't argue with the fact that he is organizationally and financially challenged. I'm guessing that you're aware as well that he should have announced in late June or early July at the latest. He's actually going to campaign in Iowa next week. Why? Romney has had Iowa sewed up for months now. The University on Iowa poll that just came out has Romney at 27 per cent and Rudy at 11 per cent. I'll give you a hint....Fred was lower. If timing is everything, Fred's got nothing. |
|
|
|
|
All the recent polls show that Fred has been in decline for weeks now. He has no organization, very little money, and he missed his window. If any of the other candidates were going to catch on fire, we would have seen some evidence of it by now. What Mitt and Rudy have in common is impressive executive experience. In presidential politics, there is no substitute. I prefer Mitt because he's more telegenic, more eloquent, and better on the social issues. But either of these guys would slaughter Hillary in the presidential debates. |
|
|
I guess if you want to limit the Northeast to New England and New York, have at it. I'm thinking more historically, demographically, and geographically. But heck, let's do it your way--the Northeast is Maine. |
|
are "NorthEast liberal"...any lingering doubts
about LP's mind have...well...vanished.Geography 101 is a funny thing,apparently not taught in Calif any more.They did away with History some years ago and substituted World Cultures(We refugees don't call it The Peoples Republic for nuthin'.).Enough said.
Rudy + Condi...That'll get them spinning today ! |
|
As a native Californian, let me just say the northeast liberals are basically the finest part of this country's moral and cultural heritage. Northeasterners get on my nerves too, especially when it comes to sports, but they ARE America. From Chicago to Pennsylvania all the way up to Maine--that's America!!
And btw, Rudy and Romney sure ain't no Northeast liberals. Maybe when compared to the reactionaries in your neck of the woods, but that ain't saying much. The Red State elites would drive our country to ruin. Enough with the southern Presidents, already!! |
|
MSNBC says that Ron Paul is emerging as the threat to Slick Willard in Ames. Obviously, we don't truth that particular news organization, but it would add an interesting dimension to the discussion.
It would rather be like that old story about a new dog food. The company executives are gathered together and the CEO says something like: "I don't understand it. We have given the product attractive packaging. We have pumped the food with vital nutrients. We have advertised relentlessly. Why the hell isn't this dog food selling?" From the back of the room comes a voice: "Maybe dogs don't like it."
Who knows. Maybe Ron Paul is a dogfood that American conservatives like, notwithstanding the dismissive harumphing of guys like Hugh. |
|
Who cares? Which northeast liberal do you want? I'd prefer neither.
The primary responsibility of the U.S. government is to protect the territorial integrity and people of this country. They have completely abdicated this responsibility. Both parties have been complicit in this. We are being told it is not possible to control our borders, enforce our laws, and thereby control our destiny as a nation. Hogwash. We are being sold out by corporations intent on importing workers for jobs that can't be exported with the taxpayers paying the true costs, financial and human. If we act like sheep and don't stop the inundation across our borders, we will lose our country without a bleat.
http://www.gohunter08.com
|
|
|
|
I think that Rudy has a tremendous advantage because of 9/11 in that people know what he stands for. They may not necessarily know what he doesn't stand for.
Mitt, on the other hand, is not well known. His expenditures in Iowa are getting him national coverage, which is what he needs. Personally, I knew virtually nothing about him until recently. As I learn more, I favor Mitt as my candidate because he is more conservative than Rudy. My biggest concern is that the "Mormon" factor may make many people nervous abouut his ability to beat Hillary.
Fred and Newt have appeal but both have too many negatives to be the front runner. |
|
If Romney hasn't bought Iowas by about 25 points, with no competition, mind you, this is nothing more than failure on his part. Outside of IA, NH & MA (where he would no longer win, and he only won due to his then pro-choice stance), no one knows who he is. He is NOT a national figure.
It is simply dishonest for Hugh to say "a win is a win, and the margin won't matter." Hugh's smarter than that. Good thing he remain undecided and impartial on the primary though. |
|
about Thompson going flat. He's pushed himself into second overall without expending political capital or cash. He has more cash on hand and more recognition than anyone other then Giuliani. I suppose you can consider it going flat when someone went from nothing to 2nd without expending any of the normal campaigning effort, but I consider it to be smart politics and just the first part of the overall campaign for Thompson.
Romney may manage to win Iowa (I still don't consider that a foregone conclusion at this stage in the game), but I can't take him seriously until he gets significantly above 10% support. Even with McCain in free-fall he's above Romney nationally in the Realclearpolitics average polls.
The real state of the Republican race is how good of a campaign Giuliani is running. He's making all the right moves so far, mending fences with the various Republican constituencies especially including those interested in judges and economics. He's running a great campaign in my opinion and will be hard to beat - even with his built-in disadvantages. |
|
Just wait until more voters see him on the stump.
ZZZZZZZZZ
As for PA, my state, it goes to Hillary in 08, unless Rudy is nominated, in which case it goes to the GOP. |
|
RCP has Romney over 10 in Florida. But with Giuliani at 25 and Thompson at 21 (and even McCain at 10) I do not see that. Plus I am not sure Jeb is going to support Romney anymore (he seems to be leaning Giuliani or Thompson).
I am not saying Romney can't get a bump if he wins the Iowa Caucuses (he will get a bump if he wins) but I wonder if it will be enough.
I assume Romney will win the Ames straw poll. Let's see what that does for him nationally. |
|
"At an audience forum last night at Philly's Constitution Center, my standard Q & A with the crowd revealed one Huckabee supporter among a couple of hundred GOPers, and a lead for Giuliani, followed by Romney and Thompson in a distant third. The Fred Fad seems to have gone flat. . ."
Not exactly a scientific poll, but fair enough.
Here is the August 8 Qunnipiac poll data for Pennsylvania. Giuliani leads Republicans with 29 percent, followed by 16 percent for McCain, 14 percent for Thompson, 9 percent for Gingrich and 3 percent for Romney.
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x2882.xml?ReleaseID=1089
Mitt has a real hurdle in the Middle Atlantic States (where Giuliani is well known to GOP voters there) and the South (where Fred Thompson is very popular). |
|
|
Right - Fred is just not interested in any of these silly games the other candidates are playing. |
|
Such games. How can anyone who claims to be intelligent and wants to be POTUS spend a big part of loyalist donations on a rigged silly game that only helps the promoters and this Iowa community?
It speaks poorly of any candidate who would participate in such folderol.
Romney just does not go down well. He plays to embellish himself and Ann. I support Fred, but that is not why I say that. I don't want such a hand on the nuke switch.
Don Jones
MyManFred.com |
|
I do not think that Rudy will win IA because he stiffed the straw poll. The field will narrow and many conservatives will have to look for a second choice. FlipFlop and religion does not seem to be hurting Romney much in IA.
Rudy has yet to pour his money into organization or a lot of ads but he is widely known with a very good favorable rating. Why and how Romney blew Rudy out of the straw poll I am not sure, but if Romney can do that in IA he can do it in NH.
Romney may be able to win FL. Quinnipiac has him at 9 in their latest poll. He is rising. There was a time when Romney was way back in IA and NH. |
|
|
|