Who’s going to beat Rudy?
posted at 1:00 pm on October 16, 2007 by Allahpundit
Follow me here. According to Marc Ambinder, McCain’s third-quarter data reveals that he’s bankrupt. Mitt’s spent $22 million more than Giuliani and raised $3 million less this quarter (if you exclude the loan he made to his own campaign), leaving him with only $9.2 million in cash on hand — compared to Giuliani’s $16.6 million. Fred ended up raising a shade more than $9 million and has $7 million on hand, decent numbers given the fact that he didn’t announce until the quarter was two-thirds over but not exactly a fearsome indicator of the power of the Fredheads unleashed. Now look at this, from Gallup:
Almost six weeks after his announcement, Fred’s actually down four points. McCain’s Iraq honeymoon is over and Mitt, despite a little uptick, is hovering at around the single-digit mark after having spent $52 million on the campaign. Even if he succeeds in winning over most of the Christian right, there’s not much they can do for him except push him up towards what looks to be Rudy’s 30% floor. As McCain flames out, Rudy’s going to pick up a fair share of his support, which should leave him at upwards of 40% and Fred the only obstacle in his path. Exit question one: Is this a two-man race now? Exit question two: Is Dobson going to come around on Fred if Rudy starts inching towards 50%? And exit question three: Who cares? Just look at this.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
As I said…. learned nothing.
The many voters felt betrayed by the Bush vote… we bit on the “but the other guy is worse” in 2004 and reelected Bush… who then gave us bigger government, big spending, nothing fixed here (Soc sec, energy policy… nothin)… and a further erosion into more partisan politics.
So, when the Reps in Congress who were big government, big spenders, with poor morals ran in 2006 the Conservative voter stayed home… no one to vote FOR… you ran the same type of “well I’m not good, but the other guy will be even worse” strategy in the campaigns. No new ideas. No promises to FIX things… so many voters chose not to support them.
If you adhere to the same type of strategy, you’ll get the same type of result.
I’ve seen no national agenda of what the Reps are going to do to fix things… Earmark reform, line item veto, Soc Sec plans, making military larger so we can fight this war…
Crap, I could give you a 10 point CONSERVATIVE plan that the voters would go for in a heartbeat IF they could trust you to implement it.
Problem is… you’re not doing that.
Romeo13 on October 16, 2007 at 6:29 PM
Reposting and extending on what had been pulled, without the portion that got it pulled:
Seeing elections are 40/40/20, with the 20 being the middle, if you lose even a quarter of the base, you’re toast. Allow me to demonstrate:
Let’s call the party making the leap for the middle at the expense of its base Party A, and the party concerned only with its core turnout Party B. Let’s further assume that Party A gets 70% of the middle. Here’s the vote totals (done out of that 100 listed above for clarity of numbers):
Party A: – 30 votes from the base (40 less 10 that abandoned the party), plus 14 from the middle (70% of 20), equals 45.
Party B: – 40 votes from the base, plus 6 from the middle (30% of 20), equals 46.
Last time I checked, 46 beats 45.
steveegg on October 16, 2007 at 6:34 PM
I disagree. Your scenario suggests that the man has other options. I think the party is more like a guy stranded in the desert and his only choice is to drink his own piss or die of thirst.
csdeven on October 16, 2007 at 6:36 PM
Maths right but your proportions are incorrect…
The unaffiliated voter is now 34% of the electorate… at least here in Colorado… and growing.
Bet its pretty close to that nationaly.
Problem is that a LOT of the unaffiliated voters are CONSERVATIVEs who feel betrayed by the Republican party. The unaffiliated voters are no longer the moderates, but are more stretched across the entire spectrum of the electorate.
Romeo13 on October 16, 2007 at 6:58 PM
We ought to hope that Rudy or Mitt gets the nomination. When was the last time a president was elected who was or had been a Senator? JFK, I believe. For some reason Senators just don’t do well in the presidential election even though they often get the party nomination.
Since the Dems are loaded up with Senators as their candidates, it is a cinch that their nominee will be a current or former Senator (unless the Goracle steps into the race; he has VP experience to trump the Senator background).
Laugh at my pet theory if you must, but mark my words come Nov ’08.
Snidely Whiplash on October 16, 2007 at 8:18 PM
It is odd that no Senator has been elected President since JFK. And JFK beat the Vice President (Nixon).
However, there is always a time for streaks and records to be broken.
eanax on October 16, 2007 at 8:33 PM
I included those that would either vote Pubbie (or ‘Rat) or stay home rather than vote for the other side in the 40/40. I will say that those that will crawl across broken glass to vote straight-party has gone down, and most of that has happened on the Pubbie side.
steveegg on October 16, 2007 at 9:00 PM
EricPWJohnson on October 16, 2007 at 2:03 PM
Hey Eric, we don’t agree often, but I agree with you here. Good to “see” you again! Hope the girls are doing well!
Neocon Peg on October 16, 2007 at 9:34 PM
Actually ones urine at that point would have such a high concentration of sodium, nitrogen and phosphorus that one would probably die just as soon, maybe even sooner that way.
MB4 on October 16, 2007 at 10:29 PM
That’s not what I was taught. I was taught that you’d get one and possible two “servings” (ha!) before it reached concentrations that would net no benefit. But we were taught not to wait until you were completely dehydrated.
csdeven on October 17, 2007 at 11:04 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2