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: 1 2 Next »
The nation is ready for a tough SOB and pragmatist.
Rudy is going to win the general election – because national security trumps everything – even in the minds of many (not all) social conservatives.
My opinion – I realize that.
jake-the-goose on October 16, 2007 at 1:03 PM
Dems are outraising Republicans, because (a) their big givers aren’t angry at them; and (b) other donors think the Dems are going to win.
Reality is sad.
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on October 16, 2007 at 1:05 PM
So many people are now used to getting their info. from non-traditional sources. I wonder if the Dem’s. being able to purchase more TV will be as powerful a benefit as it once was.
JiangxiDad on October 16, 2007 at 1:06 PM
Cue the Ron Paulians…
JammieWearingFool on October 16, 2007 at 1:08 PM
RonPaul ’08!
/not really
Bad Candy on October 16, 2007 at 1:10 PM
AP, why are you not paying attention/highlighting the primary state-by-state polls, since it is the election season that we are in right now?
It justs make no sense to me, to pay attention to national polls since that is not the election season that we are in right now. The national polls cannot be realistic, since it is the actual primary voters that decide the nominee.
Am I the only one that notices this?
Mcguyver on October 16, 2007 at 1:11 PM
I could vote for any of the four if I had to. Giuliani is my first pick, but if he goes down, I have no problem with Thompson or Romney. I would have to hold my nose with McCain, but would choose him over PIAPS.
I think Republican fund raising will improve when we have a candidate. I am holding my usual contributions as punishment, but in the end I will be sending a few checks.
bopbottle on October 16, 2007 at 1:15 PM
Dobson is going to come around or he is going to end up looking stupid. With Rudy leading among regular church goers, Dobson may need to equivocate a little so he can have a seat at the table. He may want to have a voice in the VP selection.
Harpoon on October 16, 2007 at 1:15 PM
I think in this case, the national polls reflect the state trends. Mitt is losing his once-huge lead in New Hampshire, Thompson is only a few points ahead in South Carolina and Giuliani is breaking ahead in Florida. If he wins these states, it puts a dent in the momentum of the other candidates.
Slublog on October 16, 2007 at 1:15 PM
The real question is- what percentage of primary voters have started to pay serious attention yet? We’ve been obsessing about it for a solid 6 months now, but what about the typical primary participant?
Here in MN I’ve not seen a single TV ad for any of the candidates yet- how fluid is the race going to be in the final 3.5 months?
Hollowpoint on October 16, 2007 at 1:16 PM
In all seriousness, McCain’s gonna have to bail soon because his money’s dried up.
Mitt I think is screwed, his poll numbers are like the public education system, you can throw as much cash at them as you want, they aren’t going to get much better.
Fred is the only one who stands a chance at winning over Rudy, but he had better get his act together, now. So basically, Rudy is the likely nominee.
Bad Candy on October 16, 2007 at 1:16 PM
The funny thing is, that Howard Dean was considered a lock until the primaries actually started.
Asher on October 16, 2007 at 1:17 PM
And by that you mean whap ‘em upside the head with a pool cue, right? That’s not very nice.
Hollowpoint on October 16, 2007 at 1:18 PM
I saw some weird headline talking about a Rudy-McCain ticket or some fantasy thereof. What was that all about?
I like that one.
Jaibones on October 16, 2007 at 1:18 PM
Who’s Dobson? /sarc (kinda)
Put me down for a “who cares” on Dobson.
forest on October 16, 2007 at 1:19 PM
I’d be willing to bet the voters of New Hampshire, Iowa and Florida are paying attention – ads are running in New Hampshire.
Slublog on October 16, 2007 at 1:19 PM
Oh, and whether the nominee matters with the huge money advantage the Left has right now, I’d say yes, only because money isn’t everything, there is a limit on what money can do for you. It puts us at a big disadvantage, but not entirely crippling.
Bad Candy on October 16, 2007 at 1:20 PM
Nope – you’ve missed it.
That’s not Rudy’s floor – it’s his ceiling. When Huckaback and Brownbee call it a day, their voters don’t go to Rudy. When Mitt’s voters become up for grabs, their votes don’t go to Rudy.
This is why Fred wins in the long run – Rudy’s at his maximum.
JDinSC on October 16, 2007 at 1:21 PM
Hear, hear!!!
Rudy!!!
LtE126 on October 16, 2007 at 1:23 PM
This may initially sound cynical but work with me here:
Is there any real differentiation between Rudy, McCain, Thompson, and Romney? NO! Rudy is the social liberal/national security mouthpiece. McCain is the social liberal/ex-POW who has sometimes supported the GOP in the Senate. Fred Thompson is a more conservative social liberal best known for his acting roles. Mitt Romney is the social liberal who is a mormon and flip flops on abortion.
This polling is irrelevant so long as all the candidates are basically the same model of social liberal who is also a hawk when it comes to national security. Rudy is ahead because he’s the best known and most respected of what essentially are four candidates of the same mold. The moderate conservatives are with Huckabee. The hardline conservatives are with Tancrado. The nutjobs are with Paul.
All that being said, I expect one of the front-running social liberals will attach himself to a moderate conservative like Huckabee to create a ticket to counter the far left ticket that is clearly being formulated by the “rats.” Huckabee has very good odds with either Rudy or Mitt because he adds “south” to their Northeast. This is a two-person race because McCain and Thompson, frankly, have as much chance as Ron Paul or John Edwards on the “rat” side.
highhopes on October 16, 2007 at 1:24 PM
So a real example of the national polls being way off during the primary season.
Mcguyver on October 16, 2007 at 1:24 PM
Compare Huck’s and Brownback’s numbers to McCain’s. I’d rather pick up J-Mac’s supporters than the measly 7 or 8 percent that Huck-Back have.
Allahpundit on October 16, 2007 at 1:25 PM
It is and has been a no man race. All the candidates suck. Cons know all their candidates suck and people see that lack of confidence in them, which will aid the libs, who are happy with their candidates.
I could’ve predicted Hillary’s gonna win ages ago. Not because of the money she’s making but because:
A) Republicans are stuck with crappy candidates
B) Are still deluding themselves that a lot of people hate Hillary. I think this is only true among conservatives, who are unlikely to vote for a liberal regardless of how little they hate him/her in the first place.
C) Republicans screwed up big. Bush pissed off both social and fiscal cons. Reps are not gonna win on warhawks alone. I’ve seen LIBERTARIANS starting to support commies like Hillary and Obama because they figured it’s better to tax and spend like a madman than borrow and spend like a madman. You guys should move up here in Canada if Hillary wins. We could use reinforcements against our crappy liberal government. Even an 8 million strong, a fraction of the US population, would be enough to swing us around.
Darth Executor on October 16, 2007 at 1:25 PM
Huckabee and Brownback’s votes will give Thompson, at max, a 2% bump. There aren’t that many voters in that pool.
Mitt’s voters might go about 70-30 to Thompson and Giuliani, respectively.
And Thompson isn’t going to win this thing unless he starts looking like he wants to win this thing. He’s got to get out there more and grab at least one of the early states.
Slublog on October 16, 2007 at 1:25 PM
Per RCP:
Rudy leads Cal, NJ, PA, NV, FL
Mitt leads Iowa, NH, Michigan
Fred tied in SC with Rudy
If Mitt picks up the early ones he currently leads, will it be enough juice for him to beat Rudy in the traditional blue states…save florida. And SC probably goes to Fred if he spends his money wisely.
sunny on October 16, 2007 at 1:27 PM
State polls ? (composite of many polls)
Iowa
http://www.pollster.com/AIATopReps.png
New hampshire
http://www.pollster.com/ANHTopReps.png
South Carolina
http://www.pollster.com/ASCTopReps.png
William Amos on October 16, 2007 at 1:27 PM
I don’t know about that. We have a successful governor or two, a successful mayor, a well-known senator and a war hero.
They’ve got a half-term senator and a one-and-a half term senator.
Slublog on October 16, 2007 at 1:28 PM
If you bother to add up the numbers…. theres only 74% of Republican voters represented there.
Now…. stay with me folks…
Colorado…
Reps 998,878 registered voters
Dems 860,407
Unaffliated: 967,853
Meaning 34.2% of the voting population is neither Repub, nor Dem…
Now, its my contention that the majority of these unaffilated voters are CONSERVATIVEs who do not see the Republican party as conservative… or are a Plaugue on both your houses type of voter…
Add in the 26% of Republicans not represented by the major 4 candidates, and Hillarys 50% negative rating… and its still a wide open Race.
Romeo13 on October 16, 2007 at 1:28 PM
….”So be it”.
Mcguyver on October 16, 2007 at 1:29 PM
But Colorado has been trending blue of late. Either a lot of conservatives are sitting home, or there are more moderates than we think.
Slublog on October 16, 2007 at 1:31 PM
A year ago I was a Rudy supporter who saw great potential in Fred Thompson – no longer.
Fred looks like he has already served two terms – the man looks tired – and I am sorry – but I demand a certain level of enthusiasm from a candidate.
Fred looks, and sounds, like he wants to go home and take a nap.
I like Fred Thompson – but I don’t see him making it.
That said – I voted for Perot – so now you have my qualifications…….
jake-the-goose on October 16, 2007 at 1:31 PM
Certainly they’ve been much more exposed to the race than the rest of the country, but we’re still seeing quite a bit of change in the numbers coming out of NH and SC- there still seems to be quite a few who’ve not made up their mind yet, even in early states who shouldn’t be counted on as a predictor of who’s going to win.
Nationally, this from the Gallup poll AP linked to suggests that it ain’t exactly over yet, with a lot of undecideds still out there:
Hollowpoint on October 16, 2007 at 1:33 PM
Oh, I don’t think the race is over by a long shot, but Giuliani definitely has the edge right now. The undecideds are going to break for the candidates that have been on their local news, as well as their national – that’s why Thompson has to spend some serious time in at least one of the early states to have a chance at the later ones.
Momentum does matter, and Thompson is going to lose it (and the money that comes with it) if he doesn’t pick up at least one of the five or so early primaries.
Slublog on October 16, 2007 at 1:37 PM
Which is why national polls are not reliable come primary voting crunch time.
Mcguyver on October 16, 2007 at 1:38 PM
If he gets the Republican nomination, the Chameleon Succubus will beat him. She and her political war machine. It will probably not even be especially close.
MB4 on October 16, 2007 at 1:39 PM
The elite business interests want Rudy as the next big business pleaser after George.
Maybe if we all donate to Duncan Hunter his message can go nation wide.
Its all about exposure and Rudy’s got it and Duncan doesn’t.
Speakup on October 16, 2007 at 1:39 PM
Exit question 4: In 2012 (wow) will President Hillary be a net plus for republicans or not?
Dash on October 16, 2007 at 1:41 PM
I’d be surprised if Thompson makes much of a showing in NH. I think Thompson will have a difficult time garnering votes from a lot of moderate Republicans, especially in the northeast and the west coast and possibly even Florida. These areas may be largely Democratic but they have enough Republican votes to make a difference given the large populations in both areas. And, he’d need those votes to win. Those areas just don’t know him as a politician and he’s doing little to get acquainted. But then, I’ve been wrong before!!!
jeanie on October 16, 2007 at 1:45 PM
In my opinion, there’s just too much chatter…white noise if you will. People have difficulty focusing on two candidates never mind a truck load. Things will become clearer as some drop out. Remember, IT”S WAY EARLY!!!!!!!!!
Dread Pirate Roberts VI on October 16, 2007 at 1:47 PM
Thompson is a wash. McCain is a wash. Romney is only relevant if he maintains NH and has a subsequent bump can he really challenge Rudy. Rudy is the nominee, runs a feisty and entertaining general campaign and then loses to Hillary, who wins a close vote by sealing the vast majority of female voters.
Spirit of 1776 on October 16, 2007 at 1:50 PM
As a hefty pro-lifer, I can’t vote for Rudy, even if it’s him vs. Hilary! I don’t intend to compromise on Rudy and send the message that my vote can be taken for granted. I am conservative before republican and if the party doesn’t know it then it’s time to figure that out.
pb5000 on October 16, 2007 at 1:52 PM
That whole prediction goes out the window though if Rudy keeps answering his phone in speeches. ‘m willing to wager that platforms are less important than personal courtesy and charisma.
Spirit of 1776 on October 16, 2007 at 1:53 PM
No worries about the fund raising disparity with the Democrats – I haven’t gotten my checkbook out just yet :)
BJ* on October 16, 2007 at 1:53 PM
So, we have a Democratic majority Congress that, as today’s Turkey thread pointed out, has absolutely no clue what it is doing on anything.
And yet I read people in here saying that Hillary is inevitable.
You get the government you deserve.
Hawkins1701 on October 16, 2007 at 1:53 PM
How can all this be true? I just read over at Hugh Hewitt that:
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/14035029-7b54-40f2-a849-07de6caefcbc&trackbacks=true#commentAnchor
Dudley Smith on October 16, 2007 at 1:53 PM
BYE !!!!
jake-the-goose on October 16, 2007 at 1:54 PM
Here we go again.
sunny on October 16, 2007 at 2:00 PM
How exactly are you being “taken for granted” when the GOP has put up a pro-life candidate every presidential election cycle going back to when Roe v. Wade was even decided? One pro-choice candidate (who promises to give you judges you like), after 8 pro-life candidates in a row, and all of a sudden you’re the long-neglected stepchild of the Republicans? Sheesh
Dudley Smith on October 16, 2007 at 2:00 PM
None of that matters if they’re not conservative enough on the issues. The liberals have solid liberal candidates. We have a variety of untrustworthy liberalish “conservatives”.
Darth Executor on October 16, 2007 at 2:00 PM
It’s Hugh Hewitt- he’s pretty much turned his Townhall column into the Mitt Romney for President headquarters. He’s been completely shameless in his almost daily shilling.
Hollowpoint on October 16, 2007 at 2:02 PM
Allah
According to some sources Fred raised 6 million in the last two weeks of the quarter and the pace has picked up in October thats something.
also the Gallup polls have been outed by Rassmuessen as not even registered republicans, throw out those bogus double digit polls and the race is within the margin of error
Fred may be thinking that holding on to his cash making few but sharp pointed statements will in the end chip away and have him placing 2nd in Iowa and Florida, first in SC second in the New England states and sweeping the south and midwest then its basically back to the rust belt and the pacific coast its a foregone conclusion.
Just like Reagan did.
Rudi is short, wiry, too italian, too aggressive, he’s a great guy, but his personal life, the fact that he raised and fought against tax cuts, he’s a dead candidate walking propped up by a MSM who wants him in to be easily beaten by Hillary.
Among likely voters in the polling internals 51% are thinking Fred is the most conservative, Romney trails that by 15 and Guliani trails even more
Finally McCain and Huckabee are going to withdraw soon and those are’t heading to Guliani in bulk.
EricPWJohnson on October 16, 2007 at 2:03 PM
Note to jake-the-goose.
Explain this:
When this fully kicks in, expect Rudy to fade in the distance, since Romney has already made inroads in the early primary states.
Mcguyver on October 16, 2007 at 2:04 PM
Hollowpoint on October 16, 2007 at 2:02 PM
Sadly agree. Such a pity.
Spirit of 1776 on October 16, 2007 at 2:06 PM
And maybe if God himself comes down from Heaven, publicly endorses Hunter and lays down a 1 billion dollar campaign contribution he could break 10% in the polls.
Or we could just concentrate on those candidates who wouldn’t require devine intervention for them to actually have a chance of winning.
Hollowpoint on October 16, 2007 at 2:06 PM
Screw judges, there’s supposed to be a balance of power in the US government yet everybody acts like the SC has the final say on everything. I’d like to see judges impeached. I’d like to see a SC that doesn’t wipe its ass with the Constitution. All we got from those presidents are lip service. It’d be nice if Rudy at least keeps his word but I think the man is an unscrupulous liar who will forget about it as soon as he is given the crown.
Darth Executor on October 16, 2007 at 2:08 PM
Knock it off with the reasonable and accurate analysis. I mean, throw me a bone here so I have something to argue about. Sheesh.
Hollowpoint on October 16, 2007 at 2:09 PM
We don’t have any. Hillary will steamroll through every pathetic nominee the GOP has put up.
Darth Executor on October 16, 2007 at 2:09 PM
Heh, that and a Cleveland Indians fansite. I like Hugh’s show because he has the best guests of any talk show, but he is in the tank for Romney. Hopefully he’ll be as big a shill for the GOP if Mitt doesn’t get the nomination.
Dudley Smith on October 16, 2007 at 2:12 PM
I give it a SOLID B+!
Slublog on October 16, 2007 at 2:12 PM
Uh….that is the balance of power: the SC does have the final say on whether laws are constitutional. It only gets imbalanced when they try to legislate from the bench…so why again do you want to impeach them?
Spirit of 1776 on October 16, 2007 at 2:15 PM
Note to Mcguyver: My Reply to this:
My opinion – I don’t think it matters today – like it did in the past – 9/11 changed everything – national security trumps everything – in my opinion.
I live here in Greenville SC – Bob Jones University does not carry the same weight it once did. Again – 9/11.
That said – I congratulate Mitt – it is a plus for him…
Did he recently dye his hair???
jake-the-goose on October 16, 2007 at 2:18 PM
Another factor that’s not gotten much attention yet (and I’m too lazy to thoroughly investigate) is what impact the early states will have on Super Tuesday now that they’re moving earlier and with more early states participating.
Be it an announcement, debate, straw poll or early state win, the bump candidates get from such things tends to be temporary- how much impact is Iowa and NH going to have this time around if they’re going to hold their elections some 3 weeks before Super Tuesday? That’s a lot of time for an early state bump to flatten out.
Furthermore, no one candidate is likely going to sweep the early states- NH is up for grabs between Rudy and Romney, and SC could go either to Fred or Rudy. With no clear and convincing early state winner, will the early states matter as much as previous years in which there were fewer of them, and primaries held later than this year?
Hollowpoint on October 16, 2007 at 2:24 PM
OK. I’ve got a different outlook here. The top guys split up several of the primaries and nobody’s got the votes needed to secure the nomination. We end up with a brokered convention. The media will fall all over themselves covering it. A brokered convention is like a wet dream for those clowns. The media focus will be entirely on the Republicans. Who comes out as the eventual Nominee? Beats me.
trigon on October 16, 2007 at 2:25 PM
Mitt’s money has given him the lead in Iowa and New Hampshire. If he wins those two states and Fred takes South Carolina on Jan 29, there will be several bad news cycles for Rudy leading up to Super Tuesday on February 5th.
dedalus on October 16, 2007 at 2:30 PM
The Republican nomination is Fred’s to lose.
Fred’s main competitor is Rudy, and Rudy’s in the lead — for now. Fred could even it up or even overtake Rudy, but — as others have noted — he’s got to get on offense (pronto) in this political battle.
eanax on October 16, 2007 at 2:37 PM
Yes, it’s Rudy/Fred or Fred/Rudy, and we’ll know around Feb/March. The fact that they both deny wanting to be the VP is typical in all elections.
Entelechy on October 16, 2007 at 2:39 PM
His to lose, really? Care to expand?
Spirit of 1776 on October 16, 2007 at 2:39 PM
NH and SC are just too close to call this early. Fred will likely have to make at least a strong second place showing in IA and win in SC in order to have a fighting chance.
However, we STILL don’t know when the early states are holding their primaries or caucuses, and whether the RNC will penalize some of them for going early as they’ve threatened to do.
Hollowpoint on October 16, 2007 at 2:52 PM
The Debate is over! (sorry, had to)
Rudy 2008!!
kcluva on October 16, 2007 at 2:55 PM
Sure. Rudy is in the lead right now and, of any of the candidates on the Republican ticket (save Fred), he has the best chance of beating Hillary in a NATIONAL election.
The voting public, in general, like Rudy. He’s a bright, articulate man who has accomplished a lot as a Federal Prosecutor and as Mayor our nation’s largest city. And whether some partisans like it or not, he was a leader and a man who proved himself as a leader during 9/11.
Now, Fred Thompson is also a likable and smart man who has a calm and thoughtful demeanor and a folksy appeal that most of the voting public likes. Fred, though, needs to step up and articulate more effectively his positions (which he’s starting to do) and keep himself out in the public eye. Fred has a lot of appeal to many people, but Rudy’s been on the ground and running for awhile now and that puts Fred at a disadvantage.
The bottom line is Fred needs to be and to appear more invigorated than he currently is. I like his clam and mature demeanor, but he does need to project some level of energy and enthusiasm in running for the highest office in the land.
eanax on October 16, 2007 at 2:56 PM
I really don’t see this. Mav’s support, which I think is exaggerated in this poll, is a largely conservative voter. Why would they support a left leaning Republican. Rudy has as much support as he is going to get which is why he won’t win. The rest are fighting to be the conservative who pickups support from the second tier candidates who will drop like flies after super Tuesday. Those candidates are Thompson and Romney. One of those two will be the nominee.
Bill C on October 16, 2007 at 3:02 PM
Ok, I’ve read all the comments, but still can someone explain to me why so many of us seem to think someone as openly evil and criminal as Clinton will ever get elected?!
ScottG on October 16, 2007 at 3:03 PM
Well, a Clinton did do it twice already. Quite a few Dems and moderates still have the warm fuzzies for Bill (thanks in part to the economic prosperity that he inherited), and view a Hillary presidency as little more than a third term for Slick Willie.
And let’s not forget that Rudy (and the other candidates, to a lesser extent) has a few skeletons of his own, though certainly not as egregious as those filling Hillary’s oversized closet…
Hollowpoint on October 16, 2007 at 3:09 PM
Because most Americans do not think that she is criminal, let alone evil.
Because of the Iraq war.
And maybe most of all, because Republicans have pretty much squandered Reagan’s legacy.
MB4 on October 16, 2007 at 3:14 PM
Simple. Vote buying. She’s currently selling what a lot of of the voting public is allegedly demanding.
You should not be shocked if she’s elected in Nov. 2008.
There will be PLENTY of blame to go around if this happens…
eanax on October 16, 2007 at 3:15 PM
Some people are either trolling on behalf of liberals, so morose that they need dramatic medical help, or don’t understand the point of politics.
GOP is a coalition of different points of view. If certain groups are only going to play if they get their way 100% of the time, then they should go away. Especially since these same groups are unreliable on all other aspects of conservative policy. GG&G with free trade and market reforms only if you feel like it is not a coalition. You have to treat your ALLIES respectfully and as reaonable adults. If you act like a spoiled child, then you are going to be in the wilderness and you will deserve it.
I’m not pro-life but Thomas, Alito, and Scalia are my favourite justices. I think Roe was wrongly decided, support the Hyde Amendment, oppose federal funding of cloning research, believe that the constitution’s text means what it says, oppose changing marriage… Heck I support Thomas’ position in Lawrence v Teas that would have allowed the continued criminalisation of sodomy! Yet some people would rule me out as a candidate because I’m not personally pro-life! I also fail on one other part of the mandatory checklist. Following this continued path of irrational non-negotiable demands with no concessions to other elements within the party will destroy the GOP.
On fundraising: Obama is outraising Hillary, despite looking like he’s flaming out. many major donors are giving to Dem campaigns as insurance, especially since House and Senate GOP completely screwed over supporters and performed so abysmally. A vigourous nominee will raise plenty of money and be competitive in the general.
Making predictions about the general more than 1 year ahead of time is insane. George HW Bush was a solid lock at this point in 91. Clinton wasn’t even second string yet. Heck he hadn’t even had his campaign implode yet. Things will change, especially as Iraq is going to look very different in 6 months.
Dean wasn’t even a lock yet at this point in 99. He was building notoriety. Rudy has been discounted as impossible for 10+ months. Yet he’s still here, and still in the lead. National polling matters since this will be a national primary and it’s a fundraising contest right now. State contests will matter in the run up to Thanksgiving.
libertarianuberalles on October 16, 2007 at 3:17 PM
It’s going to be Rudy vs Bill and Hilary, there is no doubt.
Hopefully Bin Laden will come out with another threat to remind the world that we need a leader and not a commie give-away queen.
If conservatives do not get behind Rudy, they will get the same result that we have now with Pelosi, except we’ll have the Clintons as well. Then say goodbye to your house, savings, job and country.
Hening on October 16, 2007 at 3:18 PM
Thanks for the answer!
I had thought Fred had a strong chance, I don’t really think that anymore. His seems to be running a general election campaign during primary season. For ex, he was absent at primary states for 3 days after the debates and then when he showed up it was on Fox. I don’t get the strategy, it plays against his stereotypes of non-energized and well, lazy.
And he said he wouldn’t attack other candidates (going so far as to say they didn’t really even know/care about their positions – ie get our message out) and then he does. I don’t have a problem with it necessarily, just seems uncoordinated. And all the staff shuffing makes me wonder if he does have a focus campaign strategy. (Not to take away anything from Cheney, Allen, Abraham). I just don’t see it now and I’m kind of disappointed frankly.
Identity politics. The bases will both, of course, turn out, but the polling indicates she has a majority of the majority – most women favor her and women are the majority. Plus she was married to the 1st black president so she’s got that constituency locked up.
Spirit of 1776 on October 16, 2007 at 3:26 PM
The situation is bad and denial never got anyone anywhere.
No one that I am aware of expects anything remotely like 100%.
Well yes, if you were also a partial birth abortion, gun grabbing, sanctuary city mayor.
Making predictions is not insane. It is a basic of life.
MB4 on October 16, 2007 at 3:29 PM
Fixed. I think it likely that a 3rd party social con spoiler to emerge if Rudy gets the nomination; even if not, the Republican turnout won’t be as strong as it otherwise would.
No amount of caterwauling on blogs is going to change the fact that a lot of conservatives (social cons or otherwise) simply won’t vote for someone they percieve to be a pro-choice, pro-illegal immigrant, anti-gun “moderate” candidate. If 5% of voters who would normally vote Republican sit it out or vote 3rd party because they won’t support the nominee’s social views, Hillary almost certainly wins.
Hollowpoint on October 16, 2007 at 3:31 PM
That is so gross…eewwwwwwww
sunny on October 16, 2007 at 3:32 PM
Non of you caterwaulers are doing any good here so you should just pick up your toys and go home….
Mcguyver on October 16, 2007 at 3:39 PM
And a lot of us Conservatives are saying that if you don’t nominate an actual conservative, YOU will give the election to the Clinton’s.
If the only reason you give us to vote for your candidate is he’s not as bad as they are, you will loose the election.
If you nominate a Liberal in a Republican suit, you’ll loose…
The Republican party apparently learned NOTHING from the last election.
Romeo13 on October 16, 2007 at 4:17 PM
Sorry Allah…had to do it…
MadisonConservative on October 16, 2007 at 4:19 PM
It’s called a typo, Little Miss Sunshine. I obviously meant to type C-A-L-M.
eanax on October 16, 2007 at 4:30 PM
See what you made me do?!?
Slublog on October 16, 2007 at 4:34 PM
Well, get ready for another Clinton presidency.
[sarcasm] It’ll be so much fun! [/sarcasm]
eanax on October 16, 2007 at 4:35 PM
That would all be fine IF Fred was running in a vacuum that didn’t include his lobbying history, CFR, and advising terrorists. Whe you add the facts in with wishful thinking, Fred is toast in a general and needs to opposed at every turn.
csdeven on October 16, 2007 at 4:38 PM
What election are you talking about? POTUS 2004? The Republicans gave you W and won
Are you talking about Congress 06? The candidates were conservative, soco’s and pro-Iraq war. The Dems ran anti-war with many blue-dogs. I do not see how this election proves your point. In fact, I think it proves the opposite. Elections in two party systems are all about seizing the middle. You loose when the other side has the middle. After you loose you need to reevaluate, recalibrate and regain the middle. IF YOU ARE TOO FAR RIGHT THAT YOU START TO LOOSE ELECTIONS, YOU NEED TO MODERATE.
tommylotto on October 16, 2007 at 4:38 PM
How many times do we have to explain it’s not the national picture you need to look at? It’s still a three-horse race, with Romney holding the early states, Giuliani holding the purple Super-Duper Tuesday ones, and Thompson expected to take the Sun Belt portion (with the likely exception of Florida).
McCain isn’t quite bankrupt, at least as long as his debtors are willing to wait until the general-election cycle. Besides, it appears he has converted to a taxpayer-matching campaign, and those funds have not been released yet.
If any campaign is bankrupt, it’s the Tancredo one, followed closely by the Brownback and Hunter campaigns. If Romney isn’t willing to forgive his “massive debt”, add him to the busted list. As for the media’s favorite dark-horse, he’s not exactly in a position to capitalize.
The money pic is indeed very bleak when positioned against the Clinton campaign. Our only hope is that Obama magically does enough with his $34 million to drain the $50 million money pot the Hildabeast has already amassed.
steveegg on October 16, 2007 at 4:38 PM
Unless that half-term Senator manages to use his $32 million effectively enough to cause that one-and-a-half term Senator to burn through a significant portion of her $35 million, they’ll also have a sizable advantage during the traditionally-quiet time between the early primaries and the conventions. They also have ABCCBSNBCCNNPMSNBCNYTWPLATCTyourlocalpaintcatcher, for which they don’t have to pay, and they’ll have a jump-start on the general (remember, what’s left rolls right over).
steveegg on October 16, 2007 at 4:45 PM
Thanks for the answers, but Bill was an unknown, Hillary is not. That’s why her history over the last sixteen years should neutralize her threat, as far as I can see. She has shown that she’s nothing if not corrupt and power hungry. Too many Hsus in her closet…
ScottG on October 16, 2007 at 4:45 PM
If we nominate the most conservative, with Hillary’s negative numbers so high (providing she in the nominee) there are going to be a lot of independents and right-leaning democrats that will hold there nose and vote for the Republican nominee, as well as garner the soc-conservative vote.
Check out my observation of Hillary’s negative numbers here.
Mcguyver on October 16, 2007 at 4:49 PM
Did you actually read what I said? I didn’t say anything about who has final say on whether laws are constitutional. The judiciary does not have the right to fabricate constitutional “rights” or to misuse it to do as they please.
Because Roe vs Wade was exactly that: legislation from the bench. Of course it’s too late for impeachment now but I doubt the courts will stop at that. I’d like to see Congress exercise its power over the SC once in a while.
Darth Executor on October 16, 2007 at 5:04 PM
Massive earmarks that led to corruption charges and support for amnesty were examples of being “too far right”???
If you look at the Republicans who lost, it was mostly those connected to scandal and “moderates” defeated by Blue Dog Democrats. The NRCC tried your strategy of backing “moderates”, and it backfired horribly.
Nominate someone who’s too close to the Dems on too many issues and the result is a lack of incentive for Republicans to vote. Anyone who thinks that the loss in 2006 was because the Republican party was acting “too far right” simply wasn’t paying attention.
If the Republican party is in shambles, it sure as heck isn’t because they’ve been so staunchly conservative- it’s because they’ve favored love of power and campaign contributions over conservative principles such as rule of law, decreasing spending, small government, and everything else the Republican party is supposed to stand for.
It’s no surprise the Dems won by exploiting Republican weakness on these issues by (falsely) promising earmark and ethics reform.
Did Bush Sr lose because he was “too far right”, or because he broke his promise of “no new taxes”? Did the moderate Bob Dole lose to a vulnerable Clinton because he was “too far right”? Did Reagan win because he became more “moderate”?
But go ahead- nominate Rudy and give otherwise reliable Republican voters who are already upset about the non-conservative Republican governance of late and give them even more reason to just stay home than Bush and Congressional Republicans already have.
Hollowpoint on October 16, 2007 at 5:21 PM
Please pull; upon further review, I stepped over the line.
steveegg on October 16, 2007 at 5:24 PM
Bill wasn’t exactly an unknown in 1996, but still got re-elected. Even with 16 years of Clinton history, Hillary still has a net positive approval rating.
No one can predict how things will shake out between now and November 2008, but it would be foolish to discount Hillary at this point.
About 2 years ago, I told a friend (who was convinced that Hillary would win) that Hillary had a 1 in 6 (16.7%) chance of getting elected- 1 in 2 to win the nomination, 1 in 3 of winning the general. Now I give her a 45% chance- 9 in 10 for the nomination, 1 in 2 to win the general.
Hollowpoint on October 16, 2007 at 5:39 PM
Graci. Now, who do I have to make a visit to for penance?
steveegg on October 16, 2007 at 5:58 PM
Well put. The Republican party has become like a man who got sick from drinking some very bad hootch but who in his stuporous state somehow thinks that he will get better if he drinks even more of the same stuff.
MB4 on October 16, 2007 at 6:22 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »