It's a slow news week but we've reached the end of the 2nd quarter of a year where the Presidential campaign has been running in earnest. Let's take a step back from the grind of the daily news and evaluate the fundamentals of the Republican race since the start of the year. This first post will cover the money chase and what we know from polls thus far, the second will cover strategy from the assorted campaigns.
Summary:
In short, Rudy Giuliani remains the nominal front-runner, Mitt Romney has emerged as a truly top-tier candidate, Fred Thompson has great potential while remaining a bit of an unknown quantity, and John McCain's campaign has likely been mortally wounded.
The biggest number to watch after two quarters of reported results may well be overall cash on hand that can be spent on the primaries. Giuliani has around $15 million, Romney about $12 million, and McCain under $1.2 million. Thompson's totals remain unknown thanks to his "unannounced" candidacy.
Giuliani wins credit for the largest take of primary funds in the 2nd quarter, $15 million versus Romney's $14.5 million and McCain's $11.2 million. Romney has raised the most in total primary funds since the start of the year, with about $35 million against Giuliani's $33 million - plus Romney has "loaned" his campaign $8+ million. On the down side for Giuliani, this was his first full quarter of fundraising after his operation didn't get rolling until part way through February, yet he barely out-raised Romney.
Nevertheless, Romney and Giuliani have an obvious momentum advantage as seen in donor numbers. McCain added only 21,000 new donors in the 2nd quarter, compared to additions of almost 50,000 for Romney and 56,000 for Giuliani respectively.
It's also tough to understate how bad the fundraising situation is for McCain, particularly the cash-on-hand. He's even considering taking federal matching funds now, which as Marc Ambinder explains, amounts to campaigning with a full set of shackles.
Polling:
While the snapshot of current polling averages provided by RealClearPolitics remains invaluable, there is a benefit to understanding long-term trends at this stage of the campaign. On that score, the charts at pollster.com are an excellent resource.
1) National Polls (scroll down to "Top Republican Contenders" at the link): Pollster shows the depth of McCain's problems, basically a steady downward trend since the turn of the year. Giuliani is in better shape but has been losing ground consistently since his February coming out. Thompson is obviously soaring and Romney continues on a modest upward slope.
2) Iowa: McCain's and Giuliani's slides are more acute here, likely fueled in part by their withdrawal from the Ames Straw Poll. Romney has elevated himself into front-runner status in this state, with Thompson moving into a tenuous second, almost by default.
3) New Hampshire: The news in the first primary state isn't good for Giuliani or McCain, but it's not as bad as Iowa. Romney is the front-runner here too, with Thompson improving - albeit with some work to do.
4) South Carolina: Easily Thompson's best state. Giuliani is falling though still in decent shape thanks to McCain's collapse (which would look even worse on the Pollster charts if not for the consistently McCain-friendly ARG poll numbers, which remain at odds with other polling in the state). Romney clearly hasn't had the same impact here as the other early battlegrounds.
A combined assessment of the fundraising and polling data above can reasonably construe that the "Big Four" anticipated by Thompson's entry actually remains the "Big Three." It's just that Thompson has taken McCain's place in the top-tier.
Now, on to the second post.
Posted by Eric Earling at July 04, 2007 12:05 PM | Email ThisYour top three when you combine polling data and fundraising is presumed to be Rudy, Mitt and Thompson, saying Thompson supplanted McCain. I have no idea how you quantified the combination of polling data and fundraising, but it remains that McCain was third in fundraising and is still polling near Thompson levels. Therefore to put Thompson there and McCain not there you'd have to put about 95% of the formula into polling data with a small 5% in fundraising...but what does that do to Romney? Puts him fourth in your hypothetical combination of polling and fundraising.
Posted by: Doug on July 4, 2007 06:07 PMAnd I DO agree with Eric that the most critical number for McCain right now is cash on hand; i.e.: He's essentially broke. If that in turn forces him to accept matching funds, he will be at an irreversible and permanent fund-raising disadvantage compared to the candidates that do NOT do so (because they do not need to; and will raise and spend hugely more than the constraining matching-fund limits). That fact that McCain was still third in fundraising is I would suggest to a large extent irrelavent at this point: Since he has spent almost all of it, it's essentially a sunk cost that he can't get back.
At least as bad if not worse for McCain than being almost broke are the polling numbers in IA, NH, and SC. It becomes a vicious, downward spiral: Collapsing poll numbers make it REALLY hard to significantly increase contributions; and the prominent news about McCain's money problems tend I expect to make people look around for other options. Kind of sad, actually: Senator McCain is a true American hero (and I say that as someone who was hugely pleased to see the ''grand compromise'' immigration bill go down to resounding defeat in the Senate).
Romney continues to impress in IA and NH; while I don't think he was ever seriously expected to be able to reach front-runner status in SC. But *IF* current trends continue AND Mitt can pull off wins in both IA and NH, it might bring him up a fair bit even in SC. Stay tuned........
Posted by: Methow Ken on July 4, 2007 06:59 PMTo imagine that Romney's campaign has legs requires a big injection of romance over historical precedent or common sense. This is going to be a tough year for Republicans. Is the party really going to nominate an unknown Northeastern governor who isn't competitive with Hillary banking on some miraculous turn around when he gets the nomination? I don't think so. At this stage, Romney must be judged a super long shot.
BTW - for the McCain supporters, Dick Morris, correctly pegged McCain as a stalking horse long ago. A place for the uncertain to store their votes until a better candidate arrived (which is why his support is evaporating now that Thompson is in the race).
At present, the race is between Thompson, the conservatives choice, and Giuliani, the beat-Hillary-at-all-cost crowd's choice. Calling Romney "top tier" exaggerates his chances. As an aspiring conservative, Romney might have had a shot at conservatives but the entrance of a true, or at least established, conservative in the form of Thompson should scuttle those hopes.
Posted by: Farragut on July 4, 2007 11:05 PMI think Methow Ken adds some great points on your belief McCain should be in the top three. His downward spiral of fundraising and poll numbers - especially in the early states - is not something from which he can easily recover. The momentum in polling and fundraising has McCain trending downward fast using virtually every metric. His campaign is crippled and needs a near miracle of a comeback to reverse course. That's why I took him out of the top three.
As to Romney, if you think there is a better strategy someone with his low national name ID could have employed than focusing on the smaller, early states then please tell me. Otherwise, it is a fair statement to say he chose the "best strategy" for his circumstance, which was my point.
On Giuliani, if you'd like to present evidence that he's actually putting the same amount of effort into Iowa, New Hampshire, or South Carolina as Romney and McCain then please show me. Everything I've read thus far indicates he's talking a good game but his campaign isn't investing the resources or candidate time in those states like his competitors. Thus, it's more than reasonable to say he's being "coy" in dealing with them while keeping his own campaign's focus on Florida and beyond.
Lastly, we've already discussed your preference for Giuliani and mine for Romney. But my ultimate point at the end of the 2nd post was that the race is totally up in the air after the events of the first half of the year. It's anyone's game based on a wide number of variables. If you disagree, I'd be interested to read why.
Posted by: Eric Earling on July 4, 2007 11:12 PMI present no evidence that Giuliani is investing in Iowa, NH and SC as much as his opposition, the reasoning is of course there is no need to, frontrunners (as opposed to 'nominal' frontrunners) can most afford to use their finances for bigger primaries. When Guiliani backed out of the straw poll in Iowa, he did so publicly with the whole political world knowing he didn't have much of a chance in the small caucus state - that is decidedly not COY, but rather pretty straight forward. If you didn't get my meaning I'm just pointing out how you, like the MSM dealing with R's, can use words with negative connotations for those you don't support and more positive uplifting words for those you do.
As for Romney strategy? The guy has a truckload of money and he has the best shot at lassoing conservative votes. His first order of business is to create a barrier to entry for a similar candidate (Fred Thompson). The lack of money pouring into Rep. candidates shows that the jury is still out and that Thompson can enter and start taking that money and a good portion of Romney's. Iowa and NH both always split among conservative (in the evangelical sense)candidates with another group going for the fiscal conservatism. If Thompson enters and spends just a little in Iowa, he and Romney split and Rudy could win without being there. If Steve Forbes campaigns there for Rudy, then it doesn't matter, Rudy takes the state. The point is that Romney is not yet successful at keeping Thompson out of the campaign.
While he is doing what a third or fourth place candidate is supposed to be doing, namely fighting for his life in Iowa and NH, the SC polling shows that it just won't matter, he's toast after that. There isn't enough time after Iowa & NH to improve on electability or personal issues before Super Tuesday, if he truly felt that he could compete he would be starting to funnel money into some of the larger 'gets' to get his face in front of the voters, maybe where he could be seen as having an upperhand over Hillary via the magic of commercial making.
The Romney campaign seems poised to breakout. I remember Kerry sandbagging in the -04 runup and all of a sudden stealing the nomination.
What I am afraid of is that some conservatives cannot get over some of the negatives, true or imagined, of the frontrunners. They cannot to this day, say that after looking at the D candidates and the R candidates, admit that all the R candidates are head and shoulders above any of the Ds (in other words, the Ds are lacking); and therefore, they may not vote for the R. They will either not vote, vote for the third party or do something else that doesn't add up to votes.
I just can't figure out the game these people are playing.
Posted by: swatter on July 5, 2007 07:04 AMGOP needs to streamline their message in order to compete with Hillary. Stop the infighting and focus on the facts. Otherwise the GOP is going to be sidelined till 2016.
Thompson will follow McCain down the chute.
Despite appeals to the Ghost of Reagan early on in this campaign, everything is pointing to the public wanting new, new, new.
This is where Giuliani and Romney, as candidates who seem to acknowledge that we live in the 21st century, seems to shine. It's the same juice that's boosting Obama.
People aren't really asking for "change" -- but acknowledgment -- of 21st century diversity, culture and technology.
Posted by: John Bailo on July 5, 2007 11:02 AMLook what it did for the Dem's in 2004. I look forward to the new Clinton overlord in office.
Thompson may well take the South on Super Tuesday.
While Rudy seems to be focused on the Big States filled with Moderates on Super Tuesday.
That leaves Michigan and the West as the rest of Super Tuesday.
Romney has strong connections in Michigan (his father was governor) and in the Mountain West (Salt Lake Olympics). The problem for him is that McCain also pulls strongly in the West and in Michigan. Rudy is competitive in Michigan, while Thompson is attractive to alot of Westerners (mainly I think due to the libertarian ideals espoused by most of his movie characters).
The key for Romney is that he needs to knock McCain out of the race before Super Tuesday. Which means he needs to do well in the early states- particularly New Hampshire.
Thus the odds I'd put on the race are Thompson as the most probable nominee, (but also the most uncertain, I think he looks great, but candidates sometimes go splat after announcing- I don't think that will happen to him but it's possible)
The second most likely I think is Romney closely followed by Guiliani.
It makes me sad that Guiliani has become the War candidate, because I think McCain is a much better choice on that issue.
However, the two candidates I like most are Romney and Thompson, so I'm mildly appreciative of the way I see things working out.
Posted by: Cicero on July 5, 2007 04:39 PMThose moderates are the key to winning the PUSA election. Which is why a Fred and Mitt will be up a creek without a paddle come Feb. 6th. I imagine Bush hatred (think Ford '76, Carter '80) will go a long way towards a Clinton White House in '08.
Cicero, you are blinded somewhat with hope. You see Thompson as the most likely nominee followed by Romney, yet you also seem to agree with me that Giuliani will likely take the populous states with Romney taking a handful, including Michigan, Utah, NH and maybe Iowa and a couple small delegate-poor Western states if the votes aren't split. Thompson can take most of the South but not Florida or Arkansas. Giuliani can take NY, CA, WA, FL, MA (yes, Romney's home state will NOT vote for him), NJ, PA, OH - basically having 75% of the delegates he needs just in those few states. If Thompson, Romney, McCain, and Huckabee all make it through March, the non-Rudy candidates combined could have about 55% of the delegates with Rudy about 45%, then you would see a Rudy/Thompson type ticket.
First, I was the one who first said that California poll by Datamar you're referring to was an outlier that shouldn't be trusted. You're talking like I was saying it was actually credible, thus creating a straw man to argue with.
The point is Romney has established himself as the front runner in Iowa and New Hampshire. He's rising there even as Thompson does likewise, all while Giuliani and McCain are dropping. The only thing McCain has established is that he's dropping in national polls and tanking in the early state polls...and it's not like the latest round of press is going to give him, his supporters, or his campaign any boost. If anything, it's going to feed on itself, especially when he's almost broke based on his cash-on-hand that can be spent on the primary.
Now, you obviously believe the early states have less value in this cycle. That's a fair opinion, though I disagree (and would do so even if Romney wasn't even in the race), as I outlined in the aforementioned post after this one on "Strategy & Next Steps." Specifically I noted in that second post that if states continue their game of leapfrog there will be almost a full month (perhaps even more) between Iowa's caucuses and Florida's primary. Now, maybe a candidate can lose in Iowa, lose in New Hampshire, and lose in South Carolina, then reverse the tide of negative coverage in the MSM and blogosphere that will follow - and more importantly the wave of positive press for the winners - with a win in Florida followed by a triumph on February 5th. It's possible, but dancing with the devil of three plus weeks of unhelpful press going into a must-win situation in Florida is not a task I'd want as a campaign hand.
Yes, Florida and February 5th are important. But as I've argued before, the closest primary we can compare this cycle to is the competitive Democratic primary in 2004. In that one, Kerry was buried deep in the pack before Iowa and New Hampshire. After those contests he was the run-away leader. Here's a concise summary of those developments. Here's a more in-depth discussion of that rapid reversal.
Related to that last point, here's a historical pattern to keep in mind:
Iowa and New Hampshire are still likely to perform the same function as in recent years, narrowing the field to the top two or three finishers. If the historical pattern persists, candidates who win both Iowa and New Hampshire will win their party's nomination. If the two states pick different winners, those two could be the top contenders Feb. 5 -- and attract most of the news coverage.
As I mentioned above it's sure possible this cycle's dynamic could change that trend. But if I had money on the race I wouldn't want to bet against it. Let's say the election gods smile on you and Romney tanks before the end of the year. I'll say the same thing about the importance of Iowa and New Hampshire if Giuliani or Thompson capture the lead there in Romney's place.
Also, Giuliani actually is playing "coy" with Iowa. Here's why: yes, he publicly pulled out of the Ames Straw Poll, but his campaign still claims they're going to compete in the Iowa caucuses. If so, they've got a funny way of campaigning in a state that demands face time with the candidates. Using this tool from the Des Moines Register you can "Browse by Candidate" to see where and how often the candidates have visited Iowa - according to the definition you can see at that page. As of accessing the site this evening, it shows the following number of "visits" to Iowa since the start of the year:
Edwards - 51
Romney - 45
Obama - 38
Clinton - 37
McCain - 22
Giuliani - 5
Those numbers speak for themselves.
In the end, I think Giulaini, Romney, and Thompson all have little margin for error. Giuliani because he runs the risk of losing too much momentum before Florida. Romney because he must win Iowa and New Hampshire. Thompson because he starts so late that he may not be able to catch up in some key states he might otherwise have a decent chance.
Anything can happen. Giuliani certainly has a decent shot, but like all the other top tier candidates its complicated. And either way, I think you'd do better to put less emphasis on national polls right now, when most voters really aren't that engaged.
Posted by: Eric Earling on July 5, 2007 10:52 PMFront loading the primary's is a dumb idea that I hope dies a quick death after this election season.