Since this discussion a couple weeks back the early state Presidential contests have come into clearer focus. Let's review before news of the Q3 fundraising totals holds sway and permutations of the expectations game dominate the discourse. First, here's a current breakdown of the expected order:
Jan. 5: Iowa caucuses (both parties)
Jan. 8: New Hampshire primary (both parties)
Jan. 12: Nevada caucuses (both parties)
Jan. 15 Michigan GOP primary; Dem beauty contest
Jan. 19: South Carolina primary (both parties)
Jan. 29: Florida GOP primary; Dem beauty contest
Iowa - this state is begging for a candidate to step up and make a serious play for 2nd behind Mitt Romney. Questions persist about Rudy Giuliani's commitment to the state, so much so he's been forced to address them publicly. Either way, it seems clear he's not going to put in the immense effort it would take to topple Romney here.
Thus, a golden opportunity knocks for Fred Thompson. At some point, if they have not already done so, Thompson's campaign will realize they can't get killed in Iowa, killed in New Hampshire, killed in Nevada, killed in Michigan, and then hope to do swell in South Carolina, Florida, et. al. Of the earliest states, Iowa is the best, most cost-effective bet for Thompson to grab some media attention with a strong 2nd place showing. It's no surprise he is scheduled to spend three days in Iowa next week.
Though Romney has built a big lead and a strong organization in Iowa, opportunity remains for others and no one in the top tier wants to suffer the embarrassment - and resulting bad press - of finishing behind Mike Huckabee, who looks pretty good in the latest poll out Iowa (though it's ridiculous 9% margin of error for "likely caucus goers" makes it of little overall value beyond some of its internals). In short, Iowa may well turn into a Romney v. Thompson battle, with much attention being paid to 3rd as well.
New Hampshire - Giuliani's adroit move landing himself in the middle of the MoveOn.org debate clearly paid off here. Throw in more retail politicking, some radio ads, and a whole lot of direct mail and he's in great shape for the stretch run. Indeed, the delightfully in-depth crosstabs (PDF warning) of the latest New Hampshire poll show Giuliani, Romney, and John McCain with their own unique foundations of support in the Granite State.
The latter is even going up with ads in what increasingly looks like a last stand; even as it's unclear his campaign has the resources to sustain the effort. Meanwhile, this is clearly Thompson's worst early state as a starting point and there seems little point in trying to gain traction with three other candidates all ahead of him and all putting major efforts into this most exciting battle of the early primaries.
Nevada - the state's jump forward a week to January 12th will help grab more attention for these caucuses though it's unclear what impact they'll ultimately have other than being a nice notch on the victor's belt worthy of a bit more positive free press.
Michigan - in addition to the pollster.com average, there are two more recent polls confirming the race is a bit of a toss-up (here and here). Romney confirmed his strength with the state's GOP activists at the Mackinac Straw Poll, but the question remains how many Democrats and Independents may wander into the Republican primary since the Democratic counterpart is a non-delegate selecting beauty contest.
Given the current polling scrum, it sure looks like the winner of New Hampshire will be in great shape in Michigan the way the calendar currently falls. If a candidate wins New Hampshire and Michigan in succession they'll have quite a head of steam. Does that mean New Hampshire might be the decisive contest for the nomination? It very well could.
South Carolina - not much polling since Thompson's announcement, though it seems clear it's a Giuliani v. Thompson battle for now. This being the fifth primary in two weeks, however, means the events of the preceding contests will do much to influence the outcome here.
Florida - expect a collective though very short pause after South Carolina as people assess who is left standing after those fast and furious couple weeks. Then it will come down to which candidates are still seriously in it, who has the money to compete in a large state for over a week, and who has the organization to harness the momentum of previous primary wins. For all the talk of February 5th as Super Size Tuesday, the results in Florida may essentially seal the nomination.
Assessing all the above, one can see clearer paths to the nomination for some than others. Romney needs to win Iowa, New Hampshire, probably Nevada, and then Michigan; then ride the tide of momentum from there. It's tough but doable given the current landscape. Giuliani would benefit mightily from a win in New Hampshire, which could make him unbeatable right then and there. Even if not, he has the resources and residual support to keep battling. Possibilities for Thompson are less clear absent a good showing in Iowa, especially if expectations are true that his fundraising will land him closer to McCain than Giuliani and Romney. But this race is so amazingly fluid it's tough to feel confident about any predication at this point in the campaign.
UPDATE: here's a report of Thompson on the ground in Iowa this weekend. As with the rest of his recent campaigning, the reaction seems mixed with continued unforced errors (just like being unprepared to answer questions about Terri Schiavo in Florida).
UPDATE II: ARGhhhh. The folks at ARG have released another round of polls in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina that continue the schizophrenia of this outfit's surveys. They have Romney soaring and Thompson plunging in the Palmetto State, which is the oddest of their results and doesn't seem likely at all even to this Romney supporter. Meanwhile, their results in the first two states aren't as unusual but still inconsistent with other pollsters. As of this typing, the ARG polls have been plugged into the RealClearPolitics averages but not the pollster.com graphs. For the real nerds out there, here's a takedown of ARG's polls and a past discussion of them as pollster.com.
Posted by Eric Earling at September 30, 2007 07:07 AM | Email ThisBut that's only because of the nature of the caucuses themselves. If Iowa was a primary, I don't think Huckabee would have a chance. And even with his current chances in Iowa, he's likely to show some really weak fundraising totals in the 3rd quarter that serve as a reminder he's not a complete candidate.
Also, we're not "early in the nomination process". Iowans caucus in about three months with New Hampshire voting shortly thereafter. Pick your analogy to describe where things are at, but it's not early anymore.
Posted by: Eric Earling on September 30, 2007 12:27 PMMy point is only that his candidacy deserves a mention, especially in an article as long and complete as your excellent article above is. Won't you please consider including him in future articles? My guess is that there is strong interest in this candidate on this forum. You can think of it as playing to your market... I would guess that the marginal cost of including Ron Paul is almost zero, since the electrons are essentially free, and none of us is paying by the word.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on September 30, 2007 12:46 PM"Texas U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, whose Internet-fueled insurgency campaign was second only to Romney's in visible presence at the conference, finished third with 10.8%, edging out former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani at 10.6%."
I notice that the above quotation contains a bit of a contradiction. It calls Ron Paul's campaign "internet fueled" and yet mentions that he had the second largest physical presence at the event. "We're not just the internet."
Another reason to mention Ron Paul in future articles is his momentum. His poll numbers are growing, while the others are more flat. Ron Paul represents a rising trend, and could have more influence later in the race. Mentioning him now makes you look prescient.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on September 30, 2007 12:56 PMIt seems to me he would be a great fit for Libertarian Candidate. He, however, doesn't seem to speak very forcefully to why he should be the Republican Candidate. Of course, of the top tier candidates only Romney fits well with the current and past Republican Pary. McCain tried to suck up these past eight years, which got him nowhere. He should have stayed a maverick, which suits him a lot better. Guiliani is old school Republican (think Ford, Nixon, i.e., pre-Reagan), but isn't a good fit for today's party. Thompson has all the right check boxes checked, but come on, he really is quite boring (even Bob Dole was funnier than Thompson).
No, on the Republican side, outside of Romney who fits the family oriented and also business side, the best candidate the Republicans have is Huckabee. I, personally, would prefer Huckabee over Romney, but it seems the rest of the country doesn't care for a proven administrator who could actually beat Hillary, Inc., they would rather listen to the slick Madison Avenue advertising.
Why doesn't the local crowd see this? Are you so enamored with the sales face that you forget who you are running against? The way I see it, the local Republican party is as blind as the national party. To me, an independent voter, it is clear as mud. Huckabee should be the Republican nominee, period. Unfortunately, here and nationally, the Republicans will put on their blinders and make more poor choices. Do you even care to capture the independent voter? Do you think you have such a majority that you don't need to reach out?
Buy the sales pitch and watch the machine (Hillary Inc) walk all over it. And as Hillary Inc, motors its way to the Whitehouse, watch the local governership continue with the career bureaucrat. Hillary Inc, will make sure of it. I can see the ads and photo ops already. Hillary and CG with both arms raised.
You all just don't get it.
Posted by: tc on September 30, 2007 01:16 PMI have no doubt that several of the leading candidates mean well and are patriots, but when will they show leadership in re Iraq? The dems have their own problems, but recently, Hillary and Barak have had the courage to stand up to the left side of their party and say that we can not know and will not begin to know until new leadership takes over in 2009 what CAN be done. Until then, our troops service is for no clear purpose. The dems could do better.
In a way, this statement by the dems is as sad as the testimony of Gen. Petraeus. All patriots should have heard the silence when General Petraeus was asked if he he could explain to the Congress the long term strategy his country was following or tell the nation whether the presence in Iraq was making the US safer. General Petraeus is an admirable leader in a horrid position.
The GOP has a right to demand that Edwards, Obama and Clinton talk about THEIR strategy but the same is true for the right the voters have to demand that the GOP leaders tell us what THEY would do after Bush is no longer CIC.
How can we wait a year and half while our men suffer in a war with no strategic goals? The leading Republicans know damn well that Bush's goal of a democratic and friendly Iraq is a fantasy.
Romney, Giuliani, and McCain all seem to me to be patriots. If so, they should join their Democratic rivals and begin NOW the debate on a rational Iraq strategy.
A good start for everyone, right and left, may be to read an article published today in the NY Times about the men and women in the 10th Mountain Division's Second Brigade. I discussed this at my blog SeattleJew after an email told me that the son of a friend is serving in this brigade. He is one sons of friends who have chosen to serve, Both young men are true patriots, driven out of loyalty ot their country! They deserve a real debate between our leaders abut the furutre of Iraq.
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 30, 2007 01:30 PMMaybe the one that put them up came to their senses and read more about the libertarian voting on the republican ticket! YA THINK!?
Keep dhimmy's off the tryforgettin drug. Keep rubing their nose in it till they get with the program!
Candidates often appeal to one or more categories in putting together a majority.
McCain and Giuliani are in category 1.
Huckabee and F. Thompson and the other creationists are in category 2.
Ron Paul is in category 4, just like "Mr. Conservative" Barry Goldwater was. Ronald Reagan was in both 2) and 4) by his rhetoric.
One could describe Ron Paul's philosophy as "libertarian" and it is a fact that there is a small "l" libertarian faction in category 4 of the Republican Party. It is arguable that the libertarian segment is more conservative than the others.
Ron Paul is a sitting Republican congressman from Texas. He has said he would not run for President as an independent if he does not get the nomination. I suspect he will run for re-election to his Texas congressional seat. He has more claim to the title "Republican" than either you or I do.
The Republican Party is a big tent. It has diverse and often conflicting factions. Can they hold together enough to win in November? Can they stick to principles or will they pander for votes?
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on September 30, 2007 02:07 PMI'll tell you what, if Paul ends the 3rd Quarter with more cash on hand than McCain and Huckabee I'll definitely talk about that fact.
Candidly, I don't think much of Paul's hopes because he's running for the Republican nomination on a largely Libertarian platform. Moreover, despite the enthusiasm of some of his supporters - especially online - I've seen no evidence that his campaign is putting together the sort of organizational efforts it takes to win in the early states, which is where much of the nomination fight gets decided.
Posted by: Eric Earling on September 30, 2007 02:36 PMHere's a wonderful quote from Reagan in 1975 from .
"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals-if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is." Reason Magazine (Free Minds and Free Markets) 1975
Goldwater and Reagan campaigned on basically libertarian platforms, just as Ron Paul is doing, and won the Republican parties nomination. Even GW Bush campaigned largely as a libertarian, though his actions have been anything but.
Soc. Sec. Reform, Tax Reform and spending reductions, deficit reductions, sound monetary policy, limited government, etc. are all libertarian platform planks. They are also Republican platform planks.
Ron Paul is not a big "L" Libertarian. He is a small "l" libertarian member of the Republican Party.
Don't kick the small "l" libertarians out of the Republican big tent. If you want to win in November, you will need us. If you alienate us, we are more likely to vote for partisan L's, or even small "l" libertarian D's like Mike Gravel.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on September 30, 2007 02:55 PMRon Paul Zippo chance! Put him on the ballot and Hillary will win!
Ron Paul is too nuts for most republicans!
He is an annoying guy that shows up for the debates that very few people listen to! Ok very little or don't even pay any attention to!
Posted by: dcat on September 30, 2007 03:56 PMStop being so damn delusional. Ron Paul will not finish in the top 3 of any presidential primary or caucus, and he most assuredly won't get the nomination.
If you insist on disagreeing with this completely obvious statement, how much money do you want to put on it? How about you bet that $1.2 Million you 'loaned' to your non-campaign for Senate?
Posted by: cliff on September 30, 2007 04:07 PMWhen you and I agree, the apocalypse must be soon.
I too think that both parties need ot be able to consider liberalism (a la the Ecopnomist) as opposed to the stabdard L menu.
What I do NOT understand is why a libertarian or small l liberal would support the Republicans on issues like civil partnerships, global warming,deficits, religion in the schools?
By the same lights it seems to me that a lot of small l Dems should question affirmative action, support for gay marriage (as opposed to civil contracts), forced education, etc.
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 30, 2007 04:07 PMAs you know, that $1.2 million was never really in play. I wound up paying myself back all but $8K. I recognize that Ron Paul is a long shot, just like my campaign was. That's why I never put my life's savings at risk on my campaign and that is why I would never accept your bet on Ron Paul's defeat.
I may LOOK stupid...
But it is worth my time and effort to support a noble cause that defends my values. I am proud to support this underdog, even if he loses. Ron Paul's candidacy is making activists of all sorts of disaffected small "l" libertarians and independents. It is strengthening the influence of limited government issues within the Republican Party. These are all good things, even if Ron Paul doesn't win the nomination, and has to seek re-election to his house seat.
The people who will only support candidates who might win, have probably sacrificed too much in the way of their principles in exchange for power.
I remember back in high school when we had student council elections. Everyone wanted to say they had voted for the winner. I assume they wanted to be popular or to be able to claim they had predicted the outcome. Well, I am an individualist and am proud to stand for unpopular candidates and unpopular views that are consistent with my principles. Call me Quixotic, I don't care. I enjoy it. It feels good. I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils. My vote is worth more than that.
I am at least willing to put my name behind the effort. Just who is Cliff: "secretproject..." ? I'm putting my name on the line and risking personal attacks for my cause. Stefan knows what I am talking about. You remain anonymous.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on September 30, 2007 09:24 PMIt took a lot of wrestling with myself to get on Ron Paul's Republican bandwagon. The views of most R's on issues like civil partnerships, deficits, religion in the schools, the Iraq war, civil liberties, etc. are pretty repellent to me. I consider myself to be a partisan Libertarian, and when Ron Paul loses the R nomination, I will probably wind up voting for the Libertarian nominee for President.
Similarly, I could back a fiscally conservative Democrat. These are much more rare than socially tolerant Republicans, but I think Mike Gravel may come close. I consider a fiscally conservative Democrat a libertarian. I would also label a socially tolerant Republican a libertarian. They may not like this label, but that would describe them better than "liberal" or "conservative" would.
I think that Giuliani is relatively libertarian, at least compared to McCain and the others. If there is a lesser of two evils among the front runners for me, he might be it. But I don't think I could bring myself to vote for him, especially if the Libertarians run a decent candidate.
By the way, if the Republicans want to become a factor in Washington State politics, they should become more libertarian themselves. The social conservatives have scuttled the party. Let the fiscal conservatives run it for a while.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on September 30, 2007 09:41 PMI have trouble seeing Giuliani as a Libertarian.
My own affiliation, if I could, would be to opportunism or Jeffersonian Opportunism. I beleive that the goal of government should be to maximize individual opportunity. By that standard, I would rate Obama>Hillary=Romney=McCain>Edwards as the leaders.
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 30, 2007 10:25 PMYou say that you do not see the online hype translating into the real world organization that is needed to win. Let me ask you, what do you need to see to say that he is organized? A certain amount of fundraising, straw poll victories? signs on every corner? Volunteers going door to door pamphleteering? radio and TV ads? A certain number of campaign staff?
Whatever it is that you think is necessary, have you looked for it?
Also would you like to see it or do you wish he would just drop out and go away?
Travis Pahl
Posted by: Travis Pahl on September 30, 2007 11:00 PMThis article on the poor sports in the Republican party who are threatening a third party candidate if Rudy wins the nomination.
They claim to be part of a party, and yet, when they don't get their way, they will quit the party and join another. Pat Buchanan disgusted me when he ran against Bush and Robertson disgusted me in the mid-90s with his litmus test rules.
We have those posters here, too. They should be overjoyed with the likes of Dobson and Robertson.
Posted by: swatter on October 1, 2007 01:09 PMThey are putting their money where their mouths are.
And speaking of that kind of thing, Ron Paul took in well over $1 million in the third fundraising quarter. I gave him $100.
And there were new Ron Paul signs all over town this morning. Madison east of I-5 was quite festooned with them.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on October 1, 2007 05:12 PMoh and the oddsmakers do not change odds willy nilly, if they thought Paul had no chance, and had a bunch of people wanting to bet he would win, they would decrease his odds to encourage even more 'easy money' Instead they are looking at it and increasing the odds because they do not want lose their shirts.
Posted by: Travis Pahl on October 1, 2007 08:01 PMRon Pual is also too much of a supporter of the separation of church and state to pander to the special interest group that is the social conservative right.
I also doubt that he is a creationist, or believes the earth is less than 7,000 years old. This should disqualify him for the Robertson/Dobson candidacy.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on October 2, 2007 04:04 PM