Soccer Dad

Faux suspense

One effect of the Lieberman endorsement of McCain is that Giuliani is retreating from New Hampshire.

Mr. Giuliani appears to be making a virtue of necessity by sounding the retreat in New Hampshire, where he continues to be outgunned by the Republican front-runner there, Mitt Romney, and where he has been beaten into second place by the resurgent campaign of Senator McCain.

He must now be sure to win Florida on January 29 to capture its large cache of delegates, as part of a strategy that sees him withdrawing from the smaller early states in favor of states such as New York, California, and Florida, which send large numbers of delegates to the nominating convention.

(via memeorandum)

I don't doubt that the Lieberman endorsement was the last straw in this case. However much Giuliani's lead is shrinking, he still leads all Republicans. (Currently the RCP average has him up by 2.5 over Huckabee. I'm expecting Huckabee to be beaten down by Iowa and New Hampshire.)

John Podhoretz writes:

Of course Mike Huckabee can win the Republican nomination. I dismissed the possibility a few weeks ago by saying he had no “path to the nomination,” and I was foolish to do so. Huckabee’s path is evident — with surprising victories in early states, he steamrolls faltering campaigns and pushes them aside until he is the only guy left standing. This is precisely the Mitt Romney strategy, only instead of being manufactured at great expense with a campaign machine as Romney’s was, Huckabee’s path is being cleared for him not by money and media but but by an honest-to-God (or, perhaps, given Huckabee’s own sentiments about the role of Christ in his campaign, honest-to-Jesus) groundswell. So the Romney strategy is working, but it may not be working for Romney, in Iowa, at least

I'm skeptical of the Huckabee groundswell. One of the big political stories of the 2004 campaign was the Dean bust. Going into Iowa, Dean was crowned the surprise candidate. In Iowa he proved to be easily beatable. How did the media miss the true story: that there was none. Frontrunner Kerry remained frontrunner Kerry. There was no real suspense, just the press-manufactured one. Were the media hyping their favored candidate? Was the polling deliberately skewed? Was contrary information disregarded? None of these questions have been adequately answered. I suspect that Huckabee is the Republican's Dean this year. I doubt that he'll win Iowa. Even if he does I don't believe that he has the resources to win a national campaign. In order to do that you need to build an organization early and raise a lot of money up front. That's what's worked for the past 20 years in contested nominations.

Right now it looks like the media will manufacture a race in order to burnish their "expert" credentials and keep things interesting. For now I'm unconvinced that there's another viable Republican other than Giuliani or Romney.

slipped from 7 percent to 6 percent. "You rarely see anything like [Huckabee's surge]," says Larry Hugick, who directed the polling for Princeton Survey Research Associates. Hugick added that the reason has as much to do with a leeriness of the other candidates among Republican voters as Huckabee's folksy success on the stump. "He's filling a vacuum," Hugick said. "Nobody on the Republican side was getting strong support."

I'm skeptical. Four years ago we had this poll:

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean is the strongest candidate overall. He is the clear front-runner in New Hampshire, with a 34%-20% lead over Sen. John Kerry. Dean also is running ahead in Iowa, where he leads Rep. Dick Gephardt by a smaller margin (29%-21%). But Dean's advantage in these states is not insurmountable. The horse race in Iowa between Dean and Gephardt is much closer when only strong support is factored, which is a relevant indicator in Iowa's caucus format.

Four years ago at this time Gov Dean was polling ahead of Rep Gephardt and Sen Kerry. Five weeks later Kerry re-established his front runner status finishing ahead of Sen Edwards, Dean and Gephardt respectively in the Iowa caususes. Gephardt, from neighboring Missouri, dropped out of the race and Kerry's dominance was established.

Gov Huckabee's is this year's Howard Dean. He's polling well in Iowa, but he isn't going to win. Call me a skeptic, but until I know more about how polling is done, I believe that a lot of polling fuels drama that isn't really there. Whether its intentional or not, I can't say. My suspicion is that the national polls are more accurate bellwethers than the state polls.

Those national polls currently currently show Mayor Giuliani and Senator Clinton as the favorites in their respective parties. Unless the scandals surrounding Giuliani gain much traction, I expect those projections to hold for the balance of the race.

Fred Siegel considers the impact of a Hillary-Rudy general election, in a New York Centric Presidential Election. For one thing he observes an irony of having the two general election candidates from New York.

How did we get here? By most measures, the Empire State is far less of a factor in American political and economic life than it was when Mantle, Mays, and Snider were patrolling outfields. Back then, New York State was the center not only of finance but of manufacturing and corporate headquarters. It boasted a nation-leading 47 electoral votes, 12 more than second-place Pennsylvania. But in the years since the Dodgers and Giants left for the West Coast, New York has fallen to third place, with 31 electoral votes, trailing California’s 55 and Texas’s 34. By 2010, the state is projected to fall to fourth, with Florida moving ahead of it.

Of course, no one really remarked on the oddity of having candidates from Arkansas and Kansas in 1996. Neither state is particularly important electorally. While it's somewhat ironic that New York might dominate our attention next November, it's hardly earth shattering.

Siegel mentions what I think is the single most important feature of this election and that is Giuliani's record.

Giuliani’s first TV ad in New Hampshire wasn’t about September 11, when he became “America’s mayor,” but rather about taming New York’s self-destructive liberal political culture. The text reads:

The world’s 17th largest economy. Swimming in red ink. Record crime. Runaway taxes. A million on welfare. That was New York. Until Rudy. He cut taxes 9 billion. Welfare 60 percent. Crime in half. The most successful conservative turnaround in 50 years. In America’s most liberal city, Rudy delivered. And he can do it again, in a place called Washington, D.C.

Republican candidate Fred Thompson responded by complaining that Giuliani “relates everything to New York City. Well, New York City is not emblematic of the rest of the country, I don’t think. I think the sentiments of those people in the rest of the country are in support of the Second Amendment—which is where I’ve always been and I don’t think he’s ever been.” Thompson scored some points with NRA voters, but he seemed to miss the ad’s subtext – the pas de deux that Giuliani is dancing with Senator Clinton.

More than any other candidate, Rudy has a record of accomplishment. There are those who will minimize or deny what he accomplished. Yes, the crime rate was dropping before he was elected. But it dropped dramatically in the first two years of his term. (Observe, in contrast, Baltimore's murder rate that has remained stubbornly high even after then-Mayor O'Malley implemented a watered down version of "zero tolerance" policing.)

Frankly what's going on in this polling is a bit of front runner fatigue. Don't expect it to last much past New Hampshire. Expect Giuliani vs. Clinton in the main event.

huckabee, romney, giuliani.