Posted on 10/21/2007 11:52:25 AM PDT by ellery
As I sat watching the last Republican debate, the following occurred to me: Hillary Rodham Clinton could carry 40 states.
When you do the math, that's probably an overreaction. Not by much, though. For a number of reasons (the war, the housing market, the unpopularity of President Bush, the Senate seats up for grabs), the best-case scenario for the Democrats is a broad-realignment election in which the nominee carries 35 or more states. The best-case scenario for Republicans: a narrow popular victory accompanied by a favorable Electoral College split, along the lines of the 2004 election.
So which lucky Republican will get to try to pull an ace from this stacked deck? By the end of January we'll know almost for sure; today we know enough to divine the rough contours of the race. Let's start at the top and work our way down.
Rudy Giuliani leads the pack, according to most polls. Rasmussen Reports, which surveys likely Republican primary voters, has him on top with 29 percent and has shown very little fluctuation in his support this year. He began 2007 at 28 percent. Since then, Rasmussen has put him only as high as 37 percent and not below 22 percent. Giuliani has raised enough money to be comfortable and hasn't been afraid to spend it, burning through just more than $30 million to date.
In one sense, Giuliani's position defies explanation. He's not conservative by any traditional measure, and his Manhattan cultural reality couldn't be more different from that of mainstream America. To his credit, Giuliani was an exceptional mayor who deserves all sorts of praise for turning New York City around. But the uncomfortable truth is that had George W. Bush not spent seven minutes reading My Pet Goat and then flown from bunker to bunker on 9/11, people probably wouldn't have been so captivated by Giuliani's impressive but largely symbolic performance that day. The Giuliani mystique is built around that fact: He already has stood in loco presidentis, and people liked what they saw.
Fred Thompson is running a close second. Rasmussen has him consistently around 23 percent nationally, from a standing start in March. His support hovered in the mid-teens until June, when he officially formed his exploratory committee after dithering since March. After that, his numbers shot up, edging him past Giuliani for a moment. Now that he's actively campaigning and participating in the debates, his stock should show some more volatility. Voters will render judgment on the candidate, rather than the idea of the guy behind Door #2. The former Tennessee senator is short on money, but at this stage, the message and the messenger matter more.
Speaking of money: Mitt Romney has raised more - $62.8 million - than any other Republican. (He's given $17.4 million of his own money to his campaign.) He's also spent more - $53.6 million - than any other Republican. To put this gusher of cash into perspective, the eight other candidates in the field have combined to spend just $78.6 million.
And what does the former Massachusetts governor have to show for his money? Well, even though he's been running for president since late 2003, Romney is sitting, nationally, in a distant third place. These numbers have been slow to move: Romney began the year with 8 percent support and now sits at 13 percent in Rasmussen polls. That's about $10 million per point, for those of you keeping score at home. He's closing in on Bloomberg territory.
What Romney's money has bought him is a serious presence in Iowa, where he typically polls around 25 percent, 10 points ahead of both Giuliani and Thompson. The Romney theory of victory is that he buys his way to a blowout win in Iowa, then slingshots to a first-place finish in New Hampshire (where he currently holds a slight lead over Giuliani), and then leverages his national numbers with these two victories, helping him through Super Tuesday.
Howard Dean and Steve Forbes can testify that money goes only so far. At some point, Romney's spending will be subject to the law of diminishing returns; if he expects to have any chance, he has to catch fire at some time with actual voters. Herein lies the problem: Gov. Mitt Romney is an incredibly attractive, interesting politician who blends affability with policy-wonk intelligence. The Mitt Romney running for president today is a strange creature who promises to move "In God We Trust" from the back of our currency to the front and insists he was against abortion before he was for it. The gentleman running as Mitt Romney looks and sounds like an android created by James Dobson and Grover Norquist after they'd gotten hopped up on Dr Pepper and Pixie Stix. And that Mitt Romney has zero chance of winning the nomination.
Which brings us to the third tier, with John McCain and Mike Huckabee, who are anti-Romneys. McCain has spent $28.6 million to have his poll numbers fall by half. Huckabee has spent almost no money (just $1.7 million) to rise from anonymity to 8 percent nationally - with a new Rasmussen poll putting him at 18 percent in Iowa. With Sam Brownback out of the race, Huckabee should see a further bump. He isn't going to win the nomination; but Huckabee has done a good job establishing himself as a likable, serious conservative.
As for McCain, the campaign has probably passed him by. Two bits of history to consider, however, before writing him off for good: In October 1999, McCain sat a bit lower in the polls than he does today. George W. Bush was the overwhelming favorite, with support in the high 60s and low 70s. In the end, McCain gave Bush all he could handle. In October 2003, Howard Dean led a crowded field with support of about 16 percent. John Kerry, who had at one time been the front-runner, sat at 8 percent in the polls. By December, Dean had pushed his lead to the 30s and Kerry had fallen to 4 percent.
We all know how that ended.
Makes sense. If Clinton carries the 20 states that Kerry took plus Ohio then she's president wih 271 electoral votes.
The MSM has power and influence but not that much. Those who vote in the primaries are mostly the base and the better informed when it comes to the issues and the candidates. We will pick the nominee. I honestly believe we are going to wind up with a brokered convention, with no candidate garnering enough votes on the first ballot.
Nice way to throw in the towel. 50% of voters say they will never vote for Hillary. Do you actually think she is going to get all of the other 50%?
...and the GOP elites think a pro-abortion, pro-gun control, anti-marriage protection candidate will UNITE conservates to the GOP.
He didn’t come to public service as a lawyer or an investor, but as the son of a steelworker. Ted was born on August 4, 1941 in Lucasville, Ohio, one of nine children. He spent his childhood active in church and school life. As a young man, he never imagined he’d be able to go to college until a high school teacher took him on a trip to Asbury College and Theological Seminary in Kentucky.
His family was able to piece together enough for tuition and, soon after graduating from Northwest High School, he found himself attending Asbury College in Kentucky, receiving a B.A. in History in 1963. He went on to attend the Asbury Theological Seminary and received a Master of Divinity. He continued his studies at the University of Kentucky, receiving a doctoral degree in Counseling Psychology in 1980.
Professionally,Ted has served as a minister, a psychologist, and a college professor. He was an administrator at a Methodist children’s home, an assistant professor of psychology at Shawnee State University, and a consulting psychologist at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (SOCF).
I would be very surprised if Hillary picked him.
What planet is this writer from???
George Bush got a huge margin of victory in the popular as WELL AS the Electoral College votes!
Unless we nominate a strong red-state candidate, the 'toons could very likely carry Arkansas. If they chose someone like Richardson as the VP, they might carry New Mexico, too.
By all means be sure you put Texas on that list, and Tennessee, and I'll bet she'd be hard-pressed to even win her "home" state of Arkansas.
I think it's time we talked about separating this country along regional lines, group people with similar values - or total lack thereof - together, and let the God-less Yankees go their own way.
Ohio, she will win Ohio. The question is,which blue state will we turn ?
This from a person who never believed she could win before. Now, I don’t know how we stop her.
No matter who runs against her, she will win about six states. There is so much seething hatred for her across America that I believe just about any Republican can beat her (or even an independent). She’s toast.
Perhaps, but Kerry just got by in WI. It works both ways.
Good point.
Really ? How else to explain the fact, then, that a large percentage of the population can not distinguish between good and evil, literally.
How else to explain that 50% of us voted in favor of those endorsed by those sworn to kill us all ? How else to explain the greatest economy in the history of earth has been talked down to the point most folks think we're in hard times ? Without the power and influence of the media, the left would be driven to camps on the swamp, fearing retribution by the citizenry.
It is a bit premature to be calling states at this point. I don't think Hillary is a lock by any means. Her high negatives plus all of the Clinton scandals make her vulnerable. She is going to help the GOP turnout without a doubt.
I was not discussing the population at large, rather registered GOP voters and in the context of whether the MSM could use its influence to determine who the GOP nominee would be. I don't think they have that kind of influence and control upon the GOP base.
Point well taken.
>Nice way to throw in the towel
Nice way to avoid the facts.
Be smart. I’m voting for whomever runs against hillary. The electoral votes are there for a Clinton win, the polls be damned.
Face up to it and plan accordingly.
The electoral votes couldn’t have been much closer.
One state made the difference and you can’t cut it closer than that.
Bush did win a resounding popular vote. :)
Don't kid yourself...The America we 'knew' is already past...
We're going globalist...We're giving up America...Hillary AND Thompson will both take us there...
It's got to the point where Republican is as much as a dirty word as Democrat...
In my view, anyone who vill vote for one of the top four Republicans is a Democrat in Drag...
FNC is anti-Fred.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.