Posted on 12/24/2007 8:48:50 PM PST by Fred
Republicans
Mitt Romney may be in terrific shape. Or he might be on the verge of collapsing. His strategy hinges on breakout showings in Iowa and New Hampshire, and either state could go either way for the former Massachusetts governor.
In Iowa, he trails Mike Huckabee, but Huckabee’s surge in the state may have peaked, and Romney is within striking distance. Now, he’s shredding Huckabee on the stump, over the air, and in the mail. Because Huckabee is now expected to win Iowa, Romney may be in position to declare victory with a strong second place showing – and he might still win the state.
He’ll probably need some momentum from Iowa to help in New Hampshire, where his once-overpowering lead has dwindled to three points, with John McCain rising from the dead. The risk for Romney is that bad news from Iowa might bleed into New Hampshire; and if he’s seen as the loser in the first two states, he stands to fade from viability in the next states. But a strong showing in Iowa followed by a solid win in New Hampshire would put him in good shape.
This is why, depending on whom you ask, Romney is either the best shot on the G.O.P. board, or his campaign’s strategy is about to blow up in its face.
Huckabee’s game plan also hinges on Iowa, but not so much New Hampshire. He now has to win Iowa, given his elevated expectations there, but his emphasis on his Christian background isn’t catching on in New Hampshire (just as Pat Robertson fared poorly there in 1988). But Huckabee could get an assist in New Hampshire from McCain, if he can upset Romney there – an outcome that could marginalize Romney, and thus remove a potent obstacle from Huckabee’s path to the nomination.
The good news for Huckabee: He’s still well-positioned in Iowa, fortified by the state’s large bloc of Christian conservatives. Plus, the rise in New Hampshire of McCain, with his celebrated maverick streak, draws attention to Romney’s pandering – a potentially devastating contrast for Romney in such an independent-minded state.
The bad news: His emergence has prompted the inevitable backlash, evident in amped up attacks from his opponents and intense media scrutiny. Has the revelation of his extreme social rhetoric in the not-so-distant past undermined his appeal to moderates and independents? And has his Arkansas record (on taxes, spending, and commutations) made him anathema to the conservative base in the same way McCain was in 2000?
It is actually growing easier by the day to paint a McCain nomination scenario. He has largely written off Iowa, and yet his poll numbers have shown life there in the last two weeks. A third place finish is not implausible. Follow that up with a New Hampshire victory (which would probably require a Romney loss in Iowa), and McCain may find himself in what amounts to a one-on-one race with Huckabee, with Romney fatally wounded and Rudy Giuliani fading out. Suddenly, it would be McCain – and not Giuliani – who would be the big favorite in all of those giant February 5 primary states.
As for Giuliani, the signs are very bad indeed. He talks of jump-starting his campaign with a win in Florida, and then gobbling up the February 5 states. But that strategy requires that he demonstrate viability (at the very least) in the early states – and that no other candidate (like McCain, say) builds the kind of momentum that could eat into Giuliani’s soft support in the later states. Already, his Florida advantage is declining, and it will probably get worse if he’s humbled in Iowa and New Hampshire. The best scenario for Rudy now is some kind of split verdict in the early states, one that somehow prevents any of the candidates from breaking out before February 5.
OK fine. Show me any recent data that says he’s top 3.
Oh, you’re one of those that worships polling data. I don’t trust anything I’ve seen recently, because it has been all over the map. As I’ve stated, Fred is the only viable CONSERVATIVE that can win the general election. The rest are just liberals.
No. I don’t worship polling data. But it’s the only data we have. Why do you qualify Fred as a “viable” conservative? Is there a non-viable conservative in the race? And if so, how can you tell the difference, if not polling data? Sure, all the polls can be wrong, but without them, what is your rationale for calling Fred “viable”? Just cuz you think he is? That’s it??
Data which appears highly flawed or dubious. At best, it might give you a notion of general trends, but even at that, it is often poisoned by how the questions are asked and upon whom is being questioned. I've never been polled in a Presidential race. I don't know anyone who has.
"Why do you qualify Fred as a “viable” conservative?"
Because he is.
"Is there a non-viable conservative in the race?"
Yes, but just one. Duncan Hunter is a non-viable Conservative.
"And if so, how can you tell the difference, if not polling data?"
Simple reasoning. I knew Hunter was never going to be a major viable candidate (although he should've been, especially given the embarrassing RINO rejects that have populated this campaign). I can tell right off the bat who is likely to be competitive and who is likely not to be, and I don't need polling data for that. I've analyzed enough races to instinctively know. I've only been wrong once in 20 years as to whom was going to be our party's nominee (that being 1988 when I thought Bob Dole might top GHW Bush).
"Sure, all the polls can be wrong, but without them, what is your rationale for calling Fred “viable”? Just cuz you think he is? That’s it??"
Because he is a viable candidate, that is quite clear to anyone who has a basic grade-school comprehension of politics. He is the only Conservative in the top-tier. He is the only one with a known national reputation. He has also never lost an election he has participated in. If he believed he was not going to win, he would've never gotten in or withdrawn already. He isn't doing this over ego, but because he was called to run by the people. He's the only candidate who has "it", that combination of qualities that makes a premier Presidential candidate. Two of the other RINO liberals may be leading in the flawed primary polls, but they neither have "it", nor will they be viable in the general election.
Thats what I thought. Just your subjective opinion. That’s fine. Everyone’s entitled. Just don’t pretend it’s anything other than your own conjecture. That’s exactly what I meant when I said (i think to a different poster?) that Fred’s viability was all in your head. Because it is, as you have now confirmed.
Again, only if "top tier" is a figment of your imagination. Without some measure of what the "top tier" is, it's just a meaningless phrase.
You understand that ultimately we’re talking about the general election here. You don’t seriously believe that a RINO will be viable in November ? That’s not subjective opinion. That’s a well-thought-out conclusion based on years of study, research, and observation. I’d put them side by side with Michael Barone any day of the week. Just because you have a particular problem with how I reached them doesn’t mean they’re any less right.
For you to claim Fred Thompson is not in the top tier of candidates is simply plain pig-ignorant.
No it isn’t. I was watching Hannity/Colmes and they had a graphic on screen of the top 4 candidates in Iowa as of right now. Thompson didn’t even make the cut. His name wasn’t even on the screen. He doesn’t rate.
Oooh, his name wasn’t on the screen ! On Fox. Imagine that. On Fox. Sorry, he’s still top tier even if you don’t like that. BTW, I trust Fox News covering Fred Thompson about as much as I trusted any major network to fairly cover Reagan. Conservative, my ass. Liberal RINO News Central.
In all honesty, we'd probably be better off.
Conscript 10 natural-born citizens over age 35; screen out those with mental instability; and select the one who scores highest on a written exam about the Constitution.
I’d go for Hunter/Thompson, but Thompson’s age would present a big electability problem in eight years.
You mean data like the highest favorabilty rating of all GOP candidates? The highest "conservative" rating of all GOP candidates? The fact that he is, by far and away, the most common "second choice" for those voters not already voting for him?
On top of that, his favorability rating in Iowa is about 10 points higher than it is nationally, again, clearly 1st among the entire GOP field. Add in to that that some 50% of Iowa caucus voters say they are either undecided or are still open to changing their minds (cross-reference to the "second choice" stat above), and I'd say there's plenty of data to suggest that Thompson is not only "viable", but that he could dramatically exceed expectations.
He wasn’t on the screen because he came in 5th place in their poll, not in the first tier. You can say he’s top tier all you want. Doesn’t make it so. You’ve got no date. Yer just saying what you want to be true.
Boy, that sounds like the definition of second tier. Most common second choice=least common first choice. If Thompson doesn't come in 3rd in Iowa, he's done. He's got no chance in NH or Michegan. Last I checked he wasn't even winning in SC, which is supposed to be his turf. Favorability? How about straight up leading in a poll? How bout a number not in the teens in any state?
I saw said numbers earlier today. A whole group of them within a few points of each other, all within the MOE. Meaning he’s either in 5th, or in 3rd, just behind 2nd. I’m not impressed with your constant badmouthing. Fox News ain’t Conservative, and they’re just as guilty as every other liberal media outlet in deliberately ignoring his candidacy as the only authentic and viable Conservative.
BTW, which RINO are you supporting ?
LOL. The old margin of error argument. Too bad Fred’s always at the bottom. Fox viewers are GOPers. Thompson didn’t make the cut. It’s not a conspiracy. 5th placers don’t get a lot of coverage.
Which RINO are you supporting ?
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.