If he wants to stop Giuliani, Romney should withdraw and endorse Huckabee
Jeff Fuller, over at Iowans for Romney, seems to be panicking.
He's been peddling the odd notion (common, it seems, among pro-Romney bloggers and journalists) that the race for the Republican nomination is really between Mitt and Rudy Giuliani.
This is, of course, a truly formidable piece of wishful thinking on his part. After maintaining a formidable lead for many months (due to largely prodigal spending and multiple, omnipresent TV commercials) Romney has lost the lead here in Iowa to Huckabee. The consensus of the polls here leaves no lingering doubt about that (the most recent Des Moines Register poll gives Huckabee 29%, to 24 for Romney, 13 for Giuliani, nine for Thompson, and seven each for McCain and Paul). Even the few polls which show Romney still in the lead portray a photo finish in the making, and confirm that Romney has lost both his lead and his momentum here.
And it isn't just a question of reasonably expecting that victory in Iowa will drastically improve Huckabee's chances in later primaries and caucuses. The current surge for Huckabee isn't just here in Iowa; it's nationwide. The most recent poll- by Rasmussen- shows Huckabee now running second among Republicans nationally, trailing Rudy Giuliani by only five points- and with a six point lead over Romney!
It's rather strange for supporters of the number five candidate nationally to be presenting him as the only real alternative to number one- and urging, on that ground, that people not support number two!
It's true that Romney- a former Massachusetts governor- still has an overwhelming lead in his neighboring state of New Hampshire, and seems to be the major competition for Giuliani in the state where Romney's dad was governor, Michigan. This is also true in Nevada. Nobody questions the strength of the Mormon candidate in the West. And Romney is doing surprisingly well even now in South Carolina, where he, Giuliani, Huckabee, Thompson, and McCain are all very much in a very tight race.
But let's get real here. If Fred Thompson does as badly in Iowa and in New Hampshire as he appears do be doing right now, he's done. Huckabee, not Romney, will inherit his support in the South. If anybody is going to head off Giuliani in Florida, it's more likely to be Huckabee than Romney (all the social conservatives are fairly closely bunched there, as well).
The anti-Mormonism which is so formidable an obstacle to Romney in the South is ugly, but very real. So, too, his is relatively recent and conveniently-timed conversion to social conservatism. If he wins in Iowa and does respectably thereafter, Huckabee will sweep the South. He's at least as formidable a candidate for the nomination as Romney is- and leads him by six points in the most recent national poll.
So I think it's rather clear that when Jeff Fuller and the rest of the Romney crowd try to make the case that it boils down to Romney and Giuliani, they're talking through their hats. Romney, to be sure, has lots of money. But Huckabee's coffers will swell, too, if he continues to gain both in Iowa and elsewhere- and again, he is now the leading socially conservative alternative to Rudy in the national polls.
Viewing the situation objectively, it would be more logical for Romney to get out of the race and endorse Huckabee, if he really wants to stop Giuliani!
Wishful thinking and even desperation are understandable for supporters of a candidate in Romney's shoes here in Iowa. What is considerably less understandable is Jeff Fuller's bizarre claim of an actual conspiracy between Huckabee and Giuliani to "get" Mitt Romney. The variance between Jeff's claims of his candidate's alleged strength and Huckabee's alleged weakness on one hand, and the polling numbers on the other, is enough to surround his claims with an aura of desperate wishful thinking. But when people start dreaming up conspiracies, that tends to combine with such an unrealistic assessment of the numbers to make those people hard to take seriously.
One thing is sure: Mitt Romney's supporters are scared. And it isn't of Rudy Giuliani!
He's been peddling the odd notion (common, it seems, among pro-Romney bloggers and journalists) that the race for the Republican nomination is really between Mitt and Rudy Giuliani.
This is, of course, a truly formidable piece of wishful thinking on his part. After maintaining a formidable lead for many months (due to largely prodigal spending and multiple, omnipresent TV commercials) Romney has lost the lead here in Iowa to Huckabee. The consensus of the polls here leaves no lingering doubt about that (the most recent Des Moines Register poll gives Huckabee 29%, to 24 for Romney, 13 for Giuliani, nine for Thompson, and seven each for McCain and Paul). Even the few polls which show Romney still in the lead portray a photo finish in the making, and confirm that Romney has lost both his lead and his momentum here.
And it isn't just a question of reasonably expecting that victory in Iowa will drastically improve Huckabee's chances in later primaries and caucuses. The current surge for Huckabee isn't just here in Iowa; it's nationwide. The most recent poll- by Rasmussen- shows Huckabee now running second among Republicans nationally, trailing Rudy Giuliani by only five points- and with a six point lead over Romney!
It's rather strange for supporters of the number five candidate nationally to be presenting him as the only real alternative to number one- and urging, on that ground, that people not support number two!
It's true that Romney- a former Massachusetts governor- still has an overwhelming lead in his neighboring state of New Hampshire, and seems to be the major competition for Giuliani in the state where Romney's dad was governor, Michigan. This is also true in Nevada. Nobody questions the strength of the Mormon candidate in the West. And Romney is doing surprisingly well even now in South Carolina, where he, Giuliani, Huckabee, Thompson, and McCain are all very much in a very tight race.
But let's get real here. If Fred Thompson does as badly in Iowa and in New Hampshire as he appears do be doing right now, he's done. Huckabee, not Romney, will inherit his support in the South. If anybody is going to head off Giuliani in Florida, it's more likely to be Huckabee than Romney (all the social conservatives are fairly closely bunched there, as well).
The anti-Mormonism which is so formidable an obstacle to Romney in the South is ugly, but very real. So, too, his is relatively recent and conveniently-timed conversion to social conservatism. If he wins in Iowa and does respectably thereafter, Huckabee will sweep the South. He's at least as formidable a candidate for the nomination as Romney is- and leads him by six points in the most recent national poll.
So I think it's rather clear that when Jeff Fuller and the rest of the Romney crowd try to make the case that it boils down to Romney and Giuliani, they're talking through their hats. Romney, to be sure, has lots of money. But Huckabee's coffers will swell, too, if he continues to gain both in Iowa and elsewhere- and again, he is now the leading socially conservative alternative to Rudy in the national polls.
Viewing the situation objectively, it would be more logical for Romney to get out of the race and endorse Huckabee, if he really wants to stop Giuliani!
Wishful thinking and even desperation are understandable for supporters of a candidate in Romney's shoes here in Iowa. What is considerably less understandable is Jeff Fuller's bizarre claim of an actual conspiracy between Huckabee and Giuliani to "get" Mitt Romney. The variance between Jeff's claims of his candidate's alleged strength and Huckabee's alleged weakness on one hand, and the polling numbers on the other, is enough to surround his claims with an aura of desperate wishful thinking. But when people start dreaming up conspiracies, that tends to combine with such an unrealistic assessment of the numbers to make those people hard to take seriously.
One thing is sure: Mitt Romney's supporters are scared. And it isn't of Rudy Giuliani!
Comments
Can anyone say Libertarian Party?
Still, getting rid of the libertarians would be an additional benefit of nominating Huckabee. Thanks for the encouragement!
see video: CNN/YouTube Republican Debate: Giuliani 9/11 Question The problem is the CNN political team chooses the videos, not you.
It's not just that Romney is a Mormon, but that he's a Mormon from Massachusetts.