Remember November- and forget Mitt Romney!
Here is a fascinating article- admittedly only one man's opinion- on the prospects of each of the declared candidates for the White House actually to win a general election.
Steven Stark's rankings:
1) John McCain
2) John Edwards
3) Rudy Giuliani
4) (tie) Hillary Clinton and Mike Huckabee
6) Barack Obama
7) Mitt Romney
8) Fred Thompson
I don't necessarily agree with Stark in every detail (he fails to give due weight, for example, to the utter unacceptability of Rudy Giuliani to far more Republicans than support him), but I think he's pretty much on the mark. I've said for years that Hillary has far too many negatives to be nearly as formidable as her supporters inside and outside the MSM would have us believe. And while I disagree with him on stem cells, I do agree that in November John McCain would probably be the strongest candidate we could nominate- with Mike Huckabee being the most electable candidate I find totally acceptable on the social issues which are most important to me.
Iowans please note, however, a phenomenon borne out rather consistently by the polls: Mitt Romney is unelectable.
Another note relevant to the Iowa scene: I recently used the Yiddish word chutzpah- classically defined as that quality exhibited by a young man who murders both of his parents and then pleads for mercy on the ground that he's an orphan- to describe Jeff Fuller's suggestion that I was becoming overheated in my anti-Romney rhetoric (Fuller has been carrying on a daily hatchet job on Mike Huckabee ever since Huckabee's passing of Romney in the Iowa polls put Romney's campaign into its current panicked, "slash-and-burn" orgy of negative and often dishonest advertising not so much advancing his own candidacy as tearing down that of his opponents).
I've personally "gone negative" on Mike Huckabee's behalf because it's the only defense against that sort of thing. Other Huckabee bloggers have done the same thing, and for the same reason. Huckabee himself continues- to his cost here in Iowa-to run an essentially positive campaign that has refused to get down into the gutter with Romney.
There's good reason to take the high road, if you can- hard as it is to even survive when you're being actively and systematically slandered. To begin with, one of these guys is going to have to run against Hillary in November. It ill-behooves any Republican to do her dirty work in advance. Nor is it smart politics to make it harder for the supporters of a defeated opponent to come on board if you're successful. Before Mitt Romney went negative, he might well have stood to inherit my personal support if he had knocked Mike Huckabee out of the race; as things stand, John McCain- stem cells or not- is my second choice, and I prefer Romney only to Giuliani and Ron Paul.
In a year in which the greatest possibility of a brokered convention looms than in any since 1952, going as negative as Romney has gone is especially self-destructive. When the Republican Convention begins in Minneapolis-St. Paul next September 1, you can be very sure that Mitt Romney will be the second choice of very few Republicans, and he will have nobody to blame for it but himself.
But "going negative" is, by definition, a tactic of desperation. The bottom line is that Romney- who may or may not have bottomed out at the last minute- has been tanking in Iowa for some time. John McCain is breathing down his neck in New Hampshire. Huckabee is right behind him in Michigan. There is a serious danger that Romney may be out of the race six weeks after Iowa; his entire strategy has assumed a degree of early success that seems increasingly unlikely. So he has adopted a strategy which has effectively destroyed him as an acceptable compromise candidate at the convention in order to somehow stay in the race until then.
Bad options make for bad choices.
Now Romney has turned his negativity on McCain in New Hampshire- and Real Clear Politics' Tom Bevan has used the very word I applied to Jeff- chuzpah- to describe the dishonest attack ad the former Massachusetts governor is running against the Arizona senator there on immigration.
McCain responded to the ad by saying that, as a combat pilot who was once shot down over enemy territory, he knows a thing or two about tailspins- and that Romney's negativity is unmistakable evidence of the magnitude of the tailspin Mitt is in. Romney, in the meantime, will apparently say practically anything in his increasingly desperate effort to pull out of that tailspin by shooting down his own wingman whenever possible- a tactic no more likely to succeed in presidential politics than in combat.
Any candidate who was not in a state of sheer, mortal panic would be looking ahead to Minneapolis-St. Paul, and the November election. The bottom line about Mitt Romney is that he can't afford to- and he knows it.
Steven Stark's rankings:
1) John McCain
2) John Edwards
3) Rudy Giuliani
4) (tie) Hillary Clinton and Mike Huckabee
6) Barack Obama
7) Mitt Romney
8) Fred Thompson
I don't necessarily agree with Stark in every detail (he fails to give due weight, for example, to the utter unacceptability of Rudy Giuliani to far more Republicans than support him), but I think he's pretty much on the mark. I've said for years that Hillary has far too many negatives to be nearly as formidable as her supporters inside and outside the MSM would have us believe. And while I disagree with him on stem cells, I do agree that in November John McCain would probably be the strongest candidate we could nominate- with Mike Huckabee being the most electable candidate I find totally acceptable on the social issues which are most important to me.
Iowans please note, however, a phenomenon borne out rather consistently by the polls: Mitt Romney is unelectable.
Another note relevant to the Iowa scene: I recently used the Yiddish word chutzpah- classically defined as that quality exhibited by a young man who murders both of his parents and then pleads for mercy on the ground that he's an orphan- to describe Jeff Fuller's suggestion that I was becoming overheated in my anti-Romney rhetoric (Fuller has been carrying on a daily hatchet job on Mike Huckabee ever since Huckabee's passing of Romney in the Iowa polls put Romney's campaign into its current panicked, "slash-and-burn" orgy of negative and often dishonest advertising not so much advancing his own candidacy as tearing down that of his opponents).
I've personally "gone negative" on Mike Huckabee's behalf because it's the only defense against that sort of thing. Other Huckabee bloggers have done the same thing, and for the same reason. Huckabee himself continues- to his cost here in Iowa-to run an essentially positive campaign that has refused to get down into the gutter with Romney.
There's good reason to take the high road, if you can- hard as it is to even survive when you're being actively and systematically slandered. To begin with, one of these guys is going to have to run against Hillary in November. It ill-behooves any Republican to do her dirty work in advance. Nor is it smart politics to make it harder for the supporters of a defeated opponent to come on board if you're successful. Before Mitt Romney went negative, he might well have stood to inherit my personal support if he had knocked Mike Huckabee out of the race; as things stand, John McCain- stem cells or not- is my second choice, and I prefer Romney only to Giuliani and Ron Paul.
In a year in which the greatest possibility of a brokered convention looms than in any since 1952, going as negative as Romney has gone is especially self-destructive. When the Republican Convention begins in Minneapolis-St. Paul next September 1, you can be very sure that Mitt Romney will be the second choice of very few Republicans, and he will have nobody to blame for it but himself.
But "going negative" is, by definition, a tactic of desperation. The bottom line is that Romney- who may or may not have bottomed out at the last minute- has been tanking in Iowa for some time. John McCain is breathing down his neck in New Hampshire. Huckabee is right behind him in Michigan. There is a serious danger that Romney may be out of the race six weeks after Iowa; his entire strategy has assumed a degree of early success that seems increasingly unlikely. So he has adopted a strategy which has effectively destroyed him as an acceptable compromise candidate at the convention in order to somehow stay in the race until then.
Bad options make for bad choices.
Now Romney has turned his negativity on McCain in New Hampshire- and Real Clear Politics' Tom Bevan has used the very word I applied to Jeff- chuzpah- to describe the dishonest attack ad the former Massachusetts governor is running against the Arizona senator there on immigration.
McCain responded to the ad by saying that, as a combat pilot who was once shot down over enemy territory, he knows a thing or two about tailspins- and that Romney's negativity is unmistakable evidence of the magnitude of the tailspin Mitt is in. Romney, in the meantime, will apparently say practically anything in his increasingly desperate effort to pull out of that tailspin by shooting down his own wingman whenever possible- a tactic no more likely to succeed in presidential politics than in combat.
Any candidate who was not in a state of sheer, mortal panic would be looking ahead to Minneapolis-St. Paul, and the November election. The bottom line about Mitt Romney is that he can't afford to- and he knows it.
Comments
Romney is the fourth or fifth choice of Republicans nationally. His entire strategy has (wisely) been to win Iowa and New Hampshire, and then to rely on momentum to carry him the rest of he way. He's essentially a regional candidate- his natural constituency is the West- and his only chance to compete nationally is to seize overwhelming momentum at the outset and convert that into more victories and more momentum in places where he doesn't figure to be a factor otherwise.
If you think Romney victories in Iowa and New Hampshire will do more than make Romney a national candidate, you're kidding yourself. Romney will face his real challenge in the South, where even a weakened Huckabee and Thompson are apt to be major obstacles. Prejudice against Romney's religion shouldn't be a factor anywhere, but in the "Bible Belt" it certainly will be. He'll have his work cut out for them there- and even if he wins in Iowa and New Hampshire, he'll have to dominate the South to have a chance.
Romney is strong in the West, and can compete in the Midwest. But the coasts and the eastern industrial states belong to Giuliani. Sweeping the South in addition to winning in both Iowa and New Hampshire is the only way Romney can approach the convention with anywhere near the number of delegates he needs to win the nomination outright. He has no chance in a brokered convention. He simply is making too many enemies.
The odds of Romney being nominated are no better than fifty- fifty even if he wins in both Iowa and New Hampshire. But if he loses either, he's badly crippled- and if he loses both, he's finished.
A strong second in Iowa is enough to keep Huckabee viable until South Carolina. After that, he figures to dominate the South- which will put him in pretty much the same position Romney would have been in by winning both Iowa and New Hampshire, but without necessarily having to win either himself.
McCain, if he wins New Hampshire, might still convert that victory into enough momentum to get a majority going into the convention. I don't see Giuliani doing so, nor do I see Thompson going anywhere.
So there are basically three scenarios whereby a brokered convention could be avoided. The first would be for everything to work the way Romney wants it to; for him to win in Iowa and New Hampshire, and to exploit that momentum by running the table from there. If he loses one of the two, he's badly wounded; if he loses both, he's dead.
The second possibility would be for Huckabee to finish no worse than a strong second in Iowa, win South Carolina, win Florida, and go on to sweep the South, once again building the necessary momentum, but with a strategy less weighted toward the first few states.
The third would be for McCain- probably the most electable of the candidates- to win in New Hampshire, and manage to convince Republicans who dislike him that he's their best shot of keepign Hillary out of the White House.
Any other scenario leads to a brokered convention. And in a brokered convention, the one guy we can be sure will not be the nominee is Mitt Romney.
Complex realities, I fear, require more words to describe them than less complex fantasies.
I disagree with Romney being just "badly wounded" I think that he will be done...again how is that "bias" for you. Romney will not recover from losing Iowa, the MSM will eat him alive for losing Iowa.
Another note...Arkansas is not the south, and if one (like all the media these days) thinks that McCain can and will win the nomination (the man who has pissed off the Christian right), he will have to carry the south also. Again if South Carolina is any indication, Romney will do just fine in the South. Southerners are a little smarter than voting for someone just because he comes from the south.
Seriously, it won't be until your candidate has yet to carry a state in late February before you admit that he will not be the nominee.
"A strong 2nd!!!" he is expected to win in Iowa, he will not survive if he loses Iowa (again not bias, just fact). I am at least going to say that Romney will be one and done if he loses Iowa, at least be realistic and admit that Huckabee has no late state strategy...he is all built around winning Iowa (just like Mitt) and if he doesn't win it, he would be done just like Romney...lay off the cheerleading and stick to "complex" or less complex (whatever makes you sleep at night) realities.
I respect your opinions, I just think that the only candidates that have a chance of going to a brokered convention with hopes of getting the nomination will be McCain or Giuliani. Personally I don't think that it will come to that, i think someone will run away with it at the end. just my opinion, nothing personal. Thanks for responding, keeps me from getting bored during the break (i am going to veterinary school, and no one there talks politics, and if they do it's just liberal dribble, so this is refreshing.)
I'm working on a post that will address the dynamics of this right now, and I commend it to you. For now, I'll simply say this: If Romney wins in Iowa, it doesn't mean that he wins in New Hampshire. And if he loses in Iowa, that doesn't mean that he loses in New Hampshire. If he wins one and loses the other, that doesn't mean that he has to drop out- though you may be right in saying that it would mean the end of any real shot he has at the nomination.
Romney's problem is that he has to win both Iowa and New Hampshire in blowouts to come out of the early going with anything resembling real momentum. That was the original game plan; that's why all the early money was poured into those two states. In a nomination process this front loaded, it's simply tough to see anybody scoring a breakout by February 5. And if we have three or four or five candidates still bunched together on the night of February 5, I wouldn't be at all surprised if one manages to become the clear leader by the time the convention rolls around. In fact, I'd be surprised if one didn't.
But I don't see any way he's going into the convention with the majority of delegates. Failing that, we have a brokered convention.
Romney, having alienated the supporters of Huckabee and McCain, isn't going to win the nomination even if he has that plurality. Huckabee, who is unacceptable to economic conservatives, is probably in the same boat. Giuliani, nobody else will accept. I suppose Fred Thompson, if he's still around, might be a viable compromise candidate. McCain is unpopular with a lot of people in the party for having a mind of his own (many won't forgive him for being right about foregoing the nuclear option, and coercing the agreement out of the Democrats that got Roberts and Alito confirmed. Others have problems with campaign finance reform, or are deluded enough to think that torture does anything but get the victim to tell you what he thinks you want to hear).
Still, if McCain does well enough, perhaps a majority might be persuaded to hold its collective nose and nominate a guy who actually thinks for himself.
If this were a political novel, you'd have to reckon with some previously unconsidered dark horse-Newt Gingrich, perhaps, or Tim Pawlenty, or Charlie Crist, or Rick Perry, or Matt Blunt, or Mark Sanford, or Haley Barbour, or Lamar Alexander, perhaps; wouldn't a Liddy Dole vs. Hillary matchup be a kick?- who might come out of a room that once would have been smoke-filled, but won't be. And maybe that's what will happen. Or maybe Sam Brownback's candidacy will somehow be resurrected.
Thing is, I don't see anybody who's currently in the race everybody else could agree on. And I just don't see anybody scoring big enough, fast enough to wrap it up before the convention.
Maybe somebody will have a large enough lead that everybody else will throw in the towel and rally around him. One thing's sure: it's going to be an interesting year.
Oh. One more thought: you really can stop posturing long enough to recognize just how silly that crack about Mike Huckabee's substance. You may not like that substance, but he's running on a well-defined platform that goes a great deal further than calling himself a "Christian leader" (a line, btw, which was promptly retired when Romney's people accused it of being an anti-Mormon code word).
You need to do more research and lose the groundless accusations, guy, if you're going to be able to discuss this stuff intelligently.
Or have any credibility.