Romney’s Race to Lose
by Patrick Ruffini :: December 16th, 2007 11:52 pmI never thought I’d write that. Here’s an Ambinder-inspired numbered outline with my thinking.
1. The surging candidates (Huckabee and McCain) are flaky and/or can’t win. This empowers the institutional frontrunners, Rudy and Romney. And Rudy is in trouble.
1a. Huckabee has solved Romney’s expectations game in Iowa. A win for Romney out of the Hawkeye State translates to a big win and momentum. A narrow loss is within expectations. Only a double digit loss or third would significantly damage Romney.
1b. Huckabee’s momentum out of Iowa isn’t actionable in New Hampshire, so some other external force would need to rise to kill Romney’s lead in NH.
1c. McCain could be that force, with Rudy incredibly “pulling out” of NH after running ads exclusively there for a month. There is the Lieberman endorsement. And his embrace of Al Gore’s global warming song and dance. He is “recapturing the magic” by going even more explicitly center-left in the Granite State than he did in 2000. If he succeeds (dubious with Obamamania sucking up all the indie oxygen), expect the same frenzy that rose to stop him in 2000. To do this, the GOP will need to rally around a safe, establishment-minded candidate to go in for the easy kill.
2. Enter Mitt Romney. He hasn’t been Mr. Excitement, but he has succeeded in positioning himself as the acceptable default — the “nobody ever got fired for buying IBM” guy. His cornering the market on “undecided (non-evangelical) conservatives” is the beginning of this consolidation. The blue-haired ladies who sit on the county committees won’t make a fuss over him. There will be no “Stop Romney” movement should he vault to the top of the polls, as he almost certainly would after Iowa-New Hampshire wins. (Indeed, the way he has muscled himself into the mold of GOP establishment frontrunner will be studied for decades to come.) Now at 15% in the national polls, he has demonstrated an adequate-enough base of national support to be able to leverage big wins into the nomination.
2a. Even if the challenger isn’t McCain, but Huckabee, a safe, brand-name Republican will still be needed to counter him. Rudy is trying (with party line stances of immigration, taxes, guns, etc.), but has not made a comprehensive case as to why Romney as the nominee would be risky.
The race began as McCain-Romney. After, Rudy! Fred! Huck! it would be a particularly cruel joke on the punditocracy should it end that way. But given the depths to which McCain has had to sink to rekindle the flame, he would face Romney in a much weakened state. Indeed, it would be deeply ironic if McCain manages to weaken his good friend Rudy Giuliani in New Hampshire, only to be hand the nomination to Mitt Romney, his arch-nemesis. In this way, a vote for McCain in New Hampshire is a vote for Romney.
So, unless Rudy manages to turn the election into a referendum on leadership-in-a-time-of-crisis in the next three weeks, at least how it stands now, say hello to Mitt Romney as our nominee.
![]()
Comments (18)
Trackbacks (2)
del.icio.us
digg it
subscribe
links for 2007-12-16
by Patrick Ruffini :: December 16th, 2007 7:18 am-
Bill Clinton is shameless. His interview outbursts are totally planned and the faux staff backbiting contrived.
-
An analysis of Romney’s full bore strategy. The only way to run for President IMO.
![]()
Comments (0)
Trackbacks (1)
del.icio.us
digg it
subscribe
links for 2007-12-15
by Patrick Ruffini :: December 15th, 2007 7:19 am
![]()
Comments (0)
Trackbacks (0)
del.icio.us
digg it
subscribe
Rudy On the Brink
by Patrick Ruffini :: December 15th, 2007 12:13 amAs stunning as the Huckster’s rise and McCain’s slow comeback has been Rudy’s collapse nationally and in the states he needed to maintain plausibility for February 5th.
Let’s review what happened today:
- Rasmussen: Huckabee leading in Florida. Rudy in third.
- Detroit News: McCain leading in Michigan.
- Rasmussen: Giuliani at 19% nationally, down from 27% two weeks ago.
- Meanwhile, Romney is clearing the 15% threshold post-speech.
The fascinating thing is that the much-predicted social issue rebellion isn’t happening. Rudy had his huge social issues fight last spring. He was bruised from it, but by clearing the decks in Houston, he was able to recover. If the current shift from Rudy has any catalyzing event, it might have been the NYPD story. That makes sense on one level — voters can more readily dissect a personal narrative than a policy debate, even over partial-birth abortions. At the same time, Rudy’s slide has coincided with the broader Huckaboom, which has been especially punishing on the Mayor’s poll numbers. The likability-minded conservatives who kept Rudy at improbable highs for so long are finally jumping ship.
Perhaps this is the perfect storm, with a salacious Rudy story providing an opening for Huckabee to drive right through. But I think another big reason for this predicament is encoded in this press release I received from Team Rudy at 3:43 PM today:
New York City – Mayor Rudy Giuliani released the following statement on the President signing the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act:
“The Peru Free Trade Agreement is an important step forward in our nation’s effort to open up new markets for American exports. But this agreement is just one of the four Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) that have been submitted to Congress. The remaining three FTAs would also open new markets to U.S. companies and should be approved. Congress should also immediately renew the President’s Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), so the U.S. can effectively negotiate and conclude other agreements that improve the standard of living for all Americans. Unfortunately, Democratic leaders in Congress have debated and repeatedly delayed votes on these agreements and have refused to grant the President TPA, placing partisan politics before the interests of American businesses and working families.”
We are 19 days from Iowa. And we are seeing releases about a United States-Peru trade agreement? When all the energy on this issue is probably on the other side? There is probably some Iowa-agribusiness component I am missing here, but… Peru?
That, in a nutshell, is Rudy’s problem. He is too wonkish for his own good. His answers at debates sometimes wander into the circular minutae. That would be forgivable if he mixed it up with memorable one-liners. But his only truly memorable performances in debates have been his on-stage muggings of Ron Paul and Mitt Romney, which displayed his classic toughness but did little to endear him to primary voters.
His “12 Commitments” was symbolic of a slow-burn, play-it-safe, run-out-the-clock frontrunner strategy. While each of the planks allowed him to make news over an extended period, none were spectacularly groundbreaking. And he had twelve, none of which we can remember.
His red meat lines are limited to fiscal issues (mostly taxes) and health care. While important (and successful in endearing him to the fiscal conservative groups), these are not voting issues in a Republican primary. His attempts to educate people about his New York successes brought out the 9/10 Rudy, not the Churchillian, larger-than-life post-9/11 Rudy.
I’ll give this to John McCain. I still find him utterly unacceptable, but the guy knows how to play to his strengths — the war, corruption/earmarks, electability, global warming, and even somewhat shamelessly plugging his POW years. That’s all the dude ever talks about. A similarly focused Rudy Giuliani would never even breathe a word about anything except the following: national security, electability, and the toughness to defeat the terrorists and the Democrats.
Even now, the argument from Rudy’s perspective is clear: he’s the only one who can win the primary and general elections. It’s an argument with considerable power amidst the craziness that is now the Republican race. Are we really, seriously going to go up against Hillary with a FairTax supporter who is completely untested in national politics? Do you really beat the most processed, inauthentic candidate in modern times with a slick Clintonesque figure of your own? Or someone like John McCain who only wins on loopholes (I got a memo from John Yob today bragging about no Dem primary in Michigan) and channels Al Gore on global warming?
Rudy can still win, in the sense that this race is so crazy open right now that anyone can win. This is not his political obituary. But things have pretty seriously slipped away from him in the last three weeks, and unlike Hillary he has no margin for error and never did. His down arrows need to flip to up arrows — and fast.
With 23 shopping days till New Hampshire, will Rudy finally find his narrative arc in his much touted (if oddly scheduled) Roger Mudd speech tomorrow?
![]()
Comments (16)
Trackbacks (0)
del.icio.us
digg it
subscribe
links for 2007-12-14
by Patrick Ruffini :: December 14th, 2007 7:20 am-
Great tactic.
![]()
Comments (0)
Trackbacks (0)
del.icio.us
digg it
subscribe
links for 2007-12-13
by Patrick Ruffini :: December 13th, 2007 7:18 am
![]()
Comments (0)
Trackbacks (0)
del.icio.us
digg it
subscribe
links for 2007-12-12
by Patrick Ruffini :: December 12th, 2007 7:21 am-
A corporate blog that doesn’t suck
![]()
Comments (0)
Trackbacks (0)
del.icio.us
digg it
subscribe
links for 2007-12-11
by Patrick Ruffini :: December 11th, 2007 7:18 am
![]()
Comments (0)
Trackbacks (0)
del.icio.us
digg it
subscribe
Defusing the Huckabomb
by Patrick Ruffini :: December 11th, 2007 1:24 amA particularly shrewed corresponded emailed tonight with this observation:
Not to confuse the Romney camp with the Kremlin, but using Huckabee to take out Mitt in Iowa seems to resemble using the Muhadjadeen to remove the Soviets from Afghanistan…once they are done they will be as big a problem for us as the old enemy was.
Huckabee has moved from niche regional contender to (for now) bona-fide national frontrunner. He is now within 1 and 2 points of Rudy Giuliani nationally in two national polls released this evening (with a decent post-speech bump for Mitt). This is the first time anyone has gotten so close to Rudy in a non-Rasmussen poll (which uses a very tight likely voter screen — itself ominous for the Mayor). Huck is now overperforming Fred at his peak.
This is no longer just an Iowa deal. Huckabee leads in South Carolina. He can win Florida. He can play in Michigan with the help of the unions, and the Wolverine State has a habit of awarding unorthodox primary wins.
With Huckabee no longer content to play foil to Mitt Romney, he becomes a threat to Rudy. Rudy’s recent dip in the RCP average coincides precisely with Huck’s meteoric rise. Sooner or later, both Mitt and Rudy will have to deal with Huckabee.
Mitt’s attempt starts tomorrow, in the form of a negative TV ad aimed at Iowa households. It’s unlikely this alone will do it, but the idea here is to start a drumbeat of negative buzz and scrutiny of Huckabee that crests just in time to eeke out a narrow win or loss on the 3rd. Since Iowa is effectively a two-man race right now, Romney’s people are probably betting they can evade the murder/suicide scenario.
How does Romney put away Huckabee? I’ve written “the memo” before, but it bears repeating: Mitt Romney’s progress in the polls has been plodding at best because he appeals to people’s heads and not their hearts. My advice to Mitt simple: let people get to know you. Talk about the Olympics, talk about your business successes, talk about how you’ve turned around everything you’ve touched — and go light on the policy stuff. Do an ad straight to the camera and say, “I’m not the flavor of the month — but if you want someone who has the real world experience to turn things around, I’m your guy.” On conservatism, tell people you’ve got “the whole package” — and scratch the awful, elitist “three legged stool” metaphor. Rudy’s a social liberal. Huck’s an economic liberal. Mitt’s just right.
For Rudy to survive, his campaign mantra for the next 29 days must be: national security, national security, national security. Is the national security party really going to nominee a former governor with zero national security experience to face al-Qaeda? This is Rudy’s key differentiator against Huckabee — and Mitt too. It is also McCain’s narrative — I saw first hand at the Florida debate how McCain gained goodwill just by being the only one to talk about the war. But by owning McCain’s issue — and by remaining the stronger of the two — McCain’s voters may finally get the hint and go Rudy.
The rap on Rudy is that he talks about 9/11 incessantly. If only that were so, he’d be doing a lot better. The reason Rudy has remained so strong for so long is not that he cut the welfare rolls in New York City, it’s not because he kicked the squeegies out, and it’s not even the dramatic reduction in crime he’s best known for. He loves to talk about these things, but primary voters don’t care. The one and only reason Giuliani was ever a national frontrunner is because of his performance on 9/11 and what that said about his ability to lead in a crisis.
Why he hasn’t run a campaign that is singularly evocative of that theme — just as Mitt has glossed over his experience as a turnaround artist — is baffling. Rudy’s message seems to have devolved into a 1996 Bill Clinton school uniforms message, just as Mitt’s has become a conservative panderfest.
Rudy needs to seal the deal on national security. Unlike McCain, who is Mr. Iraq, he can broaden it to toughness on Iran and the broader terror war. The central theme of a Rudy-Huck fight will be “Who do you trust as Commander-in-Chief?”
GOP primary voters feel passionately about two things: values and the war. Huckabee has cornered the market on the first. His success is not about ideology, but identity. For his voters, he’s a Christian first, and a conservative second. Attacking him on conventional conservative issues won’t undermine his core support because it has nothing to do with being a conservative.
And McCain, poised ominously for a comeback in New Hampshire, is on track to win the second by default, despite his narrow focus on Iraq, the weakest link in our national security message.
Can Romney reassert himself as the best all-around conservative when people believe he’s a conservative of convenience? Can Rudy steal back the national security issue?
The survival of the GOP’s conventional frontrunners hinges on the answers to these questions.
![]()
Comments (18)
Trackbacks (3)
del.icio.us
digg it
subscribe
links for 2007-12-10
by Patrick Ruffini :: December 10th, 2007 8:22 am-
This is my kind of foreign policy.



















