Just some quick thoughts on the debate, per Don Ward's prediction.
Easily the most substantive of the debates thus far, but also the least instructive. It basically confirmed that yes, the Big Three are at the top of the heap for a reason. Fred Thompson probably should have been on the stage tonight given how long he's played footsie with the race and that he, like Rudy, is officially in the "exploratory" stage. Either way, call it the Big Four now. Everyone else - even the reliably enjoyable debate presence that is Mike Huckabee - ought to go home now.
Rudy Giuliani - if a pro-choice Republican can win the nomination he's the one. He's obviously in a wonderful comfort zone discussing the war on terror (and in bashing the media), plus he has steadily improved on the debate stage from his near disaster at the Reagan Library. His campaign has, however, been stuck in neutral after the scrutiny of his abortion position around the time of that gathering. If he can weather Thompson's entry into the race then he has a reasonable chance, albeit a very tricky one, to land the nomination. I'm not sold until I see it unfold otherwise though that Giuliani doesn't lose a noticeable level of support to Thompson as the campaign unfolds.
John McCain - amazingly he had some strong points tonight; not what might be expected given that immigration was front and center. That topic undeniably wrecks him with many likely Republican primary voters. Even with a solid showing in some respects tonight, he likely confronts a hard ceiling of support for quite a while because of how that issue has unfolded recently. It's not clear to me how his campaign can fix that...and it's not like Thompson's entry is going to help him any.
Mitt Romney - yet another solid performance tonight. Like him or not, he's good. Noteworthy also because it continues to validate that the least known of the Big Three is a top notch candidate. While the real political die-hards may know that, many "likely primary voters" are still just in the process of gathering information and forming opinions about these guys. Like all the rest of the top tier it will be interesting to see how Thompson's entry does or doesn't affect him, opinions seem to differ a lot on that question in Romney's case.
Fred Thompson - alright, he wasn't on the stage, but I don't think I'm the only one who wants to see a debate with all the Big Four up there. That's probably not fair to the also-rans, but polling and fundraising should speak for themselves in the coming weeks.
I continue to wonder whether Thompson will meet expectations on the long slog of the campaign trail. He's a welcome addition to the race, in no small part because of his clear-voiced, conservative commentary in recent months. But only time will tell if that attractive punditry translates into an effective candidate. I watched a good part of his speech to the Virginia GOP over the weekend and his interview with Sean Hannity after the debate. Candidly, there were some intriguing things said, but particularly in the weekend speech he seemed like just another interesting Senator. It's good the country has people like that, but they have trouble getting elected President for a reason. Let's see whether his non-traditional campaign works, though I'm skeptical about that strategy too. Traditional campaigns are the norm for a reason: they usually win. Thompson now has his shot to show all of us otherwise.
So, can we get a countdown now on shrinking the number of candidates at future debates? We would all be well served seeing just Giuliani, McCain, Romney, and Thompson on stage. In theory that would be a true battle of the heavyweights, just as should probably be seen between Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barack Obama on the Democratic side. Those would be debates worth watching.
Posted by Eric Earling at June 05, 2007 08:19 PM | Email ThisLiked what I saw with Huckabee. He again proved he deserves to be up there with the "big three".
Posted by: Patrick on June 5, 2007 08:32 PMBill Clinton was way behind in late 1991. So was John Kerry in late 2003. Granted, both HAD been in front earlier, but still ... a lot can happen. It is unlikely that anything will, but there's simply no need to call it this early. Bring it up again in September and maybe we'll talk (I used to prefer to just let the field shrink gradually on its own, but with the front-loaded season, I'd be open to shrinking it earlier).
Eric, I think you are just dismissing them because you're too lazy to write up your thoughts about them. ;-)
Posted by: pudge on June 5, 2007 11:18 PMIs part of why you want the second/third-tier candidates to drop out now because their natural bases would HAVE to choose between the big four now, as opposed to hedging their bets between a front-runner and their favorite longshot?
Without Tancredo or Hunter, the immigration-first crowd will have to take someone less golden on their pet issue. Without Huckabee or Brownback, then those looking for a bonafide social conservative will have to settle for the candidate they disagree with the least (unless F. Thompson seals the deal there). To a lesser extent, without Gilmore or T. Thompson then there's no one to claim swing-state Governor experience. Even Paul, sort of, speaks to a niche GOP segment with his limited government/libertarian perspective that some voters will relate to.
Based on my limited understanding of GOP primary politics and voters, it seems like either (but not both) Hunter or Tancredo, and either (but not both) Huckabee or Brownback, could make a legitimate run at the nomination if things fall right, but conventional wisdom says they would be more difficult to elect in the general. So I'm wondering if that's why you'd prefer all the second/third-tier candidates go away?
Posted by: mr. smitty on June 6, 2007 04:48 AMBoth parties are scared shitless of Ron Paul.
That in itself is enough reason to support Paul.
Posted by: Independent voter on June 6, 2007 05:22 AMI think that most pro-lifers can be persuaded by taking a pill a week after sex or removing a blastocyte is not much different from slipping on a condom. What most people don't want to see are near formed babies being killed because the parents were too dumb to take action earlier.
In that sense, bringing up "abortion" as a topic only helps Giuliani.
Shame that describes most of this year's field. More the shame that the only anti-torture candidates are McCain and Paul.
Posted by: Constitution on June 6, 2007 07:59 AMRelax, though, this is a good time for the GOP to get the "tone deaf" leaders back in the "house".
Unlike you, I like them all, except Paul and Tancredo. But, I, too, would like a smaller field during the debates.
My greatest wish is if the GOP convention is split and a candidate is picked in the back room. I hate these decided in March.
Posted by: swatter on June 6, 2007 09:00 AMAffect, not effect. Mr. Romney was effected in the manner all of us were, by our mothers and fathers.
Posted by: stu on June 6, 2007 11:28 AMHowever, when Thompson enters, the delegate count will be Giuliani, McCain, Thompson, Romney with Giuliani taking 60% of the delegates. End result is that it will not be a kind holiday season this winter when the McCain's, Romney's, and Thompson's take off their kids gloves and try to pummel the frontrunner.
Posted by: Doug on June 6, 2007 12:32 PMDisagree with you for now about the second and third-tier candidates up on stage. With the three annointed front-runners being so "moderate" it is healthy for the party to have some individuals with positions that will prevent McCain, Giuliani or Romney from slopping any further over to the left.
If anything, Huckabee and Hunter and others act as a Greek Chorus while ensuring that the beliefs of the majority of Republicans aren't given short-shrift in the nomination process.
It is wise from here on out to bash Bush on the issues he richly deserves to be bashed on, such at the last two I mentioned. Also, they need to stop elevating Hillary Clinton - that is playing in to the hands of the Dems - they give her too much credit. What has she done in the Senate ? Not diddly squat ! Rudy is clearly capable of beating her as is Fred T. and probably Mitt Romney. Ironically, they would have a tougher time with Obama.
Posted by: KS on June 6, 2007 07:32 PMhttp://www.provenge.blogspot.com/
http://www.provengenow.org/
Incorrect. Both parties are LAUGHING themselves shitless about Ron Paul. HUGE difference.
Your choice.
I'll probably be voting Libertarian.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on June 6, 2007 10:03 PMBut, we never got to see the election results against them.
Posted by: swatter on June 7, 2007 07:17 AM