Recent news about Republican fundraising totals and the most recent debate didn't in and of themselves do much to change the GOP nomination contest, but the totality of recent events has brought the race into clearer focus. That view is shaped by four emerging facts:
1) Mitt Romney has to win Iowa and New Hampshire to achieve the full springboard effect he needs to be truly competitive in Florida and February 5th. If he gets stopped in either state he's essentially done. A tempting notion for rival campaigns to consider.
2) Rudy Giuliani doesn't have enough money to properly execute a strategy that minimizes the importance of early states in favor of relying heavily on Florida and the February 5th uber-primary day (in fairness none of the GOP candidates probably has the money they were hoping for at this point in the cycle). He has $11.6 million in primary cash on hand, after raising $10.5 million in primary contributions last quarter. Trouble is, he spent $13 million over the same time period without being on TV like Romney (or having Romney's checkbook). He has a negative burn rate even before going on the airwaves and his apparent later-state strategy leaves him needing to advertise in a wide array of media markets, some which are quite pricey. Thus, he has to make a mark somewhere in the early states to get some free media rolling. Paid media won't be enough.
3) Fred Thompson's first month on the campaign trail wasn't quite a fizzle, but isn't quite good either. His multi-state roll-out tour was plagued with blunders, he hasn't been impressing the red-blooded conservatives he needs to woo, and he hasn't rallied the social conservative base that was a presumed foundation for his candidacy (indeed, there are a couple potential signs that some otherwise undecided Evangelicals may align with Romney). More telling are the national poll numbers. After cutting Giuliani's lead in the RealClearPolitics average in half, Thompson is right back to the same point he was prior to his official announcement, approximately 10% behind. He's likewise drifting back down in the pollster.com national chart . Worst of all, Rasmussen's latest weekly polling also has Thompson ten points back, his worst showing in that poll since late May, and a significant change from the twelve of nineteen intervening weeks where he led or was tied with Giuliani.
4) John McCain is broke. Translation: he'll have to take matching funds and the accompanying spending limits that go with them. Tough to beat three other candidates who have more financial resources than you.
What all these facts mean is that while the Republican race is still very much in flux, the lay of the land in the early states shows pretty clearly where candidates are going to spend their time fighting.
Iowa - who is going to step up to battle Romney? At worst there's a nice little second place ribbon to be had that will almost guarantee some much needed good press for the recipient. Giuliani's schedule tells the tale for him. It won't be said publicly, but he's not making a major play there. Thompson probably will. His campaign is talking about a "strategic bridge into South Carolina." Recent polling shows Thompson right in the scrum for second, odds are his campaign ups the ante here. Even McCain seems to be considering a serious effort in the absence of others doing so, but given his buried-in-fifth poll position that probably means it's a waste of precious campaign funds. The question remains for Giuliani, McCain, and Thompson: who finishes behind Mike Huckabee? Bad news awaits whoever suffers that fate.
New Hampshire - for all the talk about big states leaping forward in the election cycle, this contest may be the most decisive of the primaries. Here's why.
Look at the fast and furious calendar of early primary contests (note Iowa is likely to move to January 3rd). After New Hampshire come Nevada and Michigan in short order. In both states Romney and Giuliani are bunched at the top of the polls with Thompson and McCain lurking behind. Consequently, if Romney or Giuliani win New Hampshire it's quite likely they'll ride the resulting good press to wins in the next two states as well. Three states in row for Giuliani, or four by Romney, is a whole lot of momentum that puts anyone else not in those shoes at a serious disadvantage. It would fundamentally dominate the dynamics of the race.
For those reasons it might be turning into a Giuliani versus Romney race. Not because they had a front-runner like extended exchange after the debate, on the heels of an immediately preceding front-runner like exchange on fiscal policy. But because based on the above discussion, those two are the only Republican candidates who control their own destiny.
John McCain is making a last stand in New Hampshire. Running low on cash and hamstrung by spending limits, he probably can't knock out Romney and Giuliani by himself. Even if fortune shines and he wins, his lack of campaign cash means he's prone to succumb to the same battle of attrition that defeated him in 2000. In short, the only way he wins is with a ton of help.
Fred Thompson simply isn't happening in New Hampshire, which his campaign tacitly acknowledged when it canceled a recent planned trip to the state. Thompson has to do well enough in Iowa to keep himself visible, then hope no one breaks out of the pack in New Hampshire, Nevada, and Michigan on their way to South Carolina, where Thompson absolutely has to win. Can he do it? Maybe. Is it an enviable position? No.
Rudy Giuliani is in surprisingly good position in South Carolina and leads in Florida. If he wins in New Hampshire he not only devastates Romney, he also sets himself up for a roll of victories prior to Florida that can seal the nomination right there.
Mitt Romney's need to win Iowa and New Hampshire has been stated. It's as simple as that. He controls his own destiny but given the absence of a margin for error it's only a matter of time before another candidate makes a serious, sustained effort to knock his campaign off course.
Add it all up and it amounts to the fact that while it's still a tremendously fluid race, Iowa and New Hampshire are still not only important, but potentially decisive. Sure, things could change. An atrocious candidate blunder could throw all the above on its head. But with only two and half months to go until Iowa's caucuses kick off a whirlwind of primary contests that's how it looks.
Posted by Eric Earling at October 16, 2007 09:42 PM | Email ThisYou probably also just happened to forget that he again appears to have raised more money from the military than any other republican candidate as well.
Did you also forget to mention he has no debt unlike all of the candidates you mentioned. Or that he has more cash on hand than McCain.
Or was it intentional since Ron Pauls support is not real, it is only on the internet?
Posted by: Travis Pahl on October 16, 2007 10:13 PMAs I've said before: McCain and Thompson are the most benefit to each other. They also have the least to prove in terms of their record; for better or worse, they're known commodities. They have more "showing" to do, and less "telling."
Romney and Rudy are still vulnerable to being defined as too liberal -- regardless of whether you think they are, were, or have ever been of that Republican stripe.
If anyone comes out of the ether, in my analysis it'll be Huckabee. I think what happens this weekend in D.C. is also important -- at the premiere gathering of conservative values voters. This crucial block seems like as close to destiny as we're going to get at the moment.
Posted by: Patrick on October 16, 2007 10:54 PMHuckabee is also broke, with only a few hundred thousand in the bank.
Ron Paul made an impressive showing, and ranks third in cash on hand (after subtracting all debts). He has also received more donations from our troops than any other candidate for six months straight.
But Giuliani is obviously the powerhouse in fundraising right now. The only way Romney can match him is with more loans from his personal savings account. The only way anyone else can match him... is with a miracle.
Posted by: Kyle Brotherton on October 17, 2007 02:27 AMYes it would be great to See Ron Paul vs Hillary in a debate. Ron would tear her apart when she tries to claim she is against Bushes war. He would point out how it is congress that declares war and she voted for it so it is HER war and he has opposed it since day one. Then when she tries to run with Hillary care he would explain how government is not the answer, point how he as a doctor understsand things much better than any lawyer does, and points out that in his own distrcit he has offered reduced and often free service and never accepted medicare or medicaid becuase it complicates things and makes business too expensive.
Posted by: Travis Pahl on October 17, 2007 05:09 AMRomney looks pretty and I don't like voting for pretty; I like the street fighter type. When or how did Romney seal the deal in Massachusetts without appealing on the gut level? Or did he? Was it Massachusetts and his physical beauty like the Kennedys that won the day?
I hope all the R candidates begin to point out differences between themselves and Clinton. Giuliani threw a haymaker at Clinton last week questioning her 'experience' which is even less than a governor of Arkansas.
Posted by: swatter on October 17, 2007 06:47 AMI don't dispute the issue you say Giuliani and Romney face. Any Republican who was elected in such liberal environs would inevitably face the same problem at the national level.
I suspect it's more likely based on events of the last couple weeks that Thompson will go after Giuliani (and to a lesser degree Romney) while McCain and Giuliani take swings at Romney in a bit of a tag team effort. Everyone wants to win NH.
Travis -
I didn't forget Ron Paul. You have to start winning states to win the nomination and since he isn't competitive in any of the early states at this point I didn't include him.
Kyle -
Romney's "debt" is loans to himself which aren't going to be repaid. So, he's functionally debt free and has greater financial resources than any other candidate. Giuliani, for all his many strengths as a candidate, does not have the diversified fundraising base one would expect of a national frontrunner.
Romney has raised more in total primary funds than Giuliani, even excluding Romney's personal contributions. The under-reported story of the cycle is despite Giuliani's skill maintaining his frontrunner status, he doesn't have the financial resources to back it up right now. That's why his campaign is eventually going to get very, very serious about NH.
Posted by: Eric Earling on October 17, 2007 07:12 AMI agree with you both. The only chance in hell the Republicans have of winning in '08 is by nominating Ron Paul. He attracts people from all political persuasions. He's the only Republican that could take the angry-left away from the Democrats. He's the only Republican that could take the minority votes away from the Democrats. He's the only Republican that could bring the evangelicals and the tin-foil hat crowd out to vote in large numbers.
As Dr. Paul says, "freedom is popular."
There has been talk lately that liberals wouldn't like Ron Paul if they knew more about him, especially on the abortion issue. I disagree. Ron Paul clearly stated his personal position on abortion, but also puts the Constitution above his personal beliefs by insisting that we take a federalist approach. The constitutional notion that the more controversial an issue is, the more local the solution must be is spot on. Alabamans are never going to agree with Californians, so why try to force them to follow a single, federal law. The Constitution only demands that for basic liberties.
If you're a liberal who is concerned that Ron Paul wants to make social issues like abortion a state issue, just ask yourself, would all 50 states ban abortion in any form? No. There will be a few of course, but the other states will fall somewhere on the spectrum between totally banned and totally legal with most states landing somewhere in between.
Having most social issues resolved at the state level creates a marketplace for governmental policy. If one state becomes draconian, people will leave to other, less restrictive states and take their money and labor/businesses with them.
If Ron Paul doesn't get the nomination, at least he will have educated so many people on the traditional structure of our government.
Even if you strongly disagree with Ron Paul on some issues (as I do), he still gives you hope for the future because he is not hell bent on forcing all of us to conform to some socialist or theocratic vision of America.
Oh yeah, and he isn't owned by corporations.
Posted by: blindman on October 17, 2007 07:15 AMLeave it to the Republicans to make the race a lot more interesting. It should be a fun next several months.
Posted by: tc on October 17, 2007 07:42 AMHe maybe a great person, but if you think he can get elected you must be kidding.
PS How come the truthers support him and he has no problem with that? ( You guys think GW has something to do with 9/11)
NUTS.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on October 17, 2007 07:42 AMIt may not have been your intent, but you just clearly stated the reason I would never, ever vote for Ron Paul.
I don't want a candidate that appeals to the unhinged left. Got that?
Posted by: jimg on October 17, 2007 09:34 AMDoesn't matter, Guthrie. Your candidate will lose regardless.
A better judge would be actual supporters promoting him on the streets, or number of donators, or dollars on hand, or straw polls, or post debate polls which give a better indication of how excited voters are about the candidates. in all these categories Paul is a strong candidate.
Posted by: Travis Pahl on October 17, 2007 12:31 PMIt's time the numbers spoke instead of the polls.
Posted by: John Bailo on October 17, 2007 02:21 PMOut of curiousity, what state do you think has 'real people'?
Posted by: Travis Pahl on October 17, 2007 05:51 PMEric, I'll make you a deal: if you keep not mentioning 4th place Ron Paul in your articles, Travis and I will keep flooding the comments dialogues with Ron Paul comments.
OK?
That way you will keep getting lots of comments to your blog posts!
It is WAY too soon to narrow the field down to three candidates. And when you mention 5th place McCain but not 4th place Ron Paul, you really show your bias.
Really, you are a conservative, not a liberal. Bias is primarily the province of liberals and other who can't win arguments with reason. I expect better from good conservatives like you.
Your market wants to hear about Ron Paul. Most journalists know they need to keep the desires of their readers in mind, or face declining readership.
Just a mention with a fact or two about Ron Paul in your articles. Is that too much to ask?
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on October 17, 2007 05:54 PMYou're forgetting how those polls are conducted. They randomly call those of you who still have hard-wired telephones, then ask if you participated in the '04 Republican primary. If you make it that far, they read four names, and say "press '5' for more candidates."
So, in summary, to vote for Huckabee or Paul in a survey, you must be over twenty years old, have been active in the Republican party for at least four years, and press '5' to hear the entire list of candidates. Oh yeah, and you must be using old technology to even get the call.
Posted by: Kyle Brotherton on October 17, 2007 10:17 PMCheck out this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDIiQcCyuxU
It shows how skewed samples for the polls under-estimate Ron Pauls support. They are using 2004 R primary voters as the sample. But back in 2004, GW Bush was running for re-election and there was no serious primary challenge! All those who voted were die-hard GW Bush supporters. If you poll those same people today, it is not surprising that only 5% have changed their view on the war enough to support Ron Paul.
USA Today reported that 2004 R primary turnout was only 6.6%: a record low! Of course! GW Bush's nomination was a foregone conclusion. Why bother voting?
But the Republican Party of 2007 is VERY different! Thousands of new people have registered R and a different group will vote in 2008. The sample is skewed!
Ron Paul's support is WAY more than the polls indicate. He DOES have a good chance of winning the R nomination!
I'm proud to say I would vote for him.
Go Ron Paul!! Join the R(evol)ution!
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on October 17, 2007 10:25 PMHowever, yes, he could be factor, if he endorses another candidate, his supporters could make a difference. It'll be less than 10% of the convention, probably less than 5%, but that could be enough to really push it one way or another.
Posted by: pudge on October 17, 2007 10:54 PM