Don Rumsfeld famously talked about "unknown unknowns," where the multiplicity of variables at play make events highly unpredictable. As we approach the home stretch before the Presidential primaries, there are several highly fluid questions whose unpredictable possible outcomes will do much to shape the pre-February 5th state of the race. Here they are, in no particular order:
1) What effect will Rudy Giuliani's TV ads have, especially in New Hampshire?
One school of thought is that Mitt Romney - as well as John McCain and Ron Paul in the Granite State - have held the airwaves uncontested. Voters will respond accordingly once they see Giuliani's ads (the first of which is quite good). The other school of thought is that voters already have a healthy impression of Giuliani, and in New Hampshire he's been on the campaign trail, supported by ubiquitous direct mail and radio ads. As such, positive ads won't move the numbers much in the first-in-the-nation primary.
2) Who does McCain hurt?
Let's be honest. McCain is a long-shot. Needing a must-win in New Hampshire, followed by some luck in Michigan, South Carolina, and beyond. He's poorly funded and has no campaign apparatus outside the first few states. Assuming he doesn't capture his must-win state of New Hampshire, whose votes does his own campaign draw from and thus harm indirectly? Who might McCain endorse if be bows out shortly after New Hampshire (when an endorsement would be most meaningful prior to Michigan and South Carolina), or will he fight on to a more bitter end?
3) When and what kind of primary contest will Michigan hold?
An open primary on January 15th would draw the most attention. Caucuses or a convention on the same date will garner less but still be important, sandwiched between New Hampshire and South Carolina. Any non-primary contest after January 15th decreases in impact on the race with Florida looming on January 29th, followed by Super Size Tuesday on February 5th.
4) Will Fred Thompson pick up steam in Iowa?
Team Thompson talks about building a strategic bridge to South Carolina. He's 6th in New Hampshire and only 4th in Iowa. His first ad in that latter state didn't have much initial impact. Other campaign efforts, such as his second ad, need to be more meaningful...especially with Mike Huckabee taking over the niche, as least in Iowa, as the candidate for previously disgruntled social conservatives.
5) Can Obama do what all politicians dream of and get the "youth" out to vote?
He has to do it in the hardest venue possible, the Iowa Caucuses. Will it happen? There are arguments for and against. Given the state of the Democratic race both nationally and in the pre-February 5th states, Iowa is the only place where Hillary Clinton is vulnerable. If she isn't beaten there, it likely won't happen. If she is, Obama is the only of her primary opponents with the cash and supporter enthusiasm to then go toe-to-toe with a weakened Clinton should she lose in the Hawkeye State.
6) Can Romney beat all comers in Iowa and New Hampshire?
Thompson and Huckabee have to make strong efforts in Iowa, though Huckabee also needs to spend some time playing catch-up on the fundraising circuit to even compete in that first state. One report has Thompson seriously upping the ante there too. Meanwhile, Giuliani and McCain are doing enough campaigning for a "surprise" third in that state, but little else.
Giuliani and McCain are also putting much more into New Hampshire in hopes of victory ("Richelieu" has an observant take on the Giuliani campaign's smart game of cat-and-mouse on that score). If Romney wins both Iowa and New Hampshire he'll have topped major efforts by all four of his rivals. The symbolism of such a feat would be significant. But, that's a very, very big "if."
7) How will Huckabee fare under scrutiny?
His positive favorability ratings are ridiculously high in Iowa. Media scrutiny will attrite that some, as will the attention of the other candidates and the Club for Growth. The question is how will Huckabee fare when the Club inevitably dumps several hundred thousand dollars worth of negative messaging on him in Iowa? Remember, these are the guys who even found a way to deliver an effective shot at Howard Dean before the Democratic contest in 2004.
Perhaps Huckabee can weather that storm. If Rudy Giuliani can survive as national front-runner despite his deviations from social conservatives, Huckabee might do likewise with economic conservatives too. Partial ideological differences are one thing, however. Getting caught with factually incorrect statements about his record will lead to a death knell of media scrutiny if they become a pattern.
8) What about those Mormon calls?
It might be the most bizarre story of the campaign season thus far, mysterious, anti-Mormon polling calls being made into Iowa and New Hampshire.
Jonathan Martin at the Politico broke the story, with a follow-up here. John McCain, who received positive mention in the polling calls in question, quickly disavowed and condemned them.
The risk v.reward for any Romney competitor's campaign to be involved makes that possibility unlikely. So who is it?
Mark Blumenthal explains they're probably not true "push poll" calls, which are high volume efforts to disseminate negative campaign messages. They were likely part of a "message poll," in which campaigns or other interested organizations test out positive and negative messages for future use.
The best insight thus far into who might be behind the calls comes from blogger Justin Hart, who has a source at the company from whose call center the calls came (see his posts here and here). In sum, it doesn't look like a Romney competitor was involved. Any campaign involved in such an effort would immediately be in boiling water, covered nicely in a recent summary story by Jonathan Martin:
Chris LaCivita, who worked with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in the 2004 presidential race, said he'd be surprised if any of the campaigns were officially behind the mudslinging"I can't imagine a presidential campaign sanctioning that type of effort," LaCivita said. "If they were, then they are the biggest bunch of dumbasses and they have no business being involved at this level of politics."
That's about right. And any Republican-leaning group caught in the act would be persona non grata in party circles for a while. If any group on the other side of the aisle is involved the fallout becomes more unpredictable. In the meantime, there's no story with less national level political reporters on it right now than this one.
Add all those questions and their possible answers up and you have a tremendous number of important variables that will shape the primary contests in significant, substantive ways over the next several weeks. Keep an eye out for signs they are being steadily answered.
Monday am UPDATE: Jim Geraghty has a quick and sensible analysis on the anti-Mormon calls in question. He believes the responsible party will end up being "somebody with deep pockets, a relatively new desire to play in the political game, and little concern about long-term relationships in the GOP.
Posted by Eric Earling at November 17, 2007 07:52 PM | Email ThisMeanwhile, the rest of the country knows Ron Paul doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hell of gaining the Republican Party nomination and would probably have a better shot than Barack Obama at gaining the Democratic Party nomination at this point.
Posted by: Doug on November 17, 2007 09:10 PMHe is not just getting support from the left wing anti war protestors, but also from right wing anti big government. Why is it a negative to get support from both sides, shouldnt that be a positive?
Ron Paul actually had nothing to do with the big one day fundraising event, that was completly organized by supporters. It is however news since it is much more more than any other GOP candidate is able to raise.
The fact that the media likes to cover him because he is a good story is a sign that he has lots of support. If not why would he be a good story?
And when you say 'rest of the nation' would that be all the people that have not donated to his campaign, put signs all over the country, voted for him in increasing numbers in straw polls and scientific polls in all the key primary states?
Posted by: Travis on November 17, 2007 09:21 PMI believe it is a negative to be getting his support from the two extremes of the spectrum. Since neither extremes' positions are either viable or the best for our country it is really a huge negative that his support is from those extremes.
The one day fundraising activities is an interesting way to gain the most from his weakness of not having enough financial support. Make it look big, tell the supporters to only write those checks on specific days to get media attention. Romney did about the same thing. Maxed out on his Utah and Mormon conclave contributions early and loaned himself lots of money early so as to appear to be a viable candidate. That has worked, Paul's won't have a big enough effect.
Ron Paul's coverage in the media isn't a function of the amount of support he has in the general public, it's more of a function of the amount of support he has in the media circles which as you know is 9:1 liberal leaning.
Posted by: Doug on November 17, 2007 09:43 PMExtremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Nor is extremism in the defense of peace. I am proud to support a candidate that has support from both camps. Your only opposition to these camps seems to be that you do not think it is viable. I suggest that you vote your beleifs not who you think you will win.
The fundraising may to you be not enough. But at the begining of this quarter he had more money on hand to spend than all but two candidates. That was before he raised 4.2 million in one day And about 8.5 mil since oct 1st. As Bruce pointed out, there should be at least 6 million on dec 16th.
And the media generally covers what will get good ratings. Ratins come from the public, not fellow media.
Travis
Posted by: Travis on November 17, 2007 09:59 PM--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saving and Protecting Social Security
A Plan to Ensure Retirement Security for All Americans
http://www.fred08.com/virtual/socialsecurity.aspx
https://www.fred08.com/contribute.aspx?RefererID=c637caaa-315c-4b4c-9967-08d864cd0791
As I stated in an earlier posting, Ron Paul has more holes in him than a colander. Once his "ideas" come to light, he will only appeal to, as you said Doug, the "two extremes of the spectrum". Ron Paul is yesterday's news.
Posted by: Saltherring on November 18, 2007 06:49 AMDoes this mean there aren't any remaining signficant local issues to write about?
Posted by: Hmmmm on November 18, 2007 07:46 AMIt means that the Presidential race is one of the most uniquely significant political stories in years given the open primaries on both sides of the aisle. If you're aware of a political story that is capturing more attention from ardent followers of politics then please, I'd love to hear it.
And it's also probably related to the fact this past year in Puget Sound area politics hasn't been the most riveting given the lack of high profile elections and issues. That will likely change as the Legislative session and Governor's race get rolling.
Even at that, Presidential coverage is still only a small part of what we do here and I don't recall anyone forcing you to click the "Read the rest" link.
Posted by: Eric Earling on November 18, 2007 09:00 AMI noticed on Intrade today that Rudy's 'stock' went up over 3 pts today which is one of the biggest one-day moves by any candidate in the last three months. Romney went down the similar amount. Does this have to do with the news story out that Giuliani is now going to spend money in Iowa? It will be interesting to see how Romney reacts, that could be a certain end to his campaign if he starts to lose ground there and looks like he was just a flash in the pants.
Posted by: Doug on November 18, 2007 02:45 PMThat's interesting to a degree, though I've seen those markets fluctuate quite a bit over the short-term, sometimes for not very logical reasons given recent political developments. I don't know how predictive they'll end up being (especially at the state level), though their long-term trend lines can be quite helpful in understanding race dynamics. For example, the total collapse of Fred Thompson on InTrade has been more severe than his drop in the polls. Likewise, I recall McCain plunged quicker on InTrade than he did in national or state polls.
And yes, of course if Romney doesn't do well in Iowa at this point it would be very bad news for his campaign. Expectations are rather high right now, even with the buzz around Huckabee. Given that, and given the absence of the other top tier, non-Huckabee candidates to catch on in Iowa (especially Thompson), it makes a ton of sense for Giuliani to try and get in the top three. Such a move requires a lot less resources than making a play for first, but the reward would be pretty significant.
Based on the 3rd Quarter fundraising results, I also think the Giuliani campaign is realizing they don't have the money needed to hold their fire until Florida and beyond. Thus, some of the resources they do have would be better spent in Iowa and especially New Hampshire to try to knock out Romney early since it increasingly looks like something close to a two-man race.
Posted by: Eric Earling on November 18, 2007 03:09 PMDon't forget the noxious permastench that W is spreading.
Posted by: WVH on November 18, 2007 07:40 PMThis is clearly an improvement over his prior lack of coverage of Ron Paul. Let's give Eric credit where credit is due, and then hope that he will go from ignoring Ron Paul, to merely mentioning Ron Paul, to covering him in proportion to the real and growing interest level of his readers. Eric is a good writer, and a much better journalist than is usually found either on-line or in the MSM.
Did I mention that Ron Paul raised $4.3 million in one day on 11/5/07, and that he will probably raise about $6 million on 12/16/07? Oh, yeah, I said that already. Sorry! :)
That'll buy a lot of TV ads! :)
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 18, 2007 08:28 PMTHE" reason we are losing?
Don't forget the noxious permastench that W is spreading.
Posted by WVH at November 18, 2007 07:40 PM
Now, let's get down to business. When is Paul/Hugo Chavez going to answer Medved's open letter and Lonestar's questions about the David Duke connection?
Posted by: WVH on November 18, 2007 10:12 PMThe strongest conservative running cannot gain any traction because conservatives won't support him unless others support him. That makes no sense to me at all.
Conservatism wins elections, true conservatism, that is.
Duncan Hunter is that candidate and all he needs is support. Check out his record and his message. He is the real deal and can win, if conservatives get behind him.
Stop letting the media choose who wewill vote for by telling us who is the best or most popular.
It is time we told them who we want.
Posted by: LewWaters on November 18, 2007 10:41 PMPudge threw out the caucus word.
Considering the state of Republican affairs here in this state, it wouldn't be hard for Paulites to assemble enmasse and takeover the caucuses and conventions. At the best, the State may not select the true R the State Rs want. At the worst, he scores an upset.
Something to think about and I hope the Rs are considering that possibility. They should be going out in full force to jam the caucuses with their candidate.
Sometimes, I think the power people in the R party want the party structure to be small so they have the "power" (to the music of He-Man). I don't think they will be going out of their way to make a successful caucus or convention (or whatever it is the parties do).
Posted by: swatter on November 19, 2007 07:19 AMJust one independant's voice.
Posted by: tc on November 19, 2007 11:51 AMI understand the parties not liking open primaries, why let everyone decide your parties candidate? But if you want closed primaries, then you need to pay for them. With that being said, I think a better choice is the caucus.
As for people getting upset if the state GOP caucus choses Paul... Why would they be upset? More people are donating more money to Paul than any other GOP candidate. More Paul signs dot our states highways than any other candidate from either party. I think people would be thrilled to have an honest politician representing at least one of the two major parties for a change.