The former New York Mayor has already conceded Iowa to his rivals. From the New York Sun-
Rudolph Giuliani's decision to largely abandon the early voting state of New Hampshire and concentrate his efforts on the Florida primary three weeks later reflects an uncomfortable truth for the former New York mayor: The more he campaigned in the Granite State and the more he spent on advertising there, the more his poll numbers dropped.This is a risky strategy, but not illogical. Iowa and New Hampshire are tiny specks so far as the delegate count goes at the GOP convention. Florida, even after being penalized for moving its primary date, carries more weight. Dr. Taylor is right about this strategy when he says-Mr. Giuliani appears to be making a virtue of necessity by sounding the retreat in New Hampshire, where he continues to be outgunned by the Republican front-runner there, Mitt Romney, and where he has been beaten into second place by the resurgent campaign of Senator McCain.
He must now be sure to win Florida on January 29 to capture its large cache of delegates, as part of a strategy that sees him withdrawing from the smaller early states in favor of states such as New York, California, and Florida, which send large numbers of delegates to the nominating convention.
but it assumes that a win in Florida, and other early states, can counteract the positive press for the winners of the two early contests, and the commensurate negative press that the losers of those contests will receive.You would hope as important an election as President would be decided on issues, not on horse race momentum. We do live in a real world. Giuliani for a long list of reasons is no longer looking like the person I thought six months ago would be the Republican nominee next November. I've always felt the other candidates were better,(McCain, Romney, Thompson, and till I got to know him better Huckabee) but wonder how electable any of them are come the general election.
Permalink | Send To A Friend | Linking Blogs | Digg this!
Filed under:
2008 Presidential Race, New Hampshire, Primaries, Republican, Rudy, States
Tags: Giuliani, New Hampshire
Comments (3)
I would not count Rudy out ... (Below threshold)1. Posted by Glenn Koons | December 18, 2007 1:36 PM | Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
I would not count Rudy out yet. Today, polls showed that he is still ahead nationally. Many still believe, as I do, that in spite of all his woes, he is still the tough guy who can face down Obama, Hil and the Islamofascists. I would wait till Feb. 5.
1. Posted by Glenn Koons | December 18, 2007 1:36 PM |
Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
Posted on December 18, 2007 13:36
2. Posted by Jim Addison | December 18, 2007 3:56 PM | Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
Obviously there are any number of scenarios which could play out over the next several weeks. Giuliani's nightmare would be if a single candidate won Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. The wave of publicity would create the dreaded "aura of inevitability" that leads the undecideds to "back the winner."
His best-case scenario might be Huckabee winning Iowa, McCain winning New Hampshire, Romney taking Michigan, and Thompson pulling out a win in South Carolina (although that seems a long shot at this point), keeping the race completely wide open. That would poise Rudy to take a delegate lead by winning Florida and the large states on February 5th.
There is still a real possibility no candidate will enter the convention with a majority or near-majority of delegates, which raises another interesting question:
The broadcast networks have scaled back convention coverage in recent cycles, as the events became more and more "scripted" productions taking advantage of free TV time for the nominee (who has virtually always been decided before the convention in modern times). Presumably they plan similar truncated coverage for next year.
Suppose, then, the Democrats have winner going into their convention, and get only that minimal coverage, as usual, BUT the GOP enters their convention without a winner, making it a true news event. Would the networks dare "cover the news" being made with longer prime-time coverage, giving the GOP more air time than the Democrats enjoyed? Or would they stick to their schedule, depriving the country of watching the news being made live on TV?
From any objective standard of "news reporting," they certainly should, but I seriously doubt they would.
2. Posted by Jim Addison | December 18, 2007 3:56 PM |
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
Posted on December 18, 2007 15:56
3. Posted by Rory | December 18, 2007 8:46 PM | Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Well to Jim Addison's scenario-the primary advantage of Rudy winning the "big" states-is exactly the same effect he would have in the general election.
Rudy would be a nightmare to particularly Hillary because he would make her go on defense not only in New York but he could also be a threat to blue state bases such as New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
Democrats on defense in the Tri-state area-Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Peensylvania.
No wonder Rudy is "fading" according to the media polls and media theory that a candidate must win the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries.
But with most of the electorate attending the Church of CNN and the Hawthorne effect at play the media could just make it all come true if only we believe...
3. Posted by Rory | December 18, 2007 8:46 PM |
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on December 18, 2007 20:46