The Republican Race May Last Through March...

Posting will be light today, but in the meantime, chew on this scenario:

Mitt Romney wins Iowa; Mike Huckabee is second; Rudy Giuliani is third; Fred Thompson is fourth.

Giuliani wins New Hampshire, followed by Romney or Huckabee or McCain.

Romney wins Michigan; Huckabee or McCain is second.

Thompson wins South Carolina, followed by Giuliani. Romney is third.

Florida will be extremely competitive on Jan. 29.

The candidates split the Feb. 5 states, with Giuliani running the table in the Northeast, Thompson taking the South and Romney picking up Arizona and winning delegates in proportionally allocated states elsewhere.

The media isn't sure which candidate to pressure to drop out; Romney will have enough money to compete, Giuliani may have a delegate lead, and Thompson is clearly the favorite son in the deep South.

Could March 4 be the filter? That's when Ohio and Minnesota -- two big Midwestern swing states -- not to mention Vermont and Massachusetts -- hold contests.

Comments

Minnesota is February 5th the year.

Posted by Dan | November 5, 2007 10:27 AM

Marc,

Are you a serious political analyst ? Your scenario is such a joke. If Romney winds Iowa why would he lose in NH when he is comfortably ahead in polls there right now ? I also don't understand why Giuliani is ahead in your rankings either. He is not leading in Iowa, NH, SC, Michigan (Realclearpolitics.com averages) and yet you think just because he is leading in national polls he is ahead of Romney for the nomination? Do you really believe that folks will vote for Giuliani in say Florida if he fails to win anywhere prior ?

Posted by Nakli Raj | November 5, 2007 10:53 AM

"Are you a serious political analyst ? Your scenario is such a joke."

I think it's just a hypothetical.

Personally, I think if Romney wins Iowa by 10 points over Giuliani, Thompson and McCain, he will win it all. If Huckabee comes second and is within 10 points, he could be the the V.P. choice. On the other hand, if Romney wins, but it's close, whoever comes in second will get a bigger bounce and will take command.

Posted by C.S.Strowbridge | November 5, 2007 11:49 AM

This reminds me of the BCS Bowl analysis. Some just want to end up with a good bowl game. But most are hoping that someone will mess up so their favorite can play Hillary for the national championship.

Posted by Jane Browne | November 5, 2007 11:49 AM

I agree w/ Nakli Raj. Romney is in the best position.

Why is it that no one wants to come out and admit that?! It is not like admitting that will make Mitt win. I think there are a ton of factors that could derail him. Why not talk about those?

The above scenario is ludicrous because it doesn't acknowledge the fact that come election season, the Mitt's going to hit the fan.

Posted by jordan | November 5, 2007 11:51 AM

Isn't Texas on March 4th also?

Posted by Rich Galen | November 5, 2007 12:14 PM

Interesting... but not real likely. There is a small chance this could drag on until March, but if that were the case it would be a two way race between Romney and Guiliani. Here's why this thing will be over by Feb. 5th...

The winner of Iowa and New Hampshire will likely get a 5-10 point bounce and the race will become a two man contest by the time it reaches South Carolina. Candidates like Thompson, Huckabee, and McCain need to pull off a win... or an extremely close 2nd place to have any chance... otherwise they'll be underfunded as the competition moves to the South. If Thompson finishes worse than 2nd in Iowa and New Hampshire... there's no way he'll win South Carolina... most of his base will move to Romney. Winner of South Carolina will have an enormous advantage in Florida. Winner of Florida will have enough momentum to nearly run the table on Feb. 5th. Early State Momentum is crucial...!!!

Posted by bayzing | November 5, 2007 12:15 PM

At this point, I believe the race goes for Romney. If you average the latest 3 polls in all the early voting states Romney is ahead in South Carolina as well as New Hampshire, Iowa, Michigan, and Nevada. That leaves......florida?

Posted by Charlie | November 5, 2007 12:26 PM

Mike Huckabee will be in the top three in South Carolina if he is in the top two in Iowa and New Hampshire! Read about him here: http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=VerticalDay.Home&l=50F49E7D03868E58F54AA1ED674B0C61

Posted by Kyle B | November 5, 2007 1:07 PM

In every one of the last few election cycles, there've been some pundits who made the counterintuitive argument that the increasingly frontloaded schedule would actually cause the nomination fight to drag out even longer. (Some even try to make the case for a brokered convention.)

But it never works out that way. What happens is that, whenever you have the first big multi-state primary day, one of the candidates wins big, and their momentum becomes unstoppable. This is even more likely to happen on Feb. 5th this time than in past years, because such a huge fraction of the country votes that day, it'll be seen as a national primary day. And whoever "wins" Feb. 5th (even if it's a narrow victory) will be seen as the overwhelming favorite going forward.

With regard to the specific scenarios you mention, it's a copout to say "Florida will be extremely competitive". Someone's going to win it, and that person will probably have the mo' to become the favorite on Feb. 5th.

Also, forget about "winning delegates in proportionally allocated states elsewhere". Unlike the Dems, most of the GOP primaries that don't simply award 100% of their delegates to the winner have some kind of winner-take-all-by-congressional district system, which usually leaves the winner of the state with the overwhelming majority of the delegates. Look at Bush v. McCain in 2000 for example. The loser of both Michigan and SC got over 40% of the vote in each case, but only got about 10% of the delegates.

Posted by Chris S. | November 5, 2007 1:11 PM

Nice "cover all your bases" analysis. How about the more realistic version: Romney wins Iowa, Romney wins New Hampshire, Romney wins South Carolina, Romney wins Nevada, Romney wins Michigan (ALL OF WHICH HE IS WINNING COMFORTABLLY NOW). Huckabee????? Who is that? And Guliani is bleeding influential supporters to Romney faster than McCain is running out of Money. Get ready for Romey-Hillary Two Thousand Eight.

Posted by Bryan | November 5, 2007 1:37 PM

Rudy has been married three times, Huckabee doesn't believe in evolution, Thompson looks, sounds, and is reported to be lazy, and McCain would be the oldest president ever elected. Once people get in the booth, think over their options, and actually vote for their candidate, only Romney makes sense. He has the IQ, the momentum, the family, the money, and the background to destroy Clinton/Obama 08'

Posted by Tyson | November 5, 2007 1:50 PM

Romney will not only win the primary, he will beat Hillary in the General election. WHY ?

There is a huge amount of the population who have no idea who Romney is yet.... Once they look at his resume and see that guy has solved every problem he has been faced with. They vote Romney the next President and he will do an awesome job.

He is the real deal folks, Vote for Romney in 2008. He will fill the vacuum in my state of AZ when McCain loses steam. The thing I like about Mitt is he actually inspires me to be a better man. I'm only 30, theres still time. LOL

Scott Taylor

Posted by Scott from AZ | November 5, 2007 2:01 PM

Finally, a president that I can point my 5 children to look at as a role model. I'm tired of trying to explain to my kids how personal life is somehow detached from political life.

Romney in '08. Our country is in dire need for moral leadership....the rest will fall nicely behind his great leadership and experience.

Romney wins Iowa, NH, NV, SC, Florida....VP = Huckabee

(Giuliani hasn't quit his job with Giuliani Partners because he knows he'll need a job come March 2008. Thompson will try to resurrect his fledging acting career. Our man McCain, maybe he'll try again in 2012 when he's a mere 96 years old....go back to the nursing home old man!)

Posted by Bernie | November 5, 2007 2:35 PM

I agree with almost everyone who has posted so far... and that is that Romney is in a pretty darn good situation right now. If he does in fact win Iowa, NH, SC, Nevada & Michigan (which seems very possible right now), it would take quite a string of events for anyone else to get up off the mat.

Posted by Doug GT | November 5, 2007 2:40 PM

Romney is a paper tiger in the polls. ask President Dean. the nominee will be Thompson Rudy or (dark horse) Huckabee. Romney has been spening millions of his own money. Iowa polls mean nothing. the race changed in 2004 in the last week and Kerry won. Romney will not be the nominee.

Posted by chrisfromaz | November 5, 2007 3:10 PM

The nomination will be over long before March. Super Tuesday will decide it all. It's going to be split between Romney and Giuliani; Thompson won't pick up many states, if any. McCain will pick up none, including his home Arizona, and neither wll Huckabee.

And I predict Romney will ultimately beat out Giuliani because he'll have the money to do it.

Posted by Joseph Antley | November 5, 2007 3:12 PM

Real simple..Mitt wins Iowa, NH and Michigan

Fred wins South carolina and Nevada on the 19th and carries that to victory on jan 29th

Super Tuesday, Fred wins the entire south and..drum roll puhleeze..surprise surprise, California too! Rudy and Mitt split up the remaining Super Tuesday states but Fred's lead is insurmountable as he moves forward from there.

He rolls to the nomination and the Presidency. You saw it here folks.

Posted by DHarvey | November 5, 2007 3:16 PM

At this point, Romney appears unstoppable.

Why? Let me enumerate:

1. Romney wins VERY BIG in Iowa.
2. Romney takes NH by double-digits on heels of his big Iowa win (and being from MA).
3. Romney wins SC easily due to conservative voters abandoning Thompson and Huckabee who have no chance.
4. Romney takes Michigan - his home state.

Don't forget, right now, the Social Conservative Base is betting split 3 ways while Giuliani is only sharing a small piece of the Moderate Base with McCain.

When Thompson and Huckabee are footnotes, Romney picks up the Social Conservative Vote and blows Rudy out of the water.

Not only will Romney win. He likely cannot lose unless we get some sort of dramatic bimbo eruption between now and election day.

Romney is a brilliant strategist. He has this all laid out well in advance to come off just as I described.

P.S., Have you noticed that Romney is no longer going negative on the other Republicans? He is going after Hillary as if he has already won. Also, he may need one of these other guys for VP material and needs to not further alienate them. Thompson would be my guess for his VP.

Posted by Bill Mitchell | November 5, 2007 3:29 PM

Romney will be the nominee for 2008.

John McCain, who I respect a great deal is done, he should just buy a home in Sun Lakes and take up golfing.

Rudy is great, love him. But the Social Conservatives will not unite around him.

Thompson is quite possibly the most boring person I have ever seen in a debate or an interview, and he is not working as hard as he should be.

Huckabee seems like a good guy, but doesn't have the money or organzation.

Mark my words guys, Mitt Romney will be the nominee after he wins NH, Iowa, Mich. , SC and Nevada. You can't take away from the fact that the guy has done over 2500 town hall meetings in the early primary states.

Also he has 5 examples roaming the country telling people about their dad. 5 Sons, and they are good guys. We all should be proud, because Mitt Romney is a great guy and the 1st family will be great.

Scott Taylor
Chandler, AZ

Posted by Scott from AZ | November 5, 2007 3:45 PM

Look like we have a lot of Mormons reading the Atlantic Monthly. LOL.

Posted by California Condor | November 5, 2007 4:43 PM

The premise of this article is only in the hopes and dreams of the writer. Obviously he hasn't been reading up on what is happening here.

Romney is ahead in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina (who would have thought?) Nevada and Michigan.

McCain is almost dead (literally), Thompson talks like he is dead, everyone is figuring out that Giuliani may as well be a democrat who switches wifes as often as I change cars, and. .
well, who else is there.

The writing is on the wall and it spells R O M N E Y !

Posted by J Scott | November 5, 2007 4:50 PM

Why is Huckabee included in this list at all?

Sure, he is polling up to 13% in a place or two, but who is getting polled, anyway? People with landlines who voted in the senatorial primaries two years ago. Translation: old ladies who take their little puppies to daycare so they can go home and watch soap operas in peace. Polling strongly in this demographic won't win a primary.

Follow the money--that's the real poll. Huckabee can't raise money to save his life. $1M in quarter 3?? Come on, even Ron Paul did better than that...it will come down to Romney and Rudy (and debateably Paul, but only in New Hampshire).

Posted by Walker Pfost | November 5, 2007 4:58 PM

WOW!! What would happen if Huckabee wins Iowa and Ron Paul wins New Hampshire. 2 grass roots candidates!!!

Posted by Don Hannaford | November 5, 2007 5:19 PM

Let me just add one addition to the scenario others have explained here.

Romney wins Iowa by more than 10% Jan 3

Romney wins Wyoming two days later, Jan 5 (an extra boost everyone forgot would happen)

Romney wins New Hampshire Jan 8
Romney wins Michigan Jan 15 (by now Mitt can win Florida, Giuliani realizes he's in trouble)
Romney wins South Carolina Jan 19
Romney wins Nevada (same day)
Romney wins Florida Jan 29
Romney wins Maine Feb 2
Too much momentum to stop, he cleans up on Super Duper Tuesday

Things are looking up, but remember Romney fans, we still have to earn this thing. Remember to donate at Mitt's website mittromney. com

Posted by Scott A. | November 5, 2007 5:19 PM

The fact is that the Republican party will nominate a conservative when this thing is all sorted out and everyday people start getting close to the race. The Republican party won't nominate Romney who was a liberal two years ago or Guiliani who is liberal today and always has been. In the end, this will leave Thompson and Huckabee as the conservative candidates and Thompson will win based on name recognition. And that is the bottom line in this race and the quicker everyone realizes it the better...

Posted by Matt G | November 5, 2007 7:05 PM

One should not underestimate Mike Huckabee. Even Bill Clinton has said that he has a chance. The other candidates do not seem to be catching the momentum Huckabee has successfully captured.

Posted by D Sander | November 5, 2007 7:20 PM

The race will easily last until February 5 with very possibly three or four or five candicates viable. Romney is only ahead now due to heavy advertising and lack of ther advertising in a few states. He cannot duplicate this later. I have always felt that candidates drop oyt too soon. In this race no matter what Romney and Giuliani are likely to stasy in till Feb 5 and also McCain. Thomson or Huckabee could drop out if he does very badly. Ron Paul won't drop out even though he will do very badly. Duncan Hunter and Tancredo will get their votes and that may affect how many votes others get. They probably won't drop out before Feb 5. Tancredo will make a lot of noise. He needs to stay in longer to make money later on.

I tend to think that Romney and Fred Thompson fade with more exposure.

It could be a real tossup after February 5 - if McCain wins California and the rest of the states are split. California is winner take all and has a lot of delegates. McCain has a real shot at California, particularly if he is perceived as a major candidate - he may only need to win New Hampshire before.

Theer is a possiblility this will not be settled before the convention, if nobody rounds up more than 30% or 32% of the delegates. If it goes beyond February 5, but is decided before the convention, it is most likely to be Giuliani.

On the Democratic side the qwuestion is anybody get a real race going. And just like on the Republican side, the race can only be prolonged if there are more than two and probably more than three serious candidates. It would be very good for Obama if edwards were to win Iowa.

Posted by Sammy Finkelman | November 5, 2007 7:23 PM

As Hillary continues her march toward the nomination, Republicans will increasingly focus on who has the best chance of stopping her from reaching the White House.

Romney fades, Thompson becomes the closest thing to conservatism and remains the alternative to Rudy until late in the game. McCain has burned too many bridges and has thumbed his nose at the base too many times. He'll have to swallow his ego and grovel to have a chance, though, I think he is starting to get a second look from the base and his window is rapidly closing.

Rudy will take the nomination as the only one in the race with a chance to stop Hillary.

Nothing has changed and nothing is likely to change. The media hacks and pundits are just tired of the same story line.

Posted by Monty | November 5, 2007 7:54 PM

The Rudy wins New Hampshire theory is nuts. But Paul has a very good chance of winning New Hampshire, and the media will probably deem that win a huge upset (though I don't think it really would be) and that will be the story of the week- blunting all Romney's momentum. So your scenario may still play out.

Posted by FatDrunkAndStupid | November 5, 2007 8:24 PM

Watch out for Ron Paul.

Posted by Mark | November 5, 2007 8:27 PM

The Republicans are heading for a brokered convention. Realize that's the favorite prediction of peopel who just want an interesting race, but this time I think it's going to happen. Romney will win in Iowa and New Hampshire and then fall into third place. Giuliani will do extremely well on the coasts and emerge as the front runner. And then Thompson will clean up down South (and in other parts of the country where Giuliani is perceived to be too much of a Yankee). Even people like McCain and Huckabee might stay in once they realize the primaries are headed towards a three-way deadlock (at a minimum each will hang in so he can win his home state).

Who will win in the end? Impossible to say. I really don't see Giuliani, Thompson, or Romney bowing out w/o getting something in return (and I'm not sure Romney would sign on fora Giuliani/Romney ticket). If this goes to the convention, the question Republicans will decide is whether to go for Giuliani (the front-runner) or all unite behind the anti-Giuliani (who will probably be Thompson). Once one or the other position gains critical mass the party will rally around the winner (politicians will prevail on the other candidate to realize he's lost, and they'll be successful). Last prediction: the also-ran will lose because he made some gaffe.

Posted by Kevin | November 5, 2007 8:55 PM

I know Huckabee is a long shot, but he is more than a nice guy and has good ideas in my opinion . If you go off polls,and I normally don't, then you need to see where Huckabee is in relation to Romney. I think that there is only two candidates that has the stamina and intelligence to run against either Hillary or Obama- Huckabee or Giuliani. I don't care much for Giuliani.

I agree with chrisfromaz 3 picks for nominee.

Posted by Skip | November 5, 2007 9:09 PM

Who invited all the Romney lemmings?

Posted by aschup | November 5, 2007 9:34 PM

It really doesn't matter who the Republican nominee is: the Democrats will have a veto-proof Senate and House, and, if a Republican wins, he'll be a do-nothing one-termer. My money is on Obama as the Democratic nominee, and Obama as the forty-fourth President of the United States. He's a pragmatist, not an ideologue, he's brilliant and charismatic and he's what is called a "fast-closer" in politics--always has been: he'll overwhelm Shrillary Clinton (is already starting to, as the last Democratic debate shows), and with him at the top of the Democratic ticket, no Republican will succeed in emerging from the shadows of the failed Bush policies.

Posted by digbydolben | November 5, 2007 10:56 PM

The race will be between Giuliani & Huckabee.

Social conservatives never understand why grown ups like Romney & Thompson could changed their position on abortion due to votes (Romney) and $$$ (Thompson). People are more and more turned off by them and the polls show that. People respect McCain more but he has no long term vision,probably due to his age.

Huckabee is the only consistent conservative & visionary and Giuliani is American's Mayor. It's going to be a exciting race. And only Huckabee or Giuliani has a chance to win over Hillary in the general election.

Posted by Hung S | November 5, 2007 11:05 PM

It's a plausible scenario, as are a dozen other. Romney doesn't really have any traction outside of the two states he's practically lived in for the past year. What's most worrying for me is the fact that before 2005, he didn't really espouse any of the conservative principles he is now running on.

Mention his name to any leading Democrat, and all they can say is "flip-flopper" or "quick change artist" over and over. Indeed, that is how the Democrats will run against him, burying him in an avalanche of then and now ads. He's not our best candidate, folks. I only wish he could have been a more consistent conservative with some underpinnings in the conservative movement- but if he was, he would never have been elected Governor of Massachussetts in the first place. That, in a nutshell, is why Im with Fred.

Posted by Vince | November 5, 2007 11:07 PM

When Ron Paul locks up the nomination exactly three months from today, we'll look back and wonder how on Earth anyone thought Rudy Giuliani had a chance.

Posted by Joe Schembrie | November 5, 2007 11:26 PM

Whoever wins in 2008, regardless of party, is going to fill a G.H.W.B. transition president role, and in the end will only serve one term. The Democrats still need to work the Clinton narcotic out of their system, and the rise of the DailyKos-ites tend to turn off a lot of folks in the middle you really aren't strongly partisan one way or another--whoever gets the Democratic nod will be hemmed in for fear of offending either side of that equation. Republicans annoyed way too many people with their spending habits, and in light of the frenzy the conservative commentariat whipped up about immigration, Hispanics are not really hot to give their votes to the GOP (and nowadays, you need BETTER than decent margins in that demographic to win elections). The parties are not going to sort themselves out until 2012.

Posted by J | November 5, 2007 11:43 PM

Interesting scenario. Anything is possible at this point in the race. As more people get to know Mike Huckabee, he will continue to move up. People like the way he answers questions and doesn't try to figure out what they want to hear before he answers. Likewise, he doesn't try to weave the question into a form that he can answer with a programmed response. He's a great candidate!

Posted by Nanellen | November 6, 2007 12:04 AM

There have been some misleading comments here. Romney's average lead in Iowa is 13.5, but this includes one outlier poll giving him a 23% lead. His actual lead may be under ten for all we know.

New Hampshire his lead is 8%, which means he's beatable. South Carolina his lead is merely .3%, and this includes another outlier poll by the unreliable ARG, which gives Romney a six point lead. Every other poll recently has had Fred leading slightly.

The most recent poll in Nevada gives Giuliani the lead, as do the two most recent polls in Michigan (there's also a ridiculous ARG poll giving Romney a 26 point lead in Michigan).

Looking at these polls I would agree with the view that the key for Romney is if he can win by 10 points or more in Iowa, followed by staving off a possible upset in New Hampshire. NH is unpredictable, because of those independents. Fred has to hold on to South Carolina, of course. His "Son of the South" status can help him survive there even after likely losses in IA and NH. Florida plays to Giuliani's big city strength, with Fred appealing to the rural natives. Romney is going to need a lot of "Mittmentum" to win here, but it's not inconceivable that he could win all six early caucus and primary states. The truth is, though, that we need more polls of Michigan and Nevada to really know what is going on out there (have there been any of Wyoming?).

I think Giuliani needs a win somewhere in the early states, either NH, Michigan or SC. Romney is very lucky to have states he has connections to, NH and MI coming up so early. If we were talking PA or NY, Giuliani would have easy early wins. If Giuliani can win MI or NH and Thompson wins SC, I think they all stay in until Florida, where Romney will have a tough time. Romney desperately wants to wind this up before Florida so he can be proclaimed "inevitable."

Huckabee wins Arkansas. :)

Posted by CJ | November 6, 2007 12:48 AM

Walker Pfost -

Sure, [Huckabee] is polling up to 13% in a place or two, but who is getting polled, anyway?

It is also important to remember that Alan Keyes got 13% in Iowa in 2000, and it didn't get him close to getting the nomination.

Follow the money--that's the real poll. Huckabee can't raise money to save his life. $1M in quarter 3?? Come on, even Ron Paul did better than that...

You know, in terms of fundraising, holding Ron "4.2 million in one day" Paul up as a negative comparison is getting less and less meaningful.

Posted by Glaivester | November 6, 2007 1:44 AM

Here is my analysis and I think it's as solid as anything I've seen here...

Iowa - Romney wins but barely. Huckabee places, stronger then people expect.

New Hampshire - Ron Paul has the cash to make this competitive and Rudy / Mitt split the vote among people who like people who say dumb things often. Mitt's hair wins, however.

Michigan - Mitt's teeth win. The rest of Mitt places. McCain's "Straight To Hell Express', sponsored by Toyota is run off road and torched outside of Romulus.

South Carolina - Fred Thompson thrown off ballot due to 'Colbert Rule' Huckabee groupies carry the state for Mike.

Florida - Ron Paul spends $15million raised in 6 hours on his MySpace page and turns entire election system private, to be run my Disney. Blackjack Sparrow wins in a shocker.

Five states - Rudy declares war on New Jersey; nobody in congress opposes move as troops roll into North Bergen. Mitt Romney's sons volunteer to defend Princeton with special trained attack dogs, most of which die when placed on roof for entire trip from SLC. Ron Paul elected King Of Nevada - legalizes drugs, prostitution and incest but outlaws abortion. Nevada soon becomes US's most populous state. Huckabee quits race to play bass in newly reformed Stryper.

Upshot: Duncan Hunter in '08!

Posted by Lee Stranahan | November 6, 2007 1:59 AM

Why is Giuliani leading in the National polls?
Do the people in the first primary states know about the national polls? Do they want to pick a loser? Romney: Silver spoon boy. McCain: Too old, sponsored Amnesty. Thompson: Too tired looking. Actor who thinks Reagan was an actor so why can't I be President also? Huckabee: Do You want another President from Arkansas? Paul: He comes across as strange because people do not understand him although he is very intelligent.
Giuliani: Tough US Attorney. Tough Mayor: Revived New York City, working with mostly Democrat constituents. Self made man. Understands the threat of Islam. So who do you really want for President after you subdue your idealism and hidden prejudices against a big city moderate?

Posted by Ron | November 6, 2007 4:11 AM

I don't get this. I'm a Democrat, but it seems obvious to me that Romney wins IA, NH, MI, and NV, so it's hard to see "momentum" for another candidate unless Huckabee really takes off. Giuliani is ahead in national polls but where is he going to win primaries early on? McCain is all but over, and Thompson seems to be fading, though he might win SC, but so what if Mitt wins everything else. For me, I would prefer any of the non-Giuliani candidates as potential POTUS. I would prefer a Dem of course, but if someone defeats the apparently inevitable "candidate" Hillary, I hope it is one of the sane GOPers, or in other words anyone but Giuliani. With him I just see a Putin-like dictatorship coming into effect, which would be a terrible loss to the world and the United States. Some of us do like the Constitution, and Giuliani represents the GOP rejecting it altogether.

Posted by indigo | November 6, 2007 6:53 AM

How about this scenario:

1. Mike Huckabee shocks the world with a double-digit win in Iowa, officially putting pollsters everywhere out of business.

2. Ron Paul rides his wave on Internet popularity to a win in NH. Pundits are left scratching their heads.

3. Mitt Romney comes in dead last everywhere behind even second tier candidates and jumps to his peril from the top of the Mormon Tabernacle in DC.

4. Rudy Giuliani is arrested with child porn found on his PC and is heard mumbling - "But I thought they were 18...".

5. John McCain, in a shocking move, swears his allegiance to Radical Islam and moves to the mountains of Pakistan where he can train to be the world's oldest suicide bomber. He says he has done this because at his age, those 70 virgins sound mighty tasty.

6. Ron Paul goes on to win the Republican Nomination and chooses Huckabee as his running mate.

Yep, I would say that is about as likely as the scenario the author has presented here.

Posted by Bill Mitchell | November 6, 2007 8:09 AM

The ONLY reason Giuliani is leading in the polls is that Romney, Thompson and Huckabee are "Ross Perot'ing" each other.

As soon as the first two weeks of voting is over and there is a clear social conservative front-runner, the "Ross Perot Dilution Factor" will be removed and that person will blow Giuliani away in the remaining states.

It is clear at this point, that the highly qualified Romney is going to be the social conservative's man.

Personally, I like Giuliani and think he would make an excellent VP because of his outstanding management skills and tough guy, plain-speaking presentation.

However, his lack of conservative values and the fact that he and Romney will have to attack each other's positions up until the end makes that highly unlikely.

Too bad actually. A Romney/Giuliani ticket would be off the charts as far as competentence in office and wouyld make Hillary really look like the "intern" she is.

Posted by Bill Mitchell | November 6, 2007 8:15 AM

Lee Stranahan,

Hilarious post man. Well done!

Posted by Bill Mitchell | November 6, 2007 8:18 AM

The REAL QUESTION here is:

"Who has the most upside going into the final 8 weeks?"

GIULIANI - He has clearly peaked. He owns the socially moderate conservative vote. Social conservatives are more likely to vote for a Mormon that vote for a social moderate.

THOMPSON - Peaked weeks ago. Considering that he wears the mantle of "most consistent conservative" he has received ZERO major social conservative endorsements that I am aware of. He looks old, tired and sort of "spark-less" on the campaign trail. He refused to pledge not to raise taxes and he refused to support a national amendment banning abortion. He only goes down from here.

HUCKABEE - Nice guy, well liked by Baptists which is not surprising considering he is a Baptist Minister and "talks Bible" better than anyone else. But honestly, is the man Presidential? No. But I would definitely vote for him for Paster.

MCCAIN - The MSM loves him. Nice enough guy and a patriot. However he is old - really, really old, and he is the RINO Poster Boy to pretty much every conservative I know. His early lead was due to name-recognition and patriotism only, not because anyone shared his political values. His campaign died with the Amnesty mess.

ROMNEY - Let's be honest here. In the history of these United States, all political philosophy aside, Romney may be the single most qualified person ever to run for the White House.

He has governed well, successfully run businesses, is very well educated, has a perfect family life and is known as a man who can pretty much fix anything. He is competence personified.

Let's be even more honest and admit that if Romney was a Southern Baptist, he would be ahead by double-digits everywhere, including nationally right now. He is splitting the social conservative vote 3 ways right now with Thompson and Huckabee.

Romney CLEARLY has the most upside of any other candidate on the Republican ticket. If the social conservatives get behind him, as one might believe will happen after all of these endorsements, he will be unstoppable.

CONCLUSION:
The primaries are like a 26 mile marathon. It is usually quite close after 25 miles. But the winner is the one with the most "kick" in that last mile. I think I have made the argument here that Romney has the most "kick" left.

Posted by Bill Mitchell | November 6, 2007 8:37 AM

Mitt Romney has a proved that he can lead and turn problem situations into success. Just look at his record:

* Graduated from Brigham Young University as Valedictorian

* Graduated from Harvard University as Suma Cum Lade.

* Ran Bain for many years, taking troubled businesses and turning them around from which he earned his millions.

* Saved the scandal-ridden 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, making it one of the best Olympics on record.

* Ran and served as a successful Governer in his home state of Massachusettes and won (with which he refused salary for). He lowered taxes by closing corporate tax loopholes, and enabled local law enforcement to be more aggressive against illegal immigrants.

* He has come out as a virtual 'no-namer' in the GOP primary and has a lead in nearly all early voting states.

* On top of it all he has been married to only one woman his whole life and has raised 5 great boys.

Compare that record to the rest of the GOP field or to Hilary Clinton (she wrote a book??!!) and you can see that Mitt Romney is clearly the most qualified for the presidency.

Just remember, social conservatives, that are backing second tier candidates because Romney is a Mormon, are only TRULY backing Hilary Clinton and Rudy Guliani in 2008. United we stand, Divided we fall.

Go Mitt!

Posted by Casey | November 6, 2007 11:02 AM

Just an addendum to Mitt's impressive private sector C.V, his conversion to 90 percent of the platform he is now running on only occurred about 2 years ago.

For all you folks supporting Romney- he's a weak general election candidate, and he will be branded by the Democrats ad nauseum as a unprincipled flip-flopper throughout the campaign. In a year when our margins are going to be thin, his lack of credibiliy on so many issues will cost him dearly in the general election- the Clintonistas will put his record through the chop-shop, and he will have an enormous problem gaining any traction in getting his message out.

Posted by Vince | November 6, 2007 11:58 AM

The most fantastic line in this scenerio is the throw-away suggestion that "The media isn't sure which candidate to pressure to drop out," as though that is their decision to make.
Most of the media was pressuring Ron Paul to drop out months ago ... the people said "NO!" yesterday, with a record infusion of $4 million into his campaign.

Here's the new scenerio: Paul gets a surprise win in New Hampshire, goes on to a top place finish in South Carolina and Florida, then on to a brokered convention.
Nonsense? Sure. Impossible for Paul to raise $4 million in one day? Absolutely unthinkable!

Posted by westmiller | November 6, 2007 12:08 PM

I just wanted to point out that Bill Mitchell is clearly a man of taste and breeding.

Bill Michell in '08!

Posted by Lee Stranahan | November 6, 2007 1:11 PM

It's funny how so many of you reference money/fundraising as if it's the most important and only factor when it comes to the vote. Especially, when so many of you will, multiple times over the next 12 months, comment something about how "wealthy people are jerks and feel they can do anything they want just because they have money." Why don't we stop listening to what the media says so and so will be able to do because they have this much money and what so and so won't be able to do because they have that much money.

Why don't we vote for the candidate that we, in our gut, believe in most? Why don't we vote for the candidate with the most passion, the one actually willing to follow through, the one with some honesty and real character? Let's not put someone in office that continues to blow in the political wind generated by the "news" agencies. Let’s make our vote count and vote for someone that's not bent by what's popular in the paper and on TV. Let’s vote for someone that's not bent based on where the money is. We don't need someone that’s trying to remember what they stand for based on the game plan and script that was handed to them 4 hours before they got in front of a camera. If they were your boss, who would you follow? If there was no media whispering in your ear who would we follow? If we really listen to the candidates, see where they stand, and examine what their record is (and why it is what it is) then in our heart we will know who to give our vote to. In my opinion that candidate is obviously Mike Huckabee.

Posted by Bryan Horner | November 6, 2007 1:48 PM

It's funny how so many of you reference money/fundraising as if it's the most important and only factor when it comes to the vote. Especially, when so many of you will, multiple times over the next 12 months, comment something about how "wealthy people are jerks and feel they can do anything they want just because they have money." Why don't we stop listening to what the media says so and so will be able to do because they have this much money and what so and so won't be able to do because they have that much money.

Why don't we vote for the candidate that we, in our gut, believe in most? Why don't we vote for the candidate with the most passion, the one actually willing to follow through, the one with some honesty and real character? Let's not put someone in office that continues to blow in the political wind generated by the "news" agencies. Let’s make our vote count and vote for someone that's not bent by what's popular in the paper and on TV. Let’s vote for someone that's not bent based on where the money is. We don't need someone that’s trying to remember what they stand for based on the game plan and script that was handed to them 4 hours before they got in front of a camera. If they were your boss, who would you follow? If there was no media whispering in your ear who would we follow? If we really listen to the candidates, see where they stand, and examine what their record is (and why it is what it is) then in our heart we will know who to give our vote to. In my opinion that candidate is obviously Mike Huckabee

Posted by Bryan Horner | November 6, 2007 1:50 PM

What did Romney accomplish in Massachusetts?

Posted by Ron | November 6, 2007 1:55 PM

What did Huckabee accomplish in Arkansas?

Posted by Ron | November 6, 2007 1:58 PM

What did Guliani accomplish in New York City? A lot, just look at the list:

1. He made it into a sanctuary city for illegals - he has no idea how many of them are potential terrorists. So much for being strong against terrorism, when he lets thousands of unknown illegal immigrants in through the front door of his own city!

2. He lavished himself as the great hero of 9/11, even though he himself let terrorists destroy the world trade center right under his nose! Again, so much for being strong against terrorism.

3. He did his best to stop the president from using line-item veto's during a federal lawsuit. I guess, like the liberals, he wants to see our republican government be taken to court just like his liberal friends.

4. He supported killing terrorists...and lots and lots of unborn babies.

5. He wants his Homosexual friends to be given star treatment and he even lived with a few.

6. He cheated on his wives many times, while picking up adulterous relationships at local bars.

Yeah, Guliani really did a lot in New York.

Posted by Casey | November 6, 2007 2:16 PM

What if Ron Paul raises more in 4Q than media frontrunners Guliani, Romney, and Thompson and finishes Top 2 in New Hampshire?

His message is fundamentally sound and he carries little baggage.

Once McCain, Thompson, and Huckabee drop out after the first 3 primaries, it will be an interesting 3 candidate race.

Posted by Dignanrickles | November 6, 2007 2:45 PM

Why believe Romney is a born again conservative?

Of course he knows what he has to say to get the nomination. No one is saying he is stupid or an idiot.

What we do know about him is, that he is incredibly wealthy, and readily tells voters what he thinks will garner him votes. Who is the real Mitt Romney? One thing is for certain, a voter will never be able to answer that question with any confidene.

As for Giuliani, might as well vote for Hillary Clinton as they are both backed by the same cabal.

Posted by eddie | November 6, 2007 3:35 PM

Romney will get done in by the Mormon thing. Those who back him are in for a hard lesson: the most loyal Republican voters are in some respects also the most bigoted. You reap what you sow.

Posted by Kevin | November 6, 2007 4:12 PM

Thanks everyone for great posts; when I was young I used to watch TV; not much on now. Reading internet postings keeps my mind thinking.

I like Ron, Mitt and Mike. I think either Mike or Ron wins Iowa. Paul in NH. Rudy the nomination because the media is always cramming Rudy and Hillary down our throats. After early March Bush will bomb Iran; blowback of high KIAs, High gas prices, then a UN Report stating the reason we attacked was a lie, will cause a thrd party to win. Hopefully Paul. The Constitution hangs by a thread.

Posted by Kyle | November 6, 2007 7:18 PM

God willing and if this nation is even salvageable from our home grown "CULTURAL TERRORISTS- ACLU. rainbow coalition & the SanFran freak show types...no wonder the muslims hate us"(MUCH worse than the terrorists outside the US)...The repuplican field looks like 96 when I put my blood sweat and tears into the TOTALLY LACKLUSTER campaign of BOB DULL. LISTEN the republican field of candidates is old and tired...only ROMNEY, Huckabee or maybe Paul which I doubt have a cahnce to contend against Hillary. Romney is Slick enough but the scientific digs back in the 19th century came up with two religions... Piltdown man(a fabrication) & the golden plates(which were conveniently lost.) This will be the first candidate ever to get elected outside of the mainstream christian religion and I think we are going to open pandoras box- just my opinion so don't get all worked up...I mean we send rapping soldiers to Iraq and we think the people there are going to like us..the corrupt aspect of our culture makes them hate us and there is no changing that. Everybody better Wake up as to what is going on in Pakistan literaLLY AS WE SPEAK. The next President is going to have some TOUGH choices and I Pray to GOD that is not Hillary ..but then maybe we deserve her.

Posted by Tim Kelley | November 7, 2007 10:15 AM

FRED is dead!! put a tag on his toe and let's get real - The democrats are paying him off to throw the elction...the guy is so lackluster he makes Al Bore & Bob Dull look interesting.
Too bad McCain has made so many stupid erros over his political career. Being a Maverick is fun...for awhile. Him and Ron Paul could probably play spoiler like Perot in 96 and help hand the country off to the Clintons again like Perot did. I like Governor Huckabee...but I think he is too good of a man for the country at this point...to normal and too decent and makes too much sense so in the day in which we live that makes you almost unelectable...but he maybe the only one that could take the red states.

Tim Kelley - St. Paul MN

Posted by Tim Kelley | November 7, 2007 10:33 AM

Mike Huckabee continues to impress as grassroots support grows. He's got the experience, the integrity, in fact, all the qualifications to be President without all the baggage. He may not be able to buy the Presidency. But when Mike Huckabee tells you something, you can "take it to the bank".

Posted by Nanellen | November 7, 2007 3:41 PM

Who up there said Romney was a liberal? That's a hoot. I look at Giuliani, and see a liberal. I look at Romney and see a rock solid conservative. McCain looks more liberal to me than Romney, but that's just 'cause he's compromised so much. And Huckabee won't be anyone's VP, not that he isn't a sweet guy and everything. He just don't have the skills or the appeal. Hope no one of influence admits Romney is winning it so he can just take it by storm baby.

Posted by Liz | November 10, 2007 5:23 PM

buy canada in viagra

Posted by buy cheap online uk viagra | November 12, 2007 8:10 PM