Assessing Giuliani's Strategy

Rudy Giuliani's "29 Inning Strategy," as he called it yesterday, was based on several assumptions.

One was that the compression of the calendar created the conditions for several candidates to win early state contests. With the field scrambled, momentum would not flow to any single candidate, and would be available for the taking to the candidate who existed Feb. 5 with the most number of delegates.

A second was that delegates matter. Giuliani's campaign manager, Mike DuHaime, worked closely with Republican allies in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut to change the delegate allocation rules from proportional to winner-take-all.

The third was that Giuliani would established a sandbar in Florida (heavy campaigning among the Cuban-American community, the New York ex-pats in South Florida, etc) and would maintain his lead through the primaries.

A fourth was that the evangelical base would not coalesce around a single candidate, but would, through the strength of Giuliani's commitment to fighting the war on terror (read: radical Islam) would wash away, to some extent, lingering doubts about his personal life.

These were sound assumptions. But three of them are in danger of being proved untrue. The evangelicals have found their candidate, and regardless of whether Huckabee drops out, they will be unified and in a mood to force their will on the rest of the party.

Giuliani faces a challenge from them -- either in Florida or beyond -- maybe even at the convention. Mitt Romney's careful cultivation of Republicans in Iowa and New Hampshire and his efforts to burnish his national image are steadily narrowing the gap between him and Giuliani, and there is no reason, so long as Huckabee is still in the race, why Romney _has_ to win South Carolina in order to get the nomination.

In Florida, the sandbar has been breached. Mike Huckabee, who was nowhere a month ago, is suddenly either beating Giuliani or placing a close second to him. And this is before a single vote has been cast -- before any real momentum has been transferred to him.

The most important insight, I think, still holds: delegates matter. And Giuliani is in a position to exit February 5 with the most delegates. For now. His biggest threat remains a Mitt Romney, having won Iowa and New Hampshire and opened his checkbook... which is why, despite the downside risk, the Giuliani campaign is comfortable with Mike Huckabee's rise.

Comments

Sandbar? Perhaps "beach head" as in an invasion? Sandbars are thing we Floridians accidentally get grounded on in our boats. They are underwater at least on a high tide.
A fairly unclear post.

Posted by JohnMcC | December 20, 2007 3:06 PM

The most important insight, I think, still holds: delegates matter. And Giuliani is in a position to exit February 5 with the most delegates.

I think this is looking really implausible. If he doesn't take a single first place in the January contests, he'll be an utter non-factor by month's end. People don't like throwing their votes away. Bad strategy, Rudy, bad strategy.

Posted by Jasper | December 20, 2007 3:47 PM

In 1996 after Iowa, NH, DE, NM, AZ, ND, SC, and SD the delegate count was being led by a fellow who targeted lower profiles states and states outside the NE corridor.

That candidate was Steve Forbes.

Delegate count simply never matters.

It is winning high profile contests and big news media validation that matters. Big media didn't consider Forbes a legitimate contender no matter how many times he beat Dole and he was denied free media coverage again and again. Dole eventually came out ahead in the expensive multi-state primaries because the free media pushed him through.

Free media will decide the race this year also. And Giuliani has skipped one of the key ways to get it -- early state contests.

Posted by Brian | December 20, 2007 4:33 PM

Bad strategy, Rudy, bad strategy.

Hey, it's not Rudy's fault that loving Jeebus and hating brown folks would put one in better stead than competing to see who would kill the most Islamofascistinistic baddies.

Posted by justinb | December 20, 2007 4:40 PM

This article is ignoring several facts:

1. The primaries are more compressed this year. In the 21st century, momentum and retail politics are less of a factor than in the past. Is spending 2 years and 10 million in Iowa really smart anymore?

2. The field is wide open, with 5 top contenders and the lead in the 'early' states changing rapidly. If Huck wins Iowa, and McCain wins NH and Mitt wins SC, is Rudy in bad shape?

3. All of the other top candidates are arguably more flawed. Rudy would lose to a Reagan, but no one like him is in the race. The election is a choice, and so you can't analyze candidates in a vacuum.

Rudy's lead has diminished, but he is still in the lead!

Don't look too much to history of figure out who will win this race: each election is unique.

I think Rudy has made several mistakes in his campaign, but it is still his nomination to lose. I don't think he will. He needs to turn around this slide, and now that the polls have dramatically dropped, he will be forced to. Campaigns are about dealing with adversity: look at how Howard Dean handled his loss in Iowa.

Posted by Keif | December 20, 2007 5:49 PM

I heard the comment that another Reagan would beat Rudy........Lets see what Reagan thought about the only candidate who actually supports the constitution also known as Ron Paul.

Check this video out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyXW1hb-JQg

Granted Reagan did not stick with his issues that he won with but still his platform was a good one.

Posted by Chris | December 29, 2007 4:28 AM