Back in December, I asked whether Rudy Giuliani was planning on skipping the Iowa caucuses. I speculated that given the much more conservative nature of the caucuses compared to the other primaries, that Rudy wouldn’t have much of a chance to survive there and that he’d be better off trying to pull out the upset in New Hampshire (aka the McCain 2000 strategy). While McCain’s decision to skip Iowa undoubtedly helped him win New Hampshire, it also helped assure that he wouldn’t get past South Carolina. It was huge gamble that ultimately failed. Would Rudy try to succeed where McCain had failed? I took some grief for that and was assured by Rudy supporters that he would compete in every primary. Several commentors cited this Des Moines Register article as proof. It seemed solid enough at the time, but then nothing materialized. Weeks turned into months and finally after more than 2 months of speculation, news broke that Rudy had hired his first staffer at the end of February and he’d scheduled his own trip to Iowa a few weeks later. Fast forward to today when two stories came out about Rudy’s upcoming trip. First, the NY Daily News quotes Jim Nussle saying that Rudy does “plan to compete” in Iowa, but that it would likely take a back seat to the bigger (and more socially liberal) states:
Some had wondered if the pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-gun control Giuliani would skip the state’s first-in-the-nation caucus, which is typically dominated by conservative Republicans.
But aides to the former mayor said yesterday that while he is still weighing how much time to spend in Iowa – as opposed to California, Florida and other bigger states now planning early primaries – he planned to compete there.
“It’s a compressed schedule that is going to require new strategies in terms of budgeting time and resources,” said former Rep. Jim Nussle, Giuliani’s top Iowa adviser. “But it doesn’t mean you can take anything off the table.”
But Newsday has a much more fascinating take on Giuliani’s primary plans:
Is Rudolph Giuliani thinking about skipping the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses next year?
He just might be. On Monday, after a campaign seminar at Harvard University, Giuliani campaign chief Mike DuHaime refused to commit his candidate to competing in the Iowa contest, which officially kicks off the race for the GOP nomination on Jan. 14, 2008.
Then yesterday, Giuliani’s campaign announced he would indeed make an Iowa swing in April announcing his travel plans a full month in advance in a bid to head off a spate of Rudy-skips-Iowa stories.
Despite the trip, DuHaime’s comments and the early evidence suggest the campaign is at least toying with the idea of bypassing Iowa. Giuliani hasn’t stopped in Iowa since joining the race last November, even though he’s been to first-primary state New Hampshire once, first-Southern-primary state South Carolina twice and California twice.
Giuliani’s campaign manager won’t commit to him playing in Iowa. That in itself is quite stunning.
Giuliani might decide he doesn’t want to take his chances with Iowa Republicans who tend to be strong religious conservatives. If so, he’d be betting that the emergence of a mega-primary day on Feb. 5, 2008 where Giuliani could do well in states like New Jersey, California and Florida would diminish the importance of Iowa anyway.
It’s a risky bet, especially if Giuliani were to falter in New Hampshire and South Carolina, right now expected to be No. 2 and 3 in line ahead of the Feb. 5 states. But it’s been tried — John McCain skipped Iowa in 2000 but followed up with a crushing win over then-Gov. George W. Bush in New Hampshire. Of course, McCain’s defeat shortly thereafter in South Carolina spelled the beginning of the end for his campaign.
And so I have to question the wisdom of this. Rudy has an overwhelming lead for the moment in the national polls and leads McCain by 5% or so in the latest Iowa polls. But it’s important to remember that to win in Iowa, you need to have a strong on the ground operation and that’s the one thing Rudy is severely lacking. So just the fact that Giuliani’s team is considering such a move, speaks volumes.
It’s been clear what their larger strategy’s been since Rudy’s decision to jump in. They want to try and survive until February 5th and then unleash “Giuliani Time” across the nation. I don’t think that this a particularly smart way to survey the field. It’s fashionable nowadays to say that with the emergence of the February 5th mega primary will lessen the influence of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. But I’m of the opinion that unless the early states essentially deadlock (that is to say, each of the Big Three winning a state apiece), they will play a huge role in shaping the outcome of the mega primary. Why? Because of momentum.
Say for instance that Romney somehow pulls out a win in Iowa with McCain coming in second and Rudy battling it out with Brownback or Huckabee for third. Well, then given McCain’s past connections with NH and Romney’s victory, they could have enough to at least get first or second respectively in NH. And so you’re two primaries in and Rudy hasn’t won a single one or come in higher than 3rd. Here it’s important to remember the political truism: “Three tickets out of Iowa, two out of New Hampshire.” R4’08′s own HeavyM wrote an important piece on this back in January. It’s almost certain that given the fact that there are 3 top GOP presidential candidates and only 2 “tickets” out of New Hampshire, I would argue that one of the Big Three will be finished after the New Hampshire primary. I suspect Rudy’s team understands this and thinks that he can circumvent the process by not playing in Iowa because it would be incredibly damaging to his campaign if he were to come in less than 2nd in Iowa. Howard Dean had a very impressive national organization, but he was destroyed after his loss in Iowa. But by not not competing in Iowa, he has to try and overcome both McCain and Romney in New Hampshire and even if he does win that, he has to go toe to toe with McCain in South Carolina (which McCain still leads in despite Giuliani’s national numbers). And if Giuliani losses there, it will have the same effect on him that it had on McCain in 2000.
Giuliani’s team had best think through their course of action and stop with the daydreams of the California primary.
March 7th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
The other thing about CA is that it going to be House seat by House seat, not winner take all. So it will be 52 races pretty much in CA.
March 7th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
Edit: Posting the same story in every single thread comes very close to trolling.-KWN
March 7th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
I agree LJ, Rudy should expand his effort in Iowa. It’s amazing that he is doing so well in Iowa, considering that McCain and Romney have put so many resources into that state.
In the end, I’m not sure that it will matter. He has a significant lead in most of the states on Super Tuesday.
Rudy is likely to secure the nomination on Super Tuesday.
March 7th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Gary,
I don’t think Rudy is going to pander to any group, like McCain and Romney have. That’s one of the reasons why he is doing so well in the polls.
March 7th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
Don’t kid yourself TM. Rudy’s already pandering on partial birth, parental consent, judges, abortion funding, and gun control. Or should I say flipping?
March 7th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Rudy can and will provide an adequate response to the concerns to the majority social conservatives.
Will he get 100%?
No way, but he will get enough, along with the moderate segments of the Republican party to win the nomination.
The polls seem to indicate that he is doing a pretty good job at that.
March 7th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
Gary,
Well stated. Rudy is what he is . I stil believe that this election will
determine the future success of the Republican party at the presidential level.
Will the party realize that it must nominate someone who can cross party lines,
and attract independent and minority voters, or will it continue to be
marginalized by the right wingers who believe it must be their way or the
highway. Frankly, I am tired of being lectured by those of faith who cast
judgment on others. Rudy is human, and has made mistakes in his life ( like all
of us) but he would be a great president.
March 7th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
This Novak article
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=19714
explores in depth how Giuliani is making short work of
both McCain and Romney by coming in 2nd in Spartanburg and
CPAC without lifting a finger.
March 7th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
Nice post LJ,
It will be very interesting to see how all this unfolds. I can’t see Rudy gaining anymore in the polls unless he decides to participate – and performs well in the debates. I’ve also heard he’ll be skipping some of the early debates. I think the best he can do for the moment is hold on.
Most those who participate in the primaries are conservatives or religious conservatives as noted. Rudy’s strong with independents and the more liberal Republicans. However, independents & liberal Republicans are not the demographic with strong primary participation which could spell trouble for Rudy. If he plays in Iowa, he better play to win. If he can’t, he’s better off skipping it altogether to avoid the nose bleed.
If you are the front runner, you better be the front runner by acting like one.
March 7th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
I’m glad to see some real analysis. Nice Post LJ.
McCain would have won the nomination if he could have won South Carolina. Perhaps Rudy thinks he has some ability to win in South Carolina. I tend to think South Carolina is a harder state for Rudy than Iowa.
March 7th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
Excellent analysis, LJ.
The biggest thing that this points to is the lack of effort on Giuliani at getting the nomination. He seems to be satisfied with just puting forth the minimal effort required — no more.
This has to worry somebody, somewhere. History is replete with people who were ahead of the game and lost to an energetic, aggressive opponent because they felt they didn’t need to expend the energy. George H. W. Bush in 1992 is one example. He and he advisors thought all he had to do was put his name on the ballot, and he would win. By the time he realized that that was not going to be enough, it was too late.
March 7th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
This is not smart from Guiliani. Iowa is becoming more important in the race now that there’s a super super Tuesday. Momentum is more important than ever. If Romney or McCain win well in Iowa, the momentum from that will be very powerful.
It also shows cowardice, which would severely undermine Guiliani’s perceived character. He’s projecting an image of someone who gets out there, challenges his critics, doesn’t back down and convinces people that way. Avoiding a debate with the people of Iowa doesn’t help that perception…
March 7th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
Agreed, mark. The fact is Romney is one of the best manager’s and organizers in the world, and certainly the best in this campaign. If Giuliani’s going to be complacent, he’s going to find himself fighting off a well-oiled Romney machine, and a deep benched McCain team, without much in the way of preparation. You can make serious mistakes or gaffes if you’re surrogates are mis-informed, lightly committed. If you’re team isn’t totally on top of the news and evaluating potential scandals. If you haven’t been briefed thoroughly and frequently on the issues, or if you haven’t mastered standard responses to questions (aplomb is the key word here). There’s little question that in terms of all the things that might go wrong in a campaign, Rudy’s easily the most vulnerable of the Big Three. I don’t know what to think of him possibly skipping Iowa. On the one hand, he likely wants to go into February 5th with a series of strong performances. If various hangups in Iowa bring him down to 3rd, that could hurt his momentum significantly. But at the same time, both McCain and Romney are situated in such a way that a win in Iowa, could slingshot them into competition with Rudy in New Hampshire. Let’s say McCain wins in Iowa and New Hampshire. He then absolutely wins in South Carolina, and its probably over before Super Tuesday even starts. Rudy needs to win New Hampshire. And the best way to assure that he does is to end up in 1st or 2nd in Iowa.
March 7th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
“The fact is Romney is one of the best manager’s and organizers in the world, and certainly the best in this campaign.”
Dear Lord,
Save me from 11 more months of this hyperbole!
March 7th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
“McCain would have won the nomination if he could have won South Carolina”
econ,
Where is McCain’s surge going to come from?
What demographic is going to support McCain that is not doing so right now?
March 7th, 2007 at 7:20 pm
Kavon,
To paraphrase a well-known sports phrase, “It ain’t hyperbole if it’s true”
LOL
March 7th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
JayPe “It also shows cowardice, which would severely undermine Guiliani’s perceived character.”
I would not call it cowardice, though he will certainly open himself up to that charge if he skips Iowa. I would more likely label it “lack of determination”, “lack of energy”, “lack of desire”, “lack of interest” — take your pick.
The bottom line is he can’t afford to turn his back on McCain or Romney. And there are a few of the second tier guys that are cabable of eating his lunch, as well.
March 7th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
marK,
I think that’s just the problem with your argument.
On one hand you talk about Romney’s “superior fundraising and organization”, but then the polls come in and Romney’s “superior fundraising and organization” is not having much of an impact.
This makes the Romney campaign look even weaker.
March 7th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
This is fact Kavon. For 10 years, Romney was the most successful venture capitalist in the country. It wasn’t even close. Bain Capital returned over a 100% profit on investments. Bain and Company was literally weeks from bankruptcy, and he had it fully restored in a year. Etc, etc. The guy’s a phenom. Giuliani has done some impressive things in the world of managment to be sure. But they have distinctly different styles, and I think it’s clear that Romney’s focus on data, analysis, and high amounts of structure, is more conducive to the types of things one does in a campaign. Giuliani is more of a delegater from everything I’ve seen. Now its anyone’s guess which one has the traits most likely to produce solid results in the White House, but objectively Romney’s model is built for campaigning. You can it hyperbole if you’d like. It certainly doesn’t bother me. But I think its a sort of intriguing response. I recently read Hugh Hewitt’s Romney book, and Hugh was attempting to determine Romney’s wealth. And he concluded that Romney’s probably a billionaire and then some. Self-made Billionaire + wild success in every enterprise undertaken + 30 years as an executive (in all sorts of capacities)= One of the best managers and organizers in the world (would you prefer if I used country?). It’s what we’d term objective reality. And the fact that Giuliani supporters are seriously attempting to argue such points speaks poorly of them.
March 7th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
Matt,
Then why is Romney doing so poorly in the polls?
March 7th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
“This is fact Kavon. For 10 years, Romney was the most successful venture capitalist in the country. It wasn’t even close.”
“Self-made Billionaire + wild success in every enterprise undertaken + 30 years as an executive (in all sorts of capacities)= One of the best managers and organizers in the world (would you prefer if I used country?). It’s what we’d term objective reality.”
Apparently, my prayers will go unanswered…
March 7th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
Well, considering the most recent nationwide poll has Romney going up 60% from the previous months version, and considering he’s been hit from all sides for practically 2 months straight, I don’t think he’s doing poorly at all. It’s obvious you do, but then you’ve repeatedly shown that all you care about is absolute poll results.
March 7th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
“Apparently, my prayers will go unanswered”
Looks like it. I don’t know what to tell you Kavon. I’m not going to pretend he’s less successful then he is.
March 7th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
GOP Activist,
If I am wrong, then I am wrong. However history has proven over and over again that if a strong opponent only puts forth a minimal amount of effort in the face of a weak but energetic and determined foe — given enough time, the stronger will succumb to the weaker.
Question #1: Are Romney and McCain energetic and determined? Romney certainly is. Up to a week ago, I would have said McCain was. Then he went and skipped CPAC. Big, big mistake. Even LJ was disappointed in that.
Question #2, Is there enough time for their energy to pay off? That’s the 64 dollar question. You and the other Giuliani fans had better hope the answer is ‘no’.
Bottom-line, the less Giuliani works, the easier it is for his opponents to catch up to him. And that is a fact.
March 7th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
GOP Activist because polls are only distantly related to reality.
As an Economics graduate student I can attest to the weakness of surveys to predict long-term outcomes.
1) Polls only record response to questions. Often the questions are not asked to people who are representative of the people who will vote. This leads to a strong bias.
2) Polls have no predictive ability. They tell you answer to questions in the present but can’t tell you any information about the future. Polls are only useful if the poll numbers don’t change in the future.
I don’t have a problem with people who suggest Rudy is doing well now. Polls (LV) suggest if the election was today he would likely win. The problem is when people suggest this is representative of the election result months away. You don’t actually KNOW that. You’re just guessing using past trends.
March 7th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
“Then he went and skipped CPAC. Big, big mistake”
marK, I’ll agree with you on this point.
McCain is toast!
March 7th, 2007 at 8:15 pm
GOP Activist: “McCain is toast!”
There is no question he made his effort alot harder than it needs to be. Whether he is toast or not remains to be seen.
March 7th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
Anyone here familiar with the chapter in Giuliani’s
book “Prepare Relentlessly”? Another chapter,
“Everyone’s Accountable, All The Time” ? The people
who have been with Giuliani for years, Powers, Carbonetti,
Sunny Mindel, etc – this is a very strong team. Prepare
relentlessly.
March 7th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
“It’s obvious you do, but then you’ve repeatedly shown that all you care about is absolute poll results.”
It never ceases to amaze me that Romney-Bots are so quick to discredit polls that have him trailing Giuliani, McCain, Gingrich (who isn’t even a candidate), but when he pays kids to come in and vote for him at CPAC, his straw poll victory is heralded as some vast “vindication” of his conservative credentials and “embracing” as the conservative nominee. Romney supporters are just like their candidate, extremely articulate, intelligent, and hypocritical.
March 7th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
The value of Romney’s win at CPAC was it showed he’s a good organiser, and a good campaigner. Savvy, if you like. While his poll numbers still aren’t great, he does impress politicos like me with his political skills. The fact he has survived a fairly tough month news wise is testamant to that.
I don’t think McCain is toast. Establishment clout can get you a long way (just ask Mondale & Dole), and apparently he was a different man while on the campaign trail in Iowa last week. If he can do more campaigning and spend less time as a Senator defending an unpopular war (which will happen as we get closer to voting day) he should improve.
March 7th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
Kavon,
With the exception of my first statement, I don’t see how anything I said was hyperbole. According to the people Hugh Hewitt interviewed, Mitt Romney was the most successful venture capitalist in the country, and Bain Captal was the most successful venture capital firm in the country during the years he worked there. And they weren’t referring to some sort of mystical success. They were referring to average percentage profit realized, percentage stake in each deal, etc. Maybe they’re wrong. I have no idea. Maybe using the word “most”, even if its true, and even its based on data, is inherently hyperbolic. But if so, I’m hardly to blame for the language of others. According to Hewitt Romney’s likely a billionaire. Again, its not clear to me how stating the facts is hyperbole. Or is anything that’s really big automatically hyperbole? I’ll confess that calling him wildly successful might be a bit of an overstatement. It depends I guess on how you define wildly successful. I’d wager that most people would consider “wildly successful” sort of definitional to self-made billionaire, but I’ll retract it if you’d like. I also don’t understand what’s hyperbolic about stating that he’s been an executive for 30 years. Finally, calling him the one of the best managers and organizers in the world is probably actually hyperbole. It’s such a sweeping statement that its difficult for it not to be. But I think we have to be honest here. If the sort of accomplishment’s Romney’s had in hislife don’t qualify Romney for inclusion in that category, then its hard to know off-hand what would. But yeah, you’re right. It’s probably to significant of a statement to make about anyone. So that was hyperbole.
As for the polls, yes, that was spin on my part. But I think its sort of hard to know what to do with a 4 point increase when you start off at 5%. I dunno. My point is, and I think this has been lost in the bustle I think, Giuliani’s been rising quite a bit and a result McCain’s been falling (there’s now typically a 15 to 20% difference as opposed to the 6 to 10 1-2 months ago), but at worst Romney seems to be treading water and at best he’s shwoing modest increases. For instance, in the January 18 Rasmussen poll, Romney stood at 8%, Rudy at 28, McCain at 20, and Gincrgich at 14%. Giuliani has since gone up 6, McCain’s gone down 1 (though even that represents a bump from previous weeks), Gingrich has gone down 2, and Mitt has gone up 1. Am I happy about Romney’s progress here? Not exactly. But when somebody’s sucking up all of the oxygen, it seems like a bit of a miracle that you’re still breathing. For now anyway.
March 7th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
Straw polls represent enthusiasm and organization as well as actual support. It is obvious that Romney would do well in polls that measure organization. It is also likely that Rudy would do well in polls that measure enthusiasm. Unbiased measures of actual support are limited to LV surveys in New Hampshire and Iowa. Most of the support is weak so the candidates have the responsibility o firming up their support and building on it.
March 7th, 2007 at 9:04 pm
Geoff,
Right on!!
March 7th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
I’m not sure why the AP story was edited out of my previous post.
Did I post it on every single thread? I posted it on one other, besides
this one. I had to look up the definition of trolling on answer.com.
Well now I understand. You simply edit out what you would rather not
hear. Like your friend Gamecock, who accused me of not caring if Iranians
are killing American soldiers in Iraq, and that I hate my country, you
seem to be unwilling to debate someone who disagrees with your world
view, and, instead seem content with just lobbing some verbal flashbngs
around, when people make good points. If I’m misjudging let me know, maybe I misunderstood.
DB, you make a good point about reaching across to the more independent
voters. I think that needs to happen. The problem is how far you can go
before you go to far away from your own party’s base? I think that’s
a big part of McCain’s problem. With McCain-Feingold and McCain-Kennedy, McCain alienated alot of his conservative base. His support of the war has hurt him with
independents. He’s hurting from all sides. How far can you reach out before you lose touch with your base? Will your base overlook it just so you can get elected like I think alot of liberals are doing with Hillary? I think that’s the big question this year.
Frankly, it’s the question whenever a campaign transitions from primary mode to general election mode. As far as polls go, after helping on this year’s Senate race
in TN, I don’t have much faith in any polls. Near the end, some historically
reliable polls showed us much further ahead than what it wound up being.
And it’s so early. Lee Bandy in “The State” had a good column on voter weariness.
After this campaign starting so early, I wouldn’t be surprised if people
don’t demand that campaigns only be limited to the length of the Survivor series.
March 7th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Gary,
I am sorry if I have offended you. Posting AP stories in the comments is kind of iffy (notice though that I didn’t edit it the first time you posted it). The comments are meant to be a discussion of the story that was written here.
Posting it in 2 stories I think does cross the line. I didn’t mean to make you mad, but if we let it get out of control people will start posting opposing news stories in every thread, which once again is not the purpose of the comments section.
I hope that I have not discouraged you from commenting again. I am just trying to maintain some degree of order here.
March 7th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
I deeply apologize. I have a little knowledge
of copyright laws from a long time ago, but I have no idea
how they work now. No you didn’t offend me. And if I offended
you by my remarks, I apologize again.
Thanks for explaining, and please accept my apologies. What I said was rude and ill-considered on my part.
And now about those polls….
March 7th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
The bottom line: we need a strong, decisive, attractive leader to head off Hillary Clinton. Let me tell you a little bit about my upbringing. I was raised catholic and went to catholic school (it shows, I’m sure..LOL). Hillary Clinton reminds me of the abusing, condescending nuns that used to mistreat us. Nuff said.
March 8th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
EGS,
You make a good point about South Carolina. If I have time later tonight, I have more to say about that.