With all the talk of how Rudy Giuliani will undoubtably be the Republican nominee, I find a need to interject myself. Rudy is indeed the national frontrunner, but so was Howard Dean on the Democratic side back in '04, and we all know how that turned out. I see a very similar thing happening this year with the GOP race.
It looks highly improbable that Rudy will win the Iowa caucuses on January 3. That honor will go to Mitt Romney. Romney is already ahead in New Hampshire and an Iowa win would just propel his campaign even more there. I predict that Romney will move on from a win in Iowa to win the New Hampshire primaries. At that point, the national media won't be able to get enough of Romney and Rudy will be all but forgotten.
Up next on the tumultuous primary calender is South Carolina. Now, if you asked me a month ago, I would have said South Carolina would be where Rudy could stop Romney. But now, I just don't think so. Romney has gained several key evangelical endorsements and his popularity in the south is on the rise. It seems as if southern evangelicals might be getting over their fear of Romney's Mormonism. Romney has been ahead by a decent margin in the last several South Carolina polls. This leads me to believe that Romney's momentum from Iowa and New Hampshire would propel him to a huge win in South Carolina.
Florida comes up about a week after South Carolina and most people who have studied politics, including myself, believe that as goes Florida, so goes the GOP nomination. In other words, whomever wins Florida will be the Republican nominee. But this is where I differ from just about everyone else in my views. I keep hearing that because Giuliani is ahead of Romney by about 15% in Florida, Romney will be stopped dead in his tracks. To those who think that, I would just like to ask them why they're so willing to throw out everything history has taught us about Presidential primaries. Momentum is key. If Romney wins Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, there is no way he could lose in Florida. The polls that matter the most right now are those in the early caucus and primary states, and those show that momentum is with Romney. Giuliani will not be able to go almost an entire month without winning a single key primary and still stay in the fight. Nobody wants to or is going to vote for a loser.
That is why, right here, right now, I am predicting that Mitt Romney will be the Republican nominee. Trust me, I can't wait to rub it in the media's faces when their crowned prince, Giuliani, loses.
6 comments :
I believe the margin of victory will be important who ever wins Iowa and N. Hampshire. If Romney does indeed win by a wide margin that would put a hurt on Giuliani. The elections in those two states are not far off but far enough for things to change between now and them. I think Romney is the more attractive candidate out all of the republicans, however I entend to vote democratic no matter who is the republican nominee. The other thing that has to be watched is the candidates on the republican side who may drop out both after Iowa and N. Hampshire. When that happens, who will their votes go to for the remaining primary. I think that question has not been answered yet.
Don't throw Iowa into the Mitt Romney caolumn just yet. Staunchly conservative and independent, the Iowa voters are also very alert to late developements in the political landscape and can be very unpredictable in their eventual straw poll results. With Pat Robertson's endorsement now in hand, Giuliani will be a renewed force to reckon with in Iowa.
^I am far from an expert on evangelical voters, but I'm just not sure Robertson's endorsement is going to be a huge help to Giuliani among evangelicals.
Romney has spent a lot of time and money in Iowa and for that reason, I think he will win.
Speaking of endorsements, I'll make another comparison to the 2004 Democratic nomination process. We all remember Al Gore endorsing Dean and many thought that we be a huge advantage, but, again, we all see how that turned out.
^There aren't people out there hanging on every word that Al Gore says as there is for someone like Pat Robertson. Don't underestimate Robertson's endorsement. The conservative Republicans don't really see a candidate that they can realy feel good about. Their votes, at this time, are more for the lesser of evils than for the candidate themselves.
I doubt that John Kerry's endorsement would help anyone in this election than Al Gore's would in 2004. Al Gore wasn't the popular figure in 2004 that he is this year because of "An Inconvenient Truth". Gore's endorsement would go a lot farther in this election than it did in 2004.
^I completely agree with you about Al Gore being less popular then than now. But I still feel that the Robertson endorsement should be taken with a grain of salt. Romney and Huckabee have gotten a ton more key evangelical endorsements. The only reason the Robertson endorsement of Rudy is such big news and the others aren't is because Robertson endorsed a pro-choice, pro-gay rights guy. If Robertson had endorsed someone like Romney, not nearly as much attention would be paid to it. My point is that I just don't see Iowa caucus goers following Pat Robertson's every word. If anything, Robertson and his crazy remarks (like "9/11 is God's punishment for abortions") might prove to be a downside for Giuliani. That just makes me think, I'd love to be in a room when these two discuss 9/11. I wonder what Rudy had to do to get this endorsement....o well...I still don't think the Robertson endorsement is going to give Rudy any considerable boost.
^If anything, Robertson and his crazy remarks (like "9/11 is God's punishment for abortions") might prove to be a downside for Giuliani.
~
Probably so in the general election but you have to remember that in the deep south and the midwest, the Republican's core constituency is the evangelicals, and Robertson's assertions strike a tone with most of them. Pat Robertson's crazy ramblings may seem like a liability to a sane person such as you or I, but most of the evangelicals listen to these remarks and agree with them.
Post a Comment