Sad.
Over $50 million for a single delegate.
As the LA Times notes, that's the worst dollar for delegate record in American presidential history. The previous winner was John Connally who spent $11 million for a single delegate in 1980.
And at that rate Rudy would have needed $60 billion to win the nomination.
Consistent with my prediction of a Romney victory, John McCain has won the Florida Republican Primary.
Rudy is in third at the moment, and is giving an extraordinarily classy concession speech. He's expected to drop out as soon as tomorrow, and endorse McCain. His campaign has been such a disappointment.
Ron Paul is at three percent in the returns I'm watching. I guess the Revolution hasn't started quite yet, and maybe his supporters' habit of being as insulting and antagonistic as possible is being reflected in the returns.
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch released this yesterday:
Democrats:
Republicans:
There's a also a poll of state issues which was released today, including new approval and job performance numbers for Gov. Blagojevich.
On the pundit civil wars, Rush Limbaugh declared on the radio this week, "I'm here to tell you, if either of these two guys [Mr. McCain or Mike Huckabee] get the nomination, it's going to destroy the Republican Party. It's going to change it forever, be the end of it!"
This is absurd. George W. Bush destroyed the Republican Party, by which I mean he sundered it, broke its constituent pieces apart and set them against each other. He did this on spending, the size of government, war, the ability to prosecute war, immigration and other issues.
One, I don't think the party is distroyed, as it is splintered and changing.
Two, a number of Presidential candidates could have and should have repaired such splintering by campaigning on conservative ideas and issues. Instead, we have a festival of pandering. Neither McCain nor Romney nor Huckabee will destroy the Republican Party. But they each have declined the opportunity to undo the damage done by the last seven years of profligate waste in favor of promising that the federal government can and should solve everyone's problems for them. And so, even if one of them wins the White House, the Republican Party will continue to drift without an ideology, without any philosophical underpinning for a daily diet of "problem-solving" reactions by their administration, without a direction.
As disappointed as I am in the wasted opportunities of the present administration, I'm more disappointed in the campaigns and candidacies of McCain, Romney, Huckabee and Giuliani. Each clearly knows the failures of the past seven years, and each of them is hoping to exacerbate rather than remedy those failures.
Not that I read World Net Daily that often, but when I saw a link to Pat Buchanan's column on who is still a viable contender for the GOP nomination, I had to read. And I saw this really interesting nugget:
The front-runner since spring, Rudy Giuliani, is close to toast.
By dropping out of the Iowa Straw Poll in August, Rudy ceded Iowa and the cornucopia of publicity the winner receives. He is running far behind in Iowa, sinking in New Hampshire and certain to be skunked twice by Jan. 9. If so, he will lose Michigan, then South Carolina, where he is already far behind, and Florida, his firewall, where he is now slipping behind both Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney.
If Rudy is 0-4 going into Florida, he loses Florida. If he is 0-5 going into the Feb. 5 Super Tuesday states, his national lead will be ancient history. In some national polls, it has already vanished.
He says the same for Fred Thompson.
His best guess:
If Mitt Romney wins New Hampshire, drop the curtain for Rudy, Thompson and McCain – and they know it. For if Mitt wins in New Hampshire, none of the three beats him in Michigan, they will not beat him in South Carolina, and they will not beat him in Florida.
Can McCain, who kicked away what seemed a near-certain nomination by embracing the Bush-Kennedy amnesty and stiffing the Iowa Straw Poll, win? Not impossible. If he can win New Hampshire and make himself the national alternative to Huckabee, a desperate GOP establishment might rally to him for lack of an alternative.
But McCain's fate is not entirely in his own hands. He needs an assist. He needs Huckabee to defeat Romney in Iowa, where McCain will be waxed, then to come back and beat Romney himself in New Hampshire. Two losses by Romney in states where he has invested millions would put his campaign on life support.
But if Romney wins Iowa, he will win New Hampshire and Michigan, and go into South Carolina 3-0. If Romney wins the first two, he is almost surely the nominee. For that would eliminate Rudy, McCain and Thompson, leaving the only man able to stop him in South Carolina, a twice-defeated Mike Huckabee and his Christian prayer warriors.
I'm wondering what has caused Rudy's decline and why Thompson has never gotten off the ground. Because Rudy (Gordy) and Fred (Mark) have strong supporters here, I want to see what they think as well. And what do you see as Huckabee's role in all of this. If he wins Iowa, can he really be the nominee?
Discuss.
From Patrick Ruffini, who used to work for Rudy's campaign and is one of my favorite bloggers:
The fascinating thing is that the much-predicted social issue rebellion isn’t happening. Rudy had his huge social issues fight last spring. He was bruised from it, but by clearing the decks in Houston, he was able to recover. If the current shift from Rudy has any catalyzing event, it might have been the NYPD story. That makes sense on one level — voters can more readily dissect a personal narrative than a policy debate, even over partial-birth abortions. At the same time, Rudy’s slide has coincided with the broader Huckaboom, which has been especially punishing on the Mayor’s poll numbers. The likability-minded conservatives who kept Rudy at improbable highs for so long are finally jumping ship.
At this point, the Republican Presidential race is as fluid as any I've ever seen. I've been saying for months that only Romney and Giuliani has realisitic scenarios in which they could win the nomination. Now, I think that Huckabee and McCain can find a path to the nomination, as well - and McCain has been absolutely without hope for more than six months. I think Huckabee's boomlet has already subsided, and we'll start to see the effects of that in national polling shortly, but I can't be too sure - I never really saw the appeal of a such a big-government candidate anyway.
On February 5, there could still be four choices remaining (I think Thompson will drop out after not winning SC): Giuliani, McCain, Romney and Huckabee.
Hang on - if nothing else, it's going to be fun to watch.
Over the weekend, the Chicago Tribune released a poll of Presidential preferences for Illinois Republicans and Democrats.
Favorite son Barack Obama holds a 2-1 advantage over native daughter Hillary Clinton among Democrats looking to cast ballots in Illinois' Feb. 5 presidential primary, but voters are split between the two when asked who has the best chance of winning the White House, a new Tribune/WGN-TV poll shows.
Among Republican voters in the state, the poll shows that former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's surge of support in Iowa also has reached Illinois. He and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani are in a virtual dead heat atop the list of GOP contenders, though few of those polled said they believe Huckabee would win the general election.
Discuss.
From Reuters.com: President Bush to outline 5-year rate freeze. Essentially, the sources quoted in the Reuters story claim "the plan envisions covering subprime loans taken out between January 1, 2005, through the end of this past July, with rates that are due to reset over the coming 2-1/2 years." Later on, more specifics are offered:
Under the plan pitched by the ASF, distressed homeowners would be offered mortgage help according to their ability to pay.
Borrowers with strong credit would be encouraged to drop their existing loan and be shepherded to more affordable mortgages like those offered under the Federal Housing Administration. In August, Bush expanded that government program so that it could reach an additional 240,000 troubled borrowers next year.
A second class of borrowers who simply do not have the resources to make mortgage payments would return to the rental market.
A third group of borrowers who have shown that they are a reasonable credit risk but who could not afford their homes with higher rates would qualify for "fast-tracked" loan modification and a five-year interest rate freeze.
Other existing borrowers who have struggled to keep up their loan payments could still qualify for the freeze, but would face more scrutiny before receiving any loan modification.
I've said this before: why should the government be involved, at all, with protecting (or otherwise aiding) lenders or borrowers that, through their own willful actions, are in danger of defaulting? No one held a gun to a borrower's head, and forced them to sign an adjustable rate mortgage; no one held a gun to a lender's head, and forced them to lend money to a high-risk applicant.
The one line that absolutely kills me: "A second class of borrowers who simply do not have the resources to make mortgage payments would return to the rental market." Does that mean the plan will force both the lenders and the borrowers to convert the mortgaged property to a rental unit? Or force people to move out of the mortgaged property to a rental property? Or wave a magic wand and *poof* the mortgage is gone, no penalties, no worries, here's a listing of local rental units?
Seriously, if that group of borrowers can't afford the mortgages, why are they not renting already?
To me, this is a gigantic slap in the face of every responsible homeowner; the ones who had the ability and the foresight to plan ahead, to only take out as much money as they needed, to work hard to make their monthly payments. Now, Bush's plan is to reward irresponsible behavior: take out too much? didn't plan properly on ballooning payments? decided to buy that $2000 hi-def TV instead of putting that money towards your mortgage? Don't worry, we'll take care of you...
The other thing that galls me is this: what happens after the 5 years is up? Do the rates suddenly go up again? Do we go through another round of this? Or is it simply a matter of "That's the next guy's/gal's problem"?
One of the sidebars in the Reuter's article links to a "FactBox", a quick-hit of the major candidates stands on this "mortgage crisis". The talking points speak for themselves...
HG
Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform, on Rudy Giuliani:
In looking at the records of all the Republican candidates, yours clearly stands out. You cut the income tax, business taxes, sales taxes, property-related taxes, and nuisance taxes. You are the most successful tax cutter in modern New York history and, on balance, the most successful tax cutter in the Republican field today. If you are elected president, I will look forward to working with you to reduce and reform taxes, restore fiscal discipline, increase government transparency, and pursue pro-growth policies that will improve America’s competitiveness in the global economy.
Now that's what I'm looking for in a Presidential candidate.
From the press release (no link yet):
Lisle, IL – The Rudy Giuliani Presidential Committee today announced the endorsement of former Illinois Governor Jim Edgar. Edgar, who served two terms as Governor of Illinois, left the Governor’s Office with the highest approval ratings of any Illinois Governor in recent history.
“I believe Mayor Giuliani is the best candidate to help the Republican Party win the White House in 2008. The reasons are clear: Rudy is a leader with a proven track record. He offers successful executive experience. As Mayor, he cleaned up New York and his record as a fiscal conservative and crime fighter make him our best candidate to win in the general election,” said Governor Edgar. “I am proud to offer my endorsement for President to Mayor Rudy Giuliani.”
“As the Illinois primary gets closer, Republicans in the state continue to join Rudy’s team. We have a strong network in the state, which will only grow even stronger with the addition of Governor Edgar,” said Giuliani State Chairman Tom Cross.
Governor Edgar joins several respected Illinois Republican leaders who have endorsed Mayor Giuliani including Former Governor Jim Thompson, Former Attorney General Jim Ryan, and U.S. Congresswoman Judy Biggert.
This is, IMO, a huge endorsement for Rudy Giuliani in Illinois. Gov. Edgar is still far and away the most popular Republican here, and this state is going to be one of the handful of contests truly contested on February 5.
One of the reasons that Mitt Romney is leading in both IA and NH is that he's been advertising on television in both states for months, and for much of that time, he's been the only candidate on TV. Being a self-funder allows him to do that, which is fine, but it's worth keeping that in mind when considering why he's leading in those two states but can't break into double-digits nationally. I think Romney's leads in both states will be reduced or eliminated when the other candidates begin advertising, too.
Today, Rudy Giuliani went on the air with his first TV ad, airing in New Hampshire (but not Iowa, which should tell you something):
Discuss.
This AP story was making the rounds yesterday, and was emailed to me by the Rudy Giuliani campaign:
After nearly half the states hold nominating contests on Feb. 5, Giuliani, the former New York mayor, could hold a commanding lead in the delegate count.
Here's how.
_Giuliani has wide leads in bigger states with more delegates, such as Florida (57 delegates), California (173), New York (101), New Jersey (52) and Illinois (70). He's expected to capture Connecticut (30) and Delaware (18), too. He campaigned Monday in Missouri (58), another big prize whose senior senator, four-term Republican Kit Bond, recently endorsed Giuliani.
_Even where he doesn't win on Feb. 5, Giuliani could still come in second and win delegates. Big states in this category might include Georgia (72), Alabama (48) or Tennessee (55). Only a few — New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Delaware and Missouri among them — award delegates on a winner-take-all basis. Other winner-take-all states, Arizona (53) and Utah (36), are expected to go for John McCain and Mitt Romney, respectively.
_States voting after Feb. 5, including Maryland (37), Ohio (88) and Pennsylvania (74), also hold potential for Giuliani to roll up most or some of the delegates.
Giuliani has a good shot at winning an early state or two as well. He has gained ground on former Massachusetts Gov. Romney in New Hampshire (12 delegates), where Giuliani ranks second in polls, and has battled Thompson for the lead in South Carolina (24).
He is spending more time in New Hampshire and in recent weeks has been mailing fliers to voters in Iowa and New Hampshire. He's also run radio ads there.
But Giuliani's rivals say that if he fails to capture an early state his math won't add up. They argue a candidate just can't count on winning the later states without factoring in the winner of the early contests.
Whoever wins Iowa — and Romney has a double-digit lead there — will be viewed as the leader going into the next few contests, officials in other campaigns insist.
"People want to vote for a winner," says Carl Forti, political director of Romney's campaign. "And the winner is determined by who is on the front page of the papers and who is perceived as the front-runner after those early primaries."
This strategy makes me incredibly nervous. Yes, the primary calendar is compressed this year, but so is the news cycle (and the subsequent online contributions cycle). It may not take two weeks for the IA winner to capitalize in NH, SC, MI and elsewhere - it may take only a few days. I think Rudy can win by managing expectations about IA, and going for the win or close second in NH. I'm also hopeful that by February 5, there are at least two or three credible opponents left for Rudy, rather than just one.
Discuss.
The clear Republican front runner and perhaps the only party nominee who could beat Hillary Clinton in 2008, Giuliani makes the top of our list despite his unorthodox brand of conservatism that is anathema to many on the Christian Right. Before 9/11, a thrice-married New Yorker in favour of abortion, gun and gay rights would have struggled to survive the early stages of a Republican nomination battle despite his tax cutting and crime fighting credentials. But even many Christian conservatives who disagree with the former New York mayor on social issues now view national security as their number one priority.
Giuliani's performance after 9/11 made him an international figure and helped make a nation feel good about itself just after its darkest hour. But 9/11 is the centrepiece of the Giuliani campaign in more than just that respect - he is determined to confront America's enemies, including Iran, and has taken on an array of hawkish advisers. Meetings with Tony Blair and Gordon Brown while in London to receive an award from Margaret Thatcher underlined his global stature. All the stars are in alignment for a Democratic victory in 2008 but Giuliani has the potential to buck the historical trends and signal a dramatic shift in American conservatism by securing an unlikely win.
Sometimes the media uses "supports the War" as the equivalent of "conservative." While Rudy is my kind of conservative, I'm sure there are those who would take issue with labeling him as such - especially in the top slot. What's equally funny - Arnold Schwarzenegger is the 8th most influential US liberal. :-)
Fodder for discussion, anyway.
As a follow up to this post, I wanted to especially point out one of the more interesting fundraising disclosures I've ever seen:
Person |
Party | Contributed To | Date | Amount |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mr. James J. Liautaud 2212 Fox Drive Champaign, Illinois 61820 Chairman & C.E.O. @ Jimmy John'S |
 |
Rudy Giuliani for President in 2008 |
Aug 29, 2007 | $2,300 |
This is Jimmy John - a great guy, and the founder and CEO of Jimmy John's (the world's best sandwich shop, IMHO). As you can see, about a month ago, he gave the maximum contribution to Rudy Giuliani for President, but he's a delegate candidate for Mitt Romney for President, here in the 15th Congressional District.
UPDATE: Welcome, NRO's Campaign Spot readers (and a big "Thank you!" to Jim Geraghty for the link). While you're here, please take a look around - we're a mostly locally-focused community blog, but we do sometimes venture into national stories.
From the good people at Capital Fax Blog, we bring you this Rasmussen Reports poll of Illinois:
BUSH TOTALS: 31% good or excellent… 68% fair or poor… (32 and 67 in Rasmussen’s August poll)
BLAGOJEVICH TOTALS: 16% good or excellent… 83% fair or poor… (22 and 78 in Rasmussen’s August poll)
Those are terrible numbers for both the President and Governor, but much, much worse for the Governor. I don't know if it's possible to recover from numbers like that.
For some context, this is from November 2002, just as Blagojevich was winning election for the first time, and Ryan was just getting ready to leave office:
Arguably, there have been other defining moments in Ryan’s tumultuous four years as governor. But after that statement at the mansion, after Bauer was convicted, Ryan’s job approval ratings plummeted to historic lows, never to rebound. A proud man, Ryan chose not to run for re-election. In August, according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, his disapproval rating was 69 percent.
The results aren't exactly analagous, as the questions aren't worded the same way, but it's probably safe to say that Blagojevich's approval is in George Ryan territory.
One thing that I do know that if I were a Democratic candidate on the ballot in 2008, I'd be nervous about my opponent tying me to the Governor. I think we'll see lots of "Democrat X is close to Blago" and "Republican Y is close to Bush" attacks next year regardless.
There are also Presidential head-to-head matchups in Illinois (although there are no interparty results):
And:
Of course, Sen. Obama clobbers everyone in Illinois. There are some other issue-related questions in the poll, too, so read the whole thing.
This post at Ankle Biting Pundits sums up why it's so easy for me to support Rudy, and why I'm so perplexed that some Republicans have dug in so firmly against him:
I can’t say that I understand what seems to be the strategy of the Evangelical movement, or some of the reasons for their angst about the current crop of GOP Presidential candidates. A big article in today’s Washington Post discussed the problem.
I can certainly understand the opposition to Rudy Giuliani. The big issue, of course, is abortion. But I’ve said numerous times that the only real way in which the President, whomever it is, can impact the issue of abortion is through the appointment of Supreme Court judges. I could care less if Rudy supports abortion, or would pay for on for his daughter (which I think he’s said), if he were to appoint strict constructionist judges to the Supreme Court and the rest of the federal courts, wouldn’t that matter more than his personal views.
I mean, think about it - Ronald Reagan was pro-life, and it could be argued he set the movement back years by appointing Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O’Conner to the bench.
What do Rudy’s personal views matter if he gets the chance to replace John Paul Stevens with another Antonin Scalia? Wouldn’t that be the greatest victory the pro-life movement could get?
Of course the jury’s out on whether or not Giuliani will appoint those type of judges, but the pro-life movement sure as hell has a better chance of moving their cause forward with him than Hillary. And from a purely political standpoint, if the pro-life community helps him get elected, don’t you think he’ll “owe” them something in his first term (and be on his toes not to do things that anger them) if he wants to come back and ask for their votes for a 2nd term?
Read the whole thing. I know I've been bringing this up an awful lot recently, but I really just don't understand the strategy of Dobson and some other social conservative leaders.
Don't look now, but after a few weeks of a tightening race, Rudy Giuliani has bounced back to roughly a ten point lead over Fred Thompson in the Real Clear Politics Republican Presidential Primary polling averages.
Rudy also has regained the lead in the Rasmussen Daily Presidential Tracking poll, which Thompson led briefly, and to which some of his supporters were pointing as evidence of his strength among more regular GOP Primary voters. In fact, Rasmussen is the only poll I've seen that has ever shown Thompson in the lead nationally, and now they no longer do.
Standard disclaimers: Rudy's my preferred candidate at the moment, but it's early, polling is only polling, the elections are state-by-state, yada, yada. Discuss if you like.
Tommy Thompson, that is.
:-)
Yesterday, between 8:30 AM and 9:51 PM, the Rudy Giuliani campaign sent me 18 different emails, most of them relating to a debate that absolutley nobody noticed and that was viewed by precisely zero undecided voters. The other campaigns sent a similar deluge. Part of it comes because I've signed up for various email lists of various campaigns. Part of it is due to being a blogger.
And I'm not in a position to be giving advice to Presidential campaigns. I know all too well that I've got my hands full with one Congressional District. But if you're a campaign and you send someone 18 different emails in a single day, they're not going to read any of them - it's just too overwhelming, and your message gets lost - not just lost in the noise, but lost in your own noise.
Please - a little more selectivity would be most welcome, and would help you to deliver your message more effectively.
Last week, we discussed the threat made by leaders of socially conservative organizations to run a third-party pro-life candidate for President if the GOP nominates someone unacceptable to them. I questioned the wisdom of that strategy, arguing that supporting a third-party candidate is functionally equivalent to supporting the Democratic nominee, and would set back the pro-life movement decades.
Since then, I've had several people email me this Rasmussen poll:
If Rudy Giuliani wins the Republican nomination and a third party campaign is backed by Christian conservative leaders, 27% of Republican voters say they’d vote for the third party option rather than Giuliani. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that a three-way race with Hillary Clinton would end up with the former First Lady getting 46% of the vote, Giuliani with 30% and the third-party option picking up 14%.
Note that this is not 27 percent of pro-lifers, but 27 percent of all Republicans.
Glock21 pointed to the 2004 exit polls in our previous discussion, and I wanted to look at them for a bit of context, to see how many pro-life voters and how many Republicans voted for the Democratic nominee in 2000 and 2004. (These are exit polls, so take them with the same huge grain of salt with which you take all polling...)
In 2000, the Democratic nominee got the votes of eight percent of self-identified Republicans and 22 percent of people who agreed that "abortion should always be illegal."
In 2004, the Democratic nominee got the votes of six percent of self-identified Republicans and 22 percent of the people who agreed that "abortion should always be illegal."
I don't really know what conclusions to draw from this, but I do want to emphasize that pro-life voters aren't a monolithic GOP voting block, though sometimes it feels that way. I know there are a number of pro-life Catholics who are already enthusiastic supporters of Hillary Clinton, for example - they're my Mom and her family, and they will support Hillary over a catholic Rudy Giuliani, if that's the November matchup.
Regardless, I wanted to share the data, because I thought it was interesting. If that Rasmussen poll is correct, though, it's awfully clear that the person who would benefit most from a generic third-party anti-abortion candidate is the Democratic nominee, which is exactly my point from last week.
Also, Jim Geraghty at TNR's The Campaign Spot blog had this:
This strategist believed that if Rudy Giuliani gets the nomination, he could defuse a lot of the tension on this issue if he picked a staunch conservative with serious street cred in the pro-life community.
The strategist mentioned a conversation with a figure he described as ‘one of the largest Catholic pro-life donors in the country’. “He said, ‘I can’t support Rudy, and I won’t vote for him.’ I asked him, ‘What if he picks Rick Santorum as his running mate?’ Then he said, ‘well, that’s a different story!’”
“If a Rick Santorum or a Mike Huckabee goes to James Dobson and says, ‘look, before I accepted the offer to be his running mate, I looked this man in the eye. I sized him up, and I know he’ll be a help to us. He gets us. And if you sink him, you sink me,’ then how can he go on?”
Then, he noted, religious conservatives weren’t huge fans of George H. W. Bush… until he picked Dan Quayle as his running mate. He pointed out that Bush did himself a world of good not just when he picked Quayle, but when he took on the media’s criticism of Quayle. This strategist said he could easily see a similar scenario, where Giuliani picks a Santorum or Huckabee-type figure; the Katie Courics and Keith Olbermanns of the world rip the nominee, and Giuliani comes out swinging in defense of his pick.
And that's also an excellent point.
Please consider a donation to support this site:
Thank you to our generous supporters!
