Giuliani's Odds

I'm not sure if it's possible to sell short on Intrade, but if it is I think you'd have to consider Rudy Giuliani pretty seriously overvalued at these prices. He never seemed like a likely nominee to me for the obvious reasons, and his strategy of skipping all the early primary states was clearly a mistake. I suppose you could see Giuliani winning if Huckabee, McCain, and Romney all manage to stay in the field for a while, each drawing substantial support and letting Giuliani eke out a series of plurality wins but that sounds far-fetched to me.

Comments

I'm pretty sure you can't sell short on Intrade. However, if Guliani is overvalued, then that means that someone else is undervalued.

Turns out, it was McCain.

Posted by nick | January 4, 2008 11:16 AM

Yeah, of course you can sell short. That's how it works -- you agree to buy or sell a contract with somebody else. Giuliani's been overvalued for a long long time. That's why I'm holding on to my Huckabee stocks, even though he's up to 16% and probably won't win -- after NH and SC, Giuliani's will have lost at least 20 percentage points. And those will be distributed between McCain and Huck. I'll happily pick them up.

Posted by Ady Barkan | January 4, 2008 11:16 AM

and his strategy of skipping all the early primary states was clearly a mistake

I don't know how one can say this given that the time to test whether it has been a mistake hasn't even occurred yet. If Rudy loses all of the 2/5 primaries, then, yeah, it was a mistake. But how in the world can you say it is a mistake based on one caucus weeks before the 2/5 primary? I'm baffled.

Posted by Al | January 4, 2008 11:17 AM

"I'm not sure if it's possible to sell short on Intrade"

Of course it is. I've shorted Giuliani when he hit 40 a couple of times this cycle and made quick money.

I'm short Giuliani to win FL right now.

"I suppose you could see Giuliani winning if Huckabee, McCain, and Romney all manage to stay in the field for a while, each drawing substantial support and letting Giuliani eke out a series of plurality wins but that sounds far-fetched to me."

Giuliani wins if no one can stop Huck between now and 2/5, and a lonely party then turns to Rudy to do the job.

As one of The Corner guys pointed out a few weeks back, Rudy can only win if he ends up as the anti-Huck.

I'd put fair value on Giuliani at somewhere around 8, maybe slightly lower.

Posted by Petey | January 4, 2008 11:18 AM

You can sell short. I'm sold him short for a while at 29. I really thought his numbers were going to take a huge hit recently, and then I was going to start buying them back, but he's had little movement.

I'm still happy I bought McCain at 16.

Posted by Sam | January 4, 2008 11:19 AM

Well, I think that the two ideological groups with the most spare cash and willingness to spend on pure political enthusiasm it are the neocons and the libertarians.

Hence, both Giuliani and Ron Paul are heavily over-valued on Intrade.

Posted by RKU | January 4, 2008 11:20 AM

"As one of The Corner guys pointed out a few weeks back, Rudy can only win if he ends up as the anti-Huck."

Ramesh, wasn't it?

And didn't you even blog about that, Matthew?

Posted by Petey | January 4, 2008 11:20 AM

"That's why I'm holding on to my Huckabee stocks, even though he's up to 16% and probably won't win"

Beware. There's a fairly good chance today will end up being the brightest day in the entire Huck campaign, IMHO.

I actually sold my Huck today. I'd bought Huck and Brownback cheap last summer, figuring some Christian would make a splash in Iowa. Nice profit despite letting the Brownback expire at zero.

Posted by Petey | January 4, 2008 11:26 AM

Al, the problem for Giuliani is that Iowa Republicans are, well, Republicans. It just seems obvious that getting zero votes from a more-or-less randomly chosen group of Republicans is a discouraging event.

Posted by MattF | January 4, 2008 11:31 AM

I still can't quite understand Matt's visceral hatred for McCain. Don't most Democrats hate McCain the least among the GOP? I for one believe that all of his pandering to the right for the last two years is an act.

Posted by nick | January 4, 2008 11:32 AM

"I don't know how one can say this given that the time to test whether it has been a mistake hasn't even occurred yet."

Dude. Read your history books.

We've seen this precise movie before, right down to the NYC mayor deciding to skip the early primaries and make his stand in ... wait for it ... Florida!

Posted by Petey | January 4, 2008 11:35 AM

I still can't quite understand Matt's visceral hatred for McCain.

It's simple: neocons are much worse than social-cons. I'd rather have a president who opposed abortion, gay marriage, evolution, etc, than one who started another disastrous Mideast war that resulted in the deaths of a huge number of people and another strategic setback for the U.S.

Posted by Jim W | January 4, 2008 11:37 AM

I suppose you could see Giuliani winning if Huckabee, McCain, and Romney all manage to stay in the field for a while, each drawing substantial support and letting Giuliani eke out a series of plurality wins but that sounds far-fetched to me.

It's drawing for an inside straight. You can win that way, but good poker players advise against it.

Posted by Lynn | January 4, 2008 11:39 AM

MattY is looking at McCain's policies-- which are, to say the least, unattractive to anyone who thinks we should get out of Iraq. I have a suspicion that McCain's ultra-hawkishness is going to put a ceiling on his support, even among Republicans.

Posted by MattF | January 4, 2008 11:40 AM

It just seems obvious that getting zero votes from a more-or-less randomly chosen group of Republicans is a discouraging event.

Why would you think that campaigning is irrelevant? After all, Romney spent millions and millions of dollars in Iowa. Huck spent days and days campaigning there. All the other candidates put together massive GOTV operations. Rudy did none of the above. So why would anyone ever think that Rudy would get votes there when he never seriously campaigned there? How odd.

Posted by Al | January 4, 2008 11:41 AM

We've seen this precise movie before, right down to the NYC mayor deciding to skip the early primaries and make his stand in ... wait for it ... Florida!

Dude, among the myriad other problems with this analogy, you ain't even got the right party.

Posted by Al | January 4, 2008 11:42 AM

I suppose you could see Giuliani winning if Huckabee, McCain, and Romney all manage to stay in the field for a while, each drawing substantial support and letting Giuliani eke out a series of plurality wins but that sounds far-fetched to me.

I, for one, don't think it's that far-fetched. Giuliani was the real winner last night that no one is talking about. McCain will probably win NH, but one could still see Romney's money and organization winning in Michigan. South Carolina will probably be a muddle among Huckabee, McCain, and even Thompson, which leaves Florida wide open for Giuliani. He then has the money and groundwork for Feb. 5 in place.

That said, 29 is way overvalued.

Posted by right | January 4, 2008 11:44 AM

Writing off Rudy is crazy. McCain won't be pallatable to the FR crowd, ever, and Thompson is done. This thing really will come down to Huckabee (after he wins SC) and Rudy in Florida, and than on Feb 5. I'm buying lots of Rudy right now.

Posted by JFD | January 4, 2008 11:46 AM

So why would anyone ever think that Rudy would get votes there when he never seriously campaigned there?

The "never campaigned" argument only works to some extent. It would explain a modestly weaker showing, but not the absolutely miniscule level of support he actually received.

After all, Rudy's pre-primary profile was already quite high; it's not as though a lack of campaigning means a necessary lack of familiarity amongst the voters. So, it should be a bit alarming for the Rudy people for him to finish at 4%, looking so far up at Fred Thompson, who largely slept in himself.

Posted by Brad L | January 4, 2008 11:48 AM

The optics resulting from last night are very poor for Rudy, and optics are literally all he's got. But it's true that it's too soon to write him off.

Posted by hum | January 4, 2008 11:54 AM

Rudy made the right decision to skip Iowa; why let a few farm-running bozos decide the nominees for the parts of the country - the East and West coasts - who actually make the vast, vast majority of our nation's wealth? The answer of course is that they shouldn't.

Wait until after SC when The choice is between a Huckabee that has won SC and IA and McCain who who NH. The establishment will throw their lot in with Rudy and this will be over after Feb 5.

The likeliest general election matchup is still Clinton-Giulani. Finally, no more hick presidents.

Posted by JFD | January 4, 2008 11:54 AM

Now this is pretty funny:

Iowa Caucus Degenerates into Confusing Night of Mixed Sports Metaphors; Commentators Undecided Whether Obama’s Victory is a Slam Dunk, a Ground Rule Double or an Opening Round of 69

Finishing Second to Surprise Victor Mike Huckabee, a Shaken Romney Compounds Humiliation with the One Thing Worse than a Bad Sports Metaphor – a Dumb Sports Metaphor: “It’s the first inning of a fifty inning game.”

http://www.sportsmansdaily.com/Iowa_Caucus_000.html

Posted by Ed Charles | January 4, 2008 11:55 AM

his strategy of skipping all the early primary states was clearly a mistake.

All Giuliani could get out of Iowa is bad press. How many delegates did he forgo? One? Rudy is going to be attacked, deservedly, from every angle. He wants it to be when he is winning, not when he is losing. Getting kicked while down in Iowa would hurt him more than anything he could do there would help.

I suppose you could see Giuliani winning if Huckabee, McCain, and Romney all manage to stay in the field for a while,

A while? Fifteen more days is what he's counting on. And if McCain or Romney drop right before Florida, that will only help him. While I don't like Rudy, his strategy has been perfect. If it doesn't work, it's because he had no chance.

Posted by Njorl | January 4, 2008 11:57 AM

I think right is right. It was actually a good night for Rudy, given his tactical decision not to contest. Romney - Rudy's biggest challenger - is dead. And Fred - Huck's biggest challenger - is still living. And McCain didn't do all that well. What's the problem for Rudy???

Posted by Al | January 4, 2008 11:59 AM

Another advantage for Rudy:

When he is inevitably called on to save the party from that smirking hick Mike Huckabee, the Dobson's of the world won't be able to get away with threatening to run a third party candidate. They refuse to endorse Huck, a guy who should be their wet dream. Opposing Rudy after will make them appaer to be insatisfiable.

This whole thing was as great as Rudy could have asked for. I for one am looking forward to the blood that will be spilled between Rudy-Hillary.

Posted by JFD | January 4, 2008 12:02 PM

"After all, Rudy's pre-primary profile was already quite high; it's not as though a lack of campaigning means a necessary lack of familiarity amongst the voters. So, it should be a bit alarming for the Rudy people for him to finish at 4%, looking so far up at Fred Thompson, who largely slept in himself."-Posted by Brad L

If it were a primary, that would be true. Caucuses are different. You need dedicated supporters to round up your followers and shame them into sticking with you if the going gets bad. You need 15% in an individual caucus, or your voters are taken from you there. Name recognition might get you 15% of the vote, but without dedicated followers, you lose a lot of that in caucussing.

Posted by Njorl | January 4, 2008 12:06 PM

Just for the record, Al, Rudy had 42 campaign events in Iowa, mostly before mid-August.

He may not have campaigned there as much as others did, but it appears that he put in a fair amount of time early, then quit rather than compete further in Iowa and still lose.

Dunno why conceding a losing position early, and not sticking around, should be regarded as anything but a loss.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | January 4, 2008 12:08 PM

What's the problem for Rudy???

Other than the fact that he's a scandal-ridden frothing nutjob with no actual credibility on the single issue he's running on, nothing.

But who knows, political machinations may indeed lead to his being the only alternative to the unthinkable Huckabee.

Posted by hum | January 4, 2008 12:09 PM

I agree that Rudy is still in this. But I also think Romney's not dead either.

Posted by Bill | January 4, 2008 12:13 PM

Njorl:
The process you described is for the Democratic caucus. It's not the same with the Republican caucus.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | January 4, 2008 12:13 PM

"You need 15% in an individual caucus, or your voters are taken from you there."

Is that true in the Republican caucuses? I thought they used a straight-up voting arrangement.

Posted by Leo | January 4, 2008 12:14 PM

Matt,

I'm curious who you think could have sold any Rudy shares if short selling weren't allowed.

For those that did sell short, what type of capital did you have to put up to do the trade? I assume intrade doesn't allow any leveraging through margin accounts or anything like that.

Also, I've seen comments to intrade posts that suggest short selling Ron Paul is a risk free investment. It's simply not the case. There may be very little market risk involved in shorting Ron Paul but there are other significant risks (ie credit, legal).

Posted by Mark | January 4, 2008 12:15 PM

"What's the problem for Rudy???"

The problem is that we've now had almost 40 years of the open primary system, and in all that time, no one in either party has even come close to winning the nomination after sitting out the early contests.

When Rudy finally engages, he's going to be up against multiple other candidates that have the glow of wins to light them up. Winning contests makes the winners brighter and bigger. Even coming in second can make candidates seem bigger in some cases.

Even in nomination races where the winner has emerged late, they have always run hard early, taken their lumps, and thus been able to re-calibrate for the later contests.

No one can predict the future with absolute certainty, and the Huck factor makes your race weird, but there's are perfectly good reasons why Rudy's strategy seems highly implausible.

Posted by Petey | January 4, 2008 12:18 PM

The problem is that we've now had almost 40 years of the open primary system, and in all that time, no one in either party has even come close to winning the nomination after sitting out the early contests.

The 2/5 primaries are "early contests".

Posted by Al | January 4, 2008 12:26 PM

Oh lord.

Anyone saying that yesterday was a good day for Giuliani is totally nuts. The Thompson comparison is apt. Giuliani was higher profile than Thompson, seen as a more likely winner of the nomination, put in the same effort as Thompson in Iowa, and he barely got a quarter of Thompson's votes. Giuliani barely got a third of the votes of a crazy fringe candidate who no one ever believed had a real chance to win. Giuliani is toast unless McCain and Romney die on the campaign trail before Giuliani pulls out, leaving Giuliani as the anti-Huckster candidate.

Thompson coming in third was similarly bad for McCain, and the analysis saying that McCain was the big winner yesterday is just bizarre--losing to "none of the above" is never good in an early primary, and Thompson's more or less regained that label at this point. McCain's in better shape than Giuliani, seemingly being the one getting the crazy militarist vote now that Giuliani's made a complete embarrassment of himself, but unless Romney falters or Huckabee does well enough early on to scare McCain and Romney into some sort of deal where Romney endorses McCain in exchange for a VP or Secretary of State slot, McCain ain't going anywhere.

Posted by R Johnston | January 4, 2008 12:29 PM

Dunno why conceding a losing position early, and not sticking around, should be regarded as anything but a loss.

Well, sure it's a loss. But it's not the same kind of loss as Romney had - where you put in a great deal of time, money and effort and still lose. Same with McCain coming in 4th. They both lost, and lost bigger.

So, relative to Huckabee, it was not a good night for Rudy. But relative to Romney and McCain, it probably was.

Posted by Al | January 4, 2008 12:31 PM

but that sounds far-fetched to me.

9/11 changed everything. So even something far-fetched is possible now. I'm sure Rudy will say this sometime today right after he mentions how losing in Iowa is nothing compared to 9/11. Or something.

9/11.

Posted by jim | January 4, 2008 12:34 PM

put in the same effort as Thompson in Iowa

That's not even close to correct.

Posted by Al | January 4, 2008 12:34 PM

"The 2/5 primaries are "early contests"

I appreciate your devotion to your guy, but that doesn't even make sense.

2/5 is the entree, not the appetizer.

Posted by Petey | January 4, 2008 12:36 PM

I think Petey's exactly right about the likely impact of Giuliani badly losing primary after primary after primary over the next few weeks, while the resulting media coverage simultaneously causes his national numbers to plummet.

Can anyone think of the last candidate in either party who's generally come in 3th or worse in all of the first 4-5 states, yet still managed a win? I can't.

And the Fuhrer-Bunker mentality of all these Giuliani-bots touting Rudy!'s outstanding current strategic position does tend to remind me of all the Ron Paul fanatics. Note my earlier comment above.

That said, given the general weakness of the field, I'm not saying Giuliani is a total goner, but I'd probably put him down at 4th or 5th most likely right now, maybe at under 10% or so.

Since he'd always seemed like being by far the worst/most dangerous of the candidates, that suits me fine.

Posted by RKU | January 4, 2008 12:41 PM

Ah hell, why not just go crazy and say Giuliani's done for? There, I feel better already. Worst case scenario-I'm wrong. I guess that's a pretty bad scenario actually, so let's hope I'm right.

Posted by gerontion | January 4, 2008 12:47 PM

I'd rather have a president who opposed abortion, gay marriage, evolution, etc, than one who started another disastrous Mideast war that resulted in the deaths of a huge number of people and another strategic setback for the U.S.

And the funny part is, with McCain, you'd still have two out of the first three. And unlike Thompson or Romney's "Road to Damascus" moment, McCain has been anti-choice for a long time. Just because some self-identified progressives are pig-ignorant or engaging in desperate projection doesn't turn McCain into a closet liberal. Vote John "Military Commissions Act" McCain act if the only thing you dislike about the Republican right wing is fundamentalist Christian rhetoric.

Posted by mds | January 4, 2008 12:50 PM

9/11 changed everything. So even something far-fetched is possible now. I'm sure Rudy will say this sometime today right after he mentions how losing in Iowa is nothing compared to 9/11. Or something.

9/11.

Posted by jim

As always, Rudy proves that self-parody is better than parody.

Rudy Giuliani, speaking about his sixth place finish in Iowa yesterday:

"None of this worries me -- Sept. 11, there were times I was worried."

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2008/01/rudy_invokes_911_to_deflect_questions_about_iowa_loss.php

Posted by Jeff S. | January 4, 2008 12:51 PM

The "win for Giuliani" stuff is contrarian inside baseball on steroids. It makes sense to remind everyone that one primary doesn't win an election, but puffing 4% up into a win is ludicrous.

Giuliani's reptilian qualities should make him unelectable. One of these days he's going to slip and swallow a journalist or voter whole, and that will be the end of his campaign. Better a hick than a NYC sewer alligator installed by Jeb Bush.

Posted by John Emerson | January 4, 2008 12:51 PM

Why should he be worried? It's not like he'll be executed if he doesn't get the nomination.

Posted by gerontion | January 4, 2008 12:53 PM

I appreciate your devotion to your guy, but that doesn't even make sense.

2/5 is the entree, not the appetizer.

Just because they made the appetizer so large it seems like an entree doesn't actually make it the entree.

I understand your idea that a string of defeats might give other candidates momentum. But you are seriously working off of an outdated paradigm. There isn't time to build momentum anymore. The old days where you could take Iowa momentum and have weeks to campaign in NH, and then take NH momentum and have weeks to campaign in the next state, and then have weeks to the next state - those days are gone. Nobody's even going to remember Iowa come a week from today. Huck's "momentum" won't even last a week.

Posted by Al | January 4, 2008 1:01 PM

I'm not convinced it makes sense to contrast Rudy with a "hick." Rudy's a hick himself in a way -- provincial, and a Philistine.

Posted by hum | January 4, 2008 1:01 PM

"The problem is that we've now had almost 40 years of the open primary system, and in all that time, no one in either party has even come close to winning the nomination after sitting out the early contests."

That's 6 contested Republican primaries (starting in 1976), and 8 contested Democratic ones (starting in 1972). Some of those were really 2-man races, which necessitate running in every state. That's a small sample size on which to base projections, particularly when so few people have tried it. How many? One? None?

Posted by Njorl | January 4, 2008 1:06 PM

I understand your idea that a string of defeats might give other candidates momentum. But you are seriously working off of an outdated paradigm. There isn't time to build momentum anymore. The old days where you could take Iowa momentum and have weeks to campaign in NH, and then take NH momentum and have weeks to campaign in the next state, and then have weeks to the next state - those days are gone. Nobody's even going to remember Iowa come a week from today. Huck's "momentum" won't even last a week.

Well, here we have an empirically testable claim from the wise old Al himself. Let's see what happens, eh? if Huckabee does keep running along, I think we should call it "Homentum."

Posted by gerontion | January 4, 2008 1:06 PM

I think Rudy's gambit was betting on Huck and Romney fighting to a near-draw in Iowa, which would still damage Romney (not as much as this result does) and boost Huckabee, but as it stands now Huckabee becomes the front-runner and there's really only room for one of Rudy, Mitt, McCain, and Thompson in the race instead of two of them.

One of McCain or Romney is dead meat after Michigan for sure, and possibly as early as the day after New Hampshire if results there are sufficiently conclusive. The MSM is fellating McCain, and if he had gotten the 18% Tweety predicted it would have been one of the stories of the night, but that's not what happened. McCain has little cash on hand, and finished behind Thompson and barely ahead of Ron Paul in Iowa.

Thompson is probably holding out for South Carolina. That's good territory for Huck for sure, but they also have a disciplined party apparatus there. If he can't slow Huck down there, the pressure will be on him to endorse whichever of McCain or Romney remains.

Rudy has committed to Florida as his last stand. It's probably too late to do much in NH beyond what he's done, but he might want to step up some in Michigan to muddy the waters, something to convince Floridians he's viable.

Posted by Answer Guy | January 4, 2008 1:07 PM

"Huck's "momentum" won't even last a week."

Huck's not going to be your problem, unless you are very, very lucky.

-----

Maybe you're right, Al. I see Giuliani as being easy to beat in the general, so I've got no political problem with it. But it just doesn't conform to my understanding of how nomination mechanics can realistically operate.

Every so often, you get a Goldwater or a Golden State Warriors to upset the odds. I'd just be very surprised.

Posted by Petey | January 4, 2008 1:12 PM

but as it stands now Huckabee becomes the front-runner

I understand where this is coming from, but, really, in how many states out there will there be fully 60% of voters that are born-again Christians/evangelicals? Certainly not FL, NY, NJ, CT, CA... Where is Huckabee going to get all these voters to make him the front-runner?

Posted by Al | January 4, 2008 1:15 PM

The voters, in Iowa and elsewhere, are players in this, but not the most important players. The party machine, the Republican money, and most of the media will not accept Huckabee, and they're still deciding whom to support. We're not really talking about winning or losing primary elections -- the primaries are just part of the mix. Giuliani just has to maintain very minimal plausibility and hope that his establishment opponents somehow fizzle.

But spinning 4% into a victory is stupid. We're talking about Giuliani's hopes for a brokered convention, basically.

I understand where this is coming from, but, really, in how many states out there will there be fully 60% of voters that are born-again Christians/evangelicals? Certainly not FL, NY, NJ, CT, CA

Four of those five are states the Republicans are sure to lose. An odd way for a party to to select a candidate.

It's been noted that the more people know about Giuliani the less they like him. That would be a weakness in the general.

Posted by John Emerson | January 4, 2008 1:25 PM

I understand where this is coming from, but, really, in how many states out there will there be fully 60% of voters that are born-again Christians/evangelicals? Certainly not FL, NY, NJ, CT, CA... Where is Huckabee going to get all these voters to make him the front-runner?

Most Southern and quasi-Southern states.

They're a big enough share (nowhere 60%, but a substantial faction nonetheless) of the GOP primary electorate even in many non-Southern states like Ohio, Colorado, and Oregon.

They're not anything like 60% of the Florida GOP primary electorate but they could be enough to beat Rudy if he has to fight other candidates for the non-Huckabee vote.

Posted by Answer Guy | January 4, 2008 1:25 PM

"It's been noted that the more people know about Giuliani the less they like him. That would be a weakness in the general."

But it explains why he wants to stay under the radar as long as possible.

-----

The Giuliani campaign may be a bust, but I'll always appreciate it for their YouTube debate ad where Giuliani is fighting King Kong.

I was genuinely laughing with Giuliani on that one, not at him.

-----

"The voters, in Iowa and elsewhere, are players in this, but not the most important players. The party machine, the Republican money, and most of the media will not accept Huckabee, and they're still deciding whom to support."

Emerson understands the Huck dynamics.

Posted by Petey | January 4, 2008 1:29 PM

most of the media will not accept Huckabee

This is badly wrong. The media love Huckabee. Silver-tongued, plays guitar, conforms to their preconcieved notion of what a Republican should be (religious nutcase), etc. And the best part is that he'd be the easiest mark for the Democrats to defeat in the fall. So, let's see, makes the media's lives more fun and still easily elects a Democrat - he's the perfect media candidate. Why do you think they've been giving him an extraordinarily easy time so far?

Posted by Al | January 4, 2008 1:39 PM

The media love Huckabee..... Why do you think they've been giving him an extraordinarily easy time so far?

I had forgotten that a flat-earther was in the house. Damn that Liberal Media!

Huckabee offered the media boredom relief, and was thought of as a harmless fringe candidate. Let's see how much longer his media honeymoon lasts.

Posted by John Emerson | January 4, 2008 1:59 PM

I understand where this is coming from, but, really, in how many states out there will there be fully 60% of voters that are born-again Christians/evangelicals? Certainly not FL, NY, NJ, CT, CA... Where is Huckabee going to get all these voters to make him the front-runner?

It's very important to distinguish between the *state* and the Republican primary electorate.

Consider gigantic California, solidly Democratic and also solidly secular. But the Republican primary vote is actually strongly Christian Right (though not nearly so much so as the South) and even before Iowa, one of the major state polls showed Huckabee about to pass Giuliani, with Romney and everyone else down at something like 7%.

Also, California is unbelievable expensive, and you need to spend around $40M on TV to have a big impact. Since no one will probably spend even 10% of that, they will effectively be no paid advertising in the campaign.

So if Huckabee starts off (say) 30 points ahead of (say) Romney, I can't see why he won't end up winning the state in a landslide, and capturing its huge number of delegates.

Posted by RKU | January 4, 2008 2:01 PM

But spinning 4% into a victory is stupid. We're talking about Giuliani's hopes for a brokered convention, basically.

It's not the 4% that's a victory; it's Romney's decisive loss and McCain failing to achieve 3rd place.

If Giuliani can win Florida it's plausible that he can generate enough momentum to take California, New York, New Jersey, etc., on 2/5 and lock up the nomination. A brokered convention is still just a distant possibility.

Posted by right | January 4, 2008 2:03 PM

Matt's question shows that he has no idea how the intrade market operates.

I notice that hasn't stopped him from criticizing it on his blog, though.

Posted by ed | January 4, 2008 2:03 PM

The Republican coalition is being dissected into its elements. Huckabee isn't a low-tax guy. Paul is an anti-authoritarian non-imperialist. Hunter is an ultra-right bigot. Altogether they got 45% in Iowa.

On the other hand, Giuliani is an authoritarian anti-tax imperialist, but was socially liberal. Romney was once socially liberal too. McCain is hated by the Christianists because of something he said 8 years ago.

This leaves Thompson, who's the perfect candidate except that he's lazy and brain-dead. 14% of the Republicans are cool with that.

Posted by John Emerson | January 4, 2008 2:10 PM

"Right" at 2:03 is way too inside baseball again. Dodging a bullet and staying barely alive is not a victory unless it had been concluded that Giuliani was completely dead.

The rest of the comment is pure, wishful ex recto conjecture. Even the Florida win isn't as much of a sure thing as people are claiming.

I'm willing to concede that Giuliani isn't completely dead yet, because many of the kingmakers like him, but even the most cynical republicans know that a candidate has to show some vote-getting ability.

That's how you play the game. Giuliani was in danger of being declared dead, so his supporters had to show that he wasn't dead. But "not quite dead yet" is such bad spin that it's not much better than "dead". So they had to pump up "still leaves a breath on the mirror" into "ready to play in the Super Bowl".

I'll be happy to see the last of the sewer alligator.

Posted by John Emerson | January 4, 2008 2:22 PM

There haven't been any FL polls in weeks, but I bet Rudy is no longer leading.

South Carolina is going to be very interesting, likely matching up McCain with momentum out of NH and Huck with momentum out of IA.

Rudy is never going to have any of the Big Mo, which is hugely important in the primaries. Romney may get some if he can still pull out Michigan, but if he loses NH, it will be tough.

There are lots of evangelicals in the GOP primary is just about every non-Northeastern state, especially when they vote as a bloc and the other candidates split the rest of the vote. Al needs to find some GOP sites to troll, where he could learn more about his own party.

I'm short Rudy for the nomination and for FL, long on Huck a few places and McCain a few places but ready to sell the long positions if things look like they may change.

I thought shorting Rudy would have paid off months ago, but I've had to sit on those positions longer than I had hoped. He's finally cratering now, though.

Posted by bob | January 4, 2008 2:46 PM

It's not the 4% that's a victory; it's Romney's decisive loss and McCain failing to achieve 3rd place.

Those are small victories in the face of:
a. The 4% showing, less than half Ron Paul's total and less than a third of Fred Thompson's.
b. Huckabee emerging as an umabiguous frontrunner; if he doesn't stumble badly in New Hampshire and Michigan, it's likely going to take the money Establishment uniting behind one candidate in a bitter fight to stop him from the nomination.

Posted by Answer Guy | January 4, 2008 3:14 PM

This is badly wrong. The media love Huckabee. Silver-tongued, plays guitar, conforms to their preconcieved notion of what a Republican should be (religious nutcase), etc.
Posted by Al

Huckabee won almost as much as the next two Republican candidates combined. Al, I think you have to face (pardon the expression) an inconvenient truth: Huckabee conforms to what a Republican is.

Posted by Cyrus | January 4, 2008 4:02 PM

Holding out for a contested convention

The pressure is on to withdraw from the race as soon as it becomes clear that you can't win, only if we're dealing with the usual situation of an uncontested convention, one in which a single candidate has enough votes for a first-ballot win locked up well before the convention.

But as long as a contested convention seems at all possible, the pressure is reversed, and there is an incentive to stay in through to the convention, even for candidates who stand no chance of amassing the votes to win on the first ballot. Such a convention isn't, by definition, going to give the nomination to anyone on the first ballot, and will have to wind up going with someone who didn't get enough votes to lock on the first. Even if it's unlikely that you'll wind up with more than 50 or so delegates, that's still a stake, you still get a place at the table, and you still might get the nod on the 58th ballot, after the front-runners have killed each other off.

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. The longer a contested convention seems possible, the longer that more candidates will stay in the contest. And the more candidates who stay longer, the longer a contested convention remains possible. The front-loading this year may get this process kick-started, and, for the Republicans, the deep ideological divisions may keep the process open clear through to a contested convention. We'll know by the end of February. Curious that the end of February is when Bloomberg's people say he'll make his decision on running...

Posted by Glen Tomkins | January 5, 2008 12:41 AM

The Republican Party apparatus are going to do anything in their power to prevent a contested convention. Huckabee supporters are already going to be bitter enough if the party brass sabotages his chances by forcing a one-on-one war in later primaries. If those supporters come into Minneapolis with the delegate lead and have to watch the nomination being "taken away from him" at the convention....look out.

Posted by Answer Guy | January 5, 2008 11:41 AM