Podhoretz fils on Rudy Giuliani finishing behind Ron Paul in Iowa: "The result in Iowa could not have been better for Giuliani tactically."
« Youth Decay | Main | Embedding! »
The Lesser Pod
05 Jan 2008 11:02 am
Comments (24)
Perhaps they think that elections work like golf scores...
I also like David Frum's take on this:
"My man Rudy Giuliani got smoked in the Republican Iowa caucuses: 4% of the vote, nowhere.
"Yet as the smoke clears, it’s going to become apparent that Rudy was the night’s big winner. Here’s why."
"The night's big winner" is rich.
That's silly! Getting 4% in Iowa for a sixth place showing isn't so hot for Giuliani.
On the other hand, if he'd gotten 0.1% and finished behind Alan Keyes, he'd be in MUCH better shape...
Back in the real world we know the big GOP winner in Iowa was McCain.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/us/politics/05repubs.html?hp
Right on schedule I might add, the day before Father Tim has Saint John on the show.
It must be particularly galling for movement conservatives to have The Party hijacked simultaneously by the Christinists and the MSM.
Even though I wasn't on the ballot, and am, in fact, too young to make a presidential bid, my election prospects couldn't look any better. My outstanding showing in Iowa (I came in eighth) proves that I am an unstoppable juggernaut destined to be catapulted into the Oval Office.
Jpod's point isn't that Rudy's showing in Iowa was good, but that his main rivals' (McCain, Romney, Fred) showings were poor enough that the race will still be wide open on 2/5, when Rudy plans his big offensive. As far as this goes, it makes sense: it's unlikely Huckabee will win in New Hampshire, so you won't have any other candidate steamrolling into Super Tuesday with the momentum from winning in both Iowa and New Hampshire. The only potential flaw here is if it turns out that Huckabee remains a viable rival going into 2/5.
The only potential flaw here is if it turns out that Huckabee remains a viable rival going into 2/5.
And that's the proverbial "exception" that swallows the "rule" found in the rest of Podhoretz' and your analysis.
Almost no result from New Hampshire that doesn't involve Rudy doing very well could be good news for him.
* If McCain wins big, he's suddenly the anti-Huckabee the establishment wants. Freeperville doesn't like him either, but don't think they don't know he polls best of anyone in the GOP field against the Dems.
* If Romney wins big, it repairs much of the damage Iowa wrought -- just in time for Michigan.
* Huckabee doesn't even have to win. If he gets a big bounce from Iowa, and contends, the GOP brass goes into full-blown panic. If they can't stop the tide in New Hampshire, one of the least fundie-friendly states in the entire Union, in a high-turnout open primary no less, where can they?
Rudy needs an inconclusive result here, where he's not humiliated, where no one else breaks away from the pack, and where the Huckabee train loses a lot of momentum. It's a possible result but almost *anything* else does further damage to his campaign.
this just goes to show the bigger picture about neocon "logic." down is up.
I suppose the MSM is really eager to keep McCain viable, but 4th place, behind a moribund Fred Thompson campaign and barely ahead of Ron Paul, is *not* a strong finish.
New Hampshire is all but a must win for him. He'd better hope that there are a lot of independents who like the idea of a open ended war in the Mideast, because otherwise Ron Paul, plus Obama on the other side of the ledger, will get a lot of the independent votes McCain needs in the Granite State.
If Giuliani had gotten, say, 10 percent, then John P. Normanson might have a point. But Giuliani was in Iowa more frequently than Paul and almost as frequently as McCain, and yet he got 1/4 of the votes that McCain got and about 1/3 - 1/2 of what Paul got.
Giuliani was in Gravel territory, in other words. The point of "skipping" Iowa was not, presumably, to come in last.
"If Romney wins big, it repairs much of the damage Iowa wrought"
Romney's more deeply wounded than that. He lost after pouring money into Iowa, because he ran as someone he is not. That leaves a big sting, and it may be too late to run as the real him. To the extent that Romney was Rudy's biggest rival nationally, that's good news for Rudy.
A McCain win in NH, even with the press's adulation for him, will not be enough to erase the animosity he has built up in the GOP base with his "maverick" act. Since Rudy is the only other Republican who polls well against Dems, that leaves him well-positioned for 2/5.
Podhoretz fils on Rudy Giuliani finishing behind Ron Paul in Iowa: "The result in Iowa could not have been better for Giuliani tactically."
*********************
Giuliani needed Huckabee to cripple Romney. So far so good. Maybe Podhoretz is counting on Paul to cripple Huckabee or McCain at some point in the future?
That leaves a big sting, and it may be too late [for Romney] to run as the real him
The deeper problem is that there isn't any "real him," as far as I can tell.
These Rudy gyrations are entertaining, I must say ... god, I need to get out more.
Re Podhoretz fils
Yes, yes, black is really white if one looks at it long enough.
"The deeper problem is that there isn't any "real him," as far as I can tell."
Sure there is. It's the Harvard MBA/LLB. It's the guy that built up Bain Capital into a thriving venture capital and private equity company, and helped build a lot of successful businesses and create tens of thousands of jobs along the way. It's the guy who turned around the SLC Olympics. It's the guy who got elected governor in the bluest state in the union. It's the guy who made his own money, so he's been untainted by the payola scandals that darken the pasts of Huckabee, Rudy, and McCain. It's the guy who is still married to his first wife, and whose kids like him.
We're in Monty Python Black Knight territory with Giuliani, aren't we?
Well, if the "real Romney" is actually the guy who won the governorship in MA (and Matt's own vote!) partly by claiming he was "more pro-Gay Rights than Teddy Kennedy" and similar things, I suggest that Mitt keep that fellow very, very well hidden during a Republican Party primary....
Perhaps.
Perhaps the strategic goal is to make a racket raising money from silly rich donors and siphoning it through some consulting agreements etc. There has to be some rationale to do so even after some well-expected debacles at the polls.
For that you need a "grand strategy" that postpones the date of self-defined reckoning as much as possible. Guliani as a big city candidate has an excuse for not campaigning in rural Iowa, and apparently he managed to concoct some excuse for New Hampshire -- that required some dexterity. So at this point, as the results from Iowa are irrelevant, any result is "perfect".
One exception could be if it looked that Guliani wasted an opportunity to get a good position in Iowa, and THAT did not happen for sure.
Sure there is. It's the Harvard MBA/LLB. It's the guy that built up Bain Capital into a thriving venture capital and private equity company, and helped build a lot of successful businesses and create tens of thousands of jobs along the way. It's the guy who turned around the SLC Olympics.
So what you're saying is that the "real him" is a person who has no interest and no business in political policy and leadership. That's fine, he just shouldn't be connected to electoral politics.
Your professional resume is, like your college degree, something that "gets your foot in the door" when it comes to electoral politics. However, now that he's running for political office, voters are interested in his political record and political stances.
The "real Romney" is a nice, successful Mormon businessman. That's great. He can go back to doing that. It's not that Republican primary voters are looking for something different, it's that Romney doesn't offer anything more than that; they want a political/ideological leader, not a "management consultant in chief." Save him for the "reinventing government" blue-ribbon commission.
Fred says: "It's the guy who turned around the SLC Olympics. "
Romney's ads stress this far too much. Who really gives a fat flying fuck about the Winter Olympics these days? So he "turned around" a made-for-TV event that's been run perfectly well in places like Sarajevo in the past. Whoop-ti-do.
I was pretty skeptical about this analysis until I thought about the fact that it comes down to, "All the other candidates may flail and fail for one reason or another, and then who else can the GOP turn to but Giuliani?"
That may turn out to be right, but even then it won't be because Giuliani is strong, but because the whole field is so weak.
The first Presidential season I really remember was 1979's, my first Presidential vote was in 1991. I've never gotten to see the Republican party in such horrible straights. I must say, this is most enjoyable.
I hope that once the extent of their mess finally sinks in, they may begin some process of reform. Doesn't seem likely, but I'll hope it anyway.
It's probably been observed elsewhere, but this cycle's GOP crop reminds me of the lottery paradox: individually they all look like losers, but one of them has got to win (the nomination). That's why I really wouldn't count Rudy out at this point.
Look at this stuff!
x-Mike Huckabee 35,401 - 34 percent
Mitt Romney 26,167 - 25 percent
Fred Thompson 13,834 - 13 percent
John McCain 13,556 - 13 percent
Ron Paul 10,040 - 10 percent
Rudy Giuliani 3,590 - 3 percent
Anybody who thinks Giuliani is going to do seriously better in New Hampshire is nuts. This is New Hampshire! It's like Iowa but with more ideology.
Giuliani may be a New York guy, but New York is not New England, and definitely not New Hampshire. (I'm originally from Connecticut.)
Romney has a chance, being a New Englander. Thompson less so, and McCain.
But on ideology, Ron Paul is going to eat Giuliani for breakfast in New Hampshire, then go out for a real meal at the IHOP.
Paul could even beat McCain and Thompson - there's only a three percent difference he has to overcome. I doubt he'll beat Romney or Huckabee, but Huckabee won't do as well in New Hampshire as he did in Iowa, is my guess.
Giuliani, however, is OVER in New Hampshire.
Comments closed January 19, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
He's almost entirely right, of course. The only reason he overstates his case is because it's always better to have more votes for yourself; looking only at how the other candidates did, it's a perfect outcome for Rudy.
Posted by right | January 5, 2008 11:16 AM