Is Romney Running Away With It?

09.11.2007

For all the attention Rudy Giuliani got with that Pat Robertson endorsement earlier this week, the numbers increasingly suggest Romney is going to be the GOP nominee. According to Pollster.com, Romney's up 14 points in Iowa (28.6 to Huckabee's 14.8; Rudy is third at 13.7), has a steady and slightly widening lead in New Hampshire (28.8 to Rudy's 21.4), and, perhaps most interestingly, has begun to surge in South Carolina lately (he's now in a close third at 16.1, behind Thompson's 18.9 and Rudy's 19.8; Romney was languishing around 10 percent there only a few months ago.) Michigan, too, is looking better and better for him. Pollster.com shows Romney in second with 19.5 to Rudy's 21.7, but Rudy has been trending down there for the last several months, while Romney has been trending up.

On top of the poll numbers, Romney has the personal resources to hold Rudy at bay spending-wise, particularly in a tough fundraising climate for Republicans. So while it's true that Rudy hasn't begun his big advertising blitz yet, Romney can respond with overwhelming force once he does.

Right now the only real threat I see to Romney is Huckabee in Iowa. But I think Huckabee would have to win their outright to derail the Romney train (something that's certainly possible, but not likely). Even a pretty close second by Huckabee still leaves Giuliani third there at best. And, as I've said before, that probably freezes the status quo in New Hampshire, which means a Romney win there, followed by likely wins in Michigan and South Carolina.

Actually, there is one other thing that could derail Romney, though I'm not sure how it would play out as a practical matter: All the rival campaigns (particularly McCain and Giuliani) seem to loathe Romney. The feeling seems to be, "If we don't win, then we at least want that guy to lose." As I say, I don't entirely know what the upshot is, but maybe you can imagine some scenario where McCain or Giuliani starts fading and decides to sacrifice himself to take out Romney.

Short of one of those two scenarios, I think Romney's going to be the nominee.

P.S. What can one say about Thompson--other than maybe what Chris has already said? I just don't see how that guy finishes fourth in Iowa and fifth or sixth in New Hampshire (he's currently fifth and could easily be overtaken by the now-loaded Ron Paul) and somehow wins South Carolina and/or Florida. His new model of campaigning increasingly looks like a very old model of campaigning--which is also known as "losing."

P.P.S. Credit due to Isaac Chotiner, the Eric Stoltz of TNR, for nudging me on about this item.

--Noam Scheiber

Posted: Friday, November 09, 2007 10:33 AM with 10 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

virginiacentrist said:

Agreed Noam.

One thing you don't cover, though, is the SHOCK value of Romney's Iowa win (this is very important). While the media expects it, the VOTERS do not. Poll after poll has been reported on the news, with Rudy as the front runner nationally. When I talk to Republicans casually about the GE, they talk about Rudy as the nominee. I think it would send a huge shock into the system if Romney won in both Iowa and NH, despite the fact that the media expects it.

November 9, 2007 10:55 AM

Oh and the Iowa numbers are proof positive that when Republican primary voters pay attention to the race (in Iowa, NH, and increasingly SC), they turn away from Rudy. This spring's CW (Rudy can't win the GOP primary because of his liberal record) is finally coming true.

November 9, 2007 10:56 AM

Noam Scheiber said:

Both great points. Thanks for weighing in. I'm going to post that first one in a new item.

November 9, 2007 11:08 AM

Wandreycer1 said:

Thank you for making my day Marty - the idea of Guiliani as president is horrifying. I did my time with that lunatic as a citizen of New York, thank you. That ugly sneer in my face for four or eight more years would topple my sanity. Plus, I think even Hillary would just bury Romney in the GE.

Perhaps Iowa will propel Obama for us too - with every interview, I am more impressed with him - dignified, brilliant, principled, inspiring, real - the entire world would change in one day. Oh please please!

November 9, 2007 11:13 AM

butchie b said:

Wandrey, why do you think so? He'll pick Huckabee, who will sooth the right side of the aisle. Unlike HRC, Mitt actually has run something besides his mouth. I don't know how he will wear on the people, but I do know how she will/has. Her negatives remain very high, for somebody who is going to "bury" the other party's nominee.

This election is 1952, but instead of the Dems running Ike, they're running Eleanor.

Wow.

November 9, 2007 11:38 AM

blackton said:

yeah, Butchie, I agree Romney will pick Huckabee, I don't think it is as strong a ticket as McCain-Huckabee because I still think a lot of fundies will stay home (unless Dems choose Hillary)

His Mormonism will still be an issue for many people, just how much remains to be seen. Rudy scares the hell out of me, Mitt doesn't. On one hand I am glad America has matured enough to pick a Mormon for the nomination, on the other hand Mormonism was founded by a complete charlatan. Since Mitt was born a Mormon I will cut him slack, anybody who converts to it though I gotta wonder about.

November 9, 2007 1:20 PM

If Hillary isn't on the ticket, that will have a huge effect ont he GOP VP pick. If Hillary is on teh ticket, the GOP can afford to go a different direction (moderate - or feebly try to pick off a state like MN with Pawlenty), whereas, a Hillary-less ticket will present some turnout problems for the GOP, and they'll need a ticket balancer from the right-wing.

November 9, 2007 2:57 PM

Interesting, Blackie. I fear neither HRC nor Obama - though neither is qualified to be President, having had exactly zero days executive experience between them.

I think the GOP's chances are better than most people do because it's still a VERY long way to November 08. Iraq will be a blip by then, and maybe even a wash electorally. So the election will turn on the issues we know are out there - taxes, immigration, the GWOT generally, health care, and maybe a wild card we can't see right now.

Except for the sick junkies on these threads, most people aren't paying attention even now, regardless of the best efforts of the MSM to make them care. refreshing, no?

November 9, 2007 3:20 PM

The Stump said:

Earlier today I suggested that Romney could be in trouble if McCain and Giuliani--both of whom are rumored

November 9, 2007 5:44 PM

clifton said:

Will Romney win the primaries? Probably, if "win" means "has the most delegates". But will he get over 50% of the delegates? I know that in the past, if you won a few early primaries, even with less than 50% of the vote, the gathering momentum ensured that by the time the convention rolled around, you'd have a sizable majority of the delegates.

But this election seems different for two reasons. First the compressed schedule might not allow enough time for momentum to have as large of an effect. Second, the candidates have genuinely different positions and constituencies. I can imagine that 9-11, combined with his celebrity and New York's large population, might get Giuliani 20% of the delegates no matter what. I've seen polls that indicate that about 12% of the voters are very loyal to McCain. Suppose then that an additional 19% of the Rupublican electorate are staunch social conservatives, and end up splitting their votes between Huckabee, McCain, and other non-Romney candidates.

The Romney could have "decisive" victories in each state, and arrive at the convention with less than half the delegates.

November 11, 2007 8:15 PM