TNR BLOGS

December 01, 2008 | 2:02 PM
December 01, 2008 | 1:00 PM
December 01, 2008 | 12:42 PM

December 01, 2008 | 11:22 AM
December 01, 2008 | 11:10 AM
December 01, 2008 | 9:57 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

December 01, 2008 | 4:08 PM
December 01, 2008 | 1:36 PM
December 01, 2008 | 12:00 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
17.01.2008
Place Your Money on Romney

You hear a lot these days about the chaotic state of the GOP race, which is obviously true insofar as lots of candidates still have a shot at winning. But I don't think it's true in the sense that several candidates have an equal shot of winning.

My sense is that Mitt Romney emerges from Michigan with some pretty clear advantages. For one thing, the first kind of chaos ("type 1") makes it pretty tough for Romney's rivals to raise money, which will, perhaps more than anything else, influence the outcome of the 21 February 5th contests. As this Politico piece notes, the GOP's general fundraising environment was already tough. Type 1 chaos doesn't make it any easier--both because people are reluctant to bet on a potential loser, and because the bettors end up splitting their money among several candidates. Romney's personal fortune is obviously a huge help here.

Second, Romney doesn't need enough money/momentum to win the nomination outright. He just needs enough money & mo' to survive a winnowing of the field down to two candidates. Should he make it into a one-on-one scenario with any of his four plausible rivals (I don't consider Fred Thompson plausible at this point, though he could prove me wrong Saturday), I suspect the GOP establishment will rally around him with lots of money and support.

The reason is that each of these rivals inspires much discomfort in some significant corner of the party establishment. There is deep suspicion of McCain among lobbyists (hard feelings over Jack Abramoff), anti-tax people (particularly Abramoff pal Grover Norquist), and the various interest groups (gun-rights, anti-abortion, etc.) whose lives McCain made more difficult with campaign-finance reform. And that's before you get to the evangelical leadership, which hasn't forgotten his "agents of intolerance" diss in 2000. (See this recent Washington Post piece for a complete list of establishment McCain-haters.)

Meanwhile, Huckabee provokes all sorts of fear and loathing among security hawks and supply-siders (whom he derides as part of the Wall Street-Washington axis), while Giuliani obviously has his share of problems with the social-conservative industrial complex.  

Romney has no such problems. While grassroots evangelicals may have their doubts about him, the elite portion of the movement likes him just fine. Supply-siders seem swayed by his businessman cred while the hawks take comfort in his obsession with doubling Guantanomo and jihadist caliphates.

Now run through the practical scenarios:

If McCain wins South Carolina, Huckabee and Fred Thompson are finished. (Thompson for obvious reasons, Huckabee because the state is about as ideal demographically as it's going to get for him. If he can't win there, where can he win?) I suspect Rudy is done, too, since he and McCain appeal to similar voters--security hawks, social moderates--and McCain will have all the momentum. That means a Romney-McCain playoff.

If Huckabee wins South Carolina, Thompson is done and McCain is damaged goods, while Giuliani and (obviously) Huckabee are still alive. With his war chest, Romney should be able to sneak into the top two in Florida, and the person who falls to third--Giuliani or Huckabee--is probably done, too. That means a Romney-Huckabee/Giuliani playoff.

If Thompson somehow wins South Carolina, Huckabee is done, McCain is seriously damaged, and Romney has a great shot at first or second in Florida, since Thompson will have a steep hill to climb there.

The biggest risk to Romney is a fourth-place finish in South Carolina, which raises questions about his viability and sends him limping into Florida. That's probably why you see Romney continuing to run ads there even though he's ostensibly conceded the state.

Short of that, I'd say his prospects look pretty good--or as good as they can in a race this wide open.

--Noam Scheiber

Posted: Thursday, January 17, 2008 9:09 PM with 9 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:

Noam -

This is your best analysis of the cycle.

I think the best evidence that Romney has real advantages going forward is the state of the race in Nevada. None of the candidates have paid much attention, but Romney has put a small (but significant) amount of money into the state and he's way ahead and heavily favored.

This kind of dynamic will favor him on Feb. 5th when he is the only candidate with tons of cash (from his wallet). Furthermore - despite the DC GOP establishment's thirst for the electable mccain nomination, Romney has enough establishment support to beat McCain.

January 17, 2008 9:57 PM

pbaume said:

i don't see why McCain is finished if he doesn't win SC? he's doing well just to compete there with Huckabee and Thompson in the race - and you've glossed over Romney's mormonism ever so quickly. The independent voting and the polls show McCain is the only one with a chance, and Romney is almost certainly more distasteful to the christian conservatives (the millions that vote, or choose not to vote, not the elites) than McCain. If the republican establishment want to win, and try and keep some influence, they'll back McCain. If they would find winning with McCain more distasteful than Billary or Obama in the white house, then they'll get behind Romney. I'm backing the former.

January 18, 2008 7:52 AM

The Plank said:

Lexington, SC Every Plank denizen should take a brief detour to the Stump, where Noam’s done a fantastic

January 18, 2008 9:31 AM

lymon1 said:

Maybe I'm biased, but I agree with pb: if McCain finishes second to Huckabee, he can write it off to slimeballing and the Confederate flag.  The big question for the GOP, I think, is at what time -- if any -- the mainstream decides to fall in behind McCain or Romney.  

But no disagreement on the great job Noam does!

January 18, 2008 11:13 AM

butchie b said:

As the resident GOPer, I agree with Noam.  Maybe because I'm for McCain, but there's nothing wrong in my view with the Mittster.  Huckabee just doesn't cut it with me, and Rudy is just too late to the party.

BTW, we all should stop with the MSM trope about if somebody doesn't win some state, he's gone, campaign over.  We've been hearing that since Iowa (seems long ago, no?), and it is, like most of their analysis, demonstrably and empirically false.  Even the local weather guy gets it right more often than Russert.

January 18, 2008 1:41 PM

The Stump said:

From somewhere in South Carolina, Eve raises a few questions about last night's sure-to-be-wrong

January 18, 2008 4:39 PM

mmathog said:

Scheiber picked Romney early because of Romney's backing by the GOP elite... not bad.

McCain and Huckabee are both desperate for funding which obviously favors Romney.

Here's what I want to know: Rove told the RNC that it's 'time to pick someone.' I'm wondering, exactly how much sway does the RNC have over big GOP donators?

In other words, for the sake of argument, if they got in a room and said 'end Huckabee, make it between Romney and McCain,' could they dry up so much money hope for Huckabee to actually bring that about?

January 18, 2008 5:53 PM

mmathog said:

Why didn't Romney stay in S.C. to siphon off McCain votes? Isn't Romney more interested in taking out McCain while he has an opportunity and facing Huckabee one on one?

January 18, 2008 5:54 PM

The Bilerico Project said:

From a s press conference in South Carolina: I agree with Ezra Klein - if that were John McCain making the same statements about not having lobbyist run his campaign, no one would have cared. In fact, the Chicago Tribune says pretty much that - John McCain

January 19, 2008 11:02 AM