Thoughts on the Republican Primary
I intend to get this, along with a similar post for the Democrats, up before the Iowa caucus. I also intend to put up a post on the primary process in general, but that might not be until after Iowa.
This primary is odd in that you could make a case for any of the five major candidates winning the nomination. I realize that the Dems had six "major" candidates in 2004 (working off the top of my head, Dean, Gephardt, Kerry, Edwards, Clark, and Lieberman), but it was hard to make the case for all of them at the start of the new year (Lieberman because the party had turned strongly anti-war, and Gephardt because he was entirely invested in Iowa with no support anywhere else, other than his home state of Missouri (less well positioned for the domino effect than Kerry)). There were even some similarities as far as candidates putting their emphasis on Iowa or New Hampshire. However, I'll leave any further comparisons for another day.
Before going on to the candidates, I should add a few notes on how the delegates are selected. While the Democrats allocate delegates based on the proportion of the vote each candidate receives (more on how that's done in the post focusing on them), the Republicans have a few different methods of selecting delegates (and, if memory serves, do not use the proportional allocation anywhere). The first is the winner-take-all state primary/caucus; as the name implies, the statewide winner of this contest wins all the delegates for that state. The other popular method (which, if I recall correctly, is used in more states, but I'd have to look it up) is basically a winner-take-all election at the congressional district level; whoever wins in a congressional district gets all three delegates for that district (I believe the statewide winner gets three delegates as well). In this form of election, the final vote count isn't as important as where the votes come from. California, for instance, uses this system, and with 53 congressional districts, the results could be interesting. Some have noted that this could be Ron Paul's best chance for some delegates, as he could win the district with very few Republicans, like that of Nancy Pelosi. Also, under party rules, all the states selecting candidates in January forfeit half their delegates to the party convention. There's a possibility that the rule will be reversed and all the delegates admitted, and there's also the possibility that this could affect who wins the nomination (though the latter is unlikely).
First up, Romney: Actually, one further comparison to 2004 on the other side -- Romney is the candidate most likely to get a domino effect that turns a seemingly competitive primary into a runaway, like Kerry, and even comes from the same home state. Romney is the candidate most heavily invested in the "traditional" method of acquiring the nomination, competing hard in both Iowa and New Hampshire and then riding the strength of his early victories to the nomination. However, an early loss could derail his whole campaign. If he's any worse than a close second in Iowa, he's likely to lose New Hampshire, and with it, the nomination. It's not so much a matter of delegate count, as only three small states will have voted or caucused by then (Wyoming has a caucus on January 5 that has received very little attention; last I saw, Romney looked good in the polling, but will anyone care if he wins?). Romney needs the momentum from these early contests, and while other candidates can "win" without winning them, anything less than a win will definitely be a loss for Romney.
Second up, Huckabee: I'll make this simple: Huckabee needs to win Iowa. A close second might help him, but it's more likely to leave him as a hanger-on with no hope of winning the primary. Huck is not going to win New Hampshire, plain and simple, and essentially needs to build on an Iowa win to then win South Carolina, and hope that the momentum there carries the day in Florida and helps him on "Super-Duper Tuesday" on February 5, when nearly half of the Republican delegates are up for grabs. As far as New Hampshire goes for Huck, third place would probably constitute a "win" for him. I have a hard time seeing Huckabee win the nomination, as he seems more interested in talking to Iran than in talking to half the Republican base. He could garner enough support to result in a fun convention, though.
Giuliani: His campaign has been the antithesis of Romney's: forget the early states. Giuliani basically plans to bide his time until Florida and Feb 5, go for the big prizes, and ride them to the nomination. His campaign points out the good poll numbers he has in those states. However, I -- and I'm far from alone on this -- doubt that his support will hold in those states through the early contests. Giuliani is high partially on name recognition, which becomes less of a factor in each state as its primary nears. Moreover, all the buzz and momentum will be going to other candidates. While pretty much everyone concedes that he'll win New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut on February 5 (which are all statewide winner-take-all primaries), it's less certain how well he'll do in the other states where he currently leads (and even if he receives the most votes in California, he won't necessarily win the most delegates). Iowa is pretty much a non-factor for his campaign, though beating McCain would be a small plus, and finishing third would be an even bigger one (though I wouldn't bet on that). Editted to add: I've noticed that a few recent polls show him in sixth in Iowa; that's an embarassment that he'll want to avoid.
McCain: Iowa is also a non-factor for McCain, barring a surprise third-place finish. New Hampshire, however, is huge, and he pretty much needs to win there to have any hope of winning the nomination. Beyond New Hampshire, he hopes to do well in Michigan, carry the momentum into Florida, and emerge as a consensus candidate.
Thompson: Thompson's path to the nomination is a bit of a strange one. The earliest state he has any chance of winning is South Carolina. He pretty much needs a second, or possibly even a strong third, in Iowa, and then to pick up supporters of other candidates as they drop out (either officially or are just seen as no longer viable). Last I saw, Thompson is the second choice for the largest number of Republican primary voters. He really needs either Romney or Huckabee to receive a knockout blow in Iowa. While I haven't seen any breakdown as far as who supporters of each candidate rank as their number two, it seems likely that Romney and Huckabee voters are more likely to have Thompson as their number two than McCain or Giuliani supporters (Giuliani and Huckabee are pretty well polar opposites, so only a very small number of supporters for one would have the other as their second choice; Romney and Huckabee supporters in general seem to be less likely to support McCain or Giuliani, plus some bad blood seems to be brewing between the two campaigns, leaving Thompson as the beneficiary; McCain and Giuliani supporters seem more likely to support the other, but hardly seem likely to reject Thompson altogether). Essentially, Thompson would be the compromise candidate, the one backers of all the others could agree upon.
There remains a small chance that no candidate would receive the majority of delegates needed to win the nomination outright. Assuming that no candidate has, say, 49% of the delegates either, then a brokered convention is entirely possible. I think Thompson is most likely to emerge the winner in such a scenario, because, as stated above, he's the one candidate that everyone else can agree upon. Romney would be the second-most likely to win in this scenario. Of course, should Romney have 40% of the delegates going into the convention, the math changes, and he becomes most likely to emerge as the candidate.
Currently, it's much easier to make a case for why each candidate will not win the nomination than why they will. Iowa will clear things up a bit, and New Hampshire will clarify them more. After Feb 5, I should be able to make a more confident prediction of who the nominee will be.
Editted to add: Rich Lowry throws out some numbers on what would be good finishes for each of the major candidates in Iowa.
This primary is odd in that you could make a case for any of the five major candidates winning the nomination. I realize that the Dems had six "major" candidates in 2004 (working off the top of my head, Dean, Gephardt, Kerry, Edwards, Clark, and Lieberman), but it was hard to make the case for all of them at the start of the new year (Lieberman because the party had turned strongly anti-war, and Gephardt because he was entirely invested in Iowa with no support anywhere else, other than his home state of Missouri (less well positioned for the domino effect than Kerry)). There were even some similarities as far as candidates putting their emphasis on Iowa or New Hampshire. However, I'll leave any further comparisons for another day.
Before going on to the candidates, I should add a few notes on how the delegates are selected. While the Democrats allocate delegates based on the proportion of the vote each candidate receives (more on how that's done in the post focusing on them), the Republicans have a few different methods of selecting delegates (and, if memory serves, do not use the proportional allocation anywhere). The first is the winner-take-all state primary/caucus; as the name implies, the statewide winner of this contest wins all the delegates for that state. The other popular method (which, if I recall correctly, is used in more states, but I'd have to look it up) is basically a winner-take-all election at the congressional district level; whoever wins in a congressional district gets all three delegates for that district (I believe the statewide winner gets three delegates as well). In this form of election, the final vote count isn't as important as where the votes come from. California, for instance, uses this system, and with 53 congressional districts, the results could be interesting. Some have noted that this could be Ron Paul's best chance for some delegates, as he could win the district with very few Republicans, like that of Nancy Pelosi. Also, under party rules, all the states selecting candidates in January forfeit half their delegates to the party convention. There's a possibility that the rule will be reversed and all the delegates admitted, and there's also the possibility that this could affect who wins the nomination (though the latter is unlikely).
First up, Romney: Actually, one further comparison to 2004 on the other side -- Romney is the candidate most likely to get a domino effect that turns a seemingly competitive primary into a runaway, like Kerry, and even comes from the same home state. Romney is the candidate most heavily invested in the "traditional" method of acquiring the nomination, competing hard in both Iowa and New Hampshire and then riding the strength of his early victories to the nomination. However, an early loss could derail his whole campaign. If he's any worse than a close second in Iowa, he's likely to lose New Hampshire, and with it, the nomination. It's not so much a matter of delegate count, as only three small states will have voted or caucused by then (Wyoming has a caucus on January 5 that has received very little attention; last I saw, Romney looked good in the polling, but will anyone care if he wins?). Romney needs the momentum from these early contests, and while other candidates can "win" without winning them, anything less than a win will definitely be a loss for Romney.
Second up, Huckabee: I'll make this simple: Huckabee needs to win Iowa. A close second might help him, but it's more likely to leave him as a hanger-on with no hope of winning the primary. Huck is not going to win New Hampshire, plain and simple, and essentially needs to build on an Iowa win to then win South Carolina, and hope that the momentum there carries the day in Florida and helps him on "Super-Duper Tuesday" on February 5, when nearly half of the Republican delegates are up for grabs. As far as New Hampshire goes for Huck, third place would probably constitute a "win" for him. I have a hard time seeing Huckabee win the nomination, as he seems more interested in talking to Iran than in talking to half the Republican base. He could garner enough support to result in a fun convention, though.
Giuliani: His campaign has been the antithesis of Romney's: forget the early states. Giuliani basically plans to bide his time until Florida and Feb 5, go for the big prizes, and ride them to the nomination. His campaign points out the good poll numbers he has in those states. However, I -- and I'm far from alone on this -- doubt that his support will hold in those states through the early contests. Giuliani is high partially on name recognition, which becomes less of a factor in each state as its primary nears. Moreover, all the buzz and momentum will be going to other candidates. While pretty much everyone concedes that he'll win New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut on February 5 (which are all statewide winner-take-all primaries), it's less certain how well he'll do in the other states where he currently leads (and even if he receives the most votes in California, he won't necessarily win the most delegates). Iowa is pretty much a non-factor for his campaign, though beating McCain would be a small plus, and finishing third would be an even bigger one (though I wouldn't bet on that). Editted to add: I've noticed that a few recent polls show him in sixth in Iowa; that's an embarassment that he'll want to avoid.
McCain: Iowa is also a non-factor for McCain, barring a surprise third-place finish. New Hampshire, however, is huge, and he pretty much needs to win there to have any hope of winning the nomination. Beyond New Hampshire, he hopes to do well in Michigan, carry the momentum into Florida, and emerge as a consensus candidate.
Thompson: Thompson's path to the nomination is a bit of a strange one. The earliest state he has any chance of winning is South Carolina. He pretty much needs a second, or possibly even a strong third, in Iowa, and then to pick up supporters of other candidates as they drop out (either officially or are just seen as no longer viable). Last I saw, Thompson is the second choice for the largest number of Republican primary voters. He really needs either Romney or Huckabee to receive a knockout blow in Iowa. While I haven't seen any breakdown as far as who supporters of each candidate rank as their number two, it seems likely that Romney and Huckabee voters are more likely to have Thompson as their number two than McCain or Giuliani supporters (Giuliani and Huckabee are pretty well polar opposites, so only a very small number of supporters for one would have the other as their second choice; Romney and Huckabee supporters in general seem to be less likely to support McCain or Giuliani, plus some bad blood seems to be brewing between the two campaigns, leaving Thompson as the beneficiary; McCain and Giuliani supporters seem more likely to support the other, but hardly seem likely to reject Thompson altogether). Essentially, Thompson would be the compromise candidate, the one backers of all the others could agree upon.
There remains a small chance that no candidate would receive the majority of delegates needed to win the nomination outright. Assuming that no candidate has, say, 49% of the delegates either, then a brokered convention is entirely possible. I think Thompson is most likely to emerge the winner in such a scenario, because, as stated above, he's the one candidate that everyone else can agree upon. Romney would be the second-most likely to win in this scenario. Of course, should Romney have 40% of the delegates going into the convention, the math changes, and he becomes most likely to emerge as the candidate.
Currently, it's much easier to make a case for why each candidate will not win the nomination than why they will. Iowa will clear things up a bit, and New Hampshire will clarify them more. After Feb 5, I should be able to make a more confident prediction of who the nominee will be.
Editted to add: Rich Lowry throws out some numbers on what would be good finishes for each of the major candidates in Iowa.
Labels: Election 2008
posted by DC | 5:04 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home