Replies

I pretty much agree with your points. The reason I said Rudy won is because his best tactic is to keep the war and 9/11 fresh in voters' minds, and to keep social issues out of them. I think last night helped accomplish that. That was a good point that both Giuliani and Paul are looking for crossover appeal. Giuliani is at odds with most Republicans on more positions than Paul is, but Paul is on the most important one. The war issue might not be enough to get voters to ignore Giuliani's faults, but it's certainly important enough that Paul, regardless of his other virtues, is toast so long as he's the "antiwar" candidate.

As for the rest, the big problem Romney has is that, while he has some 86% or so name recognition in South Carolina, he's still in the 8% range in the polls. He's been spending all kinds of money there, and running a lot of ads. Evidently it isn't amounting to much. It seems to me that he needs to keep dominating and looking more presidential than the other candidates to make any headway. He really failed to do that last night.

The reason he needed to do that is because of Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich. Both are still polling ahead of Romney, not only nationwide, but in South Carolina where he's been campaigning relentlessly. If Romney doesn't get some committed voters before either of them get in the race, he's done for.

Also, even though this debate was much better than the first, I still think Fred and Newt gain from staying above the fray. Newt is right on the money when he says these debates look more like a reality TV show than a forum for Presidential politics. It's a great forum for the lesser-known candidates to introduce themselves to a national audience (such as it was). It's not so great a forum for the big guys, as it brings them down to the level of the second-tier, and it's a forum where they can't use their money and organization to frame the debate. It exposes their flaws, forces them to mix it up with candidates they're better off ignoring, and diminishes their Presidential image in general.

By staying above the fray, Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich, Fred especially, actually look more like "frontrunners" than the actual candidates leading the polls. I agree that they can't keep doing this forever, but for now, they seem to have the best strategy.

As for the rest, the big problem Romney has is that, while he has some 86% or so name recognition in South Carolina, he's still in the 8% range in the polls. He's been spending all kinds of money there, and running a lot of ads.

He can't break through the Baptist prejudice against his Mormonism or the vets pre-existing affection for McStain, one of their own generation. And Mitt probably can't help look slick (at least in SC) with his good hair and chiseled features and that smooth Harvard MBA/JD CEO image. A shame when such extensive personal success in education and business (and virility in family life) actually becomes a political liability.