Rudy in Trouble Without Iowa Win (Morris: Mitt to win primaries, but can't win general election?)

Real Clear Politics ^ | 11/14/07 | Dick Morris

[teddyballgame]

Even as he continues to hold a convincing lead in the national race, Rudy Giuliani may be riding for a big fall in Iowa and the other early state primaries. Mitt Romney, despite his anemic national showing, could sweep Iowa, New Hampshire and Michigan, a trifecta that could give him such momentum as to sweep him to the nomination.

The numbers are scary for Giuliani (and since Mitt doesn't have a prayer in hell of beating Hillary in a general election, scary for us all). While he holds a lead in the national polls (Giuliani 30, Thompson 17, McCain 15, Romney 12, Huckabee 9 -- all data is from the average of the past five polls posted on www.realclearpolitics.com), he is trailing badly in all the early states.

In Iowa, the first caucus, it's Romney 29, Huckabee 15, Giuliani 13, Thompson 12, McCain 8. And New Hampshire isn't much better. There it's Romney also in the lead with 32 percent, Rudy a distant second at 21 percent, McCain at 16 percent, Huckabee at 7 percent and Thompson at 5 percent. And Michigan, which might be just a few days after New Hampshire, shows Romney also in the lead at 25 percent with Rudy at 20 percent.

[LexBaird]

Has Dickie Morris now officially predicted a win for everybody, or are there some bases he hasn’t covered yet?

[A.Hun]

Are you from the South? Are you Baptist? I am.

Me too, and Romney being a Mormon is not a problem. Just ask Dr. Bob Jones III, head of the most evangelical University I'm aware of.

Considering most southern Christians tolerate Jehovah's Witnesses, snake handlers, Charismatics etc, I believe his faith will not be a factor. Like me, they look at his life with his wife and family.

Evangelicals do consider Mormons a cult, but they also consider Roman Catholics to be in the wrong. I doubt any Southerner would hesitate to vote for a Catholic in this day and age, and that applies to Mormons also.

Besides, after the trashing many have given GWB, the last real Christian President we are likely to ever have, what difference does faith really make in the US anymore?

[yellowhammer]

Romney will destroy Hillary. Won't even be close. She might win D.C.

[Dr. Sivana]

I'm not from the south, nor am I a Baptist. I'm not sure how being a Mormon is that much worse (even on a theolgical level) than being a functional atheist (numerous presidents), formally Unitarian (which is considered non-Christian by Catholics, Protestants and Evangelicals) and even one whose background was Jehovah's Witness (Eisenhower).

There have been presidents who have been Methodists and Masons simultaneously (Masonry and Mormonism share the fact that they have a fair amount of esoteric teachings).

I won't rule out the possibility that they just won't vote, which at very least will affect close down-ticket races. Giuliani and Mrs. Clinton both have the ability to drive down turnout from their own parties.

If what you say is right, then Romney has no upside potential in the southern primaries. When the field is further thinned, the votes will go to everybody except Romney, and I believe Giuliani.

Oddly, Huckabee seems to play better here in the rust belt than in the deep south.

[bilhosty]

I would think also that Romney would be a strong candidate. But, he does not seem to be gaining any support in gen election match ups. Even after advertising and leading in Republican primaries he still polls poorly in those states he spent money on in fall match ups. But you are right Dick Morris always seems to be wrong. It is really questionable that Romney can hold all of the red states based on what I am seeing in the polls. Arkansas for one has a healthy Hillary lead. Also Ohio has just become a toxic for us.

[CharacterCounts]

I think he wins Michigan fairly easily. His name recognition, his track record, and the Michigan electorate's disgust with Granholm and her economic policies (that are copy cats of Hillary's) will be a huge problem for Hillary to overcome here.

Its been a long, long time since Romney was Governor of Michigan. Name recognition will be of little value, and the hated Granholm won reelection just 12 months ago.

I wouldn't count on a Michigan win for Romney or any other Republican.

[LiveFree99]

Color Massachusetts as a frozen blue state. Mitt won narrowly there, once, against a substandard Rat candidate. Any Rat will beat any Republican there in 2008.

[JasonC]

Hillary can beat herself. All she has to do is raise her voice in a suitably shrill tone, and Romney will be the next president. She might shut up for a solid year, but given her past life, what are the odds?

[JasonC]

And if the boys come home to big brass bands, triumphant, by oh say September of next year? The left has no other issue.

[mimaw]

Yeah, but Fred has to make it look like he has the energy to get us there. Sorry he’s a nice guy but his laid back campaign style will leave him in third place.

[deport]

Dan Patrick has said for the longest that he thinks that there will not be a winning candidate by the Texas primary, and that Texas could be the decider.

---

I think that is a distinct possibility with four or so candidates polling as they are right now. I don’t necessary factor Paul’s position into this as I feel a lot of his voters aren’t necessarily regular Republican primary voters, jmo.

I have read but can’t point to it now that there are about 60% of the delegates to be selected by the Texas primary. If this is so then it’s very possible that a nominee won’t be crowned by Mar. 4 and Texas does become a big player.

[Para-Ord.45]

Ha, tossing out red meat for us ?

Look, Guiliani is foregoing Iowa and NH and is

concentrating on running the table in the all the other

primaries like Fla. Been done before.

[LexBaird]

I have read but can’t point to it now that there are about 60% of the delegates to be selected by the Texas primary.

Ambiguous sentence. Do you mean "by the time of the TX primary", or "60% selected IN the TX primary"?

By Mar 4, 65% of the delegates will have been selected (assuming that early states aren't penalized delegates).

[deport]

Ambiguous sentence. Do you mean “by the time of the TX primary”,

---

Yep......... that’s what I meant. Thanks for the correction.

[penowa]

"Romney can’t beat Hillary and neither can Rudy."

Unfortunately, that's probably true. However, Romney at least has a chance of beating her with most of the Republican base's support, however tepid, whereas, Rudy has no chance as he is certain to split the base and give Hillary an easy 3-way win.

[Jim Robinson]

"The numbers are scary for Giuliani (and since Mitt doesn't have a prayer in hell of beating Hillary in a general election, scary for us all)."

What scary for us all is the fact that Republicans are even considering pro-abortion liberals and RINOs for president. This could mark the end of the Republican party as a conservative party.

[Constantine XIII]

If Mitt Romney’s hair got in a fight with John Edward’s hair, which would win?

[Ingtar]

How does she overcome that?

Florida, Arkansas, Louisiana, Colorado... to name a few.

[Ol' Sparky]

The one thing that Rudy has a shot at doing that Mitt cannot is winning in NJ, that would offset a loss in Ohio or virtually guarantee and election.

And, Giuliani has a good chance of losing state Romney would win like Iowa and Colorado and a few other southern states.

[Signalman]

Well said. Romney can, and WILL beat Hillary.