Election 2008 Obama vs. McCain | Clinton vs. McCain | Latest 2008 Polls | Latest 2008 News

December 20, 2007

A Jumbled GOP Race

By Reid Wilson

Just two weeks before the first votes are cast in the 2008 primary campaign, every Republican front-runner is facing serious problems. Whether it is harsh examination of their past records and actions, a natural ceiling they can't seem to break through or messages that simply aren't working, it is fair to say that no one leads the GOP contest.

Every candidate has had their moments in the sun, but every candidate has proven so flawed that none has become a lasting front-runner. This month is former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee's turn at the top, but that may not last either. Each candidate's fall from grace offers an important lesson for Republicans - or Democrats, for that matter - planning a future presidential bid.

The early front-runner, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, banked his entire campaign on virtually skipping Iowa and focusing instead on later states. Taking advantage of his overwhelming lead in national polls, the campaign thought that if they could only survive until February 5, when two dozen states hold their nominating contest, Giuliani would come out ahead.

Now, though, his national numbers are dipping and he finds himself barely clinging to a lead. Early hopes of competing in New Hampshire are fading, and Giuliani has reduced his advertising buys there. Several other candidates have overtaken him in South Carolina, where he held and early lead. Even in Florida, a recent poll shows him falling to third place. Efforts to revive the flagging campaign on Meet The Press and in what his campaign billed as a major policy speech have fallen flat.

Giuliani's lesson to others: No one has won a Republican nomination in the modern era without carrying either Iowa or New Hampshire and winning South Carolina. Failing to compete in early states has its consequences, and none of them are good.

Thanks to a major investment in Iowa and his past as governor of New Hampshire's neighbor to the south, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney seemed like the most logical choice to stop Giuliani through a series of early momentum-building wins. Romney, though, has seen his big lead in Iowa evaporate, and his lead in New Hampshire seems tenuous if Arizona Senator John McCain's resurgence continues.

Romney's slide has been caused by factors both in and out of his control. Through no fault of his own, many remain skeptical of his Mormon religion, and nasty whisper campaigns have for months undermined his efforts among evangelicals in Iowa and South Carolina. Through plenty of fault of his own, many remain skeptical of Romney's conservatism. When Romney appeared on Meet The Press, he handled host Tim Russert's questioning well, but opponents will not give him the same chance to answer their charges of flip-flopping.

His early attention to the state, and his early spending, gave many the impression that Romney would walk away with Iowa, roll through New Hampshire and be safely on the road to the nomination. But his support in both states was thinner than originally thought, offering an important reminder: Managing expectations is crucial. By failing to do so, as Romney's big lead precluded, any minor stumble can be seen as a major collapse, and to the media and the interested public, one tiny shake is enough to send a house of cards to the ground.

Faced with two moderates as front-runners, Republicans hoped former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson could be their saving grace. Perhaps no candidate has jumped as high in the polls as fast as Thompson did; as buzz about his candidacy mounted, Thompson zoomed to second place. Perhaps no candidate has fallen as far as fast as Thompson did; aside from the press releases his campaign issues almost daily, attacking Romney or former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, Thompson today is almost a non-factor in the GOP race.

Thompson brushed off early criticisms that he did not possess the fire in the belly necessary to run a winning campaign. Still, it does not help the laziness rumors to go shopping at a suburban Washington mall just over two weeks before the most important election of his life will take place a thousand miles away in Iowa. While he launched a major bus tour through Iowa this week and earned the backing of a top Hawkeye Republican, Congressman Steve King, it may be too little, too late.

Thompson provides two lessons for future candidates: Winning the presidency takes more than just looking like a president. And unlike national buzz, which builds for a celebrity candidate, voters in Iowa and New Hampshire really do want the opportunity to hear what a candidate has to say. It takes work to win them over, a lesson any future candidate who hopes to buy Iowa and New Hampshire votes through big advertising blitzes would do well to remember.

If any candidate is on an upswing, it is Huckabee. Coming from nowhere just weeks ago, the underfunded upstart now leads in Iowa and is sneaking up on Giuliani in Florida and nationally, recent polls show. But with front-runner status comes intense scrutiny. Romney and Thompson have targeted him relentlessly, while a new headline emerges almost daily from Huckabee's Arkansas home: He released convicted murderers, he let illegal immigrants go to school, he thinks women should be subservient to their husbands.

Huckabee has long been a staple on cable news networks, hungry as he was for media attention. Now, though, his appearances are more frequently becoming a forum to explain away the latest negative headline.

Huckabee does not have the money to run concurrent positive messages and defensive advertisements. If Huckabee does not win the GOP nomination, he will provide a lesson crucial to running for president today: A solid financial foundation is required to fight back against the mounds of research the internet makes available. And research and press departments that are prepared to fight back helps a bounce become more than just a fluke.

That leaves McCain, who in early July was all but out of the contest. Early in the year, McCain planned to run a national campaign. When the money necessary to do so failed to materialize, the campaign was too slow to pivot to a less ambitious strategy. Running low on cash and hemorrhaging staff after difficult personnel decisions, McCain barely survived August, could not take full advantage of his biggest asset - that the surge in Iraq, which John Edwards once labeled the McCain strategy, was working - and never fully regained the national lead he once held.

McCain, depending upon who you believe, is either on his way back up, charging in New Hampshire en route to a national sweep, or trailing Romney in the must-win Granite State so badly that he does not have the time or the money to make a comeback. Had McCain run a campaign similar to his 2000 effort, he might find himself in better position today.

While he started out as the early front-runner - a position that, in the GOP primary, has recently been a reliable predictor of the eventual nominee - McCain might now see the repeat of a missed opportunity. The lesson he might offer: Don't fix what ain't broke. An improved McCain 2000 might have run away with the GOP nomination.

Alternatively, McCain's decline happened alongside the Congressional debate on immigration reform, which he spearheaded. Another good lesson Republicans should learn: Immigration is still a potent issue in a Republican primary, and associating yourself with a liberal icon like Ted Kennedy as your campaign is trying to appeal to the conservative base is not a smart election-year strategy.

Five months ago, in my first column at Real Clear Politics, I argued that each of the four Republican front-runners - Huckabee excluded, as he hovered between an asterisk and one percent - was so fatally flawed that in an ordinary year none would have the chance to win a Republican nomination. Five months, millions of dollars and all the maneuvering in the world later, it seems hard to believe that any of the five does have a chance at the nomination.

Now, as then, the conclusion remains the same: Each only has a chance because the others do as well. After the votes are counted, and no matter how divided the field is, somebody has to win.

About Us | RSS | Contact | Advertise | Privacy Policy         © RealClearPolitics 2008