Romney beat McCain in Michigan (where Romney's father used to be the governor).
The consensus is that this is good news for Rudy Giuliani. If McCain had won, the primary voters would have rallied around the ordained front-runner. But with no front-runner, Giuliani is still in the race.
Rudy lost. He has horrible advisers and image consultants.
Get over it.
Posted by: the professor | January 15, 2008 at 09:32 PM
I wouldn't count Rudy out yet, but he can't keep going on like this. Thompson has to start making progress as well. I think the results in Michigan tonight give both candidates a little more time to prove themselves. Still, the oxygen is getting thin. If it's between Huckabee, McCain, and Romney, Romney is obviously my preferred candidate. I would still prefer either Giuliani or Thompson to Romney.
Posted by: tommy | January 15, 2008 at 10:38 PM
Hey HS, I'm curious: are you rooting for the home-town boy? Nothing wrong with it and it is a profoundly conservative thing to do, just wondering.
Posted by: SFG | January 15, 2008 at 11:00 PM
The *consensus*? Maybe you could link to one or two or people who share your Rudy fantasy (who aren't also diehard supporters)? Last time I checked, getting 3% in a race like this means you're toast.
Interesting data from the exit polling: they asked people who they felt could most effect needed change, and then asked them who they voted for. For McCain, Huckabee, and Romney, the people who thought they were the best change agents also voted for them at a nearly 90% rate.
For Paul, Giuliani and Thompson, the people who thought they would best effect change still only voted for them about 50% of the time. This is the effect of the perception that these three can't or won't win. It's cutting their votes in half even among the groups of voters that like them.
Anyway, I suppose it's true that no McCain victory is a kind of good news for anyone who doesn't want the race settled just yet. But that's everyone other than McCain, not Giuliani specifically.
Posted by: bbartlog | January 15, 2008 at 11:01 PM
Yay! I'm with HS on this. My 3%-full view is at least Rudy managed to scroung up half of Ron Paul's 6% vote.
Thank God for the NRO and all the other hit piece against Ron Paul in the run-up else Paul would've really clobbered Rudy.
Posted by: | January 15, 2008 at 11:33 PM
It is indeed good news for Rudy. AP opinion says this shows that voters are not interested in the truth (at least in MI). McCain correctly stated that the old glory days of Big 3 are gone (at least for now). But voters opted for the more upbeat Romney who told MI voters what they wanted to hear.
Since Rudy is perfectly capable of flip-flapping (didn't Rudy used to support illegal immigration?), there is a chance he can out flip-flap Romney for the nomination.
McCain's problem is he didn't offer the voter a viable solution. His re-training for displaced workers idea is simply unrealistic. Without an industrial base, where exactly are these re-trained worker going? In that case, it is no surprise voter opted for Romney. If McCain wanted to get real, he should have told MI voters that there is very little he can do for them. However, with drastic change in policy there is a chance that the next generation can still have the American dream. It is up to the voters to decide if they are willing to invest in tomorrow.
Posted by: nobody | January 15, 2008 at 11:51 PM
This is bad news for Rudy because it shows Romney is the Republican who can win blue states.
Rudy placed behind Ron Paul and Fred Thompson at 3%. I seriously don't understand your thinking at all on much of anything. Please explain how this is good news for Rudy. Feel free to splash in something about Ron Paul being a racist anti-Semite too. :)
Posted by: DML | January 16, 2008 at 01:35 AM
didn't Rudy come in dead last?
Posted by: Jim | January 16, 2008 at 02:51 AM
Sigma,
Rudy probably has recieved less votes that Ron Paul has. Thompson has probably gotten more aggregate votes thusfar as Guiliani.
I dont think that Romney or Huckabee would be a disaster as president personally. I think McCain would be a train-wreck, a Bush-on-steroids.
Posted by: miles | January 16, 2008 at 03:57 AM
I voted in Michigan yesterday, and I didn't vote for Rudy or McCain - I don't think either one is truly conservative. Romney won, and I don't really find him terribly objectionable, but he was the worst in pandering to the dying Michigan auto industry. Note one thing - there was no real Democratic contest, and lots of Dems crossed over to vote in the Republican primary. What effect this had, I'm not sure.
Posted by: Ned | January 16, 2008 at 08:40 AM
If 3% is good news for Rudy, 6% must be great news for Ron Paul!
Posted by: hugh go naught | January 16, 2008 at 08:58 AM
Is it just me or do the Republican candidates look like watered down Democrats?
I remember the previous races when Al Gore was going for the alpha male and you had Kerry doing the hunting thing. I figure they were trying to be watered down Republicans. They lost. Is the tide turning?
If you ask me, the Republicans have a 'time out' coming to them. With a Republican congress, senate and president, they seem to have produced disaster after disaster. I supported the war for almost half of its duration but now I believe they did a horrible job there. Too much cronyism, Blackwater etc ... I blame them for the subprime too ... and Enron ... pretty much anywhere there were conservative ideals running in full, it's not gone well.
Posted by: Vim | January 16, 2008 at 09:53 AM
What is bad news for Rudy is that his dead last finish in MI and near last/bottom finishes in the other 3 primaries so far proves that people just don't like him. Even after spending more time in NH than any other primary (incl FL), he got crushed.
Ironically, as the vote gets closer and Rudy actually gets in front of people, his poll numbers drop. The guy's got some serious negative charisma. Just looking at the guy on TV for the first time, you'd swear he is a typecasted Hollywood arch-villian like a corporate polluter, dirty politician or mafia accountant (bald, fast talking, lisping, cold blue beady eyes, short for a POTUS candidate, lisper, terrible emoter).
I suspect Rudy's old poll numbers, his monied backers and an uncritical MSM that are still artificially holding up Rudy's numbers. Once the campaigns move to the the next states and voters meet Rudy, he will continue to drive them away and disappoint his fans like HS.
Posted by: | January 16, 2008 at 09:57 AM
didn't Rudy come in dead last?
No, he beat Duncan Hunter (and also edged out 'Uncommitted' by 1%). For all we know there were other candidates on the ballot, like Alan Keyes or Hugh Cort, that Rudy also beat by big margins! Look at the bright side!
Posted by: bbartlog | January 16, 2008 at 10:31 AM
Duncan Hunter? Is this a real person? I’ve never heard the name before. Is this a man or woman? The name sounds suspiciously like a porn star name (e.g. Dirk Diggler).
If there is a person by this name who finished just below Giulliani and “uncommitted”, they should consider a career in the adult entertainment industry with a name like that.
Posted by: | January 16, 2008 at 11:50 AM
A new poll suggests Giuliani's national support has evaporated:
Huckabee, an ordained Baptist minister whose rise has been fueled by support from religious conservatives, led 34 percent to 22 percent among those who described themselves as "born-agains."
McCain led among independents 45 percent to 13 percent and among moderates by 53 percent to 13 percent, while McCain and Huckabee tied among Republican voters.
In third place was former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson at 14 percent, with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney at 13 percent.
All of them shot past Giuliani, the leader in national polls for much of the year. His support has been steadily dropping, from 29 percent in November to 23 percent last month and just 9 percent this month.
The slide has raised questions about Giuliani's strategy of bypassing the early voting states to concentrate on Florida's January 29 primary and the February 5 "Super Tuesday" round of 22 state contests.
If either McCain or Huckabee clenches the nomination, the Republican Party might as well change its name to "Democrats Lite."
Posted by: tommy | January 16, 2008 at 01:08 PM
It's interesting that HS hates Paul when Rudy is the one campaigning to be fuhrer.
Posted by: tvoh | January 16, 2008 at 01:42 PM
9/11
verb
noun
=
Rudy
Goodbye Civil Liberties.
Posted by: John Smith | January 16, 2008 at 03:14 PM
Outside NYC, most Americans don't connect with Rudy. He's very unlikeable, stiff and shifty. But neither can he hide in a dark closet chanting 9/11 while his opponents are out campaigning.
I saw him stumping in Fl and he looked like the a cragged crypt keeper or arthritic tinman. Rudy makes Dick Chaney look Michael Jordan graceful and Marvin Gaye soulful.
The boogieman may scare you to get you to eat your vegtables, but you'd never vote for the guy.
Posted by: | January 16, 2008 at 03:55 PM
Does anybody know of the demographics of former New Yorkers who live in Florida? Giuliani's campaign has been trying to sell his Florida strategy due to the high number of transplants down there, but I wonder how many of the former New Yorkers are registered Democrats? How many of these former New Yorkers were there during the bulk of his mayorship to benefit from his rule? Given his performance in Iowa and Michigan, how will he be able to sell himself to snowbirds from the Midwest? Plus, have the considered the fact that Northern Florida has more in common with a proper Southern state like Georgia or Alabama, and thus, may not be as open to him, but open to Huckabee?
Either his handlers have thought about these issues, or they're idiots who managed to not think of an issue that a low IQ black guy could figure out...
Posted by: David Alexander | January 16, 2008 at 06:27 PM
Probably he's just desperate.
Never thought you were low IQ, DA. Group differences are average not absolute.
Posted by: SFG | January 16, 2008 at 11:40 PM