That just seems crazy to me.
No, he has to “give up” on these states. All the polls show he’s not going to win. The only way he can turn this around is by publicly declaring that he’s not competing. Now if he loses it’s because he didn’t care but any support he does get will be magnified because he supposedly wasn’t trying. He’s lowering expectations so he can “win” even if he only comes in third or fourth place.
Well, I haven’t been following closely, but I thought Romney started advertising way ahead of everyone else. So why are they assuming they can’t win if they haven’t advertised as heavily?
I’m not quite sure what you’re asking.
Romney has spend more time and money advertising in Iowa and New Hampshire than the other Republicans have. Part of his lead in the polls is undoubtedly due to this. But there’s winning and “winning” - essentially Romeny is now almost certain to win in terms of getting the most votes but he also needs to beat the point spread.
Suppose the polls predict that Romney will get 80% of the votes in Iowa and Guiliani will get only 5%. Then on the actual caucus date, Romney actually gets 65% of the votes and Guiliani gets 20%. In bare numbers, Romney still got over three times as many votes as Guiliani and won. But in reality, it will be perceived as Romney having done much worse and Guiliani having done much better than was predicted. Romney will look like a candidate whose popularity is fading while Guiliani will look like a cnadidate whose popularity is growing.
Another problem I see with this approach is how close we are to Iowa and NH - seven and eight weeks, respectively. (Or possibly four, in the case of NH.) If you decide far enough ahead that you’re not competing in a primary, it’s like a college football coach simply not scheduling a game with a potential opponent. I’d anticipate that deciding this close will be regarded by people more like a forfeit: if you don’t play because you know you’re going to lose, it’s a loss.
And while there’s been a certain tolerance, over the years, of candidates’ skipping Iowa, skipping both Iowa and NH hasn’t been successfully tried.
And by conceding two states after your opponent got early starts, it makes you simply look outmaneuvered and kinda dumb.
If he was a second-tier candidate, maybe. But he’s a frontrunner! The expectations are still going to be fairly high (nowhere near a mere 5%), and the winners of IA and NH will benefit from something important–momentum. Momentum in the press, which will energize the candidacy. Momentum in fundraising, which will exploit the wins to build up the war chest. Momentum in the rhetoric, since Guiliani will be forced to be on the defense (about his “seriousness” as a candidate, about how he was “out of touch” with the heartland, etc.).
And then, the overriding meme in the press will be RUDY’S LAST CHANCE. Building up to the following bulk primaries, all the attention in the press and GOP circles will be on how he has “an uphill battle”, about his status as “former front-runner”, about how this is his “make or break” moment. This sets the bar exceedingly high for him, and one falter here and people will write him off. He can’t afford to demonstratively not care about the small stuff, because that, then, essentially forces him to put all his eggs in one basket while the momentum coming off the previous victories will go 100% to his rivals.
Yep, imagine the spin. “Will Rudy give up every time the going gets tough?”
If he falls behind in another race, will he drop out of that, too?
I think it’s really dangerous to give the appearance of fear, and that’s what this seems to show.
I’m not saying Guiliani’s happy about losing Iowa and New Hampshire. He would have loved to have won the first states. But he’s got to play the hand with the cards he was dealt. He can read the polls and see he’s not going to win there. So he has to make the best plans he can to deal with losing there. And the best plan is for him to minimize the importance of those states.
Awww. Cheer up, Rudy. Maybe Huckabee will let you be his running mate.
I could see his punting Iowa and putting more money into NH, where the polls have had him running second for quite some time. A no-show in Iowa, followed by a second in NH, wouldn’t look bad. But if he finishes back in the pack in both places, the best he can hope for is that Romney won’t take all the early states.
What this tells me is that Rudy’s people didn’t even think he’d hold second in NH. He’s in trouble, thank the Lord.
But if both Romney and Guiliani devote their attention to New Hampshire and Guiliani loses, then he really loses - he shows that he can’t compete against Romney on equal terms. The only way a second place defeat can be explained away is if Guiliani declares before the vote that he’s not making any real effort to take first place.
I disagree with you there. He could explain it just fine by saying that Romney had been governor of the state next door, and had poured a significant chunk of his ginormous personal fortune into winning NH.
I haven’t been watching things closely right now - does anyone other than us political junkies know yet that Rudy’s given up on Iowa and NH? Has Rudy’s campaign made a big announcement or anything?
Because if he hasn’t, then the longer it takes for word to get out about that, the more it’s going to look to people like he dropped out at the last minute, knowing full well that he was tanking. Better to stay and fight.