« Finally! Thompson Rolls Out A Big Conservative Endorsement | Home | New McCain Ad Goes After Hillary Clinton And Woodstock Again »
Team Rudy: We Can Win Without Iowa Or New Hampshire
Rudy Giuliani's campaign is explicitly spelling out its campaign strategy, according to the Wall St. Journal — and they don't think they have to win either Iowa or New Hampshire.
The idea, according to the Rudy team, is that his national celebrity and strong fundraising mean they can withstand poor showings in Iowa and even New Hampshire, then go on to places like Florida — a winner-take-all contest — and then Super Tuesday, with contests in Rudy-friendly states like New Jersey, New York and California.
The result, according to Rudy strategist Mike DuHaime, is that "the mayor’s not going to be eliminated by any of the early contests."
Advertisement
Well, of course Rudy can win without either Iowa or New Hampshire -- it's been done before -- it will be done again.
November 12, 2007 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Before 1992 the person eventually elected President had always carried the New Hampshire primary, but Bill Clinton broke that pattern in 1992, as did George W. Bush in 2000. Moreover, the winner in New Hampshire has not always gone to win his party's nomination, as demonstrated by Republicans John McCain in 2000 and Pat Buchanan in 1996 and Democrats Estes Kefauver in 1952 and 1956 and Paul Tsongas in 1992.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hampshire_primary#History
November 12, 2007 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's right, Jake. We're finally in complete agreement: Rudy can win the nomination without Iowa or NH.
That's why we need to expose him NOW for the dangerous lunatic that he is.
Folks, don't wait for the first Super Tuesday to make clear how really bad his record is - spread the word now that Rudy alienated everyone and appointed incompetents and criminals to important positions. Tell EVERYONE to Google "Rudy" with the names "Ray Harding" and "Father Alan Placa".
Then they should check out Rudy and "Richard Roberts" - "Anthony Serra" - "Fred Patrick".
That's not even getting into his marriages or his father going to prison for armed robbery or his family ties to the mob.
Make sure everyone who likes him knows that while Rudy gets all the credit for crime going down in NYC, the fact is that crime went down throughout the tri-state region and in many cities and states across the country during the same period.
And if they're still not convinced remind them that Rudy's political career was finished as of 9-10-01. He'd alienated everyone including the Republican Party because of his arrogance, nastiness, poor personal conduct and bad judgement. The WTC attacks saved his political career. Horrible as it is to say it's the truth.
But you don't have to listen to me - listen to Jake D! Get the word out now before Rudy wins any primaries - he's a bad egg and one the American people will regret electing, just as the people of NYC regretted it.
November 12, 2007 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, Rudy could win without Iowa or New Hampshire, but if Romney pulls two big wins out of Iowa and New Hampshire--a possibility that the polls show is more likely by the day--Rudy's going to be in for more of a fight than he ever anticipated coming into Feb. 5. If Iowa is Romney et. al.'s make-or-break, Rudy's Super Tuesday. Considering Rudy's strategists are all but conceding that he'll have absolutey ZERO momentum heading into the day, I like Romney's chances.
November 12, 2007 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wait a minute -- all I said was that Rudy can win without either Iowa or New Hampshire -- I never said he's a bad egg and one the American people will regret electing. In fact, if the choice is between Rudy and Hillary, this Independent will be voting for Rudy.
November 12, 2007 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
rudy don't know he's DEAD already ???
talk about delusional
November 12, 2007 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Giuliani is ALREADY weakening in states like Florida... Witness today's Florida poll in which Romney has shot up to second place.
November 12, 2007 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jake - ever hear of sarcasm?
November 12, 2007 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
the more I read this, the more I laugh
rudy's gonna win cuz he'a a "national celebrity" ???
britney spears and lindsey lohan are "national celebrities" too
doesn't mean any reasoning person is gonna vote for one of them
the more you know about rudy, the less you like rudy
just like britney and lindsey
November 12, 2007 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, bvd, I have heard of sarcasm before.
November 12, 2007 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jake D.,
If it comes down to Guliani or Clinton, how will you know which one you are voting for?
November 12, 2007 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I, for one, hope that Guiliani will attempt to win without the other 48 states also.
Tancredo NEEDS to be the Republican nominee . . .
November 12, 2007 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why does everyone seem to forget that on September 10, 2001 Rudy's poll numbers were worse than the Decider's? That level of contempt from New Yorker's was well earned.
We know him for who he is: the mean spirited, self-serving, climber who will rely on anyone (including mobbed up police commissioners) who he thinks can help him accumulate more power. This is the clown who was too busy to participate in the 9-11 Commission.
The fascists who rally to his race-baiting name calling may like what they see, but the more the rest of the country gets to see oh him, the less they will like it. Rudy cannot control himself, and even if the MSM tries to give him a free pass, there are just too many Bernie Keriks (corrupt cronies) and Richard Wigtons (innocent victims of the need to fabricate PR stunts that feature Rudy leading someone away in cuffs) in the closet to pass muster.
November 12, 2007 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Richard:
Guliani starts with the letter "G" and Clinton starts with the letter "C" -- as I said before, either candidate would mean no change in D.C. -- this concludes today's lesson, brought to you by Sesame Street.
November 12, 2007 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
In fact, he can win without winning any states at all! He'll just wave his Republican magic wand and conjure up an electoral victory the same way he's planning on conjuring up extra tax revenue with more tax cuts and two entirely new divisions for the Army without reinstituting the draft or paying enlistement or retention bonuses that would make a hedge fund manager blush.
When you're Republican, you live in a magical world where reality is never an obstacle to your goals.
November 12, 2007 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who was the last candidate to win without Iowa OR New Hampshire? These guys live in la-la land. They should be sued for malpractice. They should have made a big play for NH, where they had a shot. They are going to lose South Carolina and Nevada as well, and they are not coming back. The positive press and huge momentum for Romney are going to crush Giuliani. It's not going to be pretty.
At least it will be interesting on the Dem side to see if Obama can win Iowa and pull off the same path to victory.
November 12, 2007 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Who was the last candidate to win without Iowa OR New Hampshire?"
We are talking caucus or primary here, right? McCain won the New Hampshire primary (I would have to double check if he also won the Iowa caucus, but I think he did too) in 2000, so I think the answer to your question would be: George W. Bush.
November 12, 2007 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Giuliani team assessment that they can win without NH or IA, is probably just an attempt to inoculate him against his anticipated losses there. The hope is that if they can create the impression that the states are not essential, then his standing in the other states won't be diminished when he loses them.
November 12, 2007 11:53 PM | Reply | Permalink