Can Giuliani Get Into the Republican Game in Florida?

By Stuart Rothenberg

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) has taken quite a hit recently both in the national media and in national polls. Journalists have noted that his crowds during the first two weeks of January were small, leading some to conclude that the mayor’s presidential race may be over even before it has begun.

But as we’ve already seen a number of times during this presidential campaign, it’s wise not to jump to conclusions, and Giuliani’s strategy has not yet been tested. There’s no need for you to be the first on your block to write off the New Yorker.

Giuliani’s fading strength in the national polls, his eroded standing in Quinnipiac University’s Florida polling and his poor crowds recently stem from the same factor: He didn’t compete in the early contests, where most of the attention and all of the initial excitement was located.

For many months, I’ve said that I thought Giuliani’s Florida/Feb. 5 strategy was both silly and plausible, and there is no reason to change that assessment at this point.

The mayor has tried to stay relevant in the Republican race by participating in debates, but those appearances alone didn’t make him a factor in Iowa, New Hampshire or Michigan, and he simply got lost. He’s likely to stay lost until after South Carolina, when he’ll take off his warm-up outfit and rush into the game long after all of the other players already have scored some points and drawn cheers from the fans.

Rudy’s strategy is fundamentally flawed because it allows the other candidates to control the process. They are the focus of attention, not him. If he is relevant at the end of January, it is only because no strong favorite has emerged from the early contests.

So Giuliani took the unwise gamble of passing on the early states, figuring that defeats there would destroy his candidacy. However risky, unwise and silly his strategy, it so far has worked as his strategists hoped. Iowa, New Hampshire and Michigan were won by different contestants, and no matter what happens in South Carolina this weekend, the New Yorker will have a chance to alter the dynamics of the GOP race on Jan. 29, when he enters the Republican mix.

The crucial point is this: Giuliani didn’t fall in the national polls because Republican voters decided he doesn’t have the stuff to be president. He didn’t see his crowds thin because rank-and-file Republicans finally turned thumbs down on his more moderate social views (on abortion, gay rights or gun control). And he didn’t fall off the media’s national radar because Republicans remembered his friendship with Bernie Kerik or his messy personal life when he was still serving as mayor.

Giuliani’s star dimmed during the first half of January, not because he committed a gaffe but because he made himself irrelevant. When he becomes relevant at the end of January, both voters and the national media will once again turn to Rudy, and that’s when he’ll have his shot.

This isn’t to say that his strategy hasn’t already affected his prospects. If you don’t play, you can’t win, and you can’t build up any momentum along the way, as former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney already have done. On the other hand, momentum apparently is overrated this year, since neither Huckabee’s victory in the caucuses nor McCain’s in New Hampshire catapulted them to a win in the next contest.

Possibly more important, Giuliani’s Florida/Feb. 5 strategy requires a lot of money, since it is based on a strong showing in a large number of states, many of them heavily populated, stretching from coast to coast.

You can win Iowa, as Huckabee proved, without a lot of cash. And you can overcome a large financial disadvantage in New Hampshire, as McCain demonstrated. Both of those states require and reward retail politics. But Giuliani’s strategy requires a lot of money, and he’s rapidly running out of it, according to most reports.

The first three Republican outcomes demonstrate that the GOP is badly fractured. That’s good for Giuliani, who benefits from the chaos and can offer himself up to Republicans as someone the entire party can get behind. However, McCain’s inability to attract the support of conservatives ought to create concern inside the Giuliani camp, which, like that of the Arizona Senator, ultimately needs support from those Republican primary voters.

Despite the early national polls, Rudy Giuliani never was the clear frontrunner in the GOP race. He merely was the biggest national celebrity in a contest that is not a national one. Still, after ignoring Iowa, pulling out of New Hampshire (after spending millions there) and bypassing Michigan and South Carolina, the former mayor continues to have his admirers and a scenario that says that he can win the Republican nomination.

Yes, even though the Republican nomination is still up for grabs and Giuliani’s strategy has so far paid off, he remains only a long shot for the Republican nomination. But given the weirdness that is the 2008 presidential race, that’s not half bad.



This column first appeared in Roll Call on January 17, 2008. Copyright 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

A Big McCain Win, But Trouble in the Weeds

By Stuart Rothenberg

Sen. John McCain won a narrow victory in South Carolina on Saturday, but the final results and the exit poll continue to show a very fractured Republican party without a single candidate who has emerged as a consensus choice.

Once again the devil is in the details, and anyone who digs through the exit poll will find that the GOP race is still wide open.

McCain won again, as he did in New Hampshire, on the basis of strong support from self-described moderates and liberals, and by attracting the votes of Independents. He won among primary voters who believe abortion should be legal, who believe that illegal immigrants should have a path to citizenship and who had a negative opinion of the Bush Administration.

McCain and Huckabee each won about 30 percent of the GOP, with Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson drawing another 16 percent each. Huckabee easily won conservatives, evangelical Christians, and voters who favored deporting illegal aliens.

Did McCain measurably improve on his 2000 showing in South Carolina? Not if you compare the 2000 and 2008 exit polls.

In 2000, McCain won 29 percent of self-described conservatives. This time, he won just 26 percent. In 2000, he drew 26 percent of Republicans. This time he won 30 percent – an improvement but not a dramatic one. McCain won 48 percent of veterans in 2000 against George W. Bush but only 37 percent this time.

If McCain didn’t increase his percentages, why did he win? McCain won because of the fractured GOP field. Huckabee, Thompson and Romney divided the GOP vote and conservatives, allowing McCain to win with only a third of the total primary vote.

McCain’s formula for victory can work in states that allow Independents to vote, but it’s still unclear whether he can compete successfully in states with closed primaries, which includes a number of Super Tuesday states: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Montana, New York, Oklahoma and West Virginia.

McCain’s victory is disappointing news for Rudy Giuliani, who is waiting in Florida. Giuliani’s poll numbers have been slipping, and McCain’s momentum could make him appealing to some Florida Republicans who had been considering the former New York Mayor.

Some observers surely will see McCain’s victory in South Carolina as fundamentally changing the GOP race. But the evidence is not there yet that that is the case. If you look deep, deep into the weeds, the Republicans are still in a very wide-open race.


This item also appeared on Political Wire.

Romney’s Michigan Showing Adds Complexity to Evangelical Vote

By Nathan L. Gonzales

Three states down, three different results among evangelical voters for the Republican presidential candidates.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney won a plurality of evangelicals (34%) in Michigan, despite some reservations within the community about his Mormon religion. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee placed second (29%) and Arizona Sen. John McCain third (23%) among evangelicals.

After Huckabee’s convincing win among evangelicals in Iowa (he took 46%) and the three-way tie among evangelicals in New Hampshire, Romney’s showing is evidence that no candidate has a lock on the evangelical vote.

It also suggests that while evangelicals hold to uniting theological themes, there is limited uniformity in how evangelicals apply their faith to politics and choosing a particular candidate.

Evangelicals were a larger part of the electorate in Michigan (39%) than in New Hampshire (24%), but a smaller percentage than in Iowa (60%). South Carolina will be the next test case for the evangelical vote on Saturday.

Eight years ago, the exit poll asked primary voters if they were part of the “religious right.” First of all, what does “religious right” even mean? Second, surely there were evangelicals in 2000 who did not consider themselves part of the “religious right,” but we don’t know how many. Unfortunately, that’s the only vaguely similar question we have in analyzing potential evangelical percentages in upcoming Republican primaries.

In 2000, one-third of the Republican primary voters in South Carolina said they were part of the “religious right,” a slightly smaller percentage than similar voters in Iowa that year (37%). If that trend still exists today, it would poke a hole in the theory that South Carolina is full of uber-conservative evangelicals ready to deliver the state for Huckabee.

Romney Rides the Republican Wave in Michigan GOP Primary

By Stuart Rothenberg

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, whose father served as Michigan's governor and campaigned as a hometown favorite, won the Michigan Republican primary Tuesday by rolling up clear wins among self-described conservatives and Republicans.

Romney’s victory resuscitates a failing campaign, adding further chaos to an already confused Republican Presidential race.

Second-place finisher John McCain came up short in a state that he won eight years ago because Independents and Democrats failed to turn out at the same rate that they did in 2000.

Eight years ago, Michigan Democrats constituted 17 percent of primary voters in the GOP contest, while Independents constituted 35 percent of primary voters. Self-identified Republicans were less than half (48 percent) of all GOP primary voters then.

But this time, more than two out of three voters in the GOP primary identified themselves as Republicans, and Romney won them comfortably. McCain won Independents and Democrats this time as he did eight years ago.

McCain continued to do well, as he did in New Hampshire, among primary voters who disapproved of the war in Iraq, who described themselves as moderates and who identified Iraq as the nation’s top problem.

In addition to winning conservatives and self-identified Republicans, Romney did well among voters who valued experience, supported the war in Iraq, favored deporting illegal aliens, said that abortion should always be illegal, said that they were “enthusiastic” or “satisfied” with the Bush Administration, and lived in the Detroit suburbs.

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee finished a distant third, drawing notable support only from evangelical Christians, from voters who said abortion should always be illegal and from voters who said that the religious beliefs of their candidate matter “a great deal.” However, he lost evangelicals to Romney.

The primary results once again raise questions about McCain’s ability to attract Republican voters, who will be crucial in a number of upcoming contests that allow only registered Republicans to participate.

McCain voters are far more secular than the typical Republican, far less satisfied with President Bush and far less conservative. That’s not a formula for winning the Republican Presidential nomination.

Michigan Republicans also showed little interest in Huckabee’s message of economic populism, even though the state has been suffering for years from economic problems. That raises questions about the breadth of Huckabee’s appeal even in his own party.

Romney continues to show strength among upscale, core Republican voters, an important constituency in future GOP contests. Still, Michigan is Romney’s first major win (he also won the Wyoming caucuses), and he has expended considerable resources in Iowa, New Hampshire and Michigan.

Romney must now decide whether to compete fully in South Carolina, where McCain and Huckabee are expected to run well, or to focus on Florida.

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who has bypassed the first few contests to compete in Florida and on February 5, benefits from Romney’s win, since it keeps the GOP race wide open.

GOP Showdowns Ahead in Michigan and South Carolina

By Stuart Rothenberg

If you think Mike Huckabee can’t possibly win the Republican nomination for president, you are deluding yourself. If you think Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) has the GOP nomination in the bag, you need to wake up and smell the coffee.

The Republican race is still up for grabs. But as I write this, three days after New Hampshire and four days before Michigan, the GOP contest looks like a fair fight between McCain and Huckabee, with Mitt Romney needing a miracle in Michigan to stay alive.

McCain’s win in New Hampshire has given him the look of a winner, but his winning coalition may not be easily replicated in many states.

Voters who opposed the war in Iraq and were dissatisfied or angry with the Bush administration flocked to McCain, as did moderate and liberal Republicans and independents. He tied Huckabee among evangelical voters, but New Hampshire evangelicals are different from Iowa evangelicals.

McCain still must prove that he can win a closed primary and that he has enough support among Republican regulars to win his party’s nomination. He may, in fact, do so. But even if he wins in Michigan (which he also won in 2000), he still has a formidable task ahead of him, especially when the narrative gets back to immigration and some of the other things in his record.

Huckabee may not be a very good general election nominee for the GOP, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t a big-time threat for the party’s nomination.

Many conservatives simply won’t warm to McCain, and social conservatives seem likely to be drawn to Huckabee throughout the South and in the Midwest, too. The calendar sets up well for him, with Michigan, South Carolina and Florida all places where he can play seriously, particularly if a conservative or two (that is, Romney and former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson) drop out.

The Wolverine State is not generally regarded as a conservative bastion, but Christian conservatives are a significant part of the GOP coalition there.

While McCain won Michigan in 2000, largely on the strength of his showing among Democrats and independents (who together accounted for 52 percent of all GOP primary voters), more than half of 2000 Republican primary voters said abortion should “never” be legal or should be legal in “few cases,” and more than a quarter (27 percent) identified themselves as members of the religious right.

But those figures understate Huckabee’s potential appeal in the state, and his initial Michigan TV spot is a perfect example of why the former Arkansas governor shouldn’t be underestimated in the contest.

Instead of promoting his “Christian values,” Huckabee, who may figure that he already has the inside track with religious conservatives, immediately launched a populist economic ad in a state that has become the nation’s economic basket case.

The opening in Huckabee’s spot — “When you grow up and life’s a struggle, you have a whole different understanding of what most people are going through” –— and the closing — “I believe most Americans want their next president to remind them of the guy they work with, not the guy who laid them off” — show he’s looking to broaden his support among those who are hurting economically.

Huckabee’s economic populist message should resonate well in the state and allow him to grow his support, according to one veteran GOP insider with a long track record in Michigan.

The first Michigan poll after New Hampshire showed McCain moving to the front and Romney holding a narrow advantage over Huckabee. Those numbers will change before Tuesday, but they offer the scary possibility for Romney that he could finish third in a state that he must win. (An effort by liberal blog Daily Kos to get Michigan Democrats to vote for Romney in the GOP primary obviously is a wild card.)

If McCain reassembles his 2000 Michigan coalition and Huckabee adds those hurt by the state’s economy to his socially conservative supporters, Romney will find himself squeezed, limited to the same kind of upscale Republican regulars who supported him in Iowa and New Hampshire. The former Massachusetts governor cannot afford to allow that to happen.

No matter who wins in Michigan, McCain and Huckabee seem destined to meet in South Carolina on Jan. 19, with Thompson and possibly Romney also in the contest.

Huckabee would seem to have the early edge, since 61 percent of South Carolina’s 2000 GOP primary voters identified themselves as conservative, one-third said they were part of the religious right and Huckabee’s Southern roots give him a special appeal.

But again, it’s better to look before you leap. McCain definitely can play in the Palmetto State.

McCain drew 42 percent in the state’s GOP primary against George W. Bush in 2000, not an insignificant showing by the Arizonan (especially in light of the infamous telephone campaign conducted against him). More than one in four Republican primary voters eight years ago was a veteran and 30 percent were self-described independents, a group McCain won with 60 percent in that race.

The Palmetto State is conservative, but it is also the epitome of establishment Republicanism. That’s why former Sen. Bob Dole (Kan.) defeated Pat Buchanan rather handily in the state’s 1996 presidential primary after losing to the populist former speechwriter in New Hampshire. And that race could be a model for McCain, who may become the party establishment’s choice to stop Huckabee.

The contest for the Republican nomination is really a series of very different contests, and each depends at least in part on the makeup of the field as well as on the outcome of the previous contest. For voters, as well as campaign watchers, that could make for a very fluid next four weeks.


This column also appeared in Roll Call on January 14, 2008. Copyright 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Different Picture of Evangelical Voters in New Hampshire

By Nathan L. Gonzales

Less than a week after former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee rode to victory on the shoulders of evangelical voters, he hit a speed bump in New Hampshire with the same group.

In Iowa, 60% of GOP caucus goers were self-described born again or evangelical Christian. Huckabee won the group with a commanding 46%. Mitt Romney finished second (19%), Fred Thompson third (11%), and Sen. John McCain tied with Cong. Ron Paul at 10%.

But in New Hampshire, McCain, Huckabee, and Romney fought to essentially a three-way tie (28%, 28%, and 27% respectively) among evangelicals, who made up nearly a quarter of Granite State Republicans.

The drop off in the size of the evangelical electorate is not surprising, but McCain’s dramatic improvement is particularly noteworthy. Tuesday’s results prove that evangelicals are not a monolithic block of voters, despite the laziness of some observers in claiming otherwise.

In Iowa, Huckabee won 56% of caucus goers who said that religious beliefs mattered a great deal to them (36% of the electorate). McCain, Romney, and Thompson all tied at 11%, a distant second. But in New Hampshire, McCain defeated Huckabee 34%-28% among voters who prioritized religious beliefs, although their share of the electorate was much smaller (14%) than in Iowa.

And among the one-third of GOP primary voters in New Hampshire who said they attended church weekly, McCain finished first with 32%, Romney second at 28%, and Huckabee third with 24%. On the Democratic side, Sen. Barack Obama won weekly churchgoers (18% of the Democratic electorate) with 37%. Sen. Hillary Clinton was second with 32%. Unfortunately, the same question was left off of the Iowa entrance poll, making comparisons difficult.

While McCain did well among evangelicals, he also easily won those who strongly supported civil unions in the state, adding even more complexity to the New Hampshire electorate.

According to one Republican observer, Huckabee’s Southern charm just didn’t play as well in the Granite State as it did in Iowa. The good news for the former Arkansas governor is that evangelicals in the upcoming battlegrounds of Michigan and South Carolina are more likely to be friendlier to his style and message than Tuesday’s flock. But only more results will determine whether McCain has newfound appeal to evangelicals or if New Hampshire is an aberration in the race for the Republican nomination.

Winners & Losers From Iowa

By Stuart Rothenberg

After months of speculation about who’ll win Iowa, we finally have winners and losers. Some of them are obvious, while others may not be. One thing for sure is that a rousing speech on caucus night doesn’t mean a candidate has won. In some cases, losers seemed to yell even louder than winners.

Iowa Winners

1. Barack Obama.
The easiest pick of the night, Obama’s win means that he goes to New Hampshire as a winner. No, the Democratic contest is not over, but if he wins in the Granite State, he’ll be hard to stop in South Carolina. And if he sweeps those three, he may never look back.

Entrance polling showed Iowa Democrats responded strongly to Obama’s message of change – half of Democrats said that the top quality they were looking for in a candidate was his or her ability to bring about change, and of those respondents, 51 percent voted for Obama. The Illinois Democrat’s campaign also clearly benefited from the surge in Democratic turnout and from the participation of Iowans who had never before caucused.

Obama won among caucus-goers who said the war was the top issue, as well as among those who identified the economy or health care as the most important issue. He won “very liberal” and “somewhat liberal” Democratic caucus attendees handily, and nosed out Clinton among self-described moderates. All in all, an impressive performance.

2. Mike Huckabee.
In May, Huckabee wasn’t even on the radar screen in Iowa. At the end of the day, he was outspent, and he won what is always regarded as an “organizational race” without much of an organization.

Huckabee clobbered the rest of the GOP field on two key candidate qualities: “shares my values” and “says what he believes.” That’s a good place to start when you are running for your party’s Presidential nomination.

But Huckabee did as well as he did on Thursday only because of the make-up of Thursday’s Republican caucus-goers. The former Arkansas Governor won the caucuses because he cleaned up among the most conservative and most religious attendees. Six out of ten GOP caucus-goes were evangelicals, and he won them 46 percent to 19 percent over Mitt Romney.

Among the 36 percent of GOP attendees who said that the religious beliefs of the candidates matter “a great deal,” Huckabee won 56 percent – five times more than Romney, McCain or Thompson. But New Hampshire doesn’t look like natural Huckabee territory, and the Arkansas Republican’s long-term prospects in the race are not as bright as they may look today.

3. John McCain.
Sure, McCain finished essentially tied for third with Fred Thompson, but Romney’s less than sterling showing could dry up some of the former Massachusetts governor’s support in New Hampshire, and that could boost McCain’s prospects on Tuesday. The only problem for the Arizona Republican: If the Obama bandwagon draws even more Granite State Independents into the Democratic primary, depriving McCain of potential supporters.

4. Rudy Giuliani.
The win by Huckabee means that the GOP race is as confused as ever, and that’s a plus for the former New York City mayor, who benefits from confusion in the early contests. Giuliani’s chances for the Republican nomination don’t look all that bright, but he would have been much worse off if Romney had won in Iowa.

Iowa Losers.

1. John Edwards.
Anyone who listened to Edwards’s caucus night speech had to be asking, “What’s he smoking?”

After drawing 32 percent in the 2004 caucuses and spending the next four years camped out in the state, Edwards finished essentially tied for second on Thursday. To make matters worse, the other “change” candidate in the contest, Barack Obama, finished first. And, Obama’s optimistic change message trumped Edwards’s angry, populist message.

Edwards, who railed against corporate greed, focused on jobs and trade and aimed his message at the “little guy,” lost union households to both Clinton and Obama.

Edwards will now have major resource problems, and he isn’t likely to do well in New Hampshire. If his comments last night are any indication, he isn’t likely to go quietly. But the former North Carolina senator is in serious trouble. He needed to win in Iowa, and he didn’t. It’s just that simple.

2. Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Clinton’s problem isn’t that Edwards nosed her out for second; it’s that caucus attendees preferred change over experience, raising questions about her fundamental appeal. The calendar isn’t her friend over the next month, and she’ll be peppered with process questions when she’d rather talk about things that voters want to hear.

Nobody should count the New York senator out. Iowa, after all, is just a single state, and Clinton and Obama ran virtually even among self-described Democrats in Iowa, which offers her hope in true closed primary states. But Clinton no longer is in the driver’s seat, as indicated by the fact that she lost women, 35 percent to 30 percent, to Obama in the caucuses.

3. Mitt Romney.
How do you go from a prohibitive favorite in the Iowa caucuses to a surprisingly distant runner-up to Mike Huckabee? Ask Romney. He did it.

Romney won with upscale Republicans, more moderate and urban GOP caucus-goers and those for whom the religious beliefs of the candidate didn’t matter a lot. But he got swamped by conservative evangelicals who wouldn’t vote for a Mormon. He won’t have that problem in New Hampshire, but he has a different one there: John McCain.

Romney needs a win in the Granite State or in Michigan to stay in the hunt. One of his biggest problems is that caucus attendees didn’t think that “he says what he believes.”

Republican Race Twists & Turns Even Before Bhutto Assassination

By Stuart Rothenberg

Even before the death of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto on Thursday, there were signs of continued churning in the GOP race, with Arizona Senator John McCain pulling even with and ahead of former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney in New Hampshire, according to knowledgeable observers.

In Iowa, the Republican contest continues to be a two-man race, with Romney so far retaining considerable strength against former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. In fact, in spite of a recent Los Angeles Times poll showing Huckabee with a 14-point lead over Romney, there is some reason to believe that Romney has closed that gap and that the GOP contest in the Iowa caucuses is much closer than the Times poll suggests.

While McCain is not yet in the mix in Iowa and shows few signs of joining Huckabee and Romney in the GOP top tier in the state, he could well finish a surprisingly strong third in the caucuses, which could get him positive media attention and boost him in New Hampshire.

For Giuliani, the Arizonan's growing strength is a significant problem. Fourth-place finishes for Giuliani in the first two contests, along with a resurgent McCain, could make McCain both more appealing to moderates and more likely to emerge as the consensus choice of conservatives as the race moves forward. That would make it much more difficult for the New Yorker to jump-start his campaign and almost impossible for him to pull away on February 5th, as he hopes to do.

The Republican races in Iowa and New Hampshire remain very fluid. But it now seems quite clear that reports of John McCain's political demise were far too premature.

The Bhutto assassination is likely to have an effect on both parties' nomination fights by elevating foreign policy and international concerns.

On the GOP side, McCain and Giuliani are likely to benefit, with Romney and Huckabee having a harder time to convince late deciders of their ability to handle an international crisis. Huckabee is in the weakest position by far, since his "good old boy" appeal becomes a weakness rather than a strength.

Democratic Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is the obvious beneficiary on the Democratic side, since neither Illinois Senator Barack Obama nor former Senator John Edwards have the credentials or stature to match Clinton's. Still, it is far from certain whether the news from Pakistan will have a profound impact on the Democratic contest.

For many months, I argued that the focus on day to day developments and meaningless national polls was unwise and reflected a fundamental misunderstanding of the Iowa and New Hampshire decision-making process. Only in recent weeks have Republican and Democratic caucus attendees and primary voters been focusing on choosing a president - the same thing that happened in the 2004 Democratic race.

Given the difficulty in predicting turnout, particularly in Iowa, it's wise for pundits, journalists, talking heads and real people to spend their time watching the developments, including the swings in momentum, rather than in mindlessly picking winners and losers. Both nominations currently are up for grabs.

This column also appeared on RealClearPolitics on December 28, 2007.

Why Mitt Romney Can’t ‘Solve’ His Mormon Problem

By Stuart Rothenberg

Reviews from conservatives of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney’s speech on religion have generally been good. Former Ronald Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan wrote in The Wall Street Journal that Romney did “very, very well.”

“The words he said will likely have a real and positive impact on his fortune,” she predicted.

Conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt called the speech “simply magnificent,” but went even further, immodestly declaring, in a way not intended to encourage discussion or disagreement, that “anyone who denies it is not to be trusted as an analyst. ... On every level it was a masterpiece.”

Notwithstanding those assessments (and some polling that suggests he helped himself with his speech), it’s unlikely that Romney’s speech at the George Bush Library in Texas achieved his goal of convincing skeptical evangelicals that he is a candidate they can support.

Indeed, the gushing reviews once again demonstrate that many observers still don’t fully understand why evangelical Christian voters are having a problem with Romney’s Mormon religion. It’s not merely that they disagree with his church on matters of theology or, as some may believe, that they are intolerant. The issue is far more fundamental than that.

Many evangelicals won’t vote for a Mormon for president of the United States for the same reason that almost all Jews would not vote for a candidate (for any office, I expect) who is a member of Jews for Jesus. For Jews, the Jews for Jesus movement is a deceptive attempt to woo Jews to Christianity under the guise of remaining true to Judaism.

Likewise, for evangelicals, Mormons are not “Christians” in the sense that evangelicals understand the term, and by portraying themselves as “Christians,” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is deceptively wooing evangelicals or potential adherents away from Christianity.

Evangelicals see Mormons as trying to blur the line between Christianity and Mormonism, just as Jews see Jews for Jesus as trying to blur the lines between Judaism and Christianity.

In each case, evangelicals and Jews would not want to elevate to high office someone who might give legitimacy to a group that passes itself off as something that it is not, and that threatens their own group.

Any president’s religious views are likely to receive attention in the national media, and the authority of the office is likely to translate to added authority and respectability for the president’s religion.

Given this fundamental belief (which is hardly irrational), when Romney said, midway in his speech at the Bush Library, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind,” he was actually reminding evangelicals who are uncomfortable with Mormonism that his election would help erase the lines between what they view as the two very different religions.

To people who have been taught as children that Mormonism is a cult and who regard some of the more unusual Mormon beliefs as heresy, one speech from Mitt Romney is not going to allay all of their fears.

For many Catholics and Jews, the idea that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is somehow a threat to evangelical Christianity probably seems absurd. But that is what many believe, and that view makes Romney’s religion a grave concern to evangelicals, no matter how much they agree with the former governor’s views or admire his values.

Anyone who has followed the internal fights of Judaism, with Orthodox Jewish authorities refusing to accept the practices of the Reform, the Reconstructionist or even the Conservative movements, should begin to understand the fundamental problem that many evangelicals have with the Mormon Church.

Many in the media portray evangelical attitudes toward Mormonism as a form of bigotry and religious intolerance akin to the anti-Semitic and anti-Catholic sentiment that was once so prevalent in this country and is much rarer these days. But it is a very different kind of concern, a concern about the meaning of Christianity.

Few in this country would disagree with Mitt Romney’s assertion at the Bush Library that, “A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should be rejected because of his faith.” And just as few would doubt his promise that, if he is elected president, “no authorities of my church ... will ever exert influence on presidential decisions.”

But Romney’s “Mormon problem” bears little resemblance to John F. Kennedy’s “Catholic problem” in 1960. Few evangelicals worry that the former Massachusetts governor will call Salt Lake City for instructions on how to proceed as president.

And Romney’s problem isn’t merely that evangelicals won’t vote for nonevangelicals. They will and they have voted for Protestants, Catholics and Jews. Some have even voted for Mormons for lower office.

Given that evangelicals see Mormonism as deceptive and an attempt to pass itself off as a form of Christianity, one speech about tolerance and the importance of faith is not likely to convince evangelicals to support Romney. I’m willing to bet that American Jews would overwhelmingly feel the same about voting for someone who is a “messianic Jew.”


This column first appeared in Roll Call on December 17, 2007. Copyright 2007 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Where the Presidential Nomination Races Are ... and Where to Look

By Stuart Rothenberg

More than three months before the crucial Iowa caucuses, there are good reasons for treating national surveys with great skepticism and for placing greater weight on the candidates’ standing and strength in Iowa and New Hampshire.

First, the candidates actually have been campaigning for months in those two states — meeting voters and airing ads. Voters, therefore, are basing their decisions on more than name recognition. They have looked at and listened to the hopefuls and made informed judgments about each of the candidates as a potential nominee and a potential president.

Of course, Iowa and New Hampshire voters have changed their opinions quickly in the past as the caucuses and primary have approached, and they may do so again this cycle (see my April 5 column, “Already, Too Much of the ’08 Coverage Is Quite Misleading”). But you are likely to take note of that change sooner if you are looking at state polls rather than at national survey numbers.

Second, the Iowa and New Hampshire results will create a dynamic that will affect the media’s coverage of the race, as well as the public’s perception of the candidates and the nature of their choices. After Iowa and New Hampshire, there will be winners and losers, candidates who failed to meet expectations, and, probably, those who exceeded expectations.

Simply put, developments in the early tests will affect the attitudes of voters in late January and February primary and caucus states. Could a candidate jump-start a candidacy in early February? Possibly, but certainly only if the January contests break just right.

If polls are snapshots, why are the national ones badly out of focus?

National polling currently includes too many respondents from states where no TV advertising has been aired and where the candidates have barely set foot. Respondents in those states aren’t paying close attention to the races and are basing their responses primarily on name recognition or general impressions. That is why celebrity candidates run best in national surveys.

If former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) wins the Iowa caucuses, as many expect, he’ll become a hot political property for the media, which should boost his national standing and prospects, even though he now runs a distant fourth in national polling.

In fact, given Romney’s strong showings currently in Iowa and New Hampshire, his prospects for the Republican nomination currently are as good as or better than former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s or former Sen. Fred Thompson’s (Tenn.).

One veteran Iowa Democrat who is deeply involved in his party’s caucuses thinks that the GOP die already is cast. “Romney will be the Republican nominee,” the insider said. “He has the best organization by far in Iowa. Nobody else comes close. The second-best Republican organization in the state probably is [Mike] Huckabee’s. Rudy’s got nothing in the state. Neither does Fred Thompson.”

Winning Iowa certainly wouldn’t guarantee Romney his party’s nomination. Ronald Reagan was nosed out by George H.W. Bush in the caucuses in 1980 yet won New Hampshire and the GOP nomination. Eight years later, George H.W. Bush replicated Reagan’s path.

Still, Romney’s early strength in New Hampshire, combined with a probable win in Iowa and the likelihood that independents in the Granite State will both vote in significant numbers in the Democratic race and not unite behind a single GOP hopeful (as they did in 2000, when they backed Arizona Sen. John McCain), make the former Massachusetts governor the frontrunner in the nation’s first primary, at least at this point.

Romney’s opponents have yet to launch their inevitable flip-flopper attacks on him, and we don’t yet know how those attacks will affect his candidacy. But if he wins Iowa and New Hampshire, Romney surely will be the frontrunner in the Republican race. Given that, he should be included in the list of GOP frontrunners, even now.

On the Democratic side, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s (N.Y.) lead in the national polls could crumble quickly if she places second or third in Iowa. Clinton, former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) and Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) are currently bunched together in the Hawkeye State, and anything could happen in the Democrats’ caucuses.

Clinton’s resources, experience, national political organization and, yes, gender give her an advantage in the race for the Democratic nomination. Those factors, as well as the fact that she is widely known, make it reasonable to call her a narrow favorite for her party’s nomination. But the national poll numbers greatly exaggerate her current standing in the Democratic race.

I’m not suggesting that national poll numbers are irrelevant. They do reflect national name recognition and the initial standing of the candidates. But so many important developments will occur before voters in Florida, California or Illinois get to cast their primary votes — developments that will color the public’s perception of the two presidential races — that the national numbers, as well as poll numbers in later states, have little predictive value now.

National numbers simply don’t deserve anything close to the attention that they are receiving in the national media, and particularly on TV. If you really want to know how Romney and Clinton are doing, keep your eye on Iowa and New Hampshire.


This column first appeared in Roll Call on September 20, 2007. Copyright 2007 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

How Thompson Hurt His Own Prospects — and Helped Romney’s

By Stuart Rothenberg

After former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson acknowledged in mid-March that he was considering a run for the Republican presidential nomination, supporters of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney were quietly acknowledging the obvious: Their candidate was political roadkill if Thompson entered the contest anytime soon.

But things look very different now. Thompson’s decision to delay his entry into the contest until this week not only damaged his own prospects but, more importantly, breathed life into a Romney candidacy that easily could have been snuffed out before it had begun.

Initially, coming from the right side of the ideological spectrum, Thompson appeared to fill the vacuum created when Virginia Sen. George Allen was eliminated as a credible presidential candidate. Even more important, the attorney-turned-actor-turned-Senator- turned-actor seemed to appeal to conservatives looking for “another Ronald Reagan.”

Romney, a Mormon with little national name recognition and no following in all- important Iowa, had problems with evangelical Christians in his party, and his flip-flopping on gay rights and abortion meant he’d have a tough time appealing to party conservatives.

So a Thompson bid would attract the same kind of Republicans that Romney hoped to attract and fill the void in the race that the Massachusetts Republican hoped to fill.

But that was before Romney ran more than 3,000 gross ratings points of television ads in both Iowa and New Hampshire, and before the former Massachusetts governor had introduced himself to the voters of those two key states.

Romney did such an effective job building the best Republican organization in the Hawkeye State that two other GOP candidates, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Arizona Sen. John McCain, blinked at the thought of challenging him at the Iowa straw poll, leaving that event to him and to second-tier Republican hopefuls.

Polling in Iowa and New Hampshire currently shows Romney leading in both states, with Thompson trailing badly.

In Iowa, Romney generally draws around 30 percent in polls of likely caucus attendees, while Giuliani and Thompson fight it out for second, drawing in the low to mid-teens. In New Hampshire, Romney gets the support of about 30 percent of primary voters, while Giuliani is about 10 points back and McCain and Thompson battle it out for third, often in the low teens.

If Thompson’s delay allowed Romney to establish himself in the two key early states, it also allowed former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee to create some buzz from a second-place showing at the straw vote.

Huckabee remains a second-tier hopeful, primarily because he lacks the resources to compete with the top-tier candidates. But Huckabee’s strong debate showings, popularity among members of the media and straw vote showing has attracted some grass-roots attention, particularly among conservatives. The Arkansas Republican has received a noticeable bump in American Research Group polling in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

Any support Huckabee has garnered over the past few weeks undoubtedly would have been available to Thompson over the summer, when the Tennessean was hemming and hawing about his potential candidacy rather than energetically wooing caucus attendees and primary voters.

With Thompson out of the race, conservatives uncomfortable with Romney have had the opportunity to look elsewhere, and some have been impressed with the former Arkansas governor.

If all of this isn’t enough of a reason to wonder about Thompson’s strategy and chances, a mid-January Michigan primary could be another headache for the former Tennessee Senator.

Initially, even if Thompson fell short in Iowa and New Hampshire, he looked well-positioned in the third big GOP presidential contest: South Carolina — that is, until Michigan legislators decided to move the state’s primary to mid-January and ahead of South Carolina’s.

A mid-January Michigan primary alters the nomination process significantly for Republicans, since it adds a big, expensive state into the early mix and makes the first Southern state the fourth contest, not the third. Money does not now look like one of Thompson’s great assets.

In delaying his entry into the Republican race, Thompson has looked indecisive and weak. He has lost potential supporters and contributors to other campaigns. And he has limited the strategic options of his campaign.

But maybe more than anything else, he gave an opening first to Romney and more recently to Huckabee that neither would have had. So instead of squeezing them out of the race in the summer, Fred Thompson finds himself squeezed in the fall.

Is Thompson a problem for Romney? Sure, but not as much of a problem as Romney now is for Thompson.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on September 4, 2007. Copyright 2007 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

There’s Still Plenty of Uncertainty After McCain’s Shake-up

By Stuart Rothenberg

First there were four, and now there are three — three top-tier GOP presidential candidates, at least if you count a guy who still isn’t officially a candidate. Sen. John McCain now has the second tier all to himself.

The shake-up at the McCain presidential campaign isn’t as much an answer to the Arizona Senator’s problems as a reflection of the campaign’s multiple difficulties. Let’s be clear: The McCain campaign’s burn rate on funds was too high, but that’s not why the Arizona Republican’s prospects have slipped.

Given McCain’s cash, his poll numbers and the state of his campaign, he has few options, according to one veteran political strategist with whom I talked, except to “park himself in New Hampshire, shut down his operations elsewhere and try to make a comeback in a state that he won eight years ago.”

Regardless of whether you agree with that assessment, it’s quite clear that McCain doesn’t have any appealing options to choose from now. Still, if you are the Arizonan, making your second bid for the GOP nomination and beginning this race as the early favorite, why not hope that Republican voters — much as Democratic voters did in 2004 — reassess the candidates early next year and give the initial frontrunner a second shot?

McCain’s problems should benefit former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who becomes the sole top-tier moderate in the race. McCain, of course, never called himself a moderate or campaigned as one, but he has been viewed that way by many conservative Republicans, primarily because of his work with Democratic Sens. Russ Feingold (Wis.) and Edward Kennedy (Mass.) on high-profile issues.

“Moderates constitute no more than a third of the party, and I’m being generous, but now you have two conservatives [former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson] fighting over two-thirds of the party, and Giuliani all alone with moderates,” one neutral GOP insider told me recently.

Thompson, of course, is not yet officially in the race, and nobody is quite sure what he’s waiting for. He’s raising millions of dollars, and allies of the former Tennessee Senator are reaching out to prospective hires for the campaign.

Yet while other candidates are filing Federal Election Commission reports and responding to media questions, Thompson’s spokesman, Mark Corallo, refuses to discuss the shadow candidate’s fundraising except to say that the campaign’s goal, if Thompson runs, “is to raise enough money to win.”

Well that really clarifies things. At least we can now rule out that Thompson is trying to raise enough money to lose.

Thompson doesn’t have to get in now, but his delay does make one wonder whether he is trying to avoid something. Given the recent criticism of his lobbying efforts on abortion, it isn’t as if he’s avoiding scrutiny by not having announced his candidacy.

Thompson isn’t forced to compete in the Ames, Iowa, straw vote if he doesn’t want to. He could have announced weeks ago that he was entering the race too late to put together the organizational effort needed for a strong showing in the Aug. 11 event. Maybe he’s delaying to see whether a last-minute effort at Ames might vault him to second place in Iowa even though he has little or no organization on the ground.

Anyway, it’s hard not to conclude that Thompson is trying to run out the clock — even before he has suited up and entered the game — so that he doesn’t even have to campaign.

Clearly, Thompson starts off as a major player in the GOP contest. A number of Republican insiders told me they believe he will vault to the front of national GOP polling when he enters the race, and the real question is how quickly and how far his numbers slide after they spike on his entry.

“People don’t know anything about Fred Thompson,” acknowledged one Republican strategist who is at least sympathetic to the Tennessean, adding, “Conservatives are seeing in him what they want to see in him. They are projecting their views onto him.”

“Can he hold the strength that he now has? It’s a close call,” noted the thoughtful observer, adding that “while he’s obviously a skilled performer, outside of a formal setting, like when he is made up for ‘Meet the Press,’ he doesn’t look that good, and he isn’t that sharp on policy.”

Thompson could either turn out to be just what conservative Republicans are looking for, in which case he could well end up being the GOP nominee, or an absolute dud who disappoints grass-roots Republicans looking to him to save the party.

The McCain fall from the top tier creates an interesting calendar dynamic, since after Romney, McCain had invested most heavily in the Iowa caucuses. With Giuliani not doing much in Iowa — rival campaigns go so far as to say that he apparently is conceding the state — and Thompson still not in the race or organized in the Hawkeye State, the burden is on Romney to blow away the field in state contests, both in Ames and in January.

If McCain downsizes in Iowa, will the Giuliani campaign seek to upgrade its effort in the state, hoping to take advantage of a crowd of conservative candidates who fracture the right-of-center electorate?

If Romney is able to win the caucuses decisively, he would have a chance at a one-two punch with a win in New Hampshire, a quirky open primary where Romney’s Mormonism isn’t regarded as nearly as big a problem as in the South and rural Midwest.

And will Giuliani really be able to wait until Florida, in late January, to compete full throttle in a GOP contest, as some think he hopes to do?

McCain’s slide answers some questions but raises others. Meanwhile, many GOPers are waiting for Fred ... which, increasingly, seems a bit like waiting for Godot.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on July 12, 2007. Copyright 2007 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.