The American Spectator

Print Email

Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

MyManMitt has gotten a hold of a PowerPoint presentation by the Romney campaign arguing the superiority of his electoral strategy over Rudy Giuliani's. The main thrust of the presentation is that Romney's strategy of winning in the early states is proven while Giuliani's national strategy is not. While an argument can be made to support that theory, I found this slide problematic:

-- A victory in Iowa and/or New Hampshire will provide "kindling" for the nomination--and Governor Romney will "catch fire" nationwide."

-- Previously successful campaigns: Kerry 2004, Clinton 1992.

The Kerry and Clinton analogies are flawed. In 1992, Clinton skipped Iowa and lost New Hampshire, but went on to win the nomination. If anything, his election proves the exact opposite of what the Romney camp is trying to convey. Also, Clinton was running against a field of Democrats who were referred to as "dwarfs." None of them had the national stature or political skills of Giuliani. While John Kerry's nomination was fueled by victories in early states, Giuliani is no Howard Dean. Kerry started the year as the frontrunner, but Dean quickly vaulted from nowhere to the top of the field and was pretty unhinged. Giuliani, on the other hand, has lead in most polls for nearly three years, and though many of his critics warned of a meltdown on the campaign trail, so far Giuliani has kept his cool and run a rather disciplined campaign. (If anything, the Kerry analogy most closely applies to McCain--a flawed early frontrunner with money problems that voters come home to at the last minute.)

In reality, it's impossible to draw comparrisons between this race and past nomination battles. The contracted primary schedule has made this a whole new ballgame. Perhaps the Romney strategy will prove successful, but it's a mistake to say it's "proven."

topics:
Law