GOP Nomination "Most Open In Decades"

No surprises in the most recent Washington Post/ABC News national poll of the presidential race. (See Republican Nomination Most Open In Decades.)

The Post reports that on the GOP side the race is wide open, with no "breakaway" front-runner "for the first time in nearly 30 years."

That's an understatement. When was the last time the Republicans had a race with five truly viable candidates at this point in the process?

The problem with those national polls, of which there are many--in addition to WaPo, there is Fox, WSJ/NBC, Gallup, Newsweek, LA Times/Bloomberg, to name a few--is that they are like pre-season sports polls, i.e., fairly meaningless.

This year, the pre-season football favorite was Michigan, which promptly lost its first two games, including a shocker to unknown Appalachian State. Likewise, the fact that Rudy G. and Hillary C. have been leading in the national polls for months now is really of little moment. (Although we should remember that for a long while McCain was leading those polls of Republicans.)

Instead, we need to wait for the "regular season" to start, with games in Iowa and New Hampshire, followed rapidly by a large number of primaries in other states. The problem is particularly acute for Giuliani, who trails in polls in the early states. Once those results become official, Rudy's status in the national polls will change quickly.

WaPo reports that Rudy's strength is soft, which is consistent with our view that many, if not most, Republicans are in more of a wait and see mode. We still see the potential for a race so wide open that the Republicans don't have a nominee before they start their national convention in September. That would be interesting.

How do we handicap the Republican candidates right now? If Romney can prove himself viable in the South, he has a real shot. His recent surge in South Carolina polls shows potential. Romney fares poorly in head-to-head match-ups with various Democrats, but those, too, are meaningless at this point.

Huckabee is still gaining momentum, and could catch on. Or he might flare out. A second place (or better!?) showing in Iowa would put the formerly very large Arkansas governor in terrific position, but he's going to need some serious money to really get going.

Fred Thompson appears to have peaked out, and he hasn't staked out any state yet where he's going to win. He could easily be the first casualty of the race. We don't see any of the others particularly benefitting if Thompson drops out--his supporters will go all over the place.

McCain could still surprise us, especially if he makes a good showing in New Hampshire. McCain is dogged, and we don't see him dropping out early. McCain should also think about what would happen in a deadlocked convention--party insiders might well decide to turn to an elder statesman to save the day. We could easily see McCain get stronger as the process goes on.

Giuliani? History is replete with front-runners like Rudy, who rapidly fade once the voting gets started. Will he be able to tough out losses in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina at the beginning, and will those early losses erode his support in Florida, his best hope in the initial rounds? If Rudy sticks in there, he should still do well in many of the larger states--New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, California. But those states have fewer delegates per capita because they have voted Democratic in past years.

We worry about Giuliani's campaign because it does not appear to have a very credible strategy, apart from being the national front runner. In contrast to Rudy, Hillary is leading in all the early states, so her national front runner status appears sound.

Who'll win the GOP nomination? We can't say at this point.

And will a fractured nominating fight lead to some third party candidates on the right? We could see Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo making independent runs. And we still don't rule out Mayor Bloomberg making his own independent run.

Should be an interesting year.