THE GOP RACE BEFORE SOUTH CAROLINA

I've done perhaps 1700 surveys and focus groups.  Generally, I've maintained that published polls affect pundits, insiders, and donors – not voters.  But I've been saying for awhile that this year (the way the primaries are clustered and with the hyper-media coverage) would be different, and it is. 

What happens in each primary is affecting national numbers.  And national numbers are affecting what happens in each primary.  There is a momentum effect, and people are looking for validation.  That's why I have long predicted Rudy's collapse, and how national polling numbers would change, and even when they would change. 

Yet I find it easier, at this point, to count out winner Huckabee than no-show Rudy.  Anything is possible in this volatile environment, including a brokered convention.  So here are a few thoughts on where the main candidates are on the eve of the South Carolina primary (1/19), and where I am, and why I continue my view from last year that McCain has the inside track.

Mike Huckabee.   The press has given Huckabee quite a free ride, especially on his abrupt reversal on illegal immigration – going from subsidized government tuition for illegals to tossing them and their families out of the country in three or four months. 

In my state (California), you can't even evict a nonpaying tenant from their apartment in that amount of time. 

In the meantime, Huckabee is the subject of relentless scrutiny by assorted conservative talk show hosts.  Huckabee's political team is urging him strongly to go negative, especially on McCain.  In South Carolina, Huckabee may  emphasize that McCain has supported Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. 

But the stem cell issue is far more complex than the abortion issue, with Republicans more divided.  And Huckabee already has those true believers, and some others will go for Fred Thompson.  In short, Huckabee may, as they say, be preaching too much to the choir.  We'll know soon in South Carolina. 

Of all the Republican candidates, Huckabee is the most effective and personable campaigner.  In some ways, Huckabee – with his focus on social and cultural issues, and his populist style and seeming empathy for the middle class – resembles Pat Buchanan, except that Huckabee is a nice man and not a hater. 

Buchanan obsesses about Israel and the Jewish lobby and rewrites history in the Middle East.  Huckabee has been to Israel nine times and knows the history of violence in this troubled region.   On domestic issues, Huckabee raises concerns about the middle class that need to be addressed.   But I continue to have trouble with a candidate who uses scripture to justify increases in government spending.

Huckabee is trying to leverage South Carolina religious alliances into a quick-start political operation.  Behind in funding, he more than compensates with favorable television coverage. In Michigan, Romney showed the potential of advertising; but, previously, in Iowa and New Hampshire, we saw its limits.  Huckabee shows that personality matters.

Mitt Romney.   Romney recovered nicely in Michigan, and his campaign performed well there. His campaign team seems indecisive:  first he went dark with his TV buy in South Carolina, then re-started there after the Michigan win, and as I write this, he reportedly stopped again, moving money into Nevada.

But this pullback suggests he possibly had made an internal decision to  suspend his campaign if he did not win Michigan or did not at least come in a very close second, although his public and idealistic position was that he would stay until Super Tuesday no matter what. 

Sure, campaign resources are always finite. But Romney has deep pockets, so the decision to stop and start ads shows that he finds no voter elasticity in South Carolina. 

More puzzling was his campaign's quick-start Michigan victory speech, when McCain barely started his congratulations to Romney as part of his concession speech, and networks cut away from loser McCain to winner Romney.  

While McCain jokingly says that, in Washington, he's no "Miss Congeniality," it's Romney who seems to be antagonizing his rivals, and others.  Romney may be a class act, but he's not coming across that way.

Romney should have run  his campaign on the economic issue from the beginning; now, he tries to make up for lost time by what some view as pandering.  It's hard to quarrel with his success in the short-term in Michigan, but he probably could have won that state without further eroding his credibility.  Perhaps he didn't know that at the time.  

Romney did gain momentum by winning, but, for those outside Michigan looking in, McCain looked good on his straight talk about the lost jobs.  More to the point, Romney's campaign has not shown personality, and not a hint of intimacy. 

The Romney I heard speak at a conservative dinner more than a year ago when I sat at an adjoining table – the same person I met again at a reception near my home, came across as a nice and sincere guy.  My wife was very impressed with him as a person.  But that attraction has not come across in his campaign, which has been a mechanical effort. 

The stronger poll numbers in several states partly reflect his advertising. But his advertising  campaign necessarily has not been national, due to the extraordinary cost.  Consequently his national poll numbers, which reflect a public persona not as appealing as the man up-close, remain disappointing. 

Romney has solid instincts on defending America.  And I continue to believe that Romney could be a competent CEO president.  It's not clear that's what people want.  CEOs like Countrywide's Angelo Mozilo don't help the CEO brand.  

Fred Thompson.   Fred Thompson is being urged by frustrated supporters to go after McCain, but Thompson does so faintly, half-heartedly, and usually when being asked by restless talk radio hosts.   Thompson feels much more comfortable going after Huckabee, whom he terms "intellectually dishonest." 

I feel in my gut that if Thompson does not win South Carolina or score a solid second, that he likely will drop out and endorse McCain.  At this point, it seems, he would do no better than third, behind Huckabee.  The question is what role Thompson's politically-attuned wife Jeri will play in the deliberations. 

The folksy Thompson has Eric Hoffer sound bites, words of wisdom that endear him.  But I was surprised when I saw how he answered a question about whether he is "laid back."  He said that's the way he is, and he could not understand why people would not want a "laid back" president.  Was this Fred Thompson's understated wit?

Rudy Guiliani.  You could say that things are going Rudy's way, especially if you work for Rudy, and you've been gaming this strategy while the meter has been running.  That means Rudy now does not have the resources to compete with Romney's money on Super Tuesday; nor can he compete with McCain's residual national numbers, unless McCain collapses, but how would he do so? 

Sure — Huckabee won Iowa, McCain won New Hampshire, and Romney won Michigan.  All Rudy needs, this strategy goes, is for Thompson to win South Carolina, and then for Rudy to win Florida.  And then everyone, including Rudy, or especially Rudy, his campaign would say, is in play for Super Tuesday.  

But if Thompson doesn't win South Carolina, who does? Either McCain or Huckabee, and that would provide momentum for that winner in Florida.  Furthermore, Rudy's lead in Florida, which he was supposed to win in this very iffy scenario that underestimated the softness of Rudy's initial high national polling numbers,  evaporated as Huckabee, and then McCain, climbed in national polls. 

I know New York well and worked there as a young man in putting together Jim Buckley's successful campaign for United States Senate.  Rudy governed New York effectively, and he has solid pro-American instincts, and I could support Rudy in November.

John McCain.   The perception, fairly or unfairly, of Romney as expedient has helped McCain enormously.  I often told candidate-clients and elected-official clients – if people do not agree with you on an issue, make sure they respect you.  Then they can say, "I don't agree with him on everything, but I know where he stands" and still vote for you. 

McCain looks like the stable adult in this race, and a guy who says the same thing in each state.   A couple of days ago, I saw a clip of a South Carolina voter challenging McCain on why he supported removing the confederate flag.  McCain defended his position in a way that earned him points nationally and lost him nothing in South Carolina. 

If that's the best they can throw at McCain, he's in.  The clip played well in the rest of the country.    In South Carolina, Huckabee remains formidable, and Thompson has been working the state.  The question is, who gained momentum in South Carolina from Romney's win in Michigan?  Romney, but perhaps not that much to make a difference, and at whose expense? 

McCain is under heavy assault on conservative radio talk shows, while some hosts, like Michael Medved, are now leaning his way.  If McCain wins South Carolina, as is highly likely, the assault from core beltway conservative activists may increase in intensity, but this victory could assure his winning Florida (especially with its retired military), and then place McCain in a superior position for Super Tuesday (Rudy's illusory lead in California, as I predicted, disappeared awhile back). 

Some conservative leaders who oppose McCain may, if Romney is not viable pre-Feb 5, make their peace with McCain, or wait until after Feb 5.   McCain is hardly flush with money, but with his advancing polling numbers, he — like the others — needs a plurality, not a majority, to win delegates; he has been around for awhile, and his numbers are hardening; his opponents — especially Rudy — need money to fund advertising.

In California, Rudy has the Bill Simon organization, but it's key only at the margin (if Rudy is indeed a contender), and could best be utilized if focused on a few congressional districts which determine delegates, where organizers could make a difference. 

McCain, despite his age, is looking, surprisingly to some, increasingly viable for November, and his maverick style could be precisely what is needed this year for Republicans to hold the White House.  I have disagreements with McCain, but his maturity on foreign policy is reassuring. 

Much as I have a different view on, say, McCain-Feingold (most Republican voters have never even heard of it), I remain much more concerned with our national survival.  Here at home, we always can try to correct legislation.  But in the world,  how do we defend Western Civilization?

Arnold Steinberg is a political strategist, analyst, and expert on American politics.  For media interviews, he can be contacted at [email protected] This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it .  No personal communications please.