Dick Morris Says It Will Still Be Rudy vs Hillary
Written by Sam on December 5th, 2007
Giuliani may fare no better. Clearly he is on his way to a humiliating defeat in Iowa where he inexplicably chose not to spend time or resources. He looks to finish third but a late surge by John McCain could knock him into fourth. Mike Huckabee will probably win Iowa, followed by a faltering Mitt Romney. Rudy trails Romney in New Hampshire and a defeat in Iowa will do nothing to bolster his chances there. If Romney wins in New Hampshire, his momentum combined with his father’s tenure as governor will likely power him to a win in Michigan. And there is no way that the most conservative primary in the most conservative state (the South Carolina Republican contest) will prove beneficial for the most liberal Republican candidate. Rudy could lose Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan and South Carolina.
Does that mean that Hillary and Rudy will be dead?
No. They will probably still win their parties’ nominations.
Morris’s logic is that while Rudy is likely to suffer defeats in the early primary states, he will still win in the later primaries because when it comes down to the issue of terrorism he is the ace in the hole. Initially, I looked at Giuliani as the candidate most likely to win the general election if nominated, but I’m not so sure about that anymore. As weeks go on we see more and more skeletons making their way out of his closet and his character has really taken a dive. If Republicans just want to win he is looking less likely to be that safety net.
5
PM
Is this Dick just trying to hide his connection with Huckabee? Or is this what he really thinks will happen?
Not sure that I put much credence in his prognostication abilities anyway.
5
PM
One of my rules of listening to political analysis is to take what Dick Morris says with a grain of salt. Actually, with many grains of salt, on a margarita. Drink that sucker down and laugh at Morris’s attempts to make himself important.
Am I saying that what he’s suggested is absolutely not going to happen? No, I’m simply suggesting that his rational for getting to the this idea is usually flawed, or there is no rational - and he’s simply trying to make grand expectations to make himself look like a political prophet.
Case in point: a while back wasn’t he peddling with certainty that the race in 2008 would be between Hillary Clinton and Condoleeza Rice?