Rudy Giuliani seems to have receded in recent weeks, seeing his national lead shrink and his push in New Hampshire stall. (Giuliani remains competitive in New Hampshire, however, where he is tied for second; in Michigan; and in Florida, where his lead seems just as durable as Romney’s lead in New Hampshire.) The most widely held explanation for Giuliani’s fade is that, as national security becomes less of a concern to primary voters, and as more and more stories reflecting badly on Giuliani’s personal judgment emerge, voters inclined to support Giuliani look for alternatives. Meanwhile, since Giuliani appears to be receding, voters who had backed Romney in order to stop Giuliani from becoming the nominee can turn to alternatives such as Huckabee in Iowa and McCain in New Hampshire. But there’s a new counterargument that says Giuliani remains a factor in the race and a top competitor for the Republican nod. Dick Morris had a version of this argument the other day. Here’s Patrick Ruffini’s take:
Now, it seems to me that a split decision in the Hawkeye and Granite states that doesn’t include Giuliani in one of the top spots still complicates his chances of winning the nomination. However, say Huckabee took Iowa and South Carolina, Romney took New Hampshire and Michigan, but Giuliani pulls an upset in Nevada. Well, then you have a scenario in which Giuliani is still in the hunt, primed for a Florida victory and the February 5 national primary day after that. Still: The primary process is dynamic. A Huckabee / Romney split in Iowa / New Hampshire would no doubt affect the races in Nevada and elsewhere. What Giuliani should hope for, short of winning at least one early primary contest, is a muddy result in each that throws the nature of a rival’s victory into question, keeping additional candidates in the race until late in January and continuing to divide the anti-Giuliani opposition.
