Critical Issues Going Forward

(1) Duncan Hunter finally dropped out of the race, leaving 6 Republicans remaining in the race: Romney, McCain, Huckabee, Giuliani, Thompson, and Paul. Hunter's limited support I think is likely to go more to Romney. Ron Paul is in the race more to make a point, I think, than to win, so is likely to keep going but not make much difference in the outcome. The word on the blogs is that Thompson may call it quits tomorrow. He has enough support that this could affect things. Would he just bow out and not endorse anyone? Or would he endorse McCain or Romney?
(2) That would leave four viable candidates in the race. Huckabee is showing signs now of being finished in terms of not really being able to win the nomination. However, he may be angling to be McCain's VP running mate. I'm not sure how McCain would feel about it, but if he did go with this "marriage of convenience" it could be a factor, since I suspect a fair amount of Huckabee's support would translate to McCain, giving a definite advantage.
(3) That then leaves three "real" candidates who could win the nomination: Romney, McCain, and Giuliani. Each has their definite strengths. However, Giuliani seems least likely to me. Consider a few "poll facts" on him. In March last year, Giuliani's national poll numbers for the Republican nomination were approaching 40%, a huge lead over then number two McCain, who was at about 20%. Now, McCain leads the national polls at about 30%, with Huckabee and Romney around 20%, and Giuliani down to 4th in the 12-14% range. That's a massive drop! Giuliani has "bet the house" on winning Florida, but even there he's dropped off. From a high in November around the 35% area, he's now down to about 20% in an approximate 4-way tie with McCain, Romney, and Huckabee. Technically could Giuliani win? Certainly. Does it look likely? I'd say most definitely not.
(4) If my analysis above is correct, we are left with two candidates: Romney and McCain. Between those two, I think it's impossible to know right now who might win. McCain has strengths. Americans tend to view him positively overall. He is a favorite of the mainstream media (MSM), certainly THE favorite of the media among Republican candidates. He has adequate resources at this point, and is considered to have what momentum there is in the Republican race (I would argue the point, but again, the MSM has declared it is so). He is strong on defense issues and the War on Terror. Romney also has strengths. Not only does he objectively lead the race right now (more votes, more delegates, more support from Republicans and conservatives), but his win in Michigan (the only large and more urban state to vote up to now) suggests he has strength on the economy which has become the #1 issue in the campaign. He has the most solid resources and is able to put quality ads up in big markets in Florida. He has great organization "on the ground" in pretty much every state. And he is more broadly acceptable to conservatives than the other remaining viable candidates (for sure once Thompson leaves the race).

The upshot of all this...
Is that it appears likely to be a two man race. Now the battle joins over the next 8 days in Florida. Now is the time to help make calls there. Now is the time to make a donation of whatever amount you can. Now is the time to keep talking to family and friends about the race and the candidates.

Now is also the time to hope that as Thompson exits the race, and Huckabee considers his next move, that support will swing more to Romney, and not McCain.

I think it's important then for us to be educated about John McCain, and to know precisely why he will be a candidate that will have a hard time getting full support from all the groups in the Republican tent. The best summary I've seen is from Mark Levin, contributing author to National Review Online. Here are some excerpts:

"There’s a reason some of John McCain's conservative supporters avoid discussing his record. They want to talk about his personal story, his position on the surge, his supposed electability. But whenever the rest of his career comes up, the knee-jerk reply is to characterize the inquiries as attacks.

The McCain domestic record is a disaster. For starters, consider:

McCain-Feingold — the most brazen frontal assault on political speech since Buckley v. Valeo.

McCain-Kennedy — the most far-reaching amnesty program in American history.

McCain-Lieberman — the most onerous and intrusive attack on American industry — through reporting, regulating, and taxing authority of greenhouse gases — in American history.

McCain-Kennedy-Edwards — the biggest boon to the trial bar since the tobacco settlement, under the rubric of a patients’ bill of rights.

McCain-Reimportation of Drugs — a significant blow to pharmaceutical research and development, not to mention consumer safety.

And McCain’s stated opposition to the Bush 2001 and 2003 tax cuts was largely based on socialist, class-warfare rhetoric — tax cuts for the rich, not for the middle class. The public record is full of these statements. Today, he recalls only his insistence on accompanying spending cuts.

As chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, McCain was consistently hostile to American enterprise, from media and pharmaceutical companies to technology and energy companies.

McCain also led the Gang of 14, which prevented the Republican leadership in the Senate from mounting a rule change that would have ended the systematic use (actual and threatened) of the filibuster to prevent majority approval of judicial nominees.

And then there’s the McCain defense record.

His supporters point to essentially one policy strength, McCain’s early support for a surge and counterinsurgency. It has now evolved into McCain taking credit for forcing the president to adopt General David Petreaus’s strategy. Where’s the evidence to support such a claim?