The good thing is all of the potential GOP nominees have a lot of baggage of some kind or another.

The GOP nomination is a crapshoot, like the 2004 nomination was.  Democrats felt they were presented with mediocre candidates then.  Not this time.  This time that is how the GOP field is perceived by GOP voters.

An explanation of what has been happening may come from the today's Marist internals:
* Rudy Giuliani still tops the Republican field for his party's nomination in 2008 but support
has tempered: Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani outdistances John McCain, his closest competitor,
by a margin of ten percentage points among Republicans and Republican leaning independents
nationwide. Giuliani has the support of 28% compared with John McCain who has 18%.
Former Senator Fred Thompson, who is considering a run, is now in third with 13%. Newt
Gingrich and Mitt Romney follow with 8% and 7%, respectively. However, when supporters of
Rudy Giuliani are asked how committed they are to his candidacy, only 30% of Giuliani backers
are firmly committed to voting for him.
Republicans want a presidential nominee who shares their values and is a strong leader. A largeproportion of Republicans who support Rudy Giuliani are interested in his leadership abilities.42% of Giuliani's backers want someone who is a strong leader, and 22% want someone who
shares their values. 34% of McCain's supporters want someone who is a strong leader, and 25%
are looking for someone who shares their values.
When informed about Rudy Giuliani's positions on social issues like abortion, gun control, and
gay rights, most Republicans see this as a factor in whether or not they will support his
candidacy. A majority of Republicans say this makes them less likely to vote for him.

Among registered voters, enthusiasm for Rudy Giuliani has mollified. Although 58% still say
they will consider voting for him for president, 39% say they definitely will not do so.
This is an increase from 30% of registered voters who said in February they would not consider voting for him. For the first time, fewer than half of the national electorate views Rudy Giuliani as ideologically about right. 60% of Republicans still view him as ideologically acceptable although almost one in four view him as too liberal. In head to head matchups against the top tier Democrats, Giuliani narrowly loses to Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. He runs neck and neck with Barack Obama.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/RCP_PDF /Marist050807.pdf

Yeah, it has to suck to be a Republican right now.  I think that I could support any of the legit Democratic candidates (Clinton, Edwards, Obama, Richardson, and even Dodd or Biden), whereas I don't think Republicans could claim as such.  

In other words, our Third Tier candidates are stronger than their first tier candidates.  That said, I still think Romney takes the nomination.  He may be a total and complete slimeball (and his is), but he's got the whole anchorman thing going for him.  In a way, he's like Reagan, except with less integrity.

Can you imagine how awesome it will be to follow this guy around with flip-flops.  

Does anyone see any scenarios where any of the second tier such as Huckabee, Brownback, etc. could emerge. The theory has been that Fred Thompson would attract the conservative base but some stories lately have made it sound like he is not that conservative.

It baffles me that Republicans dont consider candidates like Huckabee who would have crossover appeal and not a lot of baggage. I guess the corporate backers in the GOP only want certain types of candidates since they do not have any interest in social and religious conservatism

The only person I worry about it is Hagel.

A long, tough war of attrition is in store. The oppo research, like yesterday's dump of the Giuiliani Planned Parenthood donation records, is a major part of the campaigns already.

There is less fresh dirt (stuff the GOP thinks of that way) on McCain than there is on the other frontrunners, declared or undeclared.

So, count me in the "McCain will win by default" camp.

If the wingnut base cannot coalesce around any one candidate, what other factions exist in the Republican party that could propel someone to the nomination? How well organized are they, and who might they like?

If the Republican voters don't like their frontrunners, why hasn't someone like say, Brownback started to gain significant support? Is it because of Fred Thompson? Is Brownback not a "loyal Bushie"?

Since the process is so front-loaded, how likely is it that there may be no clear winner in one party or the other after 2/5? What if delegates divide close to current polls? Say Giuliani with 35-40%, McCain 25-30% Romney 15-25%, others 5-10% or something like that (Substitute Clinton, Obama, Edwards etc. on our side)? Then what happens? Given that Republicans typically operate their individual state primaries in more of a winner-take-all fashion while the Dems allocate delegates more proportionately, is a brokered convention more likely for the Dems? Hello uncommitted insider superdelegates and their beltway consultant friends!

Our candidates are better than all of GOP's combined. They are killing themselves.  Didnt Guiliani say that Bush will be remembered as a great president. Imagine that clip playing over and over again with a split image of Iraq. We are strong accross the board whether  it be  with Hillary, Obama, Edwards,or Richardson.

Chris, don't forget that McCain leads in Nevada, another very early state, to muddle the picture on the GOP side some more:

http://www.krnv.com/Global/story.asp?S=6 478414&nav=8faO

Meanwhile John McCain held a slim lead on the Republican side with 19-percent. Mitt Romney had 15-percent, Fred Thompson had 13-percent and Rudy Giuliani had 12-percent.

In 2000, the establishment and the money boys coalesced around George W. Bush.  IIRC, his big early donors were from chemicals (high pollution).  The key to 2000 was one-on-one charm with the money boys combined with Dad's rolodex (particularly in Iowa).

Again in 2000, the major event of the election process before November,2000 was the Iowa straw poll in August, 1999.  McCain, probably wisely, skipped Iowa.  Bush's win was big enough that the standard establishment candidates backed out after the straw poll (Liddy Dole, Dan Quayle, Lamar Alexander).  Even though the economic (Forbes) and social wingers (Bauer, Keyes) got half the caucus vote, they had no chance.

Interesting thing is that the "party building" from straw poll fundraising is far more than counter-balanced by the blow to the GOP caucuses.  W spent a pathetic 29 days in Iowa instead of the conventional 70-75.  The GOP lost Iowa in 2000 and dropped in the PVI in 2004.  Chet Culver won the governorship by a handy 100,000 votes.

My money is on Thompson.  If he gets in early this summer, which I think he will, he will still be able to build a strong enough team and raise enough money to be competitive.  Guilini, McCain, and Romney are all going to bleed support from now until Iowa votes.  I also welcome Thompson as the candidate because I know we can beat him.  Even Hillary will take out Thompson.  2008 is going to be such a good year I can hardly wait...

Looks like Giuliani is leading in Wisconsin right now.
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2007/0 5/08/clinton_giuliani_lead_in_wisconsin. html

I also like the NY Times map here that shows through a dynamic map where monetary support is coming from for each and every candidate.
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/us/politics/2 008_EG_FINANCES.html

Go Romney!

I'm hoping for a Democratic landslide for the presidency next year, and I think a Romney nomination will do it. Maybe I'll drop a few bucks towards his primary campaign.

Meanwhile, in every balanced site I post on, the Rudy supporters are still Rudy supporters. And there are plenty of them.

The analysts saying Rudy is finished are the same ones who were sure he would never sniff a poll lead this deep into the process.

McCain is distrusted and has no chance. Same with Hagel. The bottom tier conservatives like Huckabee are inventions of progressive blogs desperately looking to elevate someone who fits their blueprint for the other side.

Romney is a flip-flopper who doesn't change the dynamic in vital states plus the Mormon problem is legit, and much more of a dagger than Guiliani's issue concerns.

I think it will be Guiliani or Thompson. And among those two I'd much prefer Thompson. A standard Republican is not going to win in a climate like 2008. That's what the analysts who reject Guiliani are missing. Republicans realize they need an atypical nominee in '08. I could name a half dozen right wing friends of mine who know absolutely nothing about politics, but are desperate to win. Without exception, every one of them supports Rudy.

Gulaiani has had a 20 point lead in some national polls yet I bet not one insider would bet any real money on him actually winning the nomination, whomever becomes the "Rudy" alternitive will win the race.

Don't underestimate a guy who looks like a mix between a president and a photomodel. He is so smooth, and from a blue state.

My nightmare race is Romney vs Hillary. Both Obama and Edwards have the authencity that will make Romney look less appealing.

"I see dead people. I see them everywhere. And some of them don't even know they are dead."

Mormonism doesn't poll well. And it doesn't matter whether you think that is fair or unfair or that beltway pundits think that anchorman looks are going to carry the day. Mormonism doesn't poll well. Lots and lots of people and in demographics that make up much of the Republican base say they will not vote for a Mormon for President. You don't have to get it, maybe it makes no sense to you, but the effect is real. Romney is toast.

Drag doesn't poll well. At least among the Republican base. And it doesn't matter whether you understand that the Rudy/Trump video was all campish fun. Southern Baptists don't share that same sort of open-minded humor. Rudy is toast.

Iraq doesn't poll well. And McCain is pulling a Houdini here. He has wrapped himself in the chains of Surge and locked himself into the pool of Baghdad. He is not toast. Because you can't burn toast when you are drowning.

I don't know who will emerge from this, it might be that one of the current three will make it through. But none of them will fire up the base because each is carrying too much weight. The attacks are only tuning up but already I heard a national pundit saying that Giuliani sounded 'gay' in the debate. You have ten announced candidates and Fred Thompson, Hagel and Gingrich hovering. The blood letting is just about to commence and given the history of politicking in the modern Repbublican Party none of it is going to be pretty.

I don't think I've EVER seen the GOP so "muddied."  This might be really fun to watch.  I'm looking to see which candidate supports torture for teaching evolution.

"...in 2004 Democrats pretty much liked everyone who was running, although not deeply so..."

Really?  Someone should probably have told that to Howard Dean, at the time.  Might have lifted his spirit a bit after those folks who weren't supporters of Gephardt launched those Osama ads.  Maybe it's me, but I sort of remember the 2004 Democratic primary as more of a scorched earth battleground than the 2008 Democratic Family Picnic we seem to be throwing this year.  (Not that I'm complaining.  I'd much rather our candidates happily eating sandwiches together and calmly discussing the best way forward for the nation rather than dodging mortar bursts and impugning each other's patriotism -- I'm looking at you, Holy Joe, whom I apparently pretty much liked in 2004, although not deeply so...)

Don't ignore the candidates currently polling under 5%.  Giuliani, McCain, and Romney are finished.  Gingrich, Hagel, and (Fred) Thompson aren't running, and probably won't.

Giuliani's debate performance made it clear he is not a conservative, to those who hadn't been paying attention before.  Put an eyepatch on McCain, and he's Col. Tigh from Battlestar Galactica.  If Romney had any upside, he would have reached it by now.

Who does that leave?  Mike Huckabee is probably the strongest candidate of the rest, a governor who is articulate, likable, and reliably conservative on social issues.  Tom Tancredo has some appeal to the anti-illegal-immigration crowd, but isn't a strong candidate and is splitting that vote with Duncan Hunter for now.  

Ron Paul may have the best chance to move out of the second tier, since he has the libertarian-Republican and (the growing) anti-war-Republican factions to himself, and is conservative enough on social issues, but the party establishment won't touch him.  

Sam Brownback would seem to have more appeal to the base than the others, but doesn't have the charisma to inspire much of a following.  Jim Gilmore and Tommy Thompson will probably be the first to drop out, unless Thompson gets a boost from people who think he is Fred Thompson.