Bloodless Coup

Anyone else think Giuliani is peaking/has peaked?

I don't know - the big story yesterday seemed to be that people were surprised how little McCain had raised in the 1st Quarter. And if McCain's having a tough time, doesn't that help Giuliani (and Romney)?

Not if they don't like Giuliani either. Instead, people may start looking for alternatives. Note, for instance, the current Fred Thompson boomlet.

As an aside, this is one problem with starting the process so bloody early. Many/most/all of the first-tier candidates may wear out their public welcomes months before the first primary vote is cast.

BTW, did you notice that ol' Mitt raised a fricking huge amount of money? He seems to be doing badly in the polls now, but poll results now don't matter IF they don't limit your fund raising.

mitts fundraising is nothing short of astonishing. he may hang back and be the beneficiary of mccain-fatigue (which is already a couple of years old by my estimation) and giuliani-fatigue (which is long overdue IMHO), surging ahead at the right time. i think the extended campaign season warrants likening the whole thing to the ridiculous hockey playoffs system: the team that wins it all is the one that has its monster hot streak in april and may, and seeding (home ice) and regular season records (seeding) don't correlate overly closely with postseason success. it's a war of attrition.

i think the aptly described "boomlet" thompson is enjoying on mere whispers of his entry into the campaign speaks volumes about the degree to which people are leery of the extant republican candidates and the instant appeal of an actor who has played one of the most avuncular, likable characters on tv.

Moon, I very much agree with your last paragraph. And I very much agree with what you are both saying about Mitt's fundraising. It was GREAT. And laying back and building a foundation - that's just what a (still rather unknown) candidate needs at this stage, and I still think he has the biggest upside of the 3 front runners (though yeah, there seems to be a considerable level of unhappiness with all 3).

As to the long campaign - I don't mind that one bit. Why? B/c it seems to me that one of the flaws of the system is that we don't have an opposition spokeperson (regardless of which party is in or out of power). I think having clear leaders of both parties is a good thing, in terms of representative democracy, so I don't much care if a nominee is selected in February or in June. I mean we are potentially going to get stuck with this candidate leading the country for 8 years, so seeming him or her on the stump for an extra year doesn't strike me as terrible thing.

Let me clarify -- I'm fine with the idea of a nominee being selected in February of 08, for exactly the reason you mention. What I'm concerned about is the overexposure created by the fact that the campaign is now in full swing, having effectively started over a year before the first primary. The entire first rank of candidates on both sides may be overexposed, and the public soured on all of them, long before it's time to vote. It could make for some interesting dark horse effects. My concern is that "interesting" might not equal "good".