Fred Barnes on Nomination Scenarios

Fred Barnes has written an article at The Weekly Standard saying that the Republican nomination is a two man race--and it is between Rudy and Mitt. His rationale is that the two of them have the only "credible" scenarios. I think Rudy's scenarios at this point are fairly apparent (winning big states--Florida, California, New York, New Jersey, etc.). Mitt's scenario is winning the early states (Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, etc.) and then use that as momentum builders to win the nomination. (Is it "credible" when his national support is so low? Barnes thinks so.)

Barnes does not think FDT's scenario works out:

Thompson's scenario involves doing well enough in Iowa and New Hampshire to be a viable candidate by the time South Carolina rolls around and winning there. What then? Beating Giuliani and Romney in Florida and winning at least the southern primaries (Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee) on Super Tuesday, plus Oklahoma and a few other states. But his strategy of running as the only "consistent conservative" hasn't stirred enough support to produce a credible scenario leading to the nomination.

First, I disagree with the drawing of his scenario. I believe that Fred is planning on winning Iowa--not "doing well enough". He is also, apparently, writing off New Hampshire. So I think the scenario is to win Iowa and South Carolina and using that momentum to carry him through the nomination process. I think winning the entire south is a very workable situation. Florida is another question, though if they lose half of their delegates I'm not sure that losing Florida is as big of a deal as it would have been before.

I have said before, I think it is entirely possible that Mitt wins NEITHER of Iowa or New Hampshire. I also think that figures into the FDT scenario for winning.

One last thing to note: Fox News in general and Fred Barnes specifically have not particularly been FDT fans. I'm not sure why. Even on the Weekly Standard page, a McCain ad runs right next to the FDT paragraph quoted above. I don't necessarily think Barnes is being objective here.