Ron Desantis might be peaking too early

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Rudy Giuliani led primary polling for the entirety of 2007 and failed primarily because he was a strategic idiot who placed all his chips in Florida.

My take on Tim Pawlenty is similar to my take on Scott Walker except that Tim Pawlenty never even polled well.  Pawlenty never got above 4% and most of the hype was based on his having been considered as a VP nominee in 2008.

In short I don't think any of these comparisons for DeSantis are apt.

Giuliani followed the Florida strategy for the simple reason that his numbers tanked in Iowa and New Hampshire the moment he started campaigning there. He was one of those candidates that the more you see of the less you like.

Pawlenty was the darling of DC press corps. A two-term blue state governor who was in good standing with both wings of the party. But everyone else knew better that the guy had all the charisma of a wet blanket and he floundered in the debates. Michelle Bachmann of all people was the one who did a number on him and he never recovered.

1. Rudy Giuliani was under the gun in late 2007 for a lot of reasons that had far more to do with his personal actions and that of his associates than anything related to campaigning or strategy. His long time political ally in New York Bernie Kerik got into trouble with the law. There were accusations that Rudy had misused funds to carry on a personal affair, while his wife was ill or something salacious of that nature. And then he was out of touch with the GOP base on abortion, guns and immigration.

2. Rudy was not actually collapsing in New Hampshire. Romney had been dominating New Hampshire for months with around 30% of the vote, Rudy had been in the high teens and McCain was right behind him or tied. This only really massively changed, after he pulled out, started railing against the New Hampshire Primary and then he tanked into the single digits.

Even if you doubt my theory as to why Rudy pulled out, the established narrative of him "tanking in the polls in NH, fleeing to Florida" just doesn't hold up according to the most credible polling outfits at the time. At most he ebbed a little, but that was likely more to do with McCain's recovery than to a collapse by Rudy.

3. Pawlenty's major problem was Mitt Romney. They basically occupied the same "boring rich guy who is pushing for the border hawk vote" space.  If Romney doesn't run in 2012, I think Pawlenty actually has a path in that situation.  

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Obviously Desantis isn't someone like Walker, but since 08, a large number of front-runners have imploded. Whether it was Paul, Bush, Cruz, Rubio, Giulani, etc. The only exception is Romney and that had more to do with Perry's poor performance.

You really need to examine these contests in terms of lanes or paths. A lot of these candidates we are discussing that collapsed were either jostling for their lane with someone else who had other advantages or their lane was too narrow to be nominated at all to begin with.

I would argue that Mike Huckabee, Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz were all rather unlikely to be the GOP nominees in their cycles because of baked in demographic limits to their paths, and the mood/desired direction of the party after Bush. The GOP wanted to move on from Bush, but they wanted someone more fiscally (and a touch less socially) conservative, more hawkish on the border and more outside of Washington. By 2016, with war weariness reaching into the depths of the GOP as well, a more restrained foreign policy was craved.

Romney's appeal in 2008 was far too narrow to win the nomination and he managed to piss off everyone and their supporters over the course of the contest, ensuring everyone would rather someone else be the nominee and not him.

In some ways it would have been nice if Perry had not collapsed in 2011, because Romney's strategy was to go after him for his comments on social security, Texas secession and of course, Immigration. I can see Romney just obliterating Perry in Florida the same way he nuked Newt there. Romney dominated the establishment by virtue of being "his turn", he had the money behind him and he had the immigration issue as his ace against any base candidate, with the exception of Rick Santorum who surged way too late and once again had far too narrow of a base though he did force Romney to make his tax cut plan more aggressive to win the Michigan primary.

Scott Walker and Chris Christie were never going to be the Tea Party activist candidate because Ted Cruz had a natural advantage over that space and in terms of the opposition to that lane they all preferred to compete with each other and with Jeb Bush, John Kasich and Marco Rubio as well for the remaining sliver of the party that was up for a return to the Bush/McCain years in terms of foreign policy and immigration. That left a massive space for Trump to claw to a plurality lead and no one really competed with him for that space, only attacked him for the positions he took, essentially hardening his base around him.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

He might be peaking, but if he runs there is only two candidates so its not that big of a deal. Its not like there are 20+ candidates like 2019 and if you peak too early its over.

Peaking too early is more of a factor when their are multiple candidates in a relatively open and competitive process. Here with two rather dominant personalities, any such considerations have to weighed as relative constructs to the other option.

Has Trump already "peaked" in terms of his potential? With a prior President in the mix, it changes the dynamic considerably.