I should probably preface this post by conceding that I was quite sure that Rudy's pro-choice, pro-modernity stance on a number of key social issues would make his run for the Republican nomination a non-starter. I'm still fairly confident I'll be vindicated on that one in the final analysis. But clearly my political antennae leave something to be desired on the Rudy front. That said, can Rudy really win the nomination after losing Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina? One, two, three, in that order?

As far back as I can remember, there's always been a candidate who tries something like this, tried to hang back on the low-count early primaries and then break out nationwide on that year's "Super Tuesday". Often it was a candidate trying to wait until a slew of Southern primaries and try to break out there. But this has basically never worked. The catalytic effect of victories in the early states almost always creates unstoppable momentum and an aura of victory for whichever candidate wins Iowa, New Hampshire or both. For the Republicans at least the list definitely also includes South Carolina.

There's an added factor here because it seems likely that Mitt Romney will win Iowa and New Hampshire and at least has a decent shot of taking South Carolina too.

Does Romney really get six weeks of solid wins in the early primary states and then get stiff-armed by Rudy on February 5th?

Late Update: Here's an AP article relaying Rudy's argument for why this will work for him when it hasn't worked for anyone in the past. The one significant factor he has in his favor is that the primary season is much more compressed. Still, history is very much against him.