The Candidates
Featured Archives
Scott Rasmussen has released some new numbers on 2008, and things are looking quite good for Rudy, and not so good for Hillary. Here’s a quick summary of Scott’s findings:
2008 General Election
Rudy: 52%
Hillary: 43%McCain: 47%
Hillary: 42%Rudy: 46%
Edwards: 44%
Rudy beats Hillary among independents by 37 points.
Incidentally, Rudy’s 9 point lead over Hillary is almost identical to both Bush 41’s margin of victory in 1988 and Bill Clinton’s spread in 1996. Such a win almost guarantees a minimum of 350 electoral votes in the victor’s column. So much for concerns about Rudy’s “electability.”
February 23rd, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Such a win almost guarantees a minimum of 350 electoral votes in the victor’s column. So much for concerns about Rudy’s “electability.”
DaveG, I’m sure nobody disputes Rudy’s electability today.
February 23rd, 2007 at 3:49 pm
There seems to be some real momentum behind Rudy right now. I’m even a little surprised how well he is doing.
February 23rd, 2007 at 4:08 pm
[...] post by DaveG and software by Elliott [...]
February 23rd, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Rudy is doing well…but who would he choose as VP?
February 23rd, 2007 at 4:13 pm
Anyone will say he has to choose a southern, but I say someone out West. The Republican Senator from NV?
February 23rd, 2007 at 4:15 pm
How about the REAL republican Senator from Arizona: John Kyl.
February 23rd, 2007 at 4:20 pm
I like:
Giuliani/Rice
February 23rd, 2007 at 4:29 pm
I don’t know, Capitan, but Kavon has suggested Rudy/Huckabee, which I’m beginning to warm to.
My first choice for Rudy was T-Paw, but McCain has pretty much already made Pawlenty his de facto running mate. All of the bold choices, such as Sarah Palin of Alaska or Condi Rice or Jeb Bush, seem to bring unnecessary risks to the ticket. And most of the interesting folks in the states who might make a good Rudy veep, like Haley Barbour or Mark Sanford, come from states whose electoral votes will already be safely in the GOP column.
Huckabee would be a great political choice for Rudy for several reasons. First, between Rudy and Huckabee, the only states Hillary will have a shot at in the south, Florida and Arkansas, are taken off the table. Rudy will appeal to the ex-NYers in FL to an equal or greater extent than Hillary, meaning her natural advantage in Florida is taken off the table and the GOP retains its modest but solid spread in the state. Huckabee, meanwhile, ensures that Clintonian favorite son status is countered in Arkansas by another favorite son on the GOP side. Huckabee can also spend much of the election in Missouri, Iowa, and southern Ohio, making sure that so-cons don’t feel they’re being sold down the river in the light red border states. This will allow Rudy to focus on the industrial north, northeast, and west.
Secondly, many may feel the Huckabee pick is a tad cynical, sort of like Bush 41’s Quayle pick for simular reasons. That may be true, but that’s how politics is played. Rudy’s a Republican who’s conservative on everything BUT a few social issues. Huckabee’s a Republican who’s conservative on primarily a few social issues. But unlike Quayle, who was very Santorum-esque and sparred with the MSM regularly, Huckabee is probably the MSM’s favorite social conservative. They like him because of his compassionate Republicanism in Arkansas and because of his willingness to play ball with them on shows like MTP.
I remember back in 2000 when the buzz was that Bush was going to pick former Missouri senator and minister John Danforth as his running mate. The Dems were terrified. They even quoted one D strategist who said Danforth was the guy they feared the most. That’s because Danforth too was a religious Republican who got along with the MSM and who the Left couldn’t caricature. Huckabee is the same sort of animal. Rudy/Huckabee would be very hard to beat.
February 23rd, 2007 at 4:31 pm
This is really incredible. Rudy is the man! I wonder how Hillary is going to go after him, being from New York and all (Sen.) while HE is New York’s beloved (well, by many if not all) former mayor??
February 23rd, 2007 at 4:33 pm
THE BEST WITHOUT A DOUBT running mate for Giuliani is MIKE PENCE. Rice wont get it. The Bush era will be OVER.
February 23rd, 2007 at 4:37 pm
Rudy/Fred Thompson.
February 23rd, 2007 at 4:38 pm
If Rudy is the nominee I think that it would be most critical for him to select a solid, proven conservative on all issues, including social ones.
As far as geographic area, I agree that the Southwest would be most adventagous, followed by the
Midwest. Selecting a Southern nominee would not help him geographically because the South, under
most foreseeable circumstances, will go solidly Republican regardless of who the nominee is.
Although I personally think Condi Rice would make a good VP, I think her being a part of the current Bush adminstration would unfortunately hurt the ticket more than help in the general. Also her strength is in foreign policy, and despite Rudy’s lack of experience in this area he is already perceived as being strong on the biggest foreing policy issue, the War on Terror.
February 23rd, 2007 at 4:45 pm
Although Rudy is my 2nd choice at the moment behind Romney, I worry that the liberals are keeping their powder dry for him. I worry that once he gets the nomination, some 11th hour scandal erupts seriously denting his electability.
If Rudy was polling like this a month before election, I would share in some of the excitement others have expressed earlier. It is way too early for most polls to have any significant meaning. However, I am pleased that Republicans beat Hillary, Obamma, & Edwards at this early stage despite Bush fatigue.
February 23rd, 2007 at 4:46 pm
Maybe JC Watts from Oklahoma would be a good choice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J.C._Watts
February 23rd, 2007 at 5:04 pm
Good points about Huckabee…would the CFG crowd be pleased with a Rudy/Huckabee ticket, though? Personally I like the boldness of a Jeb Bush pick, especially if Hillary gets the nomination (this would take the dynasty critizism off the table). Ensign or Kyle wouldn’t be bad picks but it would be somewhat defensive to pick someone from the West when Rudy shouldn’t have an issue holding those states (unless Richardson is on the dem VP, in which case Kyl or Ensign would make a good pick.) I have never seen Ensign in public, however…does anybody know if he is a good speaker?
February 23rd, 2007 at 5:29 pm
Huckabee reminds me of Cheney, not a long-term pick. We need someone who could run for the top slot in 8 years.
Huckabee could even be a drag on the ticket in 2012.
We need someone younger.
February 23rd, 2007 at 6:45 pm
Huckabee is only 51 now. If he is elected vice president and serves out two terms, he can run for President in 2016 at age 61.
February 23rd, 2007 at 6:59 pm
This is what we need:
Giuliani/Pawlenty
http://sd63.info/index.php?/archives/152-This-is-New-for-Me.html
February 23rd, 2007 at 7:46 pm
I am a big believer in not having the heir apparent be the Veep though… IMO, sitting VP’s are the easiest candidates to beat.
For example, in 2000, whenever Al Gore promised to do something, Dubya would turn around and say “You had 8 years to get that accomplished! Maybe it’s time to get someone in the WH who can get the job done.” It was a great strategy because it turned Gore’s main strength (his experience) into a weakness.
February 23rd, 2007 at 7:54 pm
Picking out your VP picks in Feb 07 is a sure sign of a future hubris inducing future fall.
February 23rd, 2007 at 8:16 pm
It seems there’s an attitude here that the latest polls is an accurate reflection of reality in November 2008. That’s somewhat funny because polls have shown the race virtually tied and have shown the race with medium to large Rudy leads. When numbers fluctuate like that in a week it suggests a race that is too fluid to predict 19 months off.
Who predicted a Democrat takeover of Congress 19 months before the election?
February 23rd, 2007 at 8:33 pm
A lot of people predicted it 11 months before the election, if that counts for anything.
February 23rd, 2007 at 8:59 pm
“Picking out your VP picks in Feb 07 is a sure sign of a future hubris inducing future fall.”
True, but its still fun.
Giuliani/ Thompson in ‘08!
February 23rd, 2007 at 10:06 pm
Hey as far as VEEP goes, you guys are forgeting the governor of my fine state, Rick Perry. He is exceptionally charismatic, and, though he could be seen as a continuation of the Bush era (he was leiutenant gov under Dubya), he is very experienced and adds alot to any ticket.
February 24th, 2007 at 12:01 am
Texas Conservative,
Rick Perry does have an impressive resume. He was elected to a second term, but Pawlenty was elected to a second term in a Blue state, despite the Democrat tidal wave. Pawlenty could also help us win the Midwest blue states.
I think Giuliani/Pawlenty would be better choice.
February 24th, 2007 at 12:25 am
As you do your veep calculations, is anybody giving any consideration whatsoever to the question of who might be best qualified to take over the presidency if the need were to arise?
February 24th, 2007 at 12:37 am
Tano,
That is a good point. Again, I think Tim Pawlenty would be most qualified to take over.
http://www.timpawlenty.com/
Pawlenty wins on both counts, succession and re-election in 8 years.
February 24th, 2007 at 10:08 am
Alberto Gonzalez
February 24th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
Rick Perry… LOL
He has done a great job with the borders. Isn’t he doing the exact opposite of what he said he would do?
I think the North American Trade Union and superhighway will be here sooner rather than later with Perry in charge.