Ross Kaminsky, writing at RealClearPolitics, raises the same point I attempted to make 2 days ago in Novak’s cryptic comments on GOP race, a post that generated a fair amount of discussion here.? Bob Novak, you will recall, suggested that the GOP contest was a 2-man race between Thompson and Romney.? I suggested that despite gravity taking its toll on the Mayor’s numbers, he remained a formidable candidate.? A nice reception at Regent University and a new poll confirms this.?
Kaminsky — like me a big fan of both Senator Thompson and Mayor Giuliani — makes the compelling case that Giuliani remains the frontrunner for that most elemental of reasons:? electability.
The conservative base of the GOP will be very tempted by Fred Thompson, as they should be. He is smart, charismatic (enough to be on TV and in movies at least), folksy, and his career as an actor will lead many to obvious comparisons with Ronald Reagan. And based on the little I know right now about Thompson, it is easy to conceive of him as a very good and effective President were he to win the election.
But that last qualifier is a very big deal.
Although Rudy’s lead over Republican opposition for the nomination has been slipping, primarily because of Thompson’s entry into the race, conservatives and libertarians alike must keep in mind that the brass ring is the election, not the nomination.
And while it is still VERY early in this process, internals of a recent Quinnipiac University poll show why I believe Rudy is still somewhat more likely to get the nomination than Fred: He is more likely to be able to win the general election.
For example, the Quinnipiac Poll shows Giuliani tied with or leading Hillary Clinton in three critical swing states: Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. The analysis in the link above focuses on Giuliani’s lead shrinking from prior polls, but that is not the key. The key is that Giuliani far outperforms the other Republican frontrunners.
I happen to believe that?FDT?would be a formidable general election candidate.? While it would be difficult to argue the electoral math is a bit less attractive for Senator Thompson at this point, clearly the Democrats have a fear and loathing that the Fred phenom could spread beyond the GOP primaries.?
That said, reality is a tough task master.? If enough GOP primary participants are persuaded that only the Mayor could prevail in November of next year, that just might be the fulcrum upon which the Republican nomination may pivot.
June 29th, 2007 at 6:54 am
Electability is a tricky thing.
Democrats thought John Kerry was the most electable Democrat in 2004. They were wrong.
At this point the vast majority of GOP voters aren’t strongly committed to one candidate. So the electability question has a lot of time to evolve before voters’ opinions start to matter.
We can’t predict who will be most electable candidate in polls by January of 2008 (Heck it could be McCain).
While a lot of Giuliani voters want to put a happy face on their situation, they should face the facts.
Although Giuliani has the highest favorability rating among Republicans his ratings are falling. In addition he has the lowest poll numbers of any Republican front runner in modern GOP primaries.
He’s hardly in the dominant position all other modern GOP front runners were at this time in the primary. This is shaping up to be the most competitive GOP primary since 1976.
June 29th, 2007 at 7:36 am
So econ grad stud–Kerry was not the most electable Democrat–why–because he lost. Losong an election does not make you less electable than the other Demo candidates. Be logical here.
June 29th, 2007 at 8:17 am
There is one more major issue beyond electability that will affect the nomination, and that’s Terrorism.
As we saw this morning with the discovery of another potential Terrorist attack in London, the GWOT is going to be a major concern for our country.
While other candidates may have the right rhetoric, only Rudy has proven 911 crisis leadership skills.
June 29th, 2007 at 8:19 am
[...] Gary Matthew Miller agrees: If enough GOP primary participants are persuaded that only the Mayor could prevail in November of next year, that just might be the fulcrum upon which the Republican nomination may pivot. [...]
June 29th, 2007 at 8:21 am
Kerry was vulnerable as an elitist Massachusetts liberal. Those breed of Democrats are difficult to elect. Democrats probably would have won if they’d nominated Edwards (who was posing as a moderate) or Lieberman (who perhaps was a moderate) or General Clark (whose military service wasn’t impeachable).
June 29th, 2007 at 8:32 am
econ grad stud,
I will agree that the candidate that can win the middle will win the general.
June 29th, 2007 at 8:36 am
TM, Rudy has recently proposed sending support to an organization that conducts terrorism:
NY Times: “Giuliani Calls for Increasing American Support for Fatah”
So much for slighting Arafat. Now he wants the US to underwrite his terrorist organization.
Rudy has no experience or expertise with dealing with terrorists. Only with crisis management. He’d be a good FEMA director but he’s less qualified to be commander in chief than John McCain or Duncan Hunter.
June 29th, 2007 at 8:43 am
econ grad stud,
Now you’re quoting the NY Times?
Do you really think they want to see a Republican elected in 08?
June 29th, 2007 at 8:51 am
TM, I’m quoting Rudy Giuliani. His comments in support of a terrorist organization are public record.
June 29th, 2007 at 9:05 am
Econ grad stud: The headline of that article was misleading relative to the text, as someone else pointed out before. There was nothing in the text of the article that said that the U.S. should send money to Fatah.
June 29th, 2007 at 9:11 am
[...] at Race 4 2008 I examine the reasons behind Mayor Giuliani’s persistent lead in national GOP [...]
June 29th, 2007 at 9:11 am
Heck, as a Giuliani supporter, I am willing to link to that article again so people can evaluate it for themselves:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/27/us/politics/27giuliani.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin
And here are the relevant paragraphs:
“Rudolph W. Giuliani addressed Israeli-Palestinian discord on Tuesday, saying it was pointless for the United States to negotiate with Hamas, the Islamic group that has seized control of the Gaza Strip, and that Washington should work with Egypt and Jordan to bolster Fatah and its control over the West Bank.
“As he advocated active American engagement, Mr. Giuliani urged caution and broadly criticized the Clinton administration’s approach in the 1990s, trying to broker peace with Yasir Arafat, the Palestinian leader.
““Let’s not become like starry romantics like we were with Arafat, where he was leading us down the primrose path and we were helping him get the Nobel Peace Prize,†Mr. Giuliani said in a speech here at Regent University, which Pat Robertson, the evangelist, founded.
“Setting out a position that largely tracked Bush administration policy and the positions of Egypt, Israel and Jordan, Mr. Giuliani suggested that the best course was to bolster Fatah, which Mr. Arafat controlled until he died and is now run by Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president
““Let’s see if we can’t get Jordan and Egypt to help us try and create something with Abbas in the West Bank,†Mr. Giuliani said.”
June 29th, 2007 at 9:15 am
econ grad stud,
That’s liberal spin directed at people like you. The only hope the NYT has is to encourage the extreme right to defeat Rudy in the primaries.
June 29th, 2007 at 9:15 am
“Let’s see if we can’t get Jordan and Egypt to help us try and create something with Abbas in the West Bank,†Mr. Giuliani said.
Giuliani is suggesting the US work with a terrorist regime (Fatah) and encourage Egypt and Jordan to prop them up because I they have better PR than Hamas (although just as many terrorist attacks).
It’s a position that undercuts his tough on terrorism shtick. In the past he snubbed Arafat for Jewish votes and now he’s suggesting we work with the same terrorist organization when he’s facing a different electorate.
June 29th, 2007 at 9:16 am
I should note that Aron Goldman quoted the same part of the NYT article before to put it into context. See http://race42008.com/2007/06/27/race-4-2008-early-morning-essential-reads-12/#comments
June 29th, 2007 at 9:22 am
I suppose I’m not going to get through the anchoring and confirmation-seeking going on here.
Perhaps we’ll see what else Giuliani says in detail about foreign policy. He may even say a few I agree with.
June 29th, 2007 at 9:37 am
TM Econ Grad hates Giuliani, so dont worry about it
YAY! for the above headline though!
June 29th, 2007 at 9:45 am
KT, I don’t hate any politicians or political candidates.
June 29th, 2007 at 10:00 am
econ grad student,
But you did say you would rather see Hillary elected than Rudy.
Enough said!!
June 29th, 2007 at 10:12 am
Bob Novak thought that we would have 54 GOP senators in this cycle. That he thinks this contest is between the two supposed front runners of Romney and Thompson is little more than a reflection of his own socon wishful thinking. Looking at the RCP averages, aside from the single Rasmussen poll, Thompson’s numbers are no higher than the teens.
June 29th, 2007 at 10:13 am
Econ Grad ALSO said that he dreaded having a president with a New York accent.
June 29th, 2007 at 10:13 am
Bob Novak is a hot air balloon
June 29th, 2007 at 10:38 am
“He’s hardly in the dominant position all other modern GOP front runners were at this time in the primary. This is shaping up to be the most competitive GOP primary since 1976.”
Duh. Well, this is the first primary in a VERY long time without an heir apparent in the wings. I guess you could consider McCain the heir apparent for this primary, and that’s correct to an extent, but his problems with the base made that status tenuous at best – as we’re seeing now.
June 29th, 2007 at 11:08 am
I would feel a lot more comfortable with Fred if he ever told us where he stood on important issues. Heck, I would feel better if he even clarified what exactly he would do differently as President. Hopefully, being connected to Hollywood and the Bush administration won’t be enough to have him win the Primary. Is he afraid that people might discover that he really is not that different from Rudy on the social issues? At least he know where the rest of the candidates stand, even the bottom tier. Fred’s running away from anyone who is not friendly to his campaign is getting old quickly.
June 29th, 2007 at 11:24 am
Rudy is not the frontrunner solely because he is the most electable.
He has lead national polling during the entire campaign. (Although Rasmussen may foretelling the end of that, at least for a while.)
Internal polling shows that when any other candidate drops out, Rudy increases his lead. The most recent Gallup poll showed Rudy beating Fred 53-41 if the race were down to just them. He defeated McCain by larger margins, even when McCain was at the height of his popularity. Romney would be decimated by Rudy. Similarly, many polls have asked for 2nd choices, and Rudy’s combined 1st/2nd number dwarves Fred’s any everyone else’s.
Rudy’s favorability rating is highest among all Republicans. The anti-Rudy vote is
June 29th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
I just noticed that got cut off.
The anti-Rudy vote is
June 29th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
I just noticed that got cut off.
The anti-Rudy vote is less than 20% of the GOP, and only 20% among the Religious right. That means 80% of THEM are OK with Rudy. He only needs 30-40% of the GOP vote to win the primary. (And he’s even stronger when the field is not so split, contrary to the conventional wisdom.) A recent poll shows 60% of the GOP will vote for a pro-choice candidate in the primaries. I expect when more know it’s RUDY that number would climb. Also, head-to-head polling against Democrats proves the religious right is not out to sink Rudy. They are included in those polls. And they’d be more likely to say No to Rudy now, to a pollster, than in the actual voting booth when the nation is faced with Hillary or Obama.
June 29th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
David B –exactly right, some who tell pollsters they would not vote for Rudy now, will vote for him later. Actually I think the FDT candidacy may be a blessing in disguise–Fdt helps sink McCain and if McCain drops out, it helps Rudy get the nomination. FDT also helps keep Mitt at bay. FDT wwould be a good VP.
June 29th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
best veep is Sanders or Hunter… now, moving right along….. wouldnt it be great of McCain dropped out and supported Rudy-o!
June 29th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
Fred would be a louzy VP — he is too old, looks old, is lazy, and even in the House recently they decided he was not ready for prime time:
Check this out from Powerline — http://powerlineblog.com/archives/018079.php
* The Fred Thompson campaign recently set up an event for 60 of Congress’s most solid conservatives. Many of them were hoping to be able to endorse Thompson. Unfortunately, Thompson did not impress the Congressmen. He did not appear to be ready for a tough Presidential campaign. One of his aides explained that Thompson was “rusty,” which, as one Congressman told me, did not inspire much confidence in this YouTube era. Some of those who attended are now looking at Mitt Romney as the most viable conservative in the race.
June 29th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
TM, please get it in your head this format:
Managing diaster does not equal fighting war on terrorism…
Managing diaster does not equal fighting war on terrorism…
Managing diaster does not equal fighting war on terrorism…
Rudy so far has shown he has the most least experience of all top tier candidates on GWOT! If I am mistaken, then I dare you to tell me how he is the most experienced one. This question has been asked again and again, but there was NO answer other than how he kicked PLO leader out of the city and how he rejected the 9/11 donation from Arab prince.
June 29th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
SGS, then get this through your head, too: Running the Olympics does not equal fighting war on terrorism. Running Massachusetts does not equal fighting war on terrorism. Neither does being on the Armed Services Committee. Or being a POW in Vietnam.
NONE OF THEM HAVE **ACTUALLY** fought the War on Terrorism!
It’s a debate over which one of them is best equipped to deal with the issue! Rudy was there on the ground and saw the results of 9/11. He managed that disaster effectively and inspired confidence in America. He knows WHY we have to fight the War on Terror — he has seen its devastating results firsthand! And he’s already shown that he’s an effective manager, which inspires the country in this post-Katrina era.
Mitt Romney running the Olympics simply does not compare.
June 29th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
TLG, I agree that none of the candidates actually fought the war on terrorism. However, you can see who has been following the security issues closely. Mitt served on the Federal Homeland Security Committee for a few years, and what do you call it, the Governors’ version of the homeland security committee? He successfully led the world-class security at Olympics (if you do not remember, Federal Gov was threatening to close down Olympics due to security concerns). He studied the reports on terrorisms, as well as reading a few books by terrorism experts (unlikely McCain). Then finally, he as a governor helped Massachuette became the first state (and the lone state at the present time) to pass the bio-hazard test. Now, the whole things I have mentioned here does not equal the actual experiences, no question, but he already has way more head start than Rudy.
Everyone, I am just comparing Romney with Rudy here. I know Thompson served on the foreign and secuirty committees in Senate, and McCain on military, which also give them both the head start over Rudy. My point is, TM and the like here keep saying again and again the lie that Rudy is the MAN for this job, when he has bare qualifications (his very brief term on Iraq Study group)! What else does he have? If there is really nothing, then you guys really cannot say that he is the MAN for it. So, if you do continue to claim that he is the MAN, then I will say again and again that he has no qualifications until you say otherwise. The issue of Terrorism is top priority for you, but yet, I continue to be amazed that you would prefer a man who ACTUALLY is less qualified for this job.
June 30th, 2007 at 3:02 am
It’s a little more complicated than being a checklist of qualifications. It’s also about who can rally the public around certain measures or can be pragmatic enough to push through strong legislation — especially through a Democratic Congress. Obviously, George Bush had no foreign policy experience, but he ended up doing just fine on the War on Terror, overall.
“As well as reading a few books by terrorism experts” — Well, sign me up for those qualified to be President, then!
This isn’t a checklist/resume sort of deal; it’s about who can rally the public around particular aspects of his agenda. Pragmatism is admirable in one field, and that is politics. People see Rudy Giuliani as the American Hero, and that’s enough for me to support him due to terrorism. To be quite honest, they’d all probably be fine on the War on Terror, but nobody could get things accomplished in the way Rudy could.
That being said, my reasons for supporting Giuliani are primarily economic, though his War on Terror theme isn’t hurting my recent fanboyism over him, either.
June 30th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
TLG, if you are talking about who is the most likely candidate to get us all over the war wearness, then I agree with you that Rudy may be the man to do it. This is what I am somewhat concerned about, though. Will he be too quick in getting on everyone’s back and beat them down? The affairs with Iran needs no introduction. Then, we have these: Russia is stepping back from democrary rapidly. China is becoming more aggressive with its military build-up (Taiwan situation).
Since it was not mentioned here, it is only fair for me to add that Rudy did have the history of working under the danger. He went all out against the mobsters in NYC when he was a prosecutor. I also believe he did go against the bad cops, did he? Anyway, he has shown that he could work when he is threatened.