GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
Hillary beats Rudy in West Virginia by 6 points.
West Virginia (5 EVs) joins the red states of Ohio (20 EVs), Iowa (7 EVs), Missouri (11 EVs), and New Mexico (5 EVs) to produce a recent poll showing Hillary beating our strongest horse in the general election. Bottom line: we’re going to lose red states in 2008. The border states from 2006 that flipped to the Democrats haven’t come home, and why should they? We’ve given them no reason to. Meanwhile, New Mexico (5 EVs) seems to produce a Democratic win in every poll these days, probably due to the MSM’s successful efforts to paint all Republicans with a Tancredoite brush in the minds of those Hispanic voters who don’t follow the news all that closely. If Hillary were to win all of the aforementioned states and add them to the Kerry states from 2004, she would amass 300 electoral votes. And that’s not counting the possible defections of Virginia (13 EVs) and Colorado (9 EVs), which went blue in 2006 as well. Add Arkansas (6 EVs) for good measure and Hillary Rodham easily ascends to the throne.
The GOP can only stop Hillary by doing what I recommended in the days after the 2006 elections. Our candidate must be able to spark insurrection in the blue states. That means we must nominate someone who can win the northeast, or the Great Lakes area, or the west coast, or all of those. Of our current crop of candidates, only McCain showed promise in the Great Lakes states, which prefer pragmatic, non-ideological candidates with relatively normal pasts. But McCain’s campaign is basically over due to immigration. None of our guys shows great promise on the west coast, which now favors Arnold-style Democrats-lite over anything that resembles conservatism. That leaves the northeast, and only Rudy can win northeastern states like New York’s neighbors, Pennsylvania (21 EVs), New Jersey (15 EVs), and Connecticut (7 EVs), as well as libertarian New Hampshire (4 EVs) and pro-business Delaware (3 EVs). A Hillary victory in Ohio, Iowa, Missouri, West Virginia, Arkansas, Virginia, Colorado, and New Mexico brings the Democratic total up to 328 electoral votes. A Rudy victory in all of the aforementioned northeastern states snags 50 electoral votes from the Democrats and brings Hillary down to 278 electoral votes, still a victory, but one that can be denied the Democrat if Republicans simply hold one large red state like Virginia. Point is, Rudy keeps it close. But a victory next year may be asking a bit much even for him. Madame President is starting to look inevitable to this observer, but with Rudy, we at least have a fighting chance to hold the White House. If anyone else is nominated, look for this blogger to begin to pen pieces on the many comparisons between Rodham and Nixon.
July 9th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
You keep preaching that Dave, but it doesn’t work for me.
July 9th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
I tire of hearing about how Giuliani is the only candidate who could win against Hillary, especially when he sides with the Democrats on the single best issue we have in winning over swing voters.
“Even in the real world, a pro-choice Republican nominee would be a gift to the Democrats, because the Republican Party wins over so many swing voters on abortion alone.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/22/opinion/22henneberger.html?ex=1184126400&en=f102a9180de70f13&ei=5070
July 9th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
DaveG, WV is a social conservative state that prefers Democrats. Obviously Rudy would lose such a state (much as he’d lose Louisiana and Arkansas).
July 9th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
If the GOP lost Ohio, West Virginia, Missouri and Iowa, it would NOT win New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Connecticut. To lost those four former GOP presidential states would indicate a large victory for the Democratic candidate.
July 9th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
Sorry DaveG, but you keep beating the electability drum and I keep wondering why Rudy can’t offer more than a very debatable claim to being the most electable.
July 9th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Marksal,
That’s not necessarily true.
Rudy Giuliani’s brand of conservatism has appeal in the Northeast, as does his New York accent (For all the mentions of how southerners somtimes prefers to vote for other southerners, the same applies to other regions as well). Rudy’s big-city pizzaz will play very well in Jersey, Conneticut and PA…but maybe not so much more rural WV and IA.
Yes, we have to hold the red states, and I think Giulianican do that being as he is a less polarizing figure than Hillary and (I’m guessing) will flatten her in the debates. But we have to have a blue-state strategy as well, because simply counting on holding traditonal strongholds is a garaunteed way to lose this election. The Dems are polling well now because of Bush, but expect an uptick in GOP support when Giuliani becomes the face of the party.
July 9th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Marksal: that assumes the 2004 template cannot be changed. I think it can. Rudy is not Bush, and much as he’d lose certain types of Bush voters, he’d gain certain types of non-Bush voters, largely secular conservatives in the northeast.
bjalder: I do agree with you to this extent: I expected Rudy to perform better in the Great Lakes area. He’s not outperforming Bush there though. I suspect this is due to the Ponnuru theory, as articulated by Ramesh earlier this year at NRO, which basically states that the midwest is full of fi-lib/so-con voters who only vote GOP because of social issues. I suspect that may be true, but the suburbs of the midwest, from my experience, are also full of fi-con/so-lib voters who would vote for the GOP were it not for social issues. The thing is that, unlike in a state like Jersey, these two groups are fairly evenly matched in the midwest. So for every pro-life Democrat that Rudy loses in Michigan, he gains a pro-choice Republican. That doesn’t help much, though, considering that a wash doesn’t flip the state. I’m pretty sure McCain would have cleaned up in Michigan, Wisconsin, etc, by winning those secular voters while also keeping the pro-life Democrats due to his understated social conservatism, which is very similar to GOPers that win in the midwest, like T Thompson and Pawlenty.
July 9th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
Palin,
You may be right about the uptick. If Rudy wins the nod, I say watch Pennsylvania. It will be the Florida/Ohio of 2008. If Rudy can’t win Pennsylvania, he won’t win NJ, CT, or any of the NE states that are harder for GOPers to win than PA. Similarly, if Rudy does win PA, it will counter a D win in OH and will signal that Rudy may be able to win enough NE EVs to counter D wins in certain border states.
Bookmark this post: watch Pennsylvania.
July 9th, 2007 at 9:14 pm
If Rudy wins the nomination look for “Democrats for Rudy”. He used this when he ran for Mayor of New York and it worked.
July 9th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
I would like to see some data about suburban “fi-con/so-lib voters who would vote for the GOP were it not for social issues.� I live in a Midwest suburb and I just don’t see that. Besides, we need to worry about mobilizing the base if we put a so-lib republican up for the Presidency. I think some Republicans will stay home or vote for a third party candidate.
July 9th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
Dems will vote Dem in 2006, Rudy will not have any cross over appeal with them. 2006 showed that Republican moderates like Chafee were bundled out even if respected, in order to ensure the Dems “won”.
So, Dems won’t vote for Rudy in the NE. Independents might, but I suspect they’ll be so sick of Bush that a R candidate won’t work. Rudy’s done enough in the primary to be able to be tied to Bush by the Dems in hardhitting ads. He can overcome that though, but it won’t be easy.
July 9th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
The surveys I’ve seen of Midwest suburban voters suggests they’re center-right on most issues (social and economic). They tend to be anti-tax but not instinctively anti-government. They also tend to be religious and family oriented (a type of muted social conservatism).
The supposed ideological ‘libertarian’ is a minority in the Midwest suburbs.
The libertarian country club Republicans are really relevant in the rich socially liberal states of New England and in California, Nevada, and Colorado. Given the Republican position on the War I doubt any Republican can win those states.
July 9th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
Guys as a native West Virginian I wouldn’t read too much into the West Virginia poll. The fact is West Virginia is a strong Democratic state. Both Houses of the legislature are heavy Democratic and WV was one of the few states in 1988 to vote for Dukakis. Many traditional Democrats in this state, particularly of the social conservative stripe took a chance on George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004 and have been very disappointed with the results and likely will go back to their old habits in 2008 regardless of the nominee. Plus Bill Clinton was VERY popular in West Virginia.
Dave, just fyi Rudy would not win West Virginia. In fact Rudy’s positions are a complete 180 of West Virginia. West Virginia is a left of center populist economic state and right of center social state.
Oh and another problem in 2008 will be that West Virginia has one of the highest rates of straight ticket voting in the country and immensely popular (70%+ approval rating) Senator Jay Rockefeller will be on the ballot.
July 10th, 2007 at 12:25 am
Rudy has stated on more than several occassions that the coming election is the most important election.
In my own words, if the U.S. chooses to go with a Democrat this coming election, as scary as Hillary is, then the
U.S. is headed left-wing like Europe. This should be very alarming to the voters as the extreme wing
of the Democratic party will be running the country if Hillary prevails.
A vote for Hillary could potentially bring in a unified left-wing force in all three (3) branches of
government. That’s why the independent voters, some registered Democrats and social conservatives
should see what is occurring within the U.S.
I suggest very soon rallying behind the strongest candidate and delivering a huge blow to political
disaster. It is very apparent that Hillary will do and attempt any political move to get into the
White House. She will pretend at times to move right and then move to where she really is, that is
to the left-wing. The marxist article that Aron posted on the early morning essential reads yesteray
concerning Hillary says it all.
July 10th, 2007 at 1:50 am
“A vote for Hillary could potentially bring in a unified left-wing force in all three (3) branches of government.”
With respect, but are you expecting Hillary to covertly authorise the CIA to kill the more conservative elements of the SCOTUS in order to turn it left-wing?
And surely there isn’t a problem with unified branches of government? I never heard the right complaining when Bush had complete power to force whatever he liked through Congress. One could argue that unity is good because in this partisan environment nothing will get done otherwise (e.g. now).
The last paragraph shows the old adage that what goes around comes around.
July 10th, 2007 at 3:11 am
JayPe, whose side are you on!?
“In this partisan environment, nothing will get done…”
You want things done under the Democrats?!
July 10th, 2007 at 7:13 am
DaveG–you are right on about the election–keep it up.
July 10th, 2007 at 9:44 am
JayPe: go ahead, vote for the Democrats and get a huge tax increase, socialism, weak military and national security so that the terrorists can lick their lips.
The Democrats could then apply their foolish “fairness” doctrine.
July 10th, 2007 at 11:17 am
Dave,
Have you considered the impact of an I Bloomberg run in the Northeast and Great Lakes should Rudy not be the nominee? Having a more so-con type R nominee is what I think it takes to trigger a Bloomberg run. I see him doing major damage to HRC in the North.
July 10th, 2007 at 11:35 am
One point that hasn’t been mention is how much better or worse would the other possible candidates — Romney, Thompson & McCain — do in these states. I don’t see any data on this, but my guess is not much. I could see Thompson and McCain doing somewhat better in West Virginia (due to the former’s southern background and the latter’s military service) but even then it might not be enough. I can see McCain performing better in New Mexico, probably enough to keep the state red, but other than that these results would be the same for the other candidates.
July 10th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
fyi Sean Thompson’s “southern background” doesn’t really matter as only the part of West Virginia below I-64 can be considered part of the “south”. They make up less than a third of the voting population and are part of the Reagan Democrat coalition but never voted for Reagan or Bush if that makes sense. Bush won in West Virginia because of the moderates in the Kanawha Valley (Capitol city of Charleston), the Rust Belt type voters in the Northern Panhandle bordering Ohio and Pennsylvania, and the eastern panhandle which has explosive growth as a result of the D.C. exurbs going farther out.
July 10th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
Sean,
McCain loses to Hillary by 7 in WV in that same poll.
Eric,
Bloomberg could hurt Hillary in the NE. I’m not sure how much he’d appeal to the Great Lakes voters, as you don’t really see his brand of Arnold Democrat-lite in office in places like Michigan and Wisconsin. I think Bloomie would take lots of votes in the NE though. Might hurt Hillary, might hurt Rudy, might take equally from the candidates. Suffice it to say there will be lots of NE voters who don’t want to vote for a candidate who supports the Bush Doctrine but who also despise Hillary. Bloomberg gives them a way out.
July 11th, 2007 at 12:36 am
Re New Mexico
There is very little chance that New Mexico will go Republican in 2008.
1. Our state party is in shambles.
a. The leadership is perceived by all and sundry to have pulled a back-room deal in 2006;
b. The then-chairman of the party has since moved out of the state.
c. A major Republican businessman in Albuquerque (1/3 of the state’s voters) is widely (and, in my experience, correctly) perceived as unethical in his business.
d. The state party basically has no leadership nor organization that I can detect.
2. Bill Richardson is a strong-man governor: he uses power effectively. (He makes Hillary Clinton look meek.)
3. His heir apparent, Albuquerque mayor Marty Chavez, has an immense amount of funding from various outside lobbies, not the least being animal-rights groups. Our state is small enough that a large amount of outside money — when allied with the major papers — can pretty much sew up an election.
4. The kicker is that the *citizens* tend to be a pretty independent bunch. An appeal to personal rights (basically, libertarianism but in populist language) could change things.
IMHO, of course. I think that, under good leadership, the Republican party could dominate New Mexico and effectively dismantle the old /padron/ system, but the Republican leadership hasn’t shown itself there yet. (Former Republican libertarian governor Johnson — very popular during his term — has absented himself from the field.) Sad, sad, sad; but true.