The Candidates
Featured Archives
Think Republicans can cobble together an electoral majority by holding all of the red states in 2008 while ceding all of the blues to Democrats? Think again:
This is a huge deal. North Carolina is changing the way that it allocates its electors in the electoral college.
So why does this matter? Because instead of the GOP almost certainly getting 15 electors, it will only get 9, with the other 6 going to the Dem, working off the congressional delegation allocation.
The Dems could probably do this in Arkansas and Louisiana too. Those are states that still have Southern Democrat majorities in the state legislatures and Democratic Governors.
Very, very clever.
So that’s 6 southern electoral votes that will likely end up in the Democratic column next fall. If the Dems enact a similar bill in Arkansas or Louisiana, they could gain more. And Arkansas is endangered anyway due to the likelihood that its former First Lady will head the Democratic ticket. Meanwhile, polls show Hillary leading in West Virginia, Iowa, Ohio, New Mexico, and Missouri appears to be about to go native as well. And all GOP candidates not named Rudy lose Florida to Mrs. Clinton.
Put simply, we can’t win in 2008 without at least a few states that voted for John Kerry in 2004. We simply cannot. The red-state strategy is over. It’s time to start playing for the nation again.
July 28th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Does a single day go by in which there isn’t horrible news for the GOP re: 2008?
July 28th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
Kind of makes all the drama concerning the Republican nominee sort of moot, doesn’t it. I wonder what all of the poitical junkies are going to do once the U.S. beceoms a de facto one party state. Maybe when all of the former Republicans start voting in the Democratic primary, it will act as a moderator on the worst aspects of the Democratic Party.
July 28th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
We deserve this for squandering our chance. Democrats will speed the decay of America but they will make it more tolerable (with “free” goodies).
Republicans at some point decided we didn’t want to save America from Democrats. So voters may as well elect Democrats for free goodies before the nation is taken over by China and the Muslims.
In fact the Democrats may be able to negotiate a deal where some Americans get to stay alive as slaves when the Muslims and Chinese take the nation over.
July 28th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Don’t panic yet, there is a good chance that the GOP could pick up a couple of Blue states in the GL reagion – and I still think NH is up for grabs.
I think the next few years look pretty good for Conservatives and Republicans. With the influence of labor declinging, the war likely to start wrapping up within the next couple of years, and a generation of more media-concious teenagers getting to the point where they are likely to warm up to Conservative prinicples, I like our position. Add to that electoral college changes that are likely to favor the GOP, and you’ve got good news for the GOP.
For all of those who want to write the obituary for conservatism, think again. Ever since Reagan was President, there have been people trying to do the same thing. They have yet to be right, plain and simple.
July 28th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
That said, I do think it is time to stop playing defense. Republicans are backing away in the face of Democrats, rather than trying to convince Americans that we are right.
What we need to do is pick strong, Conservative leaders who can spread our message to the masses with charisma. Its about time that the GOP started saying “Yes, we do support the war, becuase the alternative is letting extremeists take over the middle east”, “Yes, we do support lower taxes for ALL income levels, becuase peopel can spend their own money better than the government, and “Yes, we oppose abortion and gay marriage, becuase its necessary to America’s survival that we keep the institution of the family strong and is necessary to America’s survival that we protect the lives of our future generation.”
If Republicans are losing ground, its becuase they are not playing strong offense. We have the right ideas, and evidence to back it up. If we are not using the facts to our advantage, then, yeah, we will loose seats.
As for polls, why don’t you wait until we have our candidate and the general has been going on for a while, ok? Its a little early to start calling states.
July 28th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
Just a scenario:
Blue states- Every state north of VA: MD, PA, DE, NJ on up/MI, IL, WI, MN, AR for HRC, NM, WA, OR, CA and HI
Red states- All others
270 needed to win
(R)275
(D)263
If NC does, in fact, cause a loss of 6 that would be 269-269.
July 28th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
As long as we’re doing electoral math, I can see HRC winning the 6 NC EVs, plus Arkansas’ 6, West Virginia’s 5, Missouri’s 11, Ohio’s 20, Iowa’s 7, and New Mexico’s 5. Let’s leave Colorado and Florida with the GOP for now as I think Rudy will be the nominee, and he’ll appeal to the South Park types in CO and to the ex NYers in FL. So HRC picks up 60 EVs. Add those to the Kerry states and HRC wins 312 EVs. In order for Rudy to beat her, he’d have to win 44 EVs. New Jersey and Pennsylvania will get him 36. New Hampshire gets him to 40. Then he needs one other state. Connecticut would do it. There’s always the outside chance Hillary will win Virginia, or that Rudy would win Delaware or Rhode Island or Oregon. We’re looking at a close election with Rudy v. HRC. Can any of the other candidates say the same?
July 28th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Anyone who thinks that any Republican candidate is going to be competative in states lik New Jersey or Connecticut need to put down the crack pipe and seek professional help. Such predictions can only be made under the influence of drugs.
July 28th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Scott, the whole point is that the 2000, and 2004 template will not occur anymore. You look at the race today and Clinton and you could add OH, and WV to the blue column. VA is in play, MO is in play, CO is in play and FL is in play.
Even if it is 269 vs. 269 (which is pushing it), DEMs hold the majority in 26 states, enough to elect a Democratic President, while the VP race in the Senate could be more interesting.
July 28th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Dave, I’m going to get kicked in the nuts for this, but John McCain can. I know what you’re going to say, so save your breath.
July 28th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
You’re being a little generous to the DNC, aren’t you? Considering that half of the Great Lakes States could turn red, as could PA, NH, and OR? Sometimes I think you people want the GOP to be doomed.
I think its too early to try to play the electoral math game. We don’t even have a clue who the GOP candidate is going to be, and that, I will remind you, is the most important part. Polls right now are all speculation, and many people are not yet paying close enough attention to the race to make a final decision. You guys are going on the fact that people are unhappy with Bush, and that that unhappiness is being reflected in current polls.
Once we know our nominee, once we get into the national campaign and the DNC-GOP debates, and once we get wthin a couple months of the election, then I will start to trust general election polls, but its way too early right now.
July 28th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Rick,
Both Dave and myself have always thought of Sen. McCain as the “other Republican” who would also have at least a 50/50 shot at winning the general.
The problem is that he has less than a 50% chance of winning the nomination nowadays…
July 28th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Rudy or McCain also have a darn good shot at taking Michigan from Hillary.
July 28th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
Yes Rick, I’ve always felt McCain was most certainly electable. Rudy would win Michigan in any year where the GOP wasn’t 20 points down (like this year) and McCain might even win it this year due to his Pawlenty-style appeal to midwesterners.
July 28th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
McCain would be popular in the Midwest because he has character. I may not agree with him on the issues but in the Midwest honesty and consistency are important. Of all the candidates running McCain is alone in being consistent, honest, and principled through most of his career.
That character means a lot to Midwesterners.
July 28th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
SuperStarDestroyer:
I am renaming you because my name for you is cooler
Anyway, your pessimism makes me seem like a wide-eyed optimist! CT and NJ aren’t out of play. Rudy is still leading HRC in NJ in the latest Rasmussen poll. As Michael Barone has pointed out at least twice in the past year, polls show that Rudy does disproportionately well in the west and northeast. The 2004 template ceases to exist in a Rudy/HRC race because of Rudy’s South Park Republicanism, which will play in those regions, and because of HRC’s Clintonian Democratism, which will play disproportionately well in the Midwest and Upper South. So you could easily have HRC win WV and MO while Rudy wins NJ. PA is more of an anomale, because it’s part northeast and part Great Lakes state. Rudy will do well in the Philly suburbs, but he may lose some voters in western PA. Carter won PA in 1976, which was the last time we ran a socially liberal Republican. So we’ll see. And then there’s always the danger that northeasterners are so desperate to get the Bushies out of power that they’ll vote against any GOPer who doesn’t totally repudiate Bush.
July 28th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
I think almost any GOP candidate can take MI – particularly Romney, who will benefit from name recognition and “native son” factor. Yes, Giuliani may be able to appeal to moderates to win the election, and McCain may also be able to win. However, the poor economy of the state and the declinging unionized workforce make it a prime target for the GOP.
Get it though your heads that we don’t have to run an abortion-supporting or amnesty-loving candidate to win the election. The only thing we have to do is elect a Reagan-style Conservative who can articulate our positions and convince people that we are right. You stick to your guns, and you win elections. You spread a message of hope and prosperity, and you win elections. We don’t have to pick a liberal, and we don’t have to tell a third of the party to get lost. The only thing we need is a Strong, Conservative, leader.
July 28th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
“However, the poor economy of the state and the declinging unionized workforce make it a prime target for the GOP.”
How’s Governor Devos doing over there?
Oh, that’s right, he lost by double-digits to incumbent Gov. Granholm, despite the fact that the governor has presided over the worst economy in the world, simply because DeVos had an “R” next to his name.
July 28th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
All roads for a Democrat win go through California.
Can Rudy win California?
With the right media campaign he might have a shot.
I am wondering if Hillary’s negatives can be exploited by the GOP media folks in Cali?
July 28th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Kavon, BTW, I sent a trackback to this post and it doesn’t seem to be working.
http://flapsblog.com/?p=5339
July 28th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
Yes, DeVos lost, for two reasons. Firstly, the six-year itch, second, he was a weak candidate. There is no reason that a more experienced, charismatic, and overall stronger candidate would not have won.
July 28th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Superdestroyer,
In November 2006, in the blue state of Connecticut, a pro-war Independent won a US Senate seat by 10 percent over an anti-war Democrat.
According to the most recent Quinnipiac poll, released July 5th, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani would defeat both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, as well as Al Gore in neighboring New Jersey.
The results of the head to head match-ups are as follows:
Giuliani 47%
Clinton 44%
Giuliani 48%
Obama 40%
Giuliani 47%
Gore 44%
What many who are not from the northeast don’t seem to recognize is that respect and regard for Rudy transcends well beyond party affiliation in the Tri-State area. Not even John McCain competes in the Garden State. The Arizona senator loses to Hillary, Obama and Gore by 6, 4 and 9 percentage points, respectively.
Fred Thompson fares even worse, getting beaten by 13% against Hillary, getting crushed by 17% vs. Obama and pummeled by 18% by Gore.
Among all New Jersey voters, Rudy Giuliani has a 61% favorability rating; with just 29% viewing him unfavorably — a net favorability rating of +32 percent. Hillary Clinton’s favorability rating is just 50%, with an unfavorable rating of 42%; yielding her a net favorable of only 8%.
In the most recent Quinnipiac polls conducted in Pennsylvania and Ohio, released June 27th, Giuliani was tied in both states versus Hillary Clinton, but beat Barack Obama in Ohio by 2% and in PA by 1%. Giuliani even edged Gore by two percent in Pennsylvania.
It looks far more ominous for the GOP if McCain or Thompson (or Romney) were to win the nomination.
In PA, Clinton beats McCain by four, and Thompson by 11%. Obama would defeat McCain by 5, and Thompson by a whopping 17. Even Gore would beat McCain by seven and Thompson by 13.
At this point in time, Ohio is poised to turn from red to blue in ‘08 if Rudy isn’t the nominee. Hillary would win against either McCain or Thompson; the differential being two points or nine, respectively. Obama would beat McCain by five and Thompson by 8%.
July 28th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
While I have already said that I think it is wrong to pick our nominee according to matchup polls with Democrats, lets say you are right. Lets say it comes down to two options:
1) Pick Rudy, alienate a huge part of the party, try to appeal to the people who we are ideological opposites of, just to win one election.
2) Pick a candidate who actually represents our values, loose one election, allow the Democrats to make a mess, and capitalize on that in 2010 and 2012.
Not a hard choice in my opinion. The danger of dumping Social Conservatives into the trash bin is far worse than the danger of a Democratic President in 2008. If we tell SCs to “get lost”, they may take our advice and form another party, lets say they call it the “American Conservative Party” – that is a senario that could happen, and one that would really harm the GOP. The Conservative vote would be split, and the Democrats would win just about every election. That is the real disaster senario.
July 28th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
@23
ACT, you assume all SC’s will leave if Rudy is the nominee. Some but not a majority.
Do you REALLY want Hillary for 8 years just to have a chance of a SC win in 2016?
July 28th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
Here’s an interesting question to ponder: who has the best chance at winning their home State — Rudy or Romney? Has a President ever won without winning his home State?
July 28th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
Who says it would be eight years?
Put it this way, If our options in 2008 are: A Democrat who does not agree with my view OR, A Republican who does not agree with my views, I would be tempted to accept the Democrat. Why? Becuase, if I deffinately have to put up with a President who does not support the same things I do, I at least want a chance that that person would be replaced after 4 years by a President who DOES support my views.
And, you just expect SCs to lay down and accept total disregard of their opinions by the party? If you had learned anything from the 2006 elections, it should be that Conservatives are not a very forgiving group.
Do you really think that, after four or eight years of a pro-choice, Republican president, that Social Conservatives would still vote for us in large numbers in, say, the 2016 elections?
July 28th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Also, my question above becomes even more interesting if Hillary is the Dem nominee.
July 28th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
Aron,
I think a Q-Poll came out recently that showed HRC moving into the lead in Ohio, even over Rudy. That said, I agree that Rudy is the only candidate that has a shot at winning next year due to his strength in the NE. Lieberman is the perfect example: a pro-war candidate winning amongst anti-war northeasterners because of the respect the people of CT have for Joe. The question is whether or not CT, NJ, and PA will overlook the R next to Rudy’s name in a year when we’re 20 pts behind and select him over HRC. If they do, we at least have a fighting chance, and the election turns into a race to 270 as Hillary tries to win the border states and Rudy tries to win the NE.
July 28th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
This is a bunch of hogwash from R408 prince of darkness…
First of all, this hasn’t happened yet, and things that look certain for passage on Friday afternoon often do not survive the weekend.
Second, North Carolina may have Dem representatives, but generalizing that to the general is very dangerous. Check out the 2004 vote by county at
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap.htm
then google a map on NC congressional districts. Maybe 13-2 or 12-3.
Rudy winning in NE is a pipe dream… If it is HRC v. Rudy, and that is a BIG IF, the race in the battle ground might be decided by the Veep nominee.
I am beginning to think DaveG is a closet Dem, attempting to dishearten the GOP by spreading doom and gloom around the net…
July 28th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Well, Romney has no shot of winning MA. Rudy has close to no shot of winning ny but a slightly greater shot than Romney does of winning MA. Also, if you throw in NJ and PA as being near NY and that EV make up for NY, he has a shot there. The last to win without winning his home state is Wilson in 1916.
Where is this idea that if Rudy wins the nomination, which I doubt, but if he does that he’ll tell all the social conservatives to pound sand? He won’t. He’s said he accepts the pro life plank in the platform and won’t push for any changes. He accepts the Hyde Amendment and status quo on funding and his policies on that and the Mexico City poloicy and the military bases and others will be no different than the Bush Administrations. He’s given reason to think he’ll be solid on judges and quite frankly with a dem Senate if you saw Schumer’s comments, any GOP President is going to have a very tough time getting another Alito or Roberts confirmed so I see no reason to think his chcoices would be any worse than anyone else’s. Yes, he doesn’t support the life amendment, but then again neither does Mitt or Fred. Rudy has not been hostile to social conservatives and voiced desire to purge the party of them a la Pete Wilson or Christie Whitman. To quote Romeny he’s pretty much for maintaining the status quo.
Also, for 30 years the more liberal and moderate wings of the GOP have been marginalized. You can say maybe Rudy antagonizes the social wing, but polls show Bush got support from plenty of pro choice Republicans and Independents as well. Do they ever get a say? Or is it just the Christian Right who picks the nominee and everyone else just has to deal with it?
It’s quite possible that a nomination of Mitt or Fred will be seen by independents and moderates as the Christian Right picking their man and will alienate plenty of them who have grown tired of the morality and religiosity of Bush. I see no reason to think that isn’t an equally likely scenario.
Again here’s a test for my social conservative friends who care about abortion to see if they’ve been paying attention:
1)Since Roe v Wade in 1973, under which President have abortions decreased the greatest, both in raw numbers and percentage-wise?
2)What does that tell you about the impact a President’s views on abortion really has on the number of abortions?
July 28th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
ACT Blog,
If Rudy becomes president and replaces Stevens and Ginsburg with two strict constructionists in the mold of Alito and Roberts; and they subsequently overturn Roe, reverting abortion back to the states, will you and your social conservative brethren who make these asinine threats then promise to go sit on the sidelines for good, or will you turn out in droves in 2012 to reward and reelect the pro-choice Republican who was responsible for eliminating your single-issue political platform’s entire raison d’être?
July 28th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
“This is a bunch of hogwash from R408 prince of darkness…”
I think I’m going to change my name to R4′08 Prince of Darkness. I also think this moniker requires me to purchase a black cape. I really think the cape has needlessly fallen out of style. Perhaps I can bring it back.
July 28th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
My problem with judges is that he has yet to gaurentee pro-life judges, and that he thinks Roe was good law.
As for the moderates thing, for many of them, morality and abortion and gay marriage are not major issues. They are unlikely to leave just becuase we get a pro-life nominee. SCs on the other hand see morality, abortion, and marriage as extremely important, and are likely to be offended and alienated by the selection of a pro-abrotion nominee. Simply put, those who are pro-choice and think it is an extremely important issue are usually Democratic voters. Why do you think there is not a strong pro-choice movement within the GOP?
July 28th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
Does anyone think that Rudy would take Mitt as VP?
July 28th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
Enough of the “single issue voter” crap.
Aron, let me ask you a question, would you vote for a Republican who wanted to drastically raise taxes and increase regulation? How about one who wanted to cut our military by 50% and try to make friends with Al-Qaeda and Castro?
If the answer is no, how do I know you are not a single issue voter?
I for one, would not vote for a candidate who was in favor of either, becuase those are un-Republican positions. Its not that I’m a single issue voter, its that I don’t support any candidate who is not strong on all three primary issues: economy, military, and family/life.
July 28th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
Dave…er, Prince of Darkness,
I was thinking you might want to consider ‘KAVON’ as a new moniker…but spelled backwards, of course.
July 28th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Has anyone noticed that all the GOP gloom and doom around here lately is coming from Giuliani supporters? It’s all a game of ‘if we don’t nominate Rudy, the GOP will be a permanent minority party…’ I don’t buy it.
There’s no doubt things are going bad right now. But politics is cyclical; the dems will win for a while, and then people will get sick of them too like they’re sick of Republicans right now. That’s not enough of a reason to move the entire party platform to the Left…that’s a real loss. What’s really messed up are these Rudy supporters who are trying to scare everybody into believing that they have to sacrifice their core values and nominate someone that they otherwise would oppose.
July 28th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Aron,
You’re giving away secrets
July 28th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
Aron and Dave G,
It might be wise to stop this conversation now. You may find yourselves testifying down the line….
July 28th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
but what is a core value? Rudy is sounding very conservative, free market on the economic, spending, and healthcare stuff…definitely more so than ol’ GW ever sounded…just don’t think he is a big sacrifice for the GOP…..plus the socialists are pushing big time for socialized medicine…the strongest push yet in the country’s history….and it can’t be allowed to happen….hillary wins we get it …and it will never go away
July 28th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
Who is doom and gloom?
If Rudy doesn’t win the GOP nomination, none of the others including Thompson will beat Hillary.
That is a FACT.
Flame away……
July 28th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
“That is a FACT”
come straight from your crystal ball did it?
July 28th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
I can read the polls and add.
))
July 28th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
ACT Blog,
Thank you for providing examples to perfectly illustrate my point.
The percentage of Republicans who would vote for a GOP candidate who wanted to drastically raise taxes and increase regulation is probably somewhere between zero and 3 percent.
The percentage of GOPers who’d vote for a Republican who wanted to cut our military by 50% and try to make friends with Al-Qaeda and Castro is, I’d guess, between 0 and 1 percent.
The percentage of Republican primary voters who’d vote for a Republican who supports abortion rights is over 60 percent nationally, and only 23% of Republicans in the socially conservative state of South Carolina say they wouldn’t vote for Giuliani in the primary under any circumstances (and that figure would be much lower if he were the nominee up against Hillary Clinton in the general).
July 28th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
Hey, FLAP since you’re so good at predicting the future, got any stock picks?
July 28th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
Sure
Apple Computers – AAPL
Amgen (although at 52 week low – may be a buying opportunity)
July 28th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
Not buying the AAPL thing… too big a run since the iphone… short selling would make sense to me….
Not buying your judgment of FDT either. Any GOP nominee stands a chance of beating HRC… her negatives are too high, there is pronounced feeling among moderates and independents that we have had enough of the Clinton and the Bushes, and the mere fact of HRC as nominee may mobilize the base in way that no other scenario can…
All predictions of the future are wrong, the question is by how much…
July 28th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
Here’s a stock you might want to invest in before it once again spikes upward:
http://data.intrade.com/graphing/jsp/closingPricesForm.jsp?contractId=175730&tradeURL=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.intrade.com&sent=&dataType=on&timePeriodType=Lifetime&recentlyDays=220&chartSize=L&volume=on&chartType=CP&priceBand=None&movingAv1Type=None&movingAv1Slices=50&movingAv2Type=None&movingAv2Slices=25&indicator1=None&indicator2=None&indicator3=None&indicator4=None&Button1=Update+Chart
July 28th, 2007 at 7:02 pm
Aron… don’t miss out on the opportunity to short sell Obama…
July 28th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
Sorry I am in a hurry and I didn’t read the whole thread, but I hope someone has pointed out that those votes aren’t lost just because the districts are represented by Dems now.
Do you really think that all the same people who voted for Heath Shuler are also going to vote for Hillary or Barack? Of course not. I am not familiar with all the representatives in NC, but I am willing to bet that many of the Dems there are Blue Dogs and thus those districts would probably go to the GOP nominee.
The person this hurts worst is FDT because he doesn’t put new states into play so the fact that NC has gone from 15 solid GOP votes to probably 11 or so does hurt significantly.
Also are there any blue states where the GOP is in control and could pull the reverse? I doubt it, but it is worth a thought.
July 28th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
ACTBlog,
Did you check Rudy’s judicial advisory committee? Is there any doubt if they advise him on judges,he will pick a strict constructionist?
You should be more concerned with Fred Thompson and the choices he is making to run his campaign: recycled Bushies,pro open borders and pro Arab( Spence Abraham ). Add to this putting his son on the payroll of some front entity for doing nothing and paying him big bucks(reported by Dick Morris).
When he comes under full scrutiny,his glow is going to fade fast.
July 28th, 2007 at 9:41 pm
Don’t be suprised if North Carolina is taken to court over their district vote plan since it screws up the curent electoral system by not keeping it uniform,thus violating the equal protection clause.
Either all states have to adopt this plan, or none can use it.
This is tampering with the FEDERAL election system and any change may have to come by Constitutional Amendment to be legal.
July 28th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
DaveG, I am wondering something about your concern. According to you, winning the general election is VERY difficult for any Republican candidate. I mean, we have been seeing more and more people leaning toward the Democratic side, and we need to do something about it. How do you foresee Rudy helping swing the movement toward Republican side? How should Rudy strengthen the party itself for the future elections? After all, we cannot have Rudy beyond 2 terms. If he wins the election, not only will he have to lead our country, but he also have to rebuild the image of Republican Party.
July 28th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
TennJoe:
The Constitution says that states are allowed to allocate electoral votes any way they want. They could even, theoretically, name the electors themselves (as was often done in the early days of our republic).
July 28th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
“Either all states have to adopt this plan, or none can use it.”
Nice try. Maine has been using such a system for quite some time now.
There might be another – cant remember off the top of my head.
July 28th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
Nebraska is the other.
July 28th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
Yes, it’s Maine and Nebraska if I’m not mistaken.
July 28th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
Sorry, didn’t see Dave’s post when I wrote that.
July 28th, 2007 at 10:45 pm
SGS:
Good question. I do think it’s an uphill climb for any of our guys, but as Flap as pointed out, the basic 2+2 of the electoral college demonstrates that Rudy can get to 270, while the others cannot. I can’t see Fred winning a single blue state, meaning that since a number of red states are lost regardless, Fred would lose the general election. McCain could’ve done it, but his campaign is basically over. Romney supporters will be quick to point out their belief that their guy can do it. Until Romney name recognition gets close to 100 percent, I’ll just have to agree to disagree with them, because pointing to the current polls regarding Romney is useless due to the name recognition factor.
In any case, I think Rudy will up GOP numbers in the northeast and the west, but for different reasons. I think Rudy ups our numbers in the west because he is running a fiscally conservative, socially agnostic campaign. The west is major leave-us-alone territory, and this message will resonate out there and probably ensure that we hold AZ and NV and give us a real shot at holding CO. Bush only lost Oregon by 4 last time. Perhaps Rudy could pull it in as well.
In the northeast, as Aron pointed out, Rudy ups GOP numbers because of identity politics as well as widespread admiration for the man in the tri-state area. Rudy should do well in all of the states adjacent to NY, including CT, NJ, and PA. RI has a very significant Italian-American population that could help Rudy. And NH, DE, and ME were all in single digits last time. Rudy’s gains in these states will of course be offset by the fact that the GOP is much farther down all across the nation than we were in 2004. The question is how many of these states will give Rudy the Lieberman treatment and vote for him despite his support for Bush, versus how many of these states will give Rudy the Chafee treatment and vote against a Republican who fits them ideologically because of the R next to his name. I’m assuming there will be states in both categories, but the point is that Rudy will win SOME blue states, while none of the other candidates can win ANY blue states in my opinion. That means Rudy COULD win the election, while no one else can.
Party building: I think Rudy will bring lots of fi-con hawks into the party who are socially agnostic or liberal. The GOP base after two terms of Rudy would look a lot different than it does now. But that’s inevitable anyway if the GOP wants to survive due to demographic trends. The culture war is in its waning years, is largely a product of the polarized generation of the Baby Boomers, and will be retired along with them.
July 28th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
BTW, this sound like overreach to me. I’m guessing that this is going to backfire bigtime on the Democrats in that state and go a long way towards helping put Republicans back into power in that state starting in 2008. Voters tend to not like it when parties rig the system.
Afterall, the relatively fair redistricting plan of Tom Delay (fair because it more accurately represented Texas) ended up backfiring on Republicans. Heck, even FDR got nailed for his Supreme Court packing scheme.
July 28th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
Re: party building. The dirty little secret is that a Democratic presidency would be an excellent party building tool. That’s because it would naturally move the battle lines. Right now, anyone who’s against Bush can find their home with the Dems. This was true of the GOP during Clinton’s presidency. A Democratic presidency would put forth a much more specific Democratic agenda though, meaning that lots of folks who now consider themselves sympathetic to Democrats simply because they’re against Bush would find themselves opposed to the new party in power and would give the GOP another look. We would probably make gains in the 2010 elections because of these new voters, which would help with redistricting and allow us to elect more Republicans in the coming decade.
Basically, building the party requires us to win new voters, whether it’s with Rudy this time or by becoming the loyal opposition to a Hillary presidency. Either way, the now obsolete Bush Base ceases to exist. Bush was the first president in a century able to combine foreign policy idealism/interventionalism with lots of interest in social meddling all put forth by an evangelical president. The last guy to do this was McKinley, and the fact that it took 100 years for these groups to come together again shows how rare such a coalition is. Perhaps that’s why so many folks are so afraid of Rudy. They know that the red-state coalition is collapsing and they’re desperate to keep it together. They’d rather lose than see all those penny-pinching secular hedonists in the blue states come along.
July 28th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
I’m from the NY/NJ area and I can attest that NJ has, with it’s losses from 911, a soft spot for Giuliani. More so than Conn, but them too. NJ would go with Giuliani in my opinion as current polls show. It does not have the Hillary factor as NY does, even thought Rudy is a “real New Yorker”, she has done a respectable job in the Senate.
So, Rudy is the only one who can shake things up in the NE and probably elsewhere with regard to blue and purple states.
July 29th, 2007 at 12:12 am
So Dave,
What becomes of the socons?
Turning away from your base, or a big chunk of it, can be pretty tough on the ol’ long-term prospects.
LBJ wrote off the south for a generation, and it has been a pretty long generation till the Dems could piece together another governing coalition.
But it does seem unlikely that the Dems could swoop in to scarf up the socons, the way Nixon did the southern white vote.
So where will they go? Thats a hell of a lot of experienced, agitated political energy without a home…
July 29th, 2007 at 2:36 am
If the election was Dem vs Rep, I’d agree. But it’s not. It’s Hilary Clinton/Barack Obama vs X
If the dems were smart and ran Mark Warner, we may as already have given up, the race would be over. Fortunately, the dems like to make things difficult for themselves.
Hillary is still Hillary and has high negatives and polarization. Every one knows that if Hillary wins things will me more polarized than they are now and the current Bush-Clinton cycle will continue. Jeb will start getting in shape and Chelsea will begin in A ball.
Independents/Moderates and Republicans are still going to be wary of Hillary. Some of the far left won’t like her. The whole change/hope idea of Obama won’t fly with Hillary.
She will still be a sitting Senator with no executive/leadership experience and no military experience. She’ll still have no real accomplishments to her name in anything as far as politics goes.
She’ll still be starting at a disadvantage and have to win some red states and hold all of the blue states.
And as for Obama being VP, I think he will be. For one, he has a strong base of supporters, especially among the young and the left, and after Hillary beats him, she’s going to need to do something to keep them onboard and with her(as opposed to losing interest and staying home) Also, as we’ve seen, Hillary is beginning to go after Obama and sic her dogs on him and she’ll need to patch things up with the black community. Thre’s some other reason as well.
Now, no matter what polls say, there’s still going to be a significant amount of people who won’t vote for a woman President or a Black VP, let alone both of them on the same ticket. It’s too much. Especially in some of the red states that Hillary is going to need to flip. A Warner/Bayh ticket would have been the safe play, but the dems will go all in.
Dave made good points about the Paisan factor with Rudy in NJ, PA, RI, and the NE in general. Rudy is of them. He looks like them. He sounds like them. Voters tend to vote with who they identify with, if they have a choice. It’s one of the reasons Clinton did well against Bush and Dole. Both of them were older guys, of a different generation, they didn’t sound like the red states or have their experiences. Clinton did. I wonder if Clinton would have beat a Southerner such as say a W or a Fred Thompson? Instead of going against two guys whose average age was 72 and had personalities of plywood.
He could play in AR, TN, GA, NC, LA and those states. Hillary can’t. She’s not a southerner. She’s not even a real New Yorker. Rudy can campaign in NY/NJ/PA and he’s of them. He’ll do well there and at least force the dems to spend money and allocate resources that they wouldn’t have to with Fred or Mitt.
The Upper Midwest and West will be tougher. MN/WI/MI might be doable with a Pawlenty VP, but probably not. Rudy will need a southerner to balance out the ticket and consolidate the red states. I doubt anyone else would do much better. This idea of Mitt winning MI that has been blue since 1988, has 2 dem senators and a dem gov strikes me as fanciful at best.
The west is probably out of reach. Perhaps Arnold can help in CA, but I think the margin is just too great.
A lot will happen between now and 2008. If Iraq doesn’t change or the economy goes south, the GOP is finished.
If, though, Iraq improves or at least stabilizes and the economy remains solid, things could get interesting and close.
An 87 yr old Justice Stevens could totally throw a wrench in things as well.
I think Bush needs to do something active to help out, though. Right now the GOP is reacting to everything. Bush needs to do something to switch the focus from Iraq, highlight the security issues, and give the GOP an issue to run on. My 2 chief options are an attack on Iran’s nukes and IRGC facilities or a real effort to go after AQ/Bin Laden in Pakistan. Either of those will help the GOP tremendously. Start after Iraq is resolved in the fall. A Rudy or Fred who runs with that as an issue will win. If Iraq and getting out is an issue, they’ll lose.
AS with every election since 1900, this will come down to who wins at least 1 of CA, NY or TX and at least 2 of FL, OH and PA. I think the GOP has a lock on TX. So, it’ll come down to FL, OH and PA again. I think Rudy and Fred give us the best shot in FL. Fred probably gives us the best shot in OH and Rudy in PA. I think it’ll end up being a Fred/Rudy ticket in some combination.
But it’s way too early to say anything concrete.
The waters are still warming up and the flies are still buzzing and the cows have miles to go before they sleep.
Maybe I should become Fred’s speechwriter?
July 29th, 2007 at 8:16 am
At this point screw electoral politics, I want brutal honesty.
Let’s nominate someone who’ll tell it like it is. If FDT would take the tobacco out of his mouth (he’s got nothing in his cheeks? you’re kidding me) he may qualify.
McCain certainly qualifies as a brutally honest SoB. If Rudy could stop dancing like Paula Abdul around the social issues he might qualify also.
We need to point out that besides Hillary there’s not a real man in the running for the Democratic nomination. We’ve got Obama and Edwards the dueling sissies and then we’ve got old white men who Democrats won’t nominate.
We need a though candidate who can make Hillary cry (if that’s possible). We may not win but at least we’d have seen the toughest Democrat is still a wimp.
July 29th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
DaveG (#59), you are pointing out something significantly. The GOP is changing, regardless of how we like it. You claim that the cultural war is coming to its conclusion. It may be true for the media and many other institutions (universities), but for the many of Americans, it is not over. So, if GOP does give up on cultural battles, then there will be a third party. If not this time around, very likely by 2012 or 2016. I personally belive that GOP of the future will be a party of moderates (especially if Rudy is one who wins the nomination), which also include those who leans toward Democratic side. So it looks like to me that we could end up with a party of liberals, another party of moderates (socially, at least), and finally, the “third” party of social conservatives and Religious Rights. I believe we are due for this change, anyway, as I think our two party system sucks. We do need many more parties to accurately represent the various factors of our Americans and that they should collobrate together on the matters that are of importance to them.
July 29th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
SGS,
I’ll pose to you the same question I asked ACT Blog yesterday (which he has yet to answer):
If Rudy becomes president and replaces Justices Stevens and Ginsburg with two strict constructionists in the mold of Alito and Roberts; and they overturn Roe, reverting abortion back to the states, will social conservatives then follow through on their threat to sit on the political sidelines, or will they turn out in droves in 2012 to reward and reelect the pro-choice Republican who was responsible for eliminating their entire political platform’s raison d’être?
July 29th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
Aron, even though I consider myself as a social conservative, I am more of a family man than a pro-lifer. I mean, abortion is not my top issue, as some other social issues for me, like education being managed at local level, anti-same-sex-marriages, freedom of practicing religions in public squares, protection of Boy Scouts from ACLU, and so on. I do not follow closely the pro-life movement itself, so I am not sure how to answer your question. I only know that, as I have mentioned many times on this site, I believe that the social conservatism movement has been hijacked by the pro-lifers, and it frustrated me that people like you would think that it is what we soc-cons are about. Now with this disclosure out of the way, I honestly do not think those pro-lifers will be satisfied with overcoming of the Roe. I think they are as bad as NARAL, WOW and the like. Those organizations are never satisfied with more rights they have obtained over the years, and have gone to extremes only to keep in existance their their organizations.
July 29th, 2007 at 8:08 pm
Aron’s scenario is a good one. Especially if Rudy remains strong on constructionist judicial appointments. It looks good so far with regard to his recent legal team.
If that scenario played out, what more could a pro-lifer ask for? Sometimes you have to be pragmatic in order to achieve your intended goals. That’s why I’m thinking of supporting Rudy.
I also hope he comes back into line with his Church and mine but that’s another issue. Those that, with no other reasonable alternatives, refuse to back their only viable option will, in all likelihood, delay or lose their intended goal.
Those who get so caught up in the fight for the sake of the fight itself, start not to see the forest for the trees. That is what I think SGS was referring to..”I think they are as bad NARAL, WOW and the like.”
July 29th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
Rudy’s claim to appoint judges in the mold of Scalia is as credible as Bill Clinton’s proposed middle class tax cut (during the 1992 election).
Of course the liars will say nice things to get normal Americans to vote for them. As soon as they’re elected though they forget about normal Americans and serve their real constituents.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
econ,
I tend to take him at his word with a big issue. He had no problem holding with unpopular decisions, despite the nastiness of the NY press. Giuliani is not perfect by any means, but he is a stand up guy.
July 30th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
WOW = NOW (the liberal women organization).
Scott, there are a whole lot more to social issues than the abortion or judges. Those two are the only things Rudy has talked about when it comes to social issues. I have not heard his platform on education. I am still waiting to hear what he can do to help strenghtening the families in America as well as protecting our children which are under increaseing attacks from all fronts daily.