GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
SurveyUSA has dumped another batch of 2008 general election polls from 2004 red states. As usual, Hillary Clinton is doing surprisingly well, besting the GOP Big Three in all but one matchup. Thanks again to Dave Wissing for compiling these numbers in such a user-friendly format.
PRESIDENT - NEW MEXICO
Hillary 49%
Giuliani 43%Hillary 52%
Thompson 40%Hillary 53%
Romney 38%PRESIDENT - MISSOURI
Giuliani 47%
Hillary 46%Hillary 48%
Thompson 46%Hillary 49%
Romney 43%PRESIDENT - OHIO
Hillary 48%
Giuliani 45%Hillary 50%
Thompson 43%Hillary 51%
Romney 40%
And so the trend continues, at least in a Rudy/Hillary race, with Great Lakes states that voted heavily Democratic in 2006 moving back into purple territory and red Southern states also going purple. This stands in stark contrast to 2006, where the Midwest and Northeast shifted dramatically towards the Democrats from 2004 while the South stayed largely intact for the GOP, absent a couple of razor-thin Senate races won by Democrats in Missouri and Virginia. So why is the North moving rightward and thus back to the center while the South moves leftward to that same creamy center? My theory: the North, which is responsible for electing our present-day Democratic majority, is experiencing buyer’s remorse after realizing that the MSM was incorrect when predicting that a Democratic victory would mean an end to all that is wrong with the world. As such, GOP stocks are on the rise in states like Pennsylvania and Ohio, which are currently showing statistical ties between Rudy and Hillary despite double-digit losses last fall for Santorum, DeWine, Swann, and Blackwell. Meanwhile, the South, the only region that withheld its wrath on the GOP last fall with the hope of preventing a Democratic majority, is allowing the floodgates of its angst to open, which will result in GOP losses across Dixie next year. The Clintons, no strangers to Southern victories, will be tough competitors across the peripheral South, meaning that the GOP nominee can and must offset those losses with victories in the North. Oddly enough, we may experience another close election in ‘08, but one where Wisconsin and Pennsylvania turn red while Arkansas and Virginia go blue.
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:37 pm
When Bush was leading Pennsylvania by 20 points at this time in 1999, the dems weren’t writing off their chances. These numbers aren’t that bad. Granted, we still have a tough road, but if the report from Iraq is solid on the surge, we can expect the numbers to close. Granted, we’ll never have a majority support for Bush since he’s too polarizing, but by narrowing the disappoval rating by five points or so of Republicans’ overall will narrow this gap considerably.
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:39 pm
I rather find the Missouri and Ohio numbers heartening. I thought the local GOP might have already pushed that state out of reach, obviously not.
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:43 pm
It’s too early with just a few polls to start giving reasons why we see what might be a trend.
We’ve got to watch how this develops when voters begin paying attention.
I doubt Pennsylvania or Ohio would accept Rudy when he’s strongly come out in Bush’s Middle Eastern Democracy Initiative. The Wilsonian idealism is dead in the Great Lakes.
I just don’t get why Rudy’s followers think a guy who has Bush’s position on the war can compete in PA, WI, MN or OH once the anti-war ads start running.
Polls now measure Rudy as “9-11 tv hero”. They don’t measure him as “the same as Bush on Iraq”.
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:49 pm
These SurveyUSA polls can’t be taken seriously. Here are the differences in sampling, by party, in each state polled so far (a + indicates a Democratic advantage). +3 Alabama, +13 Missouri, +12 New Mexico, +12 Ohio, +9 Wisconsin, +12 Minnesota, +16 Kentucky, -3 Virginia. Now it’s possible that Virginia is just about the only state in the union where Republicans outnumber Democrats. It’s possible that Alabama, one of only 5 states to vote for Goldwater in 64, a “Wallace” state in 68′, and a state that Bush carried by 25 points in 04′, not only has more Democrats then Republicans, but is now a bonafide swing state. It’s possible that Missouri, which has voted for the winner of the presidential election in 24 of the last 25 presidential elections, is now overwhelmingly Democratic in orientation, and that whole hosts of swing and red states have become overwhelmingly Democratic. It’s possible. But, I smell something rotten in Denmark.
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:53 pm
EGS,
I know you haven’t come to a decision about a candidate, but would I be correct in guessing you’re probably leaning towards Huckabee? That seems to me, based on your stated beliefs and priorities, to be your most natural candidate.
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:55 pm
“I just don’t get why Rudy’s followers think a guy who has Bush’s position on the war can compete in PA, WI, MN or OH once the anti-war ads start running.”
My gut, which is informed by an upbringing in uber-isolationist Michigan, tells me that you may be onto something.
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:03 pm
DaveG, I know as a Rudy supporter you may not be able to answer out of loyalty:
Who would you support if Rudy was somehow out of the primary?
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:08 pm
Matt, my problem with Huckabee would be my problem with Giuliani if I where a socially moderate Republican:
I don’t want to divide the party when we’re already in trouble.
I feel that Huckabee would divide the party with fiscal conservatives (led by CFG) having a hard time supporting him.
If Huckabee’s fiscal record (which I have no problem with) were acceptable to CFG/ficons, I’d probably support him.
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Dave
Can you please shoot me an e-mail at your convenience? horaceox@hotmail.com
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:17 pm
Dave,
Having lived here all my life and having experienced the tsunami of the 2006 elections, I think it’s very, very doubtful that any Republican nominee can win Wisconsin next year. In 2006, Gov. Doyle became the first Democrat to be re-elected in the state in 32 years (he won with a comfortable 8%). Republicans lost the state Senate and saw their 11 vote majority in the House be reduced to 3.
Earlier this summer, I went up north to visit friends. They live in a town that went 80% for Bush in 2004, but when I went two months ago, I didn’t see a single pro Bush sign and at least half of the houses had anti-war/anti-Bush signs on their front lawns. This was a purple state in 2004, but it’s dark blue state now. And as econ said, the GOP nominee will have will be as, if not more, hawkish then Bush. That’s just not a record for electoral success.
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:20 pm
“Who would you support if Rudy was somehow out of the primary?”
That’s a difficult question, because I just don’t see a winner there. John McCain was my backup choice for a long time, but he’s shot himself in the foot with the party innumerable times and will never win the nomination, and he too supports ubiquitous democratic revolution, which doesn’t bode well for him in the general. My skepticism of Romney’s chances are (in)famous around here. Fred Thompson’s campaign seems to be perpetually stuck in neutral, and I’m starting to get the feeling that it’s because the man is stuck in neutral. If he was younger and more energetic, it might be a different ball game. Kavon has convincingly made the case to me many times that Huckabee is extremely underrated as a general election contender, and I’m starting to agree, but it’s awfully late in the game for him to come from nowhere and win the nomination. As such, I’m not sure I’d jump on any bandwagon in that event. If we lose, I do hope that the winning formula that your candidate for ‘12 encompasses (Pawlenty) becomes apparent to Republicans.
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:27 pm
That’s very admirable EGS, and it’s precisely where I am. I think a coalition means exactly what it suggests. That the most significant influences within the party choose which issues are most important to them, and willingly subsume secondary interests in the hope of creating a sustainable majority, or a vigorous minority. That means we don’t throw the fiscal conservatives under the bus with a Huckabee, we don’t throw the social conservatives under a bus with a Rudy, and we don’t throw the defense cons under a bus with a Paul. I wouldn’t consider myself a any of those designations primarily. I diverge significantly from the party on certain social issues, and certain economic issues.
I’m generally in favor of gay marriage, opposed to the death penalty, and don’t consider myself a supply-sider. But, I would no more support a Republican for president who held those positions, then I would a Democrat. Because it’s not about ME. It’s about effectuating generally conservative goals, in the long term, regardless of my preferences on minor issues. Supporters of those three candidates would do well to remember this. I like Rudy Giuliani. Quite a bit actually, and I believe he’d be a very strong president. And all-in-all, I think he qualifies as a conservative. In fact I can say, and I don’t think this ought to be a controversial statement at all, that Rudy would be the second most conservative president since Coolidge. And I think he may well be the most electable Republican. But, I still think nominating him would be a serious mistake for the conservative movement. I also think Paul is a deeply admirable man. And Huckabee…well, Huckabee has his moments to be sure. But, even I liked either as much as Rudy, I wouldn’t throw segments of our coalition under a bus by nominating them.
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:32 pm
Sean,
Check your email.
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:37 pm
This type of a poll is worthless at this point in time. Except for the diehards that write on this site, voters are just not paying attention right now. You are using a pathetic form of a scare tactic when you say the republican party is doomed without Rudy. Rudy is not going to make it past the first round - I mean, look at your pathetic argument for why he, and only he, can be the nominee. The democrats are likely to put up the first woman ever as their nominee - besides the gender issue, half of her own party and most of the independents can’t stand her. When it gets right down and dirty in the polling booth - Rudy, Mitt or Thompson (can’t say McCain offers much of an alternative) will be an attractive alternative to the Billary Clinton act.
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:48 pm
Pawlenty?
Awful pick. He’s not presidential material and it’s sadly obvious (yes, I took a close look at him). I think you seriously need to step outside your political construct and actually look at the candidates.
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:48 pm
Pawlenty?
Awful pick. He’s not presidential material and it’s sadly obvious (yes, I took a close look at him). I think you seriously need to step outside your political construct and actually look at the candidates.
August 23rd, 2007 at 11:04 pm
I’ll elaborate a bit on my thoughts on coalitions. I think a coalition sustains so long as each element which composes it is getting equal time attention in the political arena. In other words, as long as there’s meaningful social conservatism, fiscal conservatism, and defense conservatism being enacted and promoted. Because, I think as long as that’s occurring, those who would traditionally identify themselves primarily with one of those designations, really are willing to subsume their secondary interests.
As long as we’re passing anti-obscenity laws, promoting good judges, and making inroads on issues like abortion, those fiscally populist so-cons will be willing to ignore their populism because, well, they’re more so-con then populist anyway, and who else is going to give them anything in the way of social conservatism? And those socially libertarian, fiscally conservative Republicans are willing to ignore their libertarianism, because they’re more interested in “fiscal sanity”, then social policy, and the other party’s never hear the phrase. And those Def-cons are willing to ignore their otherwise moderate views, because if they’re not safe, no other policy matters.
And coalitions collapse when certain segments of the team aren’t being satisfied. And we wind up with David B’s pleading “one nominee in my lifetime that represents my views, you guys have had the rest”. Because he’s started to define “his views” with the entirety of his views, not simply those that are most important to him. And this makes perfect sense. If he’s not going to be getting social conservatism, well, by golly he wants “something”. So he elevates the significance of his minor priorities. Or people like Tommy who want “people, who think like me”. If he’s not getting federalism, or social conservatism, or whatever, then at least he wants a nominee with a common cultural connection, or a similar background.
It doesn’t do any good to mention to these people that last time Bush ran as a fiscal conservative. And that we weren’t to know. That we hadn’t figured out the jig quite yet. Or that Bush actually is fairly Southern, as far it goes, and did, in his day, the “down home” routine as well as anyone. Because in a sense, they’re right to be upset. They haven’t been getting the sorts of things they wanted, or were promised. And they’re no longer willing to settle for anything less then perfection. And a movement dies.
But, it’s important to note how we got here in the first place, and the errors we made along the way. We didn’t get here, here being two straight presidential terms, and nearly unilateral control of government for 4 years, by purposely selecting a candidate who’ll divide us. Instead we choose one who, in all his essentials, seemed to project the basics of conservatism in most key respects. That we were wrong in our assessment reflects a lack of diligence, not a faultiness of purpose.
And that brings me to my last point: we didn’t get here, here being the 7th year of a lame duck administration near to ushering in a decade or more of unchallenged liberalism, by seriously examining our candidates. We were lazy, and we selected the lazy candidate. We approached the assignment with the right goals, but we didn’t complete the homework properly. In short, we failed, and we’re realizing it. But, that doesn’t in any way suggest our motives were flawed, and that we ought to now just seek our own “perfect candidates” regardless of long-term consequences or party harmony. Instead, it argues that we approach the problem with a greater seriousness of purpose.
August 23rd, 2007 at 11:22 pm
Matt,
I don’t agree with you on all points but you are certainly eloquent and well thought out in your analysis.
August 23rd, 2007 at 11:27 pm
If Virginia goes to the Dems in 08 by a point or two, then Pennsylvania will go Dem by eight to 10 points, and Wisconsin by about five points unless Tommy Thompson is the GOP VP. Some of the states that were decided by a point or two in either direction in 00 and 04 could switch to the other party in 08 without it indicating a national tide, but not the states that were decided in the last two elections by larger margins.
August 23rd, 2007 at 11:54 pm
Mark, it really bothers me how many people could care less about party unity and would permanently injure our party for a shot at one election.
August 24th, 2007 at 12:19 am
[...] with, he starts with higher negatives than Hillary (I know. This shocked me too). And a series of battleground state polls confirm it too: PRESIDENT - NEW [...]
August 24th, 2007 at 1:16 am
“And so the trend continues, at least in a Rudy/Hillary race, with Great Lakes states that voted heavily Democratic in 2006 moving back into purple territory and red Southern states also going purple. ”
Am I missing something here? Which heavily blue Great Lakes states are you talking about?
I just see data from states that Bush won in 04.
August 24th, 2007 at 2:17 am
Is anyone else as sick as I am of people saying this or that about the polls? Oh, the polls! The polls! Whatever shall we do when we’re losing in the polls that say this or that sixty-some weeks before the election?
So Rudy is like Bush on the war. So what? If you think the outlook on the war will be the same in fifteen months as it is now, you’re delusional. If it gets worse, we lose no matter who we put up. If we win, it helps to have someone like Giuliani, who looks wise in hindsight.
econ grad stud - “It really bothers me how many people could care less about party unity and would permanently injure our party for a shot at one election.”
You guys screwed up the party for the last seven years with your guy, so you’re going to pay a little price here. So-cons should be quite humbled after messing things up — stem-cell research, the Terri Schiavo incident, the Federal Marriage Amendment — fiascos, all. And because you shoved through such an incredible communicator, the Social Security initiative never got past the starting line. Oh, and let’s not forget how your so-con stalwart screwed us over on Medicare and government size. And the deficit. And illegal immigration. Thanks, guys!
Bush’s top issues are still terrorism and taxes — can we at least play with our strengths?
Good thing we all agree on defense, or this would be quite maddening.
August 24th, 2007 at 10:12 am
TLG, in 2000 fiscal conservatives all lined up behind Bush. He was as much theirs as the social conservatives’.
August 24th, 2007 at 10:35 am
“You guys screwed up the party for the last seven years with your guy, so you’re going to pay a little price here.”
Is that your idea of keeping together the coalition? Nice, TLG.
August 24th, 2007 at 10:38 am
As a party, we need fewer doubts and a lot less second-guessing. As much as I like and respect President Bush, it’s obvious that he’s a lousy messenger. And while he’s also screwed up the message itself in a number of respects, the message isn’t the main problem–it’s the messenger. What we really need is a great communicator for our time, and genuine leadership. The two best communicators and leaders we have are also the only two guys we have who have amply demonstrated executive capability–Mitt and Rudy. By now you know that my choice is Mitt, but if your choice is Rudy, I’m fine with that. Either of these guys can win and both would produce a better America and save us (as a party and a nation) from complete disaster. Let’s rumble!
August 24th, 2007 at 10:46 am
LTG, Bush screwed up WITH each conservative group, be it soc-cons, def-cons and fis-cons. You are thinking of Relgious Right, which is only a sub-set of soc-cons and def-cons! He did nothing on domestic issues (be it soc or fis). He mismanaged wars around the world big time. He said things that RR loves to hear, but he did nothing for any of us! The only thing he has done the past year or 2, was his new medicare RX progam, and he screwed up on it big time. Yes, I agree with you, he stinks as president, but you better dare not to say he has been paraded to soc-cons, because he HAS NOT!
August 24th, 2007 at 11:01 am
23 — THE COALITION CAN’T WIN THIS TIME. If we nominate someone who is conservative on all three fronts, we are NOT GOING TO WIN. I should have made that clearer in my previous post. We’re going to have to hack off one of the branches of conservatism to win this time, and since so-cons have had their guy in office for a while and royally screwed things up — and since socialized medicine and defeat in Iraq are slightly more pressing issues than, say, keeping gay people from getting married — it’s going to have to be so-cons that sacrifice some of their beliefs to win this time.
and econ grad stud — Steve Forbes was the #1 guy for economic conservatives in 2000. Also 1996, where we got anotehr Family Values candidate, Bob Dole — in Gingrich’s immortal words: “the tax collector for the welfare state.”
August 24th, 2007 at 11:08 am
Basically, what I’m saying is –
Bush is not popular due to Iraq more than anything, but no one wants to nominate a defeatist (except the Paulites, but we ignore them). And we’re not going to win with Mr. Conservative this time around because people think that’s what Bush is and they want someone who isn’t seen as heavily partisan and blah-blah-blah, so we can win if we get rid of one of the branches of conservatism this time. We’re strongest right now on taxes and terrorism, so we should nominate someone with credentials in those fields. We’re pretty good with judges, too, and the public will be very receptive to Giuliani’s view on judges. He’ll know that he *can’t* mess up on judges or he’ll probably face a serious primary challenge in 2012 if he were to win. That is a make-or-break issue for *all* branches of conservatism. If he nominates a person like, say, O’Connor — instead of Scalia — he’ll get knocked over the head with it.
Witness Bush. The base revolted, and he gave in. That’s how it will be with Giuliani if he nominates someone unfit for the job in the eyes of the base. Alito wasn’t his first choice! His goddamn lawyer was! He’d have probably nominated Gonzales if a spot had opened post-Alito before the attorney “scandal.”
Never underestimate the power of the base to stop something from happening. Harriet Miers and the illegal immigration bit are proof of that. If Giuliani nominates some liberal hack (he won’t, but let’s assume for the sake of argument that he does), then we won’t let him get away with it.
August 24th, 2007 at 11:09 am
SGS — “Yes, I agree with you, he stinks as president, but you better dare not to say he has been paraded to soc-cons, because he HAS NOT!”
Has there been a single issue on which Bush has disappointed so-cons?
He’s violated the 1st Amendment by funneling tax dollars to religious charities.
He’s campaigned against abortion.
He’s appointed pro-life judges.
He’s crusaded for the unpopular Federal Marriage Amendment.
He’s refused to give federal funding to stem-cell research (his first veto!).
He HAS “paraded to so-cons.” The so-cons are the only branch that hasn’t been let down by Bush.
August 24th, 2007 at 11:19 am
None of it matters because the public aren’t going to elect a candidate that is identical to Bush on the war.
Anti-war independents (2/3rds of independents) aren’t going to vote for a candidate that still defends Bush’s foreign policies.
What can plausibly happen in Iraq won’t change the fact that independents don’t want anymore war. Giuliani speaks about expanding the war and “going on offense”. I thought you Rudy guys wanted to win the election?
August 24th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
TLG,
I think it’s clear you’re missing the point. Coalitions aren’t merely useful because they provide each party with a strong base of support, and allow groups with various differences to come together. They’re also useful because unity itself has a coercive force. That is to say, a candidate who has 40% of the country wildly enthusiastic about his candidacy, from the get-go, is more likely to convert the additional 11%+, then a candidate who has 45% of the country tepidly behind him from the outset. This is true for some fairly obvious reasons. 1. Because they don’t have to watch their flank. What happens when we nominate Rudy, and 75% of all the major evangelical leaders (Dobson, Falwell, Land, etc) say they couldn’t support him under any circumstances, and begin to wage proxy wars on him from the right? I’ll tell you what happens: Rudy no longer has the leeway to move as far to the center as traditional candidates do in a general election. He has to molify the base, if that can even be accomplished, while trying to set himself up as a uniter. It doesn’t work, and exposes far too many chinks in a candidates armor. 2. Passionate support begets more passionate support, in much the same that laughter begts more laughter. This is psychological and well-documented. These factors are why, if you remember, a couple of months ago I was suggesting that the party’s best bet was to quickly coalsece behind Fred, and hope he didn’t screw up too badly. Because the Fred of a few months ago, had no flank to cover. And could have played the general election card from the start. And probably could have created some fairly passionate suppport among all sgements of our coalition.
August 24th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
Rudy, unlike Bush, can communicate successes in the war, and all indications are that there are many to come. People love Rudy. They want to listen to him. They’ll hear him out. Bush? Not so much.
But either way, we’re GOING to nominate someone pro-war. EVERYONE in the top tier is pro-Iraq War in the GOP. So we might as well nominate someone credible on it.
August 24th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
Matt, many points:
1. Votes aren’t counted extra for enthusiasm. A so-con his their nose and voting for Giuliani casts a vote that counts just as much as mine. A country that would prefer Giuliani to Hillary in the end is all that really matters to win, regardless of ‘enthusiasm.’ As long as we want to hold back socialized medicine and win the war.
2. We have no candidate that can enthuse 40% of the country from the get-go in the era of Bush fatigue. Giuliani comes closest, I believe. Romney, as of yet, has managed to piss off 40% of the country, according to some recent polls. Yeah, let’s nominate him! Honestly — Giuliani fits the description you gave of a winning candidate better than Romney does!
3. Yes, some Evangelical leaders might go after Giuliani. Some of them might also go after the other ones. No one is proclaiming that Giuliani is infallible, but he’s the best we’ve got right now. And it’s not as if our other candidates don’t have other flaws that might be attacked by other interest groups. Why we’ve got to kowtow to the Evangelical leaders is beyond me. And why do you assume that so many so-cons are so blind that they’d be willing to allow Hillary to get elected because that wretch Falwell said he wouldn’t support Giuliani (he’s dead, by the way; I doubt he’d have much influence).
All the more mainstream appeal if people like Falwell hate Giuliani. Falwell is hyper-partisan and divisive in an age where most of America is clamoring for non-partisanship more than ever. That’s one thing Giuliani’s got a huge one-up on Hillary on. He will NOT have to mollify the 3-4% of the base that would defect to an independent’s candidacy because Giuliani will attract just as much — if not more — than he loses by being attacked by the Religious Right.
4. Fred can’t win. He’s cast himself as Mr. Conservative Republican. He’s Southern. He’s not very articulate. He’s seen as lazy. He doesn’t have much experience. He even chose to LEAVE the Senate during the time the War on Terror was going into full gear. Yeah, that’ll win us 2008 — A southern, inarticulate three-stooled conservative Republican with negligible experience! That’s been working out well for us in the past 7 years, hasn’t it?
August 24th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
So there we have it, Rudy strategy is to kick social conservatives out of the party and try to appeal to anti-war independents being Bush #2 on the war.
I suspected a lot of Rudy’s support was irrational.
August 24th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
You seem to have gone over my post rather lightly — ie; you didn’t read it.
Can you please reply to me point by point instead of blindly flailing your arms around, trying to hit at something? Or, in other words: Would you read what I write before you reply?
August 24th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
TLG,
1. Enthusiasm can influence turnout. It doesn’t necessarily, but it can be a significant factor (especially in states where the local governmental apparatus is controlled by the opposite party). Enthusiasm can also, as I noted, convert others. Barack Obama’s success is largely due to the snowball effect of groupthink. As is Fred’s.
2. I’ve said I think Rudy is probably more electable (though for reasons more complicated then this). But, frankly I don’t think any of our candidates can win. And beyond this, I think if Romney did get elected, 4 years from now, all 3 sections of the party would be fairly satisfied with his administration. If Rudy’s elected, after the Hillary boogeyman has faded, social conservatives will leave the tent in droves when faced with a kinder, gentler, more hopeful, Obama/Rendell ticket in 12′. And I wouldn’t be at all surprised if they stay away.
3. I meant Robertson of course. And I don’t assume that droves of so-cons will stay home on his say so. I was merely explaining the value of coalitions, and the enormous disadvantage we place ourselves in by nominating who almost definitionally will be much occupied with covering his right flank in the general election, while Hillary tap dances to the center.
4. I don’t think Fred can win either. I think he’ll lose in a landlside of tremendous proportions. But, I do think Fred! could have won. All we needed to do was unite behind him early, and allow him to gain a Teflon quality. Now he’s just a lazy, unqualified, lightweight, Southerner (no real change, but a difference in perception). And that’s a a disaster.
August 24th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
1. I am supremely confident that Giuliani will be able to generate more enthusiasm among Republicans and independents than any other GOP candidate.
2. How do you know what so-cons would do after four years of Rudy? Maybe they’d be pleasantly surprised that he *did* appoint pro-life judges. Or, maybe you’re right. Maybe not. I can’t tell the future, and neither can you.
3. I refer you back to my original point #1. I don’t think Giuliani has to kowtow to the right, because I think that most of the right would rather have a President Giuliani than President Hillary from 2009-2013. Why do you assume that Hillary won’t have to cover the rabid anti-war protesters as much as Giuliani will have to cover the rabid fundamentalists?
4. Oh, Fred…he shouldn’t even bother entering at this point. But the fact that you said that we should have tried to cover up his flaws is telling.
August 24th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
In 3, obviously, I don’t mean “the right” — I meant the fundamentalist right.
August 24th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
TLG,
1. Rudy will generate no enthusiasm among those who primarily identify as scoail conservatives (perhaps as much as a third of the party). And he’ll generate limited enthusiasm among the remaining segments of the coalition that take social conservatism seriously. The fact that assume Rudy will be able to make up that enthusiasm gap among independents is bizarre and based, I think, on flawed premises. You’re assuming that Rudy isa “moderate”, when really he’s nothing of the kind (not in the same sense that Bayh, Richardson, and Erlich could be called “moderates”). As you and others have pointed out, he’s awfully conservative on fiscal and defense issues. And he’s awfully liberal on social issues. That’s not a profile that matches any significant portion of independent voters. Again, the reasons for this are self-evident. Independents are, definitionally, less involved in the political process. They have less to be involved with, because they can’t simply support a given party or ideology, but must evaluate candidates individually. Again, statistics confirm this. Independents are less likely to be engaged in the political process in all sorts of ways. And as a result, they’re less likely to have “extreme” positions on any given issue. They’re more likely to be “moderates” in the true sense of the word. So the fact that Rudy has “extreme” positions, which just so happen to coincide to different ideologies on different issues, isn’t going to generate as much cross-over appeal as one might expect.
2. I don’t know. I’m going on “the weight of the evidence”. I’m basing my judgments on history and what I know of the political process. That’s sort of the point of this site. What did certain interests do in the past when incumbents disappointed them, or failed to represent their values? What are fi-cons doing now? Why they’re demanding a nominee who fits their philosophy in every particular, instead of adhering to the traditional coalition framework. What did fi-cons do in 92′? Same deal. Greenies in 00′? Segregationists in 68′? The peaceniks in 68′? The history of electoral politics is riddled with the bones of candidates and incumbents who’ve failed to repesent some aspect of their governing coalition. That doesn’t mean, of course, that Rudy couldn’t survive such difficulties. But, he’d need to a Clintonesque political talent to make a good run at it.
3. It’s not a question of whether or not religious conservatives would rather have Rudy then Hillary. It’s a question of practical politics. When Dobson tells people who respect him, on national television, that Rudy is a disaster, something must be done., No response leads to a death by a thousand cuts. So he practically has two options. He can plausibly go the “agents of intolerance” (seems to be your preferred method). If he wishes to lose anyway. Or he can choose to defend himself (read, kowtow). But, he’s then shifted the conversation from all the ways he’s “moderate”, or an “agent of change” to all the ways in which he lines up with the religious right. He can no longer run on his own terms, and much of his crossover appeal vanishes.
4. I never argued I was willing to line up behind Fred. I was calling him a stunning mediocrity then, and I’m calling him that now. I was just assessing what I felt our best strategy was, if all that mattered to us was holding the White House for one election.
August 24th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
Well, I can see that some Rudy supporters are too blinded by “happy-think” to see that a radical pro-war fiscal conservative like Rudy is kryptonite to anti-war/isolationist independents (2/3rds of independents).
He won’t win any Great Lakes state except Indiana with his cozying up to Bush on the Iraq war. He may as well campaign in drag in Great Lakes states.
Why damage our party for years just so we can lose by a slightly smaller landslide?
There’s a part of me that suspects a lot of voters just cling to Rudy because they hate social conservatives and want to punish them. They don’t care that Rudy can’t win and they don’t care that they’re helping Democrats to hold power for a long time.
August 24th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
Matt,
1. But Giuliani *isn’t* “awfully liberal” on social issues. He is personally opposed to abortion and he is supportive of gun control. He’s also for civil unions, but…so is George W. Bush. Other than one personal position (if he appoints strict constructionist judges then he is functionally pro-life), a moderate position, and one genuinely liberal position, where is he socially liberal?
I cannot believe you think that Ross Perot was fiscally conservative small-government type. He supported a fifty-cent tax increase on gasoline to pay off the deficit and a VAT, federal funding of abortion, was a protectionist, wanted to place disadvantaged kids in government homes, expand Medicare to cover everyone…
Google “Ross Perot, political positions” and go to the first page that pops up. ontheissues dot org. (Don’t like posting links, as they need the approval of a moderate). His positions scare me. It was not people like me that defected.
Matt — you’re a ROMNEY supporter, right? You cannot possibly lecture the Rudy people on crossover appeal and moderation. Romney has run quite a ways to the right and I am 99% sure that he would lose in a massive landslide if we nominated him — ie; we’d lose every swing state. People are going to question his religion, doubt him over flip-flops, be weary of his slickness, be put off by his three-stooled conservatism. Which issue would we rather have dogging a candidate: something about a religion considered odd by much of the populace, or a way someone differs from George Bush?
This was long, so I’ll make the others separate…
August 24th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
Oh, that was a reply to #1 and #2.
3. “Or he can choose to defend himself (read, kowtow). But, he’s then shifted the conversation from all the ways he’s “moderateâ€?, or an “agent of changeâ€? to all the ways in which he lines up with the religious right. He can no longer run on his own terms, and much of his crossover appeal vanishes.”
But there’s a third way, of course. He can tout his genuinely socially conservative credentials (opposes gay marriage, wants to appoint Scalia-like judges, fought to get pornography out of tourist areas, cut off funding to museums displaying anti-religious art, adoptions increasing and abortions decreasing in NYC while he was mayor, etc) but also say that he’s not going to apologize or change his positions on things that they disagree on, and that they should know that if they don’t want a President Hillary, then there’s only one person to turn to. I think that should be sufficient for most. Imagine McCain getting the nomination (I know, a stretch at this point) — he’s no economic conservative’s hero, but he has some good small government ideas and I’d trust him over Hillary any day on the economy, so I’d still vote for him. I think the only one in the field I’d refuse to vote for on general election day is Romney, because he’s an utter charlatan of the lowest kind. I don’t think we’ve ever seen a serious politician so transparent in his pandering. I’d say Edwards, too, but he’s never really been a very serious politician.
4. Yeah, I never really got the Fred thing either.
Also –
Giuliani will DEFINITELY pick a pro-life southerner — Mark Sanford, I assume — as his VP. Vice Presidents are ALWAYS chosen to make up for the perceived flaws of the person at the top. That should also help weary so-cons unwilling to vote for anyone but a True Believer.
But honestly, I can’t think of any socially conservative problems that Giuliani would have with them besides his support of gun control and his personal support of abortion.
August 24th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
TLG #40-
“But Giuliani *isn’t* “awfully liberalâ€? on social issues. He is personally opposed to abortion and he is supportive of gun control.”
TLG #41-
“But honestly, I can’t think of any socially conservative problems that Giuliani would have with them besides his support of gun control and his personal support of abortion.”
Difficult keeping the propaganda straight?
August 24th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
Haha, I typed it out wrong in #40. I’m typing out quite a few things that people are opposed and supportive of; cut me some slack! He supports abortion, but is functionally pro-life due to his position on judges.
August 24th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
If you look at context, it’s quite obvious that what I wrote in Post #40 was just a typo anyway, because I was talking about things that would hurt him with social conservatives, and personal opposition to abortion wouldn’t be one of those things like support of gun control would be.
August 24th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
Matt,
Re: #30 and your third point in #35,
Is that wishful thinking on your part or did you forget the enthusiastic reception Rudy received at Regent two months ago?
One would think Robertson’s seal of approval would help ease the minds of social conservatives like yourself who are concerned the Republican Party’s coalition/marriage of convenience could unravel upon Giuliani’s nomination, but I suspect you wouldn’t want Rudy to defeat Hillary even if he could keep the coalition together. Am I wrong?
Robertson thinks Rudy heaven-sent
Televangelist praises ‘outstanding’ Giuliani at lecture
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/2007/06/27/2007-06-27_robertson_thinks_rudy_heavensent_.html
August 24th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
If someone thinks Pat Robertson (gaffe factory) is well-regarded in Christian circles they are obviously out-of-the-loop.