Giuliani: Put More States In Play, Or Else We'll Use [sic]

National Journal/Hotline ^ | 4/23/07 | Chuck Todd

[meg88]

April 23, 2007 Giuliani: Put More States In Play, Or Else We'll Use We've heard Giuliani advisers make this argument, but we've never heard it from the candidate himself.

Interviewed this a.m. on the Imus substitute on MSNBC, Giuliani said

"From a political point of view, I probably have the best chance of putting states like New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Washington, Oregon, California in play. And as a Republicans, if we don't put those states in play next time ... we may see a Democratic president."

Pennsylvania and New Jersey are realistic. California, Oregon and Washington are second-tier. Connecticut is unlikely.

But Giuliani's point holds, right?

[The Shrew]

We’d get Jersey too, which is now Rudy territory.

Stating that as fact doesn't make it so. If you think any Republican can win NJ without a major Election Fraud investigation a year prior to the election you're in fantasy land.

So, if the DOJ drops indictments by September you might have a chance.

Good luck.

TS

[JWinNC]

"But Giuliani's point holds, right?"

I don't think so because if Giuliani wins, we'll still have democrat in the White House.

If Republicans want to win, we need one thing: BOLD COLORS.

jw

[pookie18]

http://thepoliticker.observer.com/2007/04/poll-new-jersey-loves-rudolph-giuliani.html

[Chunga]

With Rudy, you get a liberal who is strong on the budget, The War On Terror, support for Israel, The War In Iraq and tax cuts. You also have a shot at constructionist appointees to the federal bench.

He is to the right of any Democrat currently in the field, and you know it.

That being said, Run Fred Run.

[nathanbedford]

While Bush is preoccupied with his historical legacy which is all wrapped up with and the war in Iraq, the Republican Party must be concerned, literally, with its own survival as a viable national party. In the 2008 election the odds are against us: the 2006 election demonstrated that the Democrats are capable of raiding deep into our territory and we can make no gains anywhere in the blue states. We will be conducting a national election after having held office for eight years. The demographics are increasingly against us as unchecked immigration changes the coloration of America and in America all politics are racial, not local. From the top of the ticket on down, Republicans will face a relentless media tsunami which will require a whole new set of tactics to counter. Finally the war in Iraq is a political disaster which may shatter our election hopes across-the-board and leave the party holding not much more than the old Confederacy. The last election demonstrated that the Republican hold on Missouri, Tennessee, Virginia (gasp, the Old Dominion!), Ohio, and even Florida are in grave jeopardy and with the loss of almost any one of these states we cannot have the presidency.

[The Shrew]

Rudy would throw states into play that we haven’t dreamed of getting while keeping the base close.

What about The Mayor makes you think he "will keep the base close?"

TS

[HostileTerritory]

The conservative base has to be energized or the south goes into play for the dems.

If the conservative base isn't energized, and there's no sign that will happen anyway, big whoop, we win South Carolina and Tennessee with 53% of the vote instead of 60%. They won't be "in play." The population there is still conservative and frankly a lot of enthusiasm there is wasted once we get past the mid-point. Kerry took 60% in Massachusetts; the Democrats would have been better off which someone who didn't rouse Mass. liberals to that extent, they still would have won Mass. and probably a few other states as well.

[oceanview]

I am with you - I am already writing Ohio off for 2008.

For Thompson, that means a Wisconsin flip is a must. For Rudy, its PA and NJ.

[JWinNC]

"Run a RINO, we lose. Run a real conservative, we win big."

DITTO

jw

[HostileTerritory]

Bill Clinton won New Jersey by only 80,000 votes in 1992. Gore’s 500,000 vote margin went down to 250,000 for Kerry, one of the biggest percentage swings in the country, and we can thank the 9/11 effect.

New Jersey’s median voter is affluent and concerned about security. She’ll vote for a Republican who doesn’t remind her too much of Newt Gingrich. These voters have no natural affinity for the Democrats but feel driven there because they can’t identify with some types of southern conservatism. Give them a Republican they can vote for, the one who made New York City safe for them and stood up to the terrorists, and they’ll bring their 15 electoral votes to our side.

I’m not saying I support Rudy. I haven’t decided how I’m voting in the primary yet and will support whoever the eventual candidate is. But this is a sound strategic argument, IMO.

[CharlesWayneCT]

And Bush 41 had the advantage of running against Dukakis. And Reagan also ran against Mondale in 84 and did very well.

Of course, Carter, Mondale, and Dukakis were all chosen by their democratic party that had majorities in the “blue states”.

Clinton won red states by somehow communicating his positions effectively (and pretending to be a conservative on matters of importance). Bush took a different tack, managing to win by the skin of his teeth.

But we shouldn’t pick our next presidential contender based on the result of running a non-communicator like Bush in 2000/2004.

Both Romney and Fred Thompson are much better communicators than Bush, and would effectively sell conservatism in the swing states. They would come across much more presidential than Hillary, or Obama, or Edwards.

We don’t need to settle, and no reason to be defeatists. Conservatism is not a lost cause, and we shouldn’t give in to Giuliani’s message of failure and surrender.

[CharlesWayneCT]

We’d be screwed if we picked Rudy to beat Hillary and the democrats picked Al Gore or Bill Richardson.

We need a strong supporter of real science and a strong voice against the global warming religion to beat Al Gore, and Rudy is pro-manmande-global-warming hysteria. That debate would have Rudy agreeing with Gore on most issues.

[yuta250]

Since Rudy can’t win on the issues, he’s presenting himself as the only electable Republican. Sorry Rudy, but I’m not buying it. Whatever moderates he hopes to win over will be offset by many true conservatives who will either sit this out or vote third party should he be the nominee. A stealth liberal like Rudy would be even worse than Hillary because his fellow Republicans will feel constrained from attacking his policy decisions, unlike the adversarial role they would assume against her. Not worth the risk.

[HostileTerritory]

No President alienated the base in my liftetime more than George H.W. Bush, and he faced both a superficial moderate in the Democratic Party and a conservative southerner running as an independent.

Nonetheless, the states you listed never went into play and Bush won all of them.

[The Shrew]

But we shouldn’t pick our next presidential contender based on the result of running a non-communicator like Bush in 2000/2004.

GW wasn't run on his ability to communicate. He was run on his ability to raise campaign cash.

You have made some really strong points on this thread.

Regards,

TS

[nathanbedford]

I posted the following long before the last electionand I think that entitles me to repost it now because it expresses what was wrong with the Republican Party at the time. Now, we must find our soul before we can come out of the wilderness.

I think Fred Thompson is the only Republican who has a chance in 08 and that is because he can hold the base while reaching out, like Ronald Reagan, to independents and Reagan Democrats. But his chances are pathetically slim.

Here is the old post:

1. Republicans are likely to lose the House this fall because they overspent, they failed to enforce the laws that would have sealed the border and drained away illegal immigration, and the war in Iraq has gone sour.

2. When the Republicans lose the house the present Senate bill will look very good indeed because there then will be no barrier in the House, the Senate, or the White House to the virtual abandonment of the borders.

3. If we lose the Senate as well as the House, there will be utterly no restraints on immigration because the President is simply philosophically opposed to any limitation on immigration.

4. The truth is that conservatism has lost its hold on the Republican Party and, whether we want it or not, we are now about to face our time in the wilderness. Blame is equally to be shared by senators, representatives, and the president. Thieves and Rinos and porkers in the Senate, thieves and porkers in the House, and a President who is utterly abdicated his sworn duty to enforce immigration laws and who has committed one public-relations disaster after another from Harriet Myers to Katrina and who has deliberately validated our enemies as persons, and who has handed over to them our educational system, our prescription drug system, and our federal budget, all have combined to put conservatism in a coma for awhile.

5. The house should pass the most restrictive immigration law it can muster and create the issue for the election.

6. The house should pass every conceivable energy measure such as drilling in Anwar, drilling offshore and around Florida etc. providing for refineries, providing for nuclear power plants and let the Democrats and the Rinos oppose them and create a climate in which the people can direct their rage about gas prices at the Democrats.

7. The reality is of course is it's all too late for this and any other intelligent policies which might have saved the Republican Party from the disaster which is facing us. Many of our problems have been brought on by Iraq and there too we could have done much better in a public-relations sense. Alas it is all too late now. There is nothing left but to go the polls and vote for the most conservative man on the ticket who has a chance of winning. Let's fight the good fight and go down like soldiers.

[VRWCmember]

Clinton won red states by somehow communicating his positions effectively

You mean by concealing his positions effectively.

[oceanview]

NJ is a lock for Rudy - the factors you mention, and the italian vote too.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Ohio is bad now, but that damage was done in 2006. Their new governor is a democrat, but is conservative on some issues that would put him at odds with Hillary.

And the ohio activists are smarting from their defeat (and the smart ones are saying “i told you so” to the blackwell group which decided to try to win without any party apparatus and failed miserably).

Ohio turned against the generic “R”. Why does anybody think running a candidate who is the epitome of a generic “R” (Rudy Giuliani) overcomes that problem?

If we don’t want to lose more house seats in 2008 in Ohio, we need a strong conservative candidate who can communicate effectively, energize the base, who is seen as clean (to counter the corruption of Ohio), who is principled, and can overcome the difficulties of 2006.

Rudy is defeatism. His selection would tell Ohio voters “You were right to reject republicans, we were stupid, but now we will be like your liberal buddies, so come back to us”.

[Moose4]

You do not win elections by pandering to the middle. You win elections by proving to the middle that conservatism is better than liberalism. Period.

I am sick as hell of candidates forgetting that what they need to do, instead of wobbling all over the place to try and appeal to the maximum number of voters, is to take what they believe and *convince* people that that’s the way to vote.

}:-)4