Posted on 04/23/2007 11:05:52 AM PDT by 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?
GHWB won’t throw them into play the way Rudy will.
Being a smidge rightward of the rest of the liberals is no grand feat.
“On the flip side . . . Giuliani might be the only Republican in modern history who could actually put states like Texas, Idaho, Wyoming and Nebraska in play.”
Thompson could well win Iowa and Wisconsin, which would overcome Ohio.
There is no state Bush won in 2004 which would be expected to be lost if Thompson is our candidate. And he also could take Oregon.
Minnesota might fall with Thompson as well and he’d help keep Al Franken out of the Senate — with Rudy, voters might come out to split the ticket with Rudy and Al.
Thompson probably wouldn’t win New York, but he’d bring out the “right” kind of voter, the ones that will vote for republican in down-ticket races, so he might win us a couple of house seats.
Rudy won’t do that — he was out pushing our house candidates in 2006, and we lost the new york seats with his help.
Losing New Jersey should be considered a badge of honor for a principled conservative, and anyone who can win this state has no business in the White House, as far as I'm concerned.
We most definitely need another good if not “great” communicator. I agree with you about both Romney and/or Thompson and I agree we don’t need to settle. We can give the socio-cons what they must have AND appeal to the mushy middle with good communication and leadership.
Well...yes and no. Yes Reagan did win states like NY, NJ, PA, CT, etc... Here’s the catch, though. 25 yrs ago the demographics in tose states were full of blue collar union democrats who voted Reagan. That demo is GONE. They picked and moved south or west and were replaced by those south of the border.
If so many people are liberal that only a liberal can win, the solution is to run a conservative who can communicate so that we can convince them they are wrong OR draw conservatives from the half of the population that doesn’t vote now.
Either we win and turn the tide, or we lose, in which case after the liberal fails our country, people will learn their lesson like they did in 1994 and we win back. A hard lesson, but better than giving in to stupidity and giving them only a liberal to choose from.
I can’t imagine THAT pitch in 2016 : “Vote for republicans, we stuck you with 8 years of failed liberalism just to own the white house”
We are a year and a half from the election. Any such poll is meaningless. Most Floridians could barely pick Giuliani OR Hillary out of a lineup.
Minnesota has a real Republican governor and one Republican Senator. New Jersey does not. Did you ever get out of the twin cities long enough to visit with real people in places like Moorhead (where I went to college), Mankato or Wadena? Republicans carried five of eight congressional districts in the last two presidential elections. How many did they carry in New Jersey? Minnesota still runs fairly honest elections. Does New Jersey?
And even if by some miracle Rudy wins, our conservative congresspeople will lose, because the independents that show up for Rudy will vote democrats down-ticket.
What about the Swing from 80,000 - 500,000? If 9/11 didn't draw us back into the 80,000 vote range - still a loss for the GOP - Why would it be different now after 4 years of Media pounding on the 'disasterous GOP run Iraq war'?
I don't buy it. I still believe that NJ will be Dem voting state until the issue of Voter Fraud is addressed. As it stands now the GOP would have to win by 500,000 votes to WIN at all.
Regards,
TS
Yep. And I remember all the rose-colored polls showing New Jersey was in play for Bush in 2004, Schlinder (sic?) in the governor’s race before that and the guy who was supposed to beat Lousenberg after the Torch pulled a ballot drop-out in September. None of them even came close. I don’t doubt that there are good people in New Jersey. Just not nearly enough of them.
The northern liberal republicans are counting on the loyalty of the southern conservatives to vote for their liberal candidate, while they scare everybody else into voting for him.
Most of the current polling data right now?
Keep in mind, that Rudy is running for the Primary right now - he is as far right as he will go. After the primaries, its “Leftward, HO!”
Rudy will not keep the base close. They base hates Rudy almost as much as Hillary, and his only hope is that our hatred of democrats is more.
Any liberal throws liberal states into play against Hillary, if you assume republicans will vote for him.
If Joe Leiberman ran as a republican, he'd trounce Hillary in the general election -- IF all the republicans still voted for him.
There is a reason we have primaries and don't let the general population pick our candidate -- because we'd end up with centrists that oppose what we believe in.
The Rudy supporters are trying to use opinion polls to replace our primaries in order to allow the democrats to pick our party nominee.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.