Posted on 02/15/2007 7:10:08 AM PST by TitansAFC
Giuliani’s Electoral Downside The social issues aren’t just a primary problem.
By Ramesh Ponnuru
Rudy Giuliani doesn’t seem to have any tepid supporters on the Right. His fans are dogged in explaining his virtues to their skeptical peers. Steven Malanga recently wrote an essay for the City Journal’s website making the case for Giuliani as a conservative exemplar. He runs through an impressive list of the mayor’s conservative accomplishments. He adds this closing thought: “And if social and religious conservatives fret about Giuliani’s more liberal social views, nevertheless, in the general election such views might make this experience-tested conservative even more electable.”
At one point, the thought behind Malanga’s comment was the conventional wisdom. Socially-conservative views, notably opposition to abortion, were required to get the Republican nomination in presidential and many other races, but hurt the candidate in the general election.
The generalization never had much evidence to support it. It was true that opposition to abortion bought candidates worse news coverage, and true as well that some measures of public opinion found the public to support legal abortion. But other measures of public opinion, at least as good, found the public to be mildly pro-life. Among voters who considered abortion a top issue, meanwhile, pro-lifers clearly predominated.
In recent years, the conventional wisdom has changed. In the 2004 election, it was widely recognized that abortion was a bigger political problem for pro-choice Democrats than pro-life Republicans. John Kerry agonized over the issue; at one point his campaign disinvited Kate Michelman, who had long headed the abortion lobby NARAL, from a rally. The crucial swing voters in that election were not the “socially liberal, fiscally conservative” people who are disproportionately found among the college-educated. Rather, they were social conservatives, often Catholics, who were receptive to Democratic appeals on economic issues. Those voters were the great prize the campaigns sought in Ohio, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Iowa.
How will those voters react if the Republicans nominate Rudolph Giuliani for president?
Some of them — especially the ones who had overcome ancestral Democratic loyalties because of the social issues — would probably go back to voting on economic issues, and vote for, say, Hillary Clinton.
Of course, it is possible that Giuliani would more than make up for these losses by bringing in other voters. Maybe the map of the 2008 election would look different from that of the Bush elections, with such states as California and New Jersey in play for the Republicans for the first time in 20 years. So many of Giuliani’s supporters dream. Polls taken right now find him to be the Republicans’ strongest candidate. A USA Today/Gallup poll has him beating Sen. Clinton by two points, while she beats McCain by three. (The Quinnipiac poll recently found similar results in Florida.)
But these polls are not terribly good at predicting election results. In Sept. 1999, a Washington Post/ABC poll found Gov. George W. Bush with a 19-point lead over Vice President Al Gore. Fourteen months later, Gore won more votes than Bush. One thing polls can’t capture is how the dynamics of a campaign change public opinion.
Social and national-security issues have tended to help Republican campaigns in recent years, and economic ones to help Democratic ones. The mix of advantages will look different in a race that pits Giuliani against any conceivable Democrat. On some social issues — crime, welfare, and affirmative action, for example — Giuliani takes the popular position; but these issues have declined in political importance. He will, however, be unable to take advantage of other social issues that have helped Republicans and increased in importance. National security, notwithstanding Giuliani’s reputation, is at least as likely to be a drag on the Republican ticket as an aid to it. (I’m less persuaded than Giuliani’s fans that his reputation for toughness, competence, and taking Islamist terrorism seriously will help him against the Democrats as much as they think it will, but that’s another piece.) And on issues such as health care and trade, he will have the same uphill climb that other Republicans do.
Giuliani, like Obama, is an exciting candidate. The safe bet, however, is that even with superstar nominees each party is going to go into 2008 with a floor around 46 percent and a ceiling around 54 percent. For either party to go into such a race by throwing away one of its advantages (and betting on stardom) would be risky.
None of this is to say that Giuliani is unelectable. Perhaps he would be the Republican party’s strongest nominee. But if so, it won’t be because he’s a social liberal.
— Ramesh Ponnuru is an NR senior editor and author of The Party of Death.
I wished I'd have pinged you to this; your thoughts?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1785311/posts?page=36#36
But we need to vote Hillary on judges, because she has stated she opposes "judicial activism."
And that's all that matters, right?
Rudy was so serious about National Security that he pushed a corrupt crony for the most important anti-terror job in the country.
He does NOT believe that the 2nd Amendment gives private citizens the right to defend themselves - he says it's about hunting - and he took guns away from long time NYC permit holders.
I really cannot see how this guy is the right choice to lead the WOT.
And he believes in global warming and supports CFR. He certainly does not believe in basic constitutional liberties - except for the "Constitutional right" to kill a fetus.
This is the same claim that was made by the Pro-Lifers for Clinton.
Nice zinger.
VERY WELL PUT!
ping. Good article on Rudy from National Review.
The mayor doesn't appoint judges.
Damn, that's devastating.
Yes, he did.
I tend to agree with you. I also tend to spot the Democrats 60 million votes like last election
With 5 to 10 million GOP votes staying home I don't see how Rudy can get where he wants to go from here.
Well Put.
Great post. Too bad the Rudycrats are not interested in facts like these. Their minds are made up on the basis of early polls generated by the MSM, and they want to stampede the rest of us into supporting a man who would be the most liberal Presidential candidate ever nominated by the GOP.
Bush 41 also gave us Clarence Thomas. So at least he batted .500
And while many doubt to this day Bush 41's genuine ideals vis a vis abortion and guns, he was very much an operationally pro-life president.
We got stuck with Souter due to the fraud of a very wicked RINO Senator named Warren Rudham who decieved GHWB.
"Our second amendment rights will be safe unless we end up with another Warren court".
Are you kidding?? That's insane. No way Rudy could win IL. and not just because of Geo. Ryan.
***Let them waste their money on IL***
And a waste would be. In '04 Dubya was smart enough to stay away from here. Even though KJ and Rove are best buds.
Bottom line, if Rudy is the GOP candidate, it's a Dem Electoral landslide.
" But remember that George Bush the elder stood for the 2nd amendment".
...and so Hillary would be better?
What you seem to forget is this is a two party system. It's one or the other. If it's not the Republican - than it IS the democrat.
Their simply isn't a third option.
Excellent post!
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.