Posted on 03/07/2007 4:32:54 AM PST by Verax
|
John Bender
|
| Rudy Giuliani can’t win the general election. No matter how much some people in the Republican Party wish he could, he can’t and here’s why. There is about 30% of the voting public in each camp who vote for the party no matter what. The Republicans have so-called conservatives who would vote for Arlen Specter rather than Thomas Jefferson, because Specter is a Republican and Jefferson was a Democrat. On the Democrat side, they have a group who would vote for Zell Miller rather than Lincoln Chafee, because Miller is a Democrat and Chafee is a Republican. Neither of these groups have any political clout in the general election. They are irrelevant to the political debate. Neither party, nor any politician, has to work to get their vote. Consequently, their issues are of no concern to either party. The battle in every election is to get out the vote of people who lean toward a party or candidate, and to get the vote of issue voters. The 40% or so of voters who either switch their vote from party to party, or who withhold their vote, when dissatisfied, are the ones politicians have to court and motivate in any general election. Neither the unmovable Republicans nor the unmovable Democrats are of any real interest to the respective parties. Those votes are there and counted before the polls ever open. The parties and individual politicians fight for and court the other 40% of the voters. Rove knows this and spoke about it after the 2000 election and adjusted his campaign strategy in the 2004 election accordingly. In 2000 Evangelicals didn’t turn out in their customary numbers and almost cost Bush the election. Rove was determined to change that and said so more than once between 2000 and 2004. In 2004, Rove made it a point to go after the Evangelical vote, including an unprecedented heavy Republican push in the nation’s Black churches. Evangelicals and other Christians responded by getting out and voting for Bush. This included a record 16% of the Black vote in Ohio, just about all of which came from the Black churches because of social issues like abortion, gay marriage, etc. That 16% of the Black vote was not only almost double the percentage of Black votes the Republican historically gets in presidential elections, it was more than double the Black vote Bush got in Ohio in 2000. The increase was also more than Bush’s margin of victory in Ohio. It gave him the election. Without the Black vote Bush would have lost Ohio and its 20 Electoral votes. Take those twenty votes from Bush and give them to Kerry and you have President Kerry no matter how Florida voted. In fact, remove the increase in the Evangelical turnout nationally; and it is impossible for Bush to have won a second term. Rove worked on pushing those issues that motivate Evangelicals and it gave Bush a second term. If the party again removes the Evangelicals who stayed home in 2000, PLUS some of the other social conservatives, some of the Second Amendment voters, and some of the defend the borders voters, there is no way one can come up with a GOP win in 2008. The party isn’t going to attract enough pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-open borders, to offset the loss from the above mentioned groups. It just isn’t going to happen. Now, some in the 30% who are unmovable Republican voters are happy the party has moved to the Left and wish it would move a little farther Left. Others don’t like the slide to the Left, but are so locked into the party they will accept the slide, vote a straight ticket and hope for a better candidate in the next election. Those in the second category, they’d like a more conservative candidate, but will vote for whoever gets the GOP nomination, are actually helping assure that they will never get what they want in a candidate. They are not helping get a more conservative candidate because they come right out and say they will vote for ANYBODY who the party nominates. They are making themselves irrelevant. Why should the party try to please them? They are going to vote for the party no matter what. They are telling the party to ignore them. The people who make the party earn their vote are the ones who can push the party back to the Right. They are the ones that the politicians have to please. Don’t be fooled by the Republican establishment’s mantra that someone is too conservative to win. They said the same thing about Reagan. Reagan twice showed that attracting social conservatives and fiscal conservatives produces landslide victories. The Republican establishment doesn’t like conservatives. They never liked Reagan. They didn’t want the people to believe he would win in the general election. In 1976 Ford’s Chief of Staff called Reaganites “right wing nuts”, a term that also pops up in several Ford internal campaign memos from that year. In 1980 Bush the Elder said Reagan was an extremist and that his economic policies were “voodoo economics” that could never work in the real world. None of this was true then and it isn’t true now. There are now four conservatives in the race for the Republican nomination; Rep. Ron Paul, Rep. Duncan Hunter, Governor Jim Gilmore, and Rep. Tom Tancredo. Any one of these gentlemen could beat Hillary or Obama in the general election. Giuliani can’t do it. The Rockefeller Republicans, who are the party bosses, and the Doubting Thomas Republicans who are pushing for Giuliani’s nomination are going to hand the election to the Democrats if they succeed in nominating Giuliani rather than a conservative. It’s up to the party’s base to stop that from happening. The only real choice for the anybody-but-a-Democrat voters is to work to make sure one of the conservatives gets the nomination or accept the fact that they helped put a Democrat in the White House in 08.
"Published originally at www.EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact." John Bender is a freelance writer living in Dallas, Texas. He is a past Ether Zone contributor. John Bender can be reached at: jbender@columnist.com |
You may be surprised to learn that your post did not make it that much easier for me. The stark differences between Rudy and any Dem candidate are crystal clear to me. And aside from mere words, the *actual impact* differences between Rudy and GWB are rather few.
SO? Yes that is the difference between both Hitlary adn Rino Rudy. Not enough to care or vote for. I have 5 issue I am concerned about befor ethe war and Rino Rudy is on the wrong side with Hiltary on all 5.
The poll I'm running on a gun message board for a Hillary vs. Rudy race, third party is running over 2 to 1 against Rudy. The 2nd Amendment crowd will go third party and hope Klinton becomes a pariah like Karter in four years and that they can undo the damage. They are not voting for another RINO... period.
Sadly you are nto alone in your assessment.
He can win, and he will.
"I have 5 issue I am concerned about befor ethe war..."
That's a very telling statement. Explains a lot.
"IT'S ABOUT THE IMMIGRANTS STUPID" and Guliani ain't addressing it.
Yes, Rino Rudy is a flaming lineral. I do not vote for liberals.
I wouldn't exactly call that a valid poll. I'm a gun owner, and I'll bet most of the Rudy supporters here are as well.
No, Rudy is not a flaming liberal, except perhaps among those who have 5 more important issues than America's war for survival against Islamofascism.
Correct. Southern conservatives will not support a Northeastern cosmopolitan "intellectually enlightened elitist" socially liberal secularist, just because he appears tough on the WOT. The latter qualification does not offset the former disqualifications. If the GOP insists on offering him as their candidate, then they are making a conscience decision to forfeit the 2008 presidential election."
Wholeheartedly agree with this statement...
Yes he is. Deal with.
Laughable to believe certifiable nutcases like Tancredo and Paul could beat ANYONE in a National election. Nominating a clown like them would destroy the GOP forever.
Rudy, on the other hand, will wipe the floor with any opponent in the primaries and general election.
To think this guy got PAID to write drivel like this, amazing.
Oh I have one, don't worry about that.
As to Rudy, you bet I'm against him. He stands for and believes in everything I don't. He is also an amoral reprobate. As to National Defense he is a 'Lieberman Democrat', nothing more.
In short he is my enemy.
And please no WOT bullsh*t. There is no 'War On Terror' (one of the stupidist phrases since 'war on poverty'). Terror is a tactic and you don't fight a war against 'tactics'.
No, Rudy is not a flaming liberal, except perhaps among those who have 5 more important issues than America's war for survival against Islamofascism.
That’s true, but it’s hard to address on so many threads.
On that most important issue, I thought Rudy’s speech at CPAC was outstanding. He made the point that, through the use of wiretaps and surveillance, he was able to make great strides against the mafia effectively. Ironically he made that point immediately after criticizing the Clinton administration for treating terrorism as crime. I’ll leave the wiretap/surveillance/gun permit revocations to a discussion of Rudy’s position on rights and judges.
The WOT, and I think Rudy would be effective, involves more than policing and mayoral skills, though leadership is important. It requires a cohesive world view, and understanding of terror, a couple centuries would be nice, but at least a couple decades.
An understanding of the working of the State Dept, often an impediment, and Defence
The legislative process, having established his plan can he get it through Congress. In you face combativeness helps from the bully pulpit, so does a knowledge of the process.
I don’t think military service is a requirement, familiarity with the operations military, not police or fire, both strategically because we’re not dealing with criminals, and institutionally is a definite plus.
Can you convince me that Rudy is clearly superior to Duncan Hunter or Newt Gingrich?
If he’s not head and shoulders above both, I’ve no reason to consider Rudy in view of my concerns about his social positions.
Hunter's campaign ended with the CPAC poll. It just is not admitting it is dead yet.
Especially if Rudy picks a conservative for VP.
Bush couldn't win again so Giuliani can't win because Giuliani is Bush.
Who says so? Voters say so. Bush has ratings in low 30s. Running a 'Bush against an UnBush' will be a disaster for the GOP.
Those pushing the monster Giuliani press hype figure win or lose they will control the GOP and that makes it win-win for the RINOs. This is a battle to control the soul of the GOP as much as the Presidency.
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.