Posted on 03/07/2007 4:32:54 AM PST by Verax
Still, the 2000 election was a squeaker. In 2004, the GOP received a decent victory margin (51% - 48%) and Bush became the first Presidential candidate since 1988 to receive a majority of the popular vote. In 2004, Bush increased his vote total to 62 million, an 11 million increase, while Kerry received 59.4 million of only 8.4 million. A fraction of that increase probably came from Nader supporters, as the long time consumer activist received only 400,000 votes in 2004, vs. 2.4 million four years earlier. Bush's improvement is largely attributed to evangelical voters supporting him. In 2000, Bush received 68% of the white evangelical vote, increasing to 78% in 2004. In both elections, white evangelicals represented 23% of the electorate. About 5.3 million more white evangelicals voted for Bush in 2004, representing almost half of the Bush increase that year.
Conversely, what hurt the 2006 GOP Congressional campaign was a falling away by both economic and social conservatives. Unfortunately, I don't believe fear of the Clintons will be sufficient to draw these conservatives to Giuliani. In 1996, Dole received almost the same number of votes that the elder Bush had in 1992 (39.2 million vs 39.1 million) in spite of four years of attempts to socialize medicine, permit open homosexuals in the military, mysterious deaths like that of Vince Foster, and gossip about Bill Clinton's sexual escapades. Additionally, some 11.5 million voters who had supported Perot in 1992 either voted for another candidate in 1996 or did not vote.
As for Hillary's lack of charm, remember that no one ever accused either Gore or Kerry of being personable or lovable, yet both men received almost half of the total national vote.
Even without a strong third party candidate, Giuliani will lose a portion of the conservative vote, especially white evangelicals and possibly church-going white Catholics as well. Gun owners and economic conservatives also have reason to be unenthusiastic about him. However, Giuliani may be able to offset the loss through breaking the lock the Democrats have had over the 11 Northeastern states and California. Picking up PA, NJ, NH, DE, and maybe ME and CT would make up for possible losses in the Upper South and the Border states. If he can turn California, as Schwarzenegger has with his brand of politics, away from the Democrats, he can win even if he loses OH, IA, and maybe NM.
We're in agreement.
Who wants an annointment? Most Rudy supporters would be happy to see some credible competition from his Right.
This annointment claim is too old and ridiculous to be taken seriously in any case. That was the EXACT thing that was said about Bush in 2000. It was false then and false now.
Are YOU are Republican or just someone who pretends to be one, too?
And what does Hillary have to do with my question to a NON-Republican?
It has been trending RAT over the last few years so she MIGHT have a chance there. Maybe they like her better for leaving. But MIGHT is the best I will give her.
Every time Duncan Hunter speaks people are drawn to him!
Other Oklahomans will tell you otherwise. Oklahoma will NOT give its electoral votes to Hillary THAT is certain.
You're right, of course! I misread. :(
Your tag line is disgusting. I am surprised you weren't asked to remove it.
If you *say* so.
I like Duncan Hunter but that is not the point. Hunter's speech at the CPAC was ok even though he was given a very difficult spot having to speak first while people were wandering in half asleep. But his showing in that straw poll just killed him.
Who I like or you like really has no impact on the political realities of who can win.
I know of two women he made this statement to, "to have and to hold till death us do part". In short don't put what rudy tells you in the bank.
I know of two women he made this statement to, "to have and to hold till death us do part". In short don't put what rudy tells you in the bank.
A major one never talked about is the US Attorneys. The democrats are corrupt and in blue states only the US Attorney stands in their way.
With Rudy you get a strong national security/foreign/defense policy. The democrats will bring us to disaster.
You get fiscal responsibility and tax cuts versus taxes up the kazoo.
You also get conservative republicans in Congress who will have influence on a republican president. They are cooked with a dem in the WH.
And you get CONSERVATIVE JUDGES who just might overturn Roe, and are the only chance to do so. It will NEVER happen with a dem.
I disagree totally. I am fed up with conservatives who are too meek and mild to speak up to the left and defend themselves. I haven't seen a true conservative who I think would stand up to even Pelosi or Reid, both of whom deserve a public verbal smack down. Rudy wouldn't hesitate to speak his mind and he wouldn't stand still for the abuse of the judicial system that is going on in our courts.
Exactly. I would tend to pick Romney in the primaries. But I damn well will vote repuiblican against Hilary or Obama.
Why do you assume that if we elect a republican president the Congress will be democrats? They are linked. If people stay home they doom the rest of the ticket. WEe need republicans throughout. And BTW, I post all the time about how much I hate republicans.
Yes, and Rudy says he will appoint conservative judges. You have to understand if Roe is overturned, all the liberal states will still have legal abortion. Overturning Roe is NOT making abortion illegal. It just removes Constitutional protection from teh right to have an abortion. Rudy can allow conservatives on the court.
Unless some southern or western conservative decides to run a third party campaign.
Then how many electoral votes will Rudy get?
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.