Posted on 09/22/2007 12:23:06 PM PDT by Brices Crossroads
One GOP campaigner reminds me that a Jan. 10, 1980 Gallup Poll had Reagan trailing Carter 63 percent to 32 percent.
March 1980 analysis from a columnist at the Globe and Mail:
THE PRESIDENT of the United States from 1980 to 1984 will be one of the following three people: Jimmy Carter, Howard Baker or Gerald Ford.
It's rather early in the election season for such pointed speculation. But a look at the situation reveals that the prediction is not all that chancy.
It is now almost certain that Mr. Carter is going to be the Democratic nominee. Ronald Reagan is the most likely choice for the Republican nomination, but he could not beat Jimmy Carter in the fall. Nor could George Bush.
Mr. Baker and Mr. Ford are the only two Republicans with a shot at the nomination who could defeat the incumbent President.
Republican candidate John Anderson, a dark horse, said the other day that if the Republicans nominate Mr. Reagan it's political suicide. He's right. Most polls show that, going head-to-head against Mr. Carter, Mr. Reagan would lose by 2-1. The former California governor would be the Barry Goldwater of 1980. He is too right-wing to appeal to enough moderates to win and he is too prone to incredible gaffes.
I personally doubt that Thompson can beat Hillary. I’m convinced that the only one that can beat Hillary is Giuliani and here is why:
The GOP has lost a lot of voters due to the unpopular war. None of the GOP candidates (except for Ron Paul) wants to end the war. Therefore, those voters will either stay home or vote for the Dems.
Another group of voters that will either stay home or vote for the Dems are the Latins.. GWB got about 35% of the latino vote as he was soft on immigration. Thompson is playing the tough man on immigration and he might only get like 21 - 25% of the latino vote. The Latinos are the fastest growing group of voters. Another group of voters that Thompson can’t attract are moderates. Thompson is clearly favoring to overturn Roe vs. Wade and abortion rights are a key issue for most moderates. They will not vote for someone who they percieve to want to outlaw abortions. Giuliani on the other hand side has a lot more potential to attract Latino voters and moderates. Even though Giuliani says that he is pro life, he still supports a womans right to choose. That opens the door to many moderates. Of course, a part of the religious right will stay home, but Giuliani will pick up more moderates and Latino voters than he will lose from the Republican core. I doubt that there will be a 3rd candidate if Giuliani is the nominee. The ‘08 elections are way too important to hand the elections to Hillary.. She will win if the Republican vote will be split between 2 candidates who are running. Hillary can do a lot of damage as she will have a Democratic congress. The damage that she can cause in 4 years is very serious. I know that if Giuliani is the nominee, it’ll be a choice between to evils but Giuliani for sure is the lesser evil. He has been a low tax supporter and he also is against a government run healtchare system. He has been fiscally responsible unlike our current president who is wasting money left and right and I’m not just talking about the war. He signed way too many spending bills.. I’m personally voting Republican because I want fiscal conservativism and GWB has been a joke!
This is from June 06 - but just a true today, in fact more so.
The Top 8 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Is a Weaker Candidate Than People Think
We’ve heard a lot about why Hillary Clinton will be a strong candidate in 2008. In fact, there are whole books on the subject.
However, Hillary Clinton is actually a much weaker candidate than many people seem to believe. Here’s a short, but sweet primer that may help explain why that is the case:
1. Likeability and Charisma
If you look back at the last eight presidential elections, at least, the more likeable candidate has won every time. That’s unfortunate for Hillary because unlike her slick, gregarious husband, she does not have the gift of gab or a warm personality. If Hillary has to pass the old, “Gee, would I rather go to a ball game, grab some pizza, or get a beer with Hillary or the Republican candidate,” test, she’s going to be in a lot of trouble unless the person asking the question is wearing a tinfoil hat or is such a radical lefty that she has a “I (heart) abortion” bumper sticker on her car.
2. Gaffes
Hillary not only lacks charisma and likeability, she’s more gaffe prone than most people seem to realize. For example, back in March she suggested that the illegal immigration bill in the House, “would literally criminalize the Good Samaritan and probably even Jesus himself.”
Then there were her wacky comments about school vouchers back in February:
“First family that comes and says ‘I want to send my daughter to St. Peter’s Roman Catholic School’ and you say ‘Great, wonderful school, here’s your voucher,’” Clinton said. “Next parent that comes and says, ‘I want to send my child to the school of the Church of the White Supremacist ...’ The parent says, ‘The way that I read Genesis, Cain was marked, therefore I believe in white supremacy. ... You gave it to a Catholic parent, you gave it to a Jewish parent, under the Constitution, you can’t discriminate against me.’”
As an adoring, if somewhat puzzled, audience of Bronx activists looked on, Clinton added, “So what if the next parent comes and says, ‘I want to send my child to the School of the Jihad? ... I won’t stand for it.”
Criminalizing Jesus? Cain and the Church of the White Supremacist? The School of Jihad? What?!? You put this woman in front of a camera for a year, in a presidential campaign, where every word the candidate utters is scrutinized like the Zapruder tape and she’ll give plenty of ammunition to her opponent.
3. She Can’t Win in the South
The only two Democratic candidates for the presidency who’ve won elections since Lyndon Johnson was in office have been two Southern governors, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. Why were they able to win? Because unlike John Kerry or Al Gore, they were able to win southern states. Northern liberals like Hillary? They don’t do well in the South and Hillary will have a lot of difficulty reversing that trend. After all, not only is she a liberal, from a liberal state, with a liberal voting record, she apparently disliked living in the South so much that she moved to New York. Good luck connecting with the NASCAR crowd after that Hillary, ’cause you’re going to need it!
4. Hillary’s Base Problem
Here’s a little secret: a lot of liberals don’t really want Hillary as their candidate in 2008. Some of them don’t like her stance on the war. Others don’t like her close relationship with the DLC, which is perceived as being too moderate. There are even some liberals that are probably unhappy with her, as much as anything, because she has been treated like the “chosen one” for the Democrats since the 2004 election.
The result of this is that some of the more hardcore liberal activists aren’t thrilled with Hillary’s candidacy and they’re not shy about saying so. In fact, it has gotten so bad that the more time Democrats spend reading liberal bloggers, the cooler they get to Hillary. That’s not exactly the kind of reaction a candidate hopes for from people who should be some of her biggest supporters.
5. Hillary Will Increase Turnout—for the GOP
Remember how the Democrats turned out in droves in 2004 so they could vote against President Bush? Well, the same thing would happen on the Republican side if Hillary were the Democratic nominee. There are few words in the English language more terrifying to Republicans than, “President Hillary Clinton,” and it’s almost guaranteed that they will turn out in record numbers to make sure it never happens.
6. Hillary as Commander in Chief?
In general, the Democrats have serious credibility problems on national security and Hillary is not going to be the one to reverse that trend. Unlike candidates like John Kerry and Jimmy Carter, she doesn’t have a military background to fall back on. Moreover, her husband’s administration was lackadaisical about fighting terrorism and although Hillary did vote for the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, she certainly hasn’t developed a reputation as a hawk, like say Zell Miller or Joe Lieberman. Although at this point, it’s hard to know exactly what the foreign policy landscape will look like in November of 2008, it’s unlikely to be tranquil and that will be a major strike against Hillary.
7. Her Polling Numbers Aren’t Very Good
Since Hillary has been the frontrunner on the Democratic side from the moment that John Kerry conceded, she has been the subject of a lot of 2008 related polls. Unfortunately for her, those numbers haven’t looked particularly good.
For example, In mid-May of this year, Rasmussen Reports had Hillary’s unfavorable rating among adults at 39%. Another mid-May poll, from the New York Times, had 34% of Americans viewing her favorably and 35% viewing her unfavorably.
Perhaps that sort of soft support explains the results of a January 2006, CNN/Gallup poll which found that, “By a margin of three to one, Americans say they would “definitely” vote against Hillary Clinton for president.”
Given that Hillary already has extremely high name recognition, these bad numbers don’t bode well for her chances to win the presidency.
8. Baggage
Hillary is carrying around as much baggage as any of the other five candidates combined, starting with her philandering husband. In fact, there are so many controversies that have swirled around Bill and Hill than you can hardly list them all: Gennifer Flowers, Monica Lewinsky, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broderick, Whitewater, selling the Lincoln bedroom, using the IRS against political enemies, selling pardons, taking the White House furniture, shady cattle futures deals, impeachment, firing the travel office staff to make room for cronies, it goes on and on and on. Discount these scandals as old news if you like, but the American people are going to think long and hard before they vote to turn the White House into the sort of sleazy circus sideshow that it was during Bill Clinton’s tenure as President.
Conclusion
Although Hillary Clinton would be far from a pushover, she’s not an unstoppable juggernaut either. To the contrary, Hillary is a deeply flawed candidate who would have great difficulty beating a credible, conservative Republican. So while it’s important not to get overconfident about a potential race against Hillary Clinton, we shouldn’t minimize her numerous weaknesses either.
Take "Fred" out and replace with anyone else in the field and the analysis is exactly the same.
Ohio is dangerous because of state-level miscues by the Ohio GOP, so other states will need to replace them. On the other and, there were a lot of "razor-thin" margins in places closer than Ohio that all went Kerry's way (with not a little help from 'rat vote fraud) -- Wisconsin, Minnesota, and New Hampshire are all good targets. Pennsylvania isn't out of the question (closer margin than Ohio was).
I also don't see Thompson, specifically, losing any state Bush won other than Ohio.
It amazes me that people can’t see the impending doom that awaits the GOP if it nominates Rudy as its standard bearer.
You guys think that all of the moderates and independents are going to vote for Rudy, thus making up for all of the conservatives that won’t.
Well, let me tell you two things:
1) There WILL be a 3rd party candidate. Maybe 2 of them, if Rudy is the nominee. There may be a 3rd party conservative candidate and there will DEFINITELY be an attempt to split the ‘moderate’ vote by Bloomberg. Bloomberg has a beef with Rudy and will spend any amount of money to stop him. Rudy loses.
2) The ‘9/11 firefighters for truth’ and the ‘9/11 families for justice’ will sink any possibility that Rudy has of appealing to ANY moderates. The damage that this will do to a candidate who has nothing else but 9/11 to run on is devastating. Rudy loses again.
Rudy is, without question, the dumbest choice we could make. And it ain’t just because of abortion. The second dumbest would be to nominate a stealth liberal former governor of the most liberal state in the country. But that would be for another post...
How much are you betting? I would like a piece of that action. I consider Hillary to be a lock for the Dem nomination.
So, do you think that all the polls that show Giuliani to have a better chance against Hillary than Thompson to be wrong? Right now, Giuliani seems to have a 6% better chance against Hillary than Thompson. I’m not saying that ALL moderates will vote for Rudy but I believe that it’ll be more moderates that will vote for him than Republicans staying home. Most Republicans will vote for Rudy as the lesser evil. Most Republicans are in fear of a Hillary Clinton presidency (including myself). If there will actually be a 3rd candidate if Rudy gets the GOP nod, that 3rd candidate can go and pet himself on the back for getting Hillary elected. Hillary is unpopular but many people (falsely) think that Bill Clinton will have a lot to say if Hillary will be president. This is complete BS as he won’t have anything to say.. Hillary is 10000000 times worse then Bill Clinton. Bill was somewhat moderate but Hillary is a far left Socialist. Once she has the nomination, she will use Bill to draw moderate votes as he has the charisma that she doesn’t have.. She is very dangerous and should not be underestimated! Never underestimate your enemy! Anything necessary has to be done to prevent her and if that means nominating a moderate Republican, than that’s what we have to do.
No, they're just premature. The actual numbers matter little right now, but trends can tell you something. The trend is that Guiliani is pretty stagnant against Clinton, while Thompson gains against her.
Also, some practicality beyond the current snapshot must be considered... do people really know Guiliani? What happens as they know more about him? Personally, I think he's riding high on "America's Mayor" and name recognition, but that voters will cool on him when they look at his record and positions -- this certainly explains his rapid drop in the GOP national polls from late spring / early summer when he was pushing 40% to now where he's in the low to mid 20's.
Voters, as a whole, also have short memories. Not that long ago, as part of the Shamnesty fiasco, McCain looked like he was going to leave a giant crater on impact with 0%. But now he's rebounded and arguably passed Romney in the race for distant 3rd.
Of course they’re wrong!! They’re not taking into account all of the information. They’re not polling with a 3rd party candidate and the onslaught of anti-Rudy stuff from NYC hasn’t begun yet either.
If you think saying that a 3rd party candidate can “go and pet himself on the back for getting Hillary elected” will deter such a candidacy, you have some serious waking up to do.
Your assertion that matchups of the general election at this point shed any light on how the actual election will turn out is really great. Just ask President Mondale, President Dukakis, President Gore, and President Kerry how that turned out.
You can also look at the internals of any of those polls for an indication of why Fred Thompson polls lower than Rudy nationally: He isn’t as well known (yet).
Fred Thompson is the only viable candidate that can keep our coalition together, which is vital to winning the general election. I personally feel that his appeal to moderates will go FAR beyond what Rudy’s ever could. You may (incorrectly) feel differently, but the fact remains that you do not throw away core constituencies on the vague promise of ‘conversions of moderates’ to happen at a later date. It’s suicide.
I agree.. Polls might be premature at this point. However, I don’t see where Thompson is gonna get the voters from other than from the Republican base? Here are my questions:
1) what does he have to offer to moderates? (who are predominently Pro Choice)
2) what does he have to offer to Latino voters? (especially those who show solidarity to illegals)
3) what can he do to get the anti-war Republicans back
If he can’t attract either group, where are the votes going to come from? I know that Fred can win the primaries as his views on the issues are closer to the base than Giulianis. But again, where is he going to get the votes to beat Hillary in the general elections?
There’s no guarantee that there will be a 3rd candidate if Rugy gets the GOP nod. I hope that the GOP won’t self destruct if Rudy gets the nomination..
If you think that Thompson can attract larger amounts of moderates, I’ll ask you the same that I asked in my previous post: HOW?? What does he have to offer to the Moderates?
Look, personally I’d rather see a President Thompson than Giuliani BUT I’d rather see a President Giuliani than Clinton... Sure, it’s still a while until the primaries and a lot of things can happen. I’m a strategic voter and I’ll vote for whoever seems to have the best chance against Hillary at the time of the primaries. I’m in Florida and Florida is a early state, so I’ll have to make up my mind until January.. If Thompson will be ahead of Giuliani in matchups with Hillary, I will vote for Fred Thompson.. If Giuliani is ahead, I will vote for him. My number 1 priority is not to have a president Hillary Clinton!
If you won’t belive it, then so be it. However, mark my words, if Rudy becomes the nominee, there will be a third party candidate. And frankly, Rudy would lose even if there wasn’t.
How would Thompson attract moderates? Stop paying so much attention to FR and saying to yourself “These rightwing wingnuts like Fred, so he must be too far right to appeal to normal people.” (I’ll give you a clue: The wingnuts are the ones who spend all their time on FR attacking Fred from the right.) Educate yourself on Fred Thompson and you’ll see exactly how he will attract moderates. Watch his announcement video. Fred speaks to rank and file people. His appeal goes across party lines.
If you can’t find the time to watch the whole thing, just watch the first 2 minutes or so. When Fred says that he’s worked for minimum wage, that wins over so many people it’ll make your head spin.
Fred is a candidate of common sense. Remember when the GOP used to be the party of common sense?
Fred Thompson is a candidate of change. Not just change from Bush, but change from the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton dynasties. The appeal to moderates of avoiding more of the partisan nastiness of electing another one of the Bush/Clintons will be huge.
Fred Thompson is a candidate that runs against the stupidity of Washington. He is doing this at a time when the people are FED UP with Washington’s BS. Congressional approval ratings have never been lower. Fred can use this anti-Washington sentiment to attract LARGE amounts of moderates.
Rudy represents the opposite. Rudy represents unprincipled ‘Republicanism’. He has no core values driving him. His appeal to moderates is what? That he’s pro-choice? I’ve got news for you. Rudy has been supported by and has given support to groups that even pro-choice people find icky and gross. Fred Thompson’s abortion position, which is pro-life/federalist is MUCH more appealing to the mainstream than Rudy’s abortion on demand.
People get so caught up in conventional wisdom that they find themselves unable to step back and look at the big picture. Things were close in 2000 and 2004 because George W Bush was a weak candidate. Bush’s use of religion on the stump, while popular with evangelicals, struck many moderate voters who would have normally voted Republican, as phony. Fred Thompson’s refusal to wear his religion on his sleeve, while still maintaining values that are in sync with the majority of religious voters makes him more appealing to more people. THAT is an example of appealing to moderates. Not some vague idiocy about abortion.
Your reasoning is extremely flawed here. If you help to nominate a surefire loser, you'll get exactly what you fear the most. Acting rashly in fear is a guaranteed way to make sure that your worst fears come true.
Way to early to tell, FT has not even debated yet.
And when he has, that argument will go the same way of the dodo bird and the ‘Fred will never get in the race’ argument.
Then, you’ll have to find a new talking point to parrot.
Count on it. If you give the 'traditional base' a SLAP-IN-THE-FACE by nominating someone who is 180 degrees out of sync with that base's long-held, core, bedrock principles and values, who do you think will happen?
Energy and enthusiasm for your candidate from your base is important, very important (turnout, volunteer time, etc).
Can you picture a wildly cheering enthusiastic 'base' on the convention floor passionately cheering the acceptance speech from a liberal, pro-abortion, gun-grabbing, pro-amnesty, pro-litigation, gay rights crusader who believes in federal funding for abortion, sanctuary cities and global warming???
I can't.
If you want elect Hillary by dividing the Party and demoralizing the base,,,,
a LIBERAL like Rudy is the RIGHT MAN AT THE RIGHT TIME!!
Oops, I think you posted to the wrong person!
Let’s see what’s going to happen. There will be plenty of chance for the candidates to discuss the issues. If Fred Thompson will be able to become better known and if you are right that he will attract moderates, then there should not be a problem passing Rudy in polls vs. Hillary and then I’ll vote for him.. If Thompson can’t get the message to the moderates out before the primaries, how will he do it for the general elections? I’ll watch and see.
I’ve been scanning through Fred Thompsons website and watched all his videos. I personally like Fred and think that he is the best GOP candidate. However, many people are not looking at his website. Many people are voting based on perception. The perception about Rudy is that he is “America’s Mayor” etc. etc. and many people will just vote for him based on that, without even knowing where he stands on the issues.. Many of the Libs will vote for Hillary because they liked Bill Clinton even though he and Hillary and completely different. It’s all about perception. Most of the voting population is NOT all that well informed (unfortunately). If people would be well informed and would vote based on the issues, no democrat should ever be elected...
indeed, Fred hasn’t debated yet.. We will see how he will do on the coming debates and if he does well, he should be able to get ahead of Hillary in the Head to Head polls - right?
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.