Posted on 10/10/2007 3:43:22 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Fred Thompson's road to the nomination, his advisers say, begins with a bridge to South Carolina. Now -- a bridge has two ends, and it looks like the anchorage is Iowa.
But how can Thompson possibly compete with Rudy Giuliani** on Feb. 5? New York? California? New Jersey?
Thanks to a quirk in the Republican delegate allocation schema, conservative, Republican candidates have an edge. The Republican National Committee awards bonus delegates to states based on their performance in general elections. States that always vote Republican get additional delegates; states like New York that vote Democratic do not. Bonus delegates account for about 20 of the total number.
The disparity can be significant. New York has four times as many voters as Georgia does but awards only 30% more delegates -- about 104 to Georgia's 72. So a strong performance by Thompson in Southern states on Feb. 5. could balance out Giuliani wins in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Delaware.
However: the Giuliani campaign persuaded state parties in their prime states to change the rules and award all delegates to a single winner. Georgia, North Carolina, Illinois, Alabama and other states award their delegates proportionally. So if the race is down to two candidates -- Thompson and Giuliani -- Giuliani would come in second in the Southern states and receive enough delegates to maintain his advantage.
The New Republic's John Judis ran the numbers based on current polling and concluded that Giuliani would exit Feb. 5 with a delegate lead of at least 150. Judis foresees state-by-state trench warfare, but the dynamics of momentum will probably winnow the field, especially if the Democrats consolidate their support for a single candidate.(continued)
(Excerpt) Read more at marcambinder.theatlantic.com ...
This is a dilemma.
Fred could probably carry Fla, and he has a better chance at Pa and Oh than Rudy in my estimation
“I’m sure the Duncans and Tancredos et. al. are decent people...but they have shown no ability to gain broad support. If we divide the conservative vote between four or five candidates, Rudy will win the nomination with 25 or 30%.”
Not an expert on all the rules related to state primaries and the Republican Convention, but it seems we could have a convention where no candidate arrives with the nomination won, and for the first time in years, the convention delegates might actually pick the nominee.
Doesn’t a candidate have to have a majority of the delegates to the convention to win the nomination?
“In 2004 there were several very close states that might swing another way: Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Mexico, New Hampshire, and others generally called battleground states. Events could swing several different states from 2004 to 2008 and Thompson could benefit. At this point, predictions concerning all the close states probably aren’t worth much.”
That’s true, but in 2006 several red states that had been solid red went blue. I don’t think any southern candidate can win outside the south and a few Rocky Mountain states in 2008.
I’m not trying to start an argument but the GOP has taken a pounding the last 2 years, and I think moderate/liberal Republicans and the independents from the west coast and northeast not to mention the “battleground states” will cross parties before they vote for another southerner. The GOP should also figure on losing OH, NM, and possibly CO and VA.
Of course they may hold these states, but these states weren’t even in play in 04...well maybe NM. I really can’t see the GOP picking up any states that they didn’t carry in 04 PA will probably stay blue, as well as WI, and didn’t ID go red last time, and it’s in play for 08.
The election of a president and the election of representative and senators has never really tracked together election after election. The Republicans dominated the presidential contests from 1968 through the present, and never had a majority in Congress until 1994. People just view things differently when voting for a president.
I don’t think 2006 is that indicative of how the 2008 presidential contest might go. That had a great deal to do with Jorge’s plunging approval and with the growing weariness with Iraq. All that will not necessarily attach to the Republican nominee for 2008.
And many of the Dem. pickups in 2006 came in red states with centrist or even conservative Dem. candidates. Pelosi has around 40 Blue Dogs which is why she can’t get passed all she would like.
The 2006 election did not tell us that the nation is ready to vote for its most liberal president ever, and the election was more a rejection of Jorge than a rejection of conservatism.
“I don’t think 2006 is that indicative of how the 2008 presidential contest might go.”
I would normally agree with you except the GOP brand is not in the best standing. Like it or not 6 years of GOP control has left the Republican candidate for 08 with a hard row to hoe.
Again I don’t think a southerner can win in 08. It’s my belief that if Thompson gets the nod, he will carry the south and a few Rocky Mountain states. I don’t think Thompson can win a single state that Bush didn’t win in 04. I hate posting this because it looks like flame-bait, but the Republican brand is not doing well at the moment, and all of the current GOP candidates are offering more of the same. So I see it as being caught between a rock and a hard place. Adhering to more of the same won’t carry the day I’m afraid.
“That had a great deal to do with Jorge’s plunging approval and with the growing weariness with Iraq. All that will not necessarily attach to the Republican nominee for 2008.”
Sorry, I meant to get this in that last post. Bush is still dragging down the GOP, and all the candidates have the same position as he does on the war. So I have to disagree that it won’t necessarily attach to the Republican nominee.
“Sorry, I meant to get this in that last post. Bush is still dragging down the GOP, and all the candidates have the same position as he does on the war. So I have to disagree that it won’t necessarily attach to the Republican nominee.”
I think it will depend on how the situation if Iraq is perceived a year from now when the two nominees are on the campaign trail. Polls have also shown that Americans don’t want to pull out and leave a disaster.
“It’s my belief that if Thompson gets the nod, he will carry the south and a few Rocky Mountain states.”
And Rudy is likely to lose several close states that Bush won: Missouri, Virginia (not close, but changing) Indiana, New Mexico, Ohio, even West Virginia, Iowa and Arkansas. Rudy will be very demoralizing to conservatives in battleground states and some will stay home.
Rudy could win little more than the Deep South and far west, with the so so chance he might win some blue states that Bush lost. Just as likely to lose several red states that Bush won.
“And Rudy is likely to lose several close states that Bush won”
I’m not advocating Rudy or any other candidate. I was only stating that I don’t believe a southern candidate can win in 08.
“I think it will depend on how the situation if Iraq is perceived a year from now when the two nominees are on the campaign trail.”
At this point in time I don’t think there will be enough significant change to matter. Again that was a phrase I heard a lot going into 06, that Iraq could be turned around by Nov. I’m not saying things aren’t improving, just that after this long, and this much money, I don’t think things have time to improve enough to help the GOP in 08.
“I’m not advocating Rudy or any other candidate. I was only stating that I don’t believe a southern candidate can win in 08.”
There seems to be an assumption that Thompson would have trouble winning any states Bush lost, but also it’s just taken for granted that anyone other than Thompson would hold all states Bush won. A very shaky assumption, even more shaky if Rudy is the nominee.
Since the strategy in Iraq has changed, the possibility of verifiable improvement in 2008 should be better than any time previous, or it just might have quited down enough to be less a problem.
Rillary, Hudy; same difference.
“There seems to be an assumption that Thompson would have trouble winning any states Bush lost, but also it’s just taken for granted that anyone other than Thompson would hold all states Bush won. A very shaky assumption, even more shaky if Rudy is the nominee.”
Yes that could easily be the case. I only mentioned Thompson because this thread is Thompsons strategy for the south.
I don’t think Thompson needs a strategy for the south other than to get the nod and show up. I just don’t think a southerner can be elected in 08. Dems have the same problem with Edwards if he gets the nod.
I live in Texas, but I travel a lot. Midwest, east coast and west coast. It’s my opinion that southerners are not in great favor at the moment anywhere but in the south. You can disagree with that, and maybe you’d be right, but most of the slagging on the GOP that I’ve heard has been about southerners, and I think lots of people still have it in for southern values voters, and that includes the GOP national leadership.
Really.. who promised to appoint judges that will adhere to the constitution, not subvert it
it’s all about the Supreme Court !!!!!
“It’s my opinion that southerners are not in great favor at the moment anywhere but in the south.”
It could definitely be said that Yankees with liberal political pasts are not in great favor in the South. And it’s the South and West, and part of the Midwest that have elected Republican presidents, not those areas where the South might be out of favor.
A scenario where blue states which rarely vote for a Republican presidential candidate, are the states that select the nominee in 2088 might be a recipe for disaster. Could Giuliani or Romney even deliver their home state?
An interesting question: Arkansas went for Bush both times. Do you think Billary will be able to flip Arkansas to vote for Hillary? Could be critical in a close election.
“It could definitely be said that Yankees with liberal political pasts are not in great favor in the South. And it’s the South and West, and part of the Midwest that have elected Republican presidents, not those areas where the South might be out of favor.”
Well I addressed that earlier, about the border states turning purple. In my opinion it’s because of the influx of people moving south from New England when they retire. Same goes for the Mountain states where the immigrants from the west coast all seem to be moving AZ. CO. ID
“An interesting question: Arkansas went for Bush both times. Do you think Billary will be able to flip Arkansas to vote for Hillary? Could be critical in a close election.”
I’m not sure if he can flip it, but I wouldn’t count it out, and I think AZ is in play in 08 and NM goes blue. I wrote a really long and detailed post about the things I’ve been seeing, and what I think they mean, but it’s on another thread. I’ll freep mail it to you, and we can discuss it.
“Why should NY have any delegates? “
Because if the GOP is to be a national party, then the Republican base, nationwide, should help determine its leaders. If we let it get narrowed into states that are Republican only, we’d end up a regional party and we’d be doomed electorally.
And you dont know that New York wont go Republican. It went Republican in 1972 and 1984, and it will happen again sometime.
“Nope....”How can we stop Hillary?” should be the question on every conservatives lips in the coming days.”
I’m sorry, but you are wrong. The first guy had it right. Conservatives MUST stop Guiliani because his nomination would destroy the coalition that makes up the Republican party. Many to most social conservatives will not vote for him in a general election, which would definitely give it to Mrs. Clinton. Many of us equate Mayor Guiliani to Senator Clinton. There is no lesser evil between them.
“Well I addressed that earlier, about the border states turning purple. In my opinion it’s because of the influx of people moving south from New England when they retire. Same goes for the Mountain states where the immigrants from the west coast all seem to be moving AZ. CO. ID”
I think that’s having an impact in New England, but no so much in the West as of now. Like the South a few years back, some Western and Mountain states are electing Democrats to Congress , but are still solidly Republican in presidential races. A few examples from 2004:
AZ Bush 55% Kerry 45%
CO Bush 52% Kerry 47%
ID Bush 61% Kerry 30%
MT Bush 59% Kerry 39%
NM Bush 50% Kerry 49%
NV Bush 51% Kerry 48%
UT Bush 71% Kerry 26%
WI Bush 49.4% Kerry 49.8%
VA Bush 54% Kerry 45%
It doesn’t seem that the West is likely to flip with the possible exception of CO and NM, and maybe NV. The states many Californians are moving don’t seem to have been affected much so far, except maybe Arizona. But the likability of the candidate is still a factor and probably helped Bush in 2000 and 2004. That factor hasn’t faded from significance, and will probably have more to do with whether some flip than other present factors.
I just noticed your Fmail.
We can’t get to the beast until we have a nominee. So, I believe 2DV is correct, how do we stop rudy is the first challenge to be tackled.
If FR is any indication, it’ll be rudy, because we’re just too splintered. If the MSM is any indication, it’ll be rudy, becuse he’s most like them, and least like us.
If it’s rudy, and the odds are in his favor, we lose. Rudy is too close to the beast in positions for the public to tell the difference, and they’ll vote for her.
For a Republican to win, he’ll have to be able to set himself far apart from the beast, but, at the same time, present a very strong and appealing argument that builds a bridge for the independents and the willing democrats to cross over on.
I wonder what the bookmakers are giving us on a win?
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.