Posted on 04/02/2007 12:28:27 AM PDT by RWR8189
Although the presidential election is 19 months away, the Republican Party has a real and growing problem in Ohio that could cost it the White House in 2008.
Simply put, the GOP brand is in trouble in Ohio, more so than it is nationally. That matters because in 2004 Ohio was the key to an Electoral College majority, and could well be the same in 2008.
Since the 2004 election in which President Bush narrowly defeated John Kerry, the undercurrent in Democratic thinking for 2008 has been to hold the states Kerry won and to turn Ohio from red to blue.
If Ohio's 20 electoral votes were to go to the Democrats, assuming that no other states switch allegiance, that would give them the White House.
And as simplistic as that strategy sounds, it could turn out to be successful because of the woes that are besetting the Republicans in the Buckeye State, more than in any other key battleground.
In fact, polls of Ohio voters are finding them less inclined to support GOP candidates, less likely to consider themselves Republican than in the recent past, and giving higher ratings to potential Democratic candidates with a consistency that should set off alarm bells at the Republican National Committee.
Ohio has historically has been slightly more Republican than one of the other big Electoral College battlegrounds, Pennsylvania. In recent presidential elections it has been roughly as GOP as Florida, the other major swing state.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
If the GOP understands what the problem in Pennsylvania is, its the same probelem as in Ohio, IMHO. The remain legit, a party given power has to wield it better than that it replaced to remain.
The problem with the GOP is that it is perceived as being full of corruption, especially in Ohio. The party's willingness to be corrupt is part of the problem and their unwillingness to be agressive with the corrupt Dems made it look like the corruption is one sided. If the GOP wants to shed that image, the need to back away from candidates who don't pass the smell test. I'm afraid that Rudy fits in that catagory.
oops! "TO remain legit...." :)
You have made some intelligent posts in the past which stand in stark diffference to this one.
Frudee will never win,the republicans need every vote Frudee turns off 2/3 of the republican base. We need a uniter not a divider.
Rudy doesn't have a chance. Too many skeletons in the closet. Also, he's way too far off the reservation for social conservatives.
"If the GOP wants to shed that image, the need to back away from candidates who don't pass the smell test. I'm afraid that Rudy fits in that catagory."
Don't you understand that Republicans CAN'T avoid that image simply because the media won't let them avoid it and will concoct scandals where none at all exist--usually with the complicity of Nervous-Nelly Republicans? How much convincing does it take--especially after the recent Scooter Libby affair? Look at how George Allen was put on the defensive because of aome minor casual remark--which was blown way out of proportion by the left and made to look racist. The GOP could run Mother Teresa and the left would smell corruption. That's just the reality of the political environment we live in. The ONLY SOLUTION IS TO FIGHT BACK--the way Rudy did in NYC. He is not afraid to return fire with fire. He clobbered the NYTimes and the local television stations with his own kind of media blitz. He is exceptionally articulate, doesn't take crap, and knows how to strike fear in the opposition.
In 2008, the war in Iraq will still be going on. The Democrats have made it their primary focus. Let it take them all the way down to defeat.
For a wartime president, would you rather vote for a two-time Navy Cross winner and former POW? Or would you prefer to vote for a woman who claims that she once thought about joining the Marines, and whose husband has admitted in writing that he "loathes the military"?
We need John McCain. Duncan Hunter or Fred Thompson can be the VP candidate. But Rudy Giuliani would nominate 40-year-old pro-abortion judges to replace John Paul Stevens and Ruth Ginsburg. He can serve us best giving stump speeches for McCain in the Blue States, and putting them into play.
"Rudy doesn't have a chance. Too many skeletons in the closet. Also, he's way too far off the reservation for social conservatives."
I'm a social conservative--and he makes sense to me because he's the only one who can win the blue states and secure the Congress for the GOP. As for skeletons--as mayor he was attacked furiously by the left, but they never laid a glove on him. He admits he's made mistakes, especially by appointing some questionable people he shouldn't have--but what executive worth his salt hasn't done this? In the end, his record of achievment in NYC speaks for itself.
I live in NYC and lived here during Rudy's time as mayor. Trust me, what's acceptable in NYC isn't acceptable to many parts of the country.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic Ping List:
Please ping me to all note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
You nailed the problem. The Pubbies are a bunch of spineless wimps.
Ohio could go blue unless a good candidate is fielded by GOP. George Voinovich is also endangered due to his wishy-washiness, crying on the Senate floor, opposing Bolten and many other things Dubya wants, etc. standing for nothing. He may end up like his recently departed Senate cohort Mike Dewine.
Your analysis is severely flawed. He WILL not turn blue states red, and will not get conservative support in the numbers needed. Going rudy assures us a lib will take it, whether he wins or the democrats (more likely) win.
"We need John McCain."
Like hell we do. McCain has betrayed the conservative cause in the Senate time and time again--and now, because it's convenient to do so in order to win the nomination, he cozies up to us and wishes us to forgive and forget. Nothing doing.
Sure he has the backing of a lot of Republican Party officials. But these are the same political hacks who insisted we run an aging Bob Dole in a year when Clinton was vulnerable. Now they want to foist McCain on us.
As for Rudy's appointing liberal judges--that's simply false, as Ted Olson has pointed out. Olson supports Rudy because he has pledged to nominate strict constructionists like Roberts and Alito.
The Republicans don't do what they can. Why did Berger get next thing to amnesty? The GOP doesn't give the media anything to work with. Why did the? Republicans keep a faggot in office even after they knew there was a page problem? We can't blame the media bias if we don't do what we can. Running Rudy with all his problems isn't going to help the party. Sure he'll fight back, but it won't only be libs, Dems, and the media he'll be fighting.
"I live in NYC and lived here during Rudy's time as mayor. Trust me, what's acceptable in NYC isn't acceptable to many parts of the country."
What specifically are you referring to as "unacceptable"? Is lowering the crime rate not acceptable, or lowering taxes, or supporting school vouchers, or reforming education or closing down the porn shops or going after drug dealers or instituting workfare in place of welfare? He did all of this. What wasn't acceptable?
" Sadly, I think the only thing that will straighten the mess out is a strong third party; maybe the Constitutional Party?"
Just like the strong third party did in 1992.
"Your analysis is severely flawed. He WILL not turn blue states red, and will not get conservative support in the numbers needed. Going rudy assures us a lib will take it, whether he wins or the democrats (more likely) win."
Not only is my analysis not flawed, it's proven consistently correct by the polls which have remained steady for years. Rudy runs strong on the east and west coasts and in mid-Atlantic states. If he took the South as well, he would win in a landslide. And I think I know why.
The Italian-American vote is concentrated in key parts of the country--on either coast and in places like MN, OH, PA and FL. This represents approximately ten per cent of all voters. That's a huge block of voters--comparable to the black vote--and most are Reagan Democrats.
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.