Posted on 07/08/2007 5:52:38 PM PDT by finnman69
Mark Shields, in the Washington Post, once called presidential elections the “most personal vote.” Party identification or other factors may be decisive in elections for Congress or state offices, but the presidency is unique. Issues are the most important reason someone wins, of course, but personal factors can often tip the balance in close national elections.
Based on his heroic image, his obvious executive ability, his making New York City a livable, governable place and his proven track record as a winner on overwhelmingly Democratic turf, Giuliani would be an extremely dangerous opponent for Democrats. In his 1997 re-election, Rudy ran 38 points ahead of Republican registration. He won nearly half of all Democrats and more than two-thirds of white Democrats. Not even Ronald Reagan was able to do that.
Pro football fans surely have heard of the “West Coast Offense” where coaches seek a matchup that favors their team. For example, they’ll send a faster wide receiver against a slower linebacker, or a taller tight end against a shorter defensive back. In four key ways — in terms of leadership, ethnicity, ideology and geography — Rudy matches up better against the two leading Democrats, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
The leadership issue is obvious: does any Democrat have anything to compare with 9/11 and “America’s Mayor?”
Second, against Obama or Clinton, Rudy would likely reap an “ethnic
bonus” from urban Catholics and Jews. Most Italian- Americans, even registered Democrats, will be sorely tempted to cross over to support one of their own. Rudy also polls well with other urban white Catholics, Jews, Asians, Hispanics and moderate-to-liberal “secular” middle-class whites.
Given his crime-fighting image, he clearly will have appeal to suburban voters who feel they were driven out of their old cities by urban chaos. That’s a probable gain of 3 million to 4 million votes nationally, and it’s hard to imagine too many Bush 2004 voters going for either Clinton or Obama.
Third is that Rudy is much closer to the center (fiscally conservative and tough on bad guys, but also tolerant on social issues) than the Democratic field, and moderate independents also like him. Rudy is the one Republican who can offer both continuity for Republicans (leadership in the war on terror) and change (he’s not beholden to the religious right, nor is he associated with the scandal-ridden congressional Republicans and can call for a phased withdrawal from Iraq if necessary) to Democrats and Independents.
The danger for Clinton is that she’ll get isolated on the left and hold onto only inner-city minorities and white liberals — much like Michael Dukakis in 1988.
Over the last generation, white voters have often divided by degree of religious intensity, with observant Protestants and Catholics going Republican while Jews and “secular humanists” have voted Democratic. Since there are more believers than nonbelievers in America, Republicans have won most national elections over the past 40 years. Jimmy Carter, an outspoken “bornagain” Christian, is the only Democratic presidential nominee since the 1960s to win a majority in the national popular vote.
At his best, Giuliani brings in white Catholics, Jews, Hispanics, Asians, suburban independents, Easterners and older women. With the possible exception of McCain, no other Republican can do that.
Fourth, and most importantly, Rudy is stronger in the Electoral College than anyone else. While he may be a little bit weaker in the South than a standard conservative like Tennessee’s Fred Thompson, most Southern states are already out of reach for Democrats and Rudy would be well-positioned to make major gains outside the South.
One huge reason why George W. Bush lost California, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, Maryland and Connecticut is the defection of previously Republican suburban voters. Rudy’s popularity in big metropolitan areas will erode the Democratic edge in the cities, win the suburbs and carry most states by virtue of normally Republican rural votes. Rudy would put 40 states in play, including most of the Northeast (even New York) and the Midwest, plus the West Coast, and likely win 35 of them. Incidentally, Dukakis lost 40 states in 1988. Democrats should be terrified about facing this guy because he has the best potential to cut into their urban base.
Clinton’s negative ratings have averaged almost 50 percent for more than a decade now, while Giuliani’s have been 2-to-1 positive for the last six years. It’s rare for candidates with such high approval ratings to lose. After loudly shouting that Bill Clinton’s personal life had nothing to do with his performance as president, can Democrats really attack Rudy for being divorced twice and an admitted adulterer?
Does any Democrat match up against Giuliani? A Southerner like Al Gore or John Edwards would have a shot at picking up Florida and either Tennessee or North Carolina. And no Democrat has ever won the presidency without winning at least 35 electoral votes in the South.
But Gore isn’t running yet and Edwards has been stuck in third place in the Democratic polls. Otherwise, I’d bet on a Northeastern Italian Catholic former prosecutor with staunch “Middle America” appeal against a feminist from an affluent East Coast suburb or even a very talented black guy from the South Side of Chicago.
Generally speaking, moderate Republicans have little trouble against liberal Democrats. See McKinley vs. Bryan, Eisenhower vs. Stevenson, Nixon vs. McGovern or the first George Bush vs. Dukakis. Since World War II, Republicans have gotten in trouble when they are seen as too socially reactionary, as Barry Goldwater was perceived to be in 1964, but Giuliani won’t have that problem.
But what if social conservatives rebel against a Giuliani nomination and run a pro-life candidate like Pat Buchanan or Tom Tancredo? That would be very unlikely if Clinton is the Democratic nominee, because the vast majority of conservatives wouldn’t want to risk another Clinton presidency. So, in effect, Rudy needs Hillary! But if there were a reasonably well-financed conservative third party running, things would be interesting, to say the least.
Some Democrats say that Rudy would be the most formidable Republican since Reagan, but the better comparison might be to Bobby Kennedy. Although Clinton now has RFK’s old Senate seat, there are numerous parallels between Rudy and Bobby: they were both in-your-face prosecutors, sharp debaters, had intensely high energy levels, were street-smart and had a “ruthless” will to win. Rudy is Bobby if he had gotten older and more conservative. Interestingly enough, RFK was Giuliani’s first political hero. He’s also a younger, fresher version of John McCain.
As a Democrat, I must admit to having mixed feelings about Giuliani. In terms of philosophy, I’d like to see the Republicans moderate their positions by moving closer to us. But I also would like to see them nominate extremists who would be easier to defeat.
What about the argument that Clinton could inspire a massive turnout from single women eager to shatter the “glass ceiling” or that Obama could double the black turnout? Either is possible, but neither is likely. Women are not a bloc vote like blacks, Jews or Mormons. Older women, especially married women in the South and Midwest, lean to the right. Tragically, no black candidate in a statewide or national election has ever pulled off the neat trick of mobilizing a huge black vote while not alienating moderate whites. John F. Kennedy succeeded at this in 1960 — he mobilized his base of urban Catholics and Jews and held onto enough Protestant Democrats to win narrowly — but New York Gov. Al Smith couldn’t in 1928.
One key fact about pols is that they almost always repeat their previous successful strategies. Look at Rudy’s track record: he’s proven that he could beat black (David Dinkins) and female (Ruth Messinger) candidates without coming across as macho or racist, a key skill for any white male candidate facing a minority or female opponent. Granted, Clinton and Obama will be much tougher opponents, but the pattern is clear.
Is there any way Giuliani could lose a two-way race? Of course. I can think of at least three ways he could blow it. First, he’s human like every other candidate and could make some unforced errors. Second, he could lose that famous temper of his in public. Third, he could let his foreign policy be hijacked by the neo-conservatives; the voters don’t want another four years of Bush’s foreign policy.
But if he doesn’t make any major mistakes, in a two-way race he’d be really tough to beat. However, in a three- or four-way race, all bets are off. We’ll see if conservative Republican primary voters can stomach his social liberalism. If enough of them can, he’ll be hard to stop in November.
From Human Events:
Rudy's Strong Pro-Abortion Stance
As these comments from a 1989 conversation with Phil Donahue show, Rudy Giuliani is staunchly in favor of abortion:
"I've said that I'll uphold a woman's right of choice, that I will fund abortion so that a poor woman is not deprived of a right that others can exercise, and that I would oppose going back to a day in which abortions were illegal.
I do that in spite of my own personal reservations. I have a daughter now; if a close relative or a daughter were pregnant, I would give my personal advice, my religious and moral views ...
Donahue: Which would be to continue the pregnancy.
Giuliani: Which would be that I would help her with taking care of the baby. But if the ultimate choice of the woman - my daughter or any other woman - would be that in this particular circumstance [if she had] to have an abortion, I'd support that. I'd give my daughter the money for it."
Worse yet, Giuliani even supports partial birth abortion:
"I'm pro-choice. I'm pro-gay rights,Giuliani said. He was then asked whether he supports a ban on what critics call partial-birth abortions. "No, I have not supported that, and I don't see my position on that changing," he responded." -- CNN.com, "Inside Politics" Dec 2, 1999
It's bad enough that Rudy is so adamantly pro-abortion, but consider what that could mean when it comes time to select Supreme Court Justices. Does the description of Giuliani that you've just read make you think he's going to select an originalist like Clarence Thomas, who would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade -- or does it make you think he would prefer justices like Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy who'd leave Roe v. Wade in place?
Rudy's abortion stance is bad news for conservatives who are pro-life or who are concerned about getting originalist judges on the Supreme Court.
An Anti-Second Amendment Candidate
In the last couple of election cycles, 2nd Amendment issues have moved to the back burner mainly because even Democratic candidates have learned that being tagged with the "gun grabber" label is political poison.
Unfortunately, Rudy Giuliani is a proponent of gun control who supported the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapon Ban.
Do Republicans really want to abandon their strong 2nd Amendment stance by selecting a pro-gun control nominee?
Rudy is a charismatic guy who is right on the war and very good at jabbing the press corpse. Too bad he is wrong on Abortion etc. Glad he is on our side.
Pray for W and Our Troops
Will never come to that, but for your answer I'll stay home before I vote for a gun grabber in drag.
Rooty is the worst nightmare conservatives can think of.
A fraud and a phony.
He won't survive the primaries. I would not be surprised if he were to see that ahead of time and withdraw before the first one.
To this point, Rudy is the most scary to Rats. You have to be a New Yorker to know how he ripped them to bits with their sacred liberal cows and he came out smelling better than they did.
When you hear the hatred from the “independent” types like pot smoking lefty loving Bill Maher, you know they are afraid of him.
Having said that, I think Fred Thompson is an even bigger nightmare. Fred is all about winning and knows how to get it done.
If I had to, I would pull the lever for Rudy although I’ve heard he’s not a good guy and the fact your family doesn’t like you is not a good sign. Not too worried about this scenario though. I’m betting/with Fred.
I’m voting for whoever is running against Hillary.
Unfortunately, the same was said about GW in 1999.
(And all I'm pissed about is immigration.)
It will come down to the debates between Fred & Rudy and whoever wins will beat Hillary or Osama-Obama.
Fear the Fred! Yep. X-ring bullseye.
No, He’s the democrats best friend; their “field of dreams” candidate! He’d split the Republican Party (half will NEVER vote for him; me included); and he sure “ISN’T” per his ‘Campaign’s Mantra’: “The ponly one whom can beat Hillary Clinton”!
Comprehensive List of Handguns *NOT* Outlawed by Mayor Rudy Giuliani
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1806614/posts
I despise most liberals. Rudy fits the bill.
I just cannot understand those who say that he’ll beat Hillary so he must be nominated.
Deja vu—Schwarzenegger.
Elect a lib and they will not only govern like one, but they’ll also destroy the party in the process.
I like my enemies in the opposing camp where I can openly oppose them, not undermining from within.
I think Rudy would be the toughest candidate against either of the Dem front runners. And you could be certain that they would not want him in the White House over Hillary or Obama.
no.
fred is.
a democrap-union friend of mine voted
for reagan, and she says
she’ll vote for fred. why?
“because he means what he says.”
now, is that a tv persona or wha’?
Well stated! I am tired of all the Rudy supporters who appear here and pretend they are not Rudy supporters. Have you noticed that?
He certainly is. I believe he is the only Republican who can win if the nation’s current anti-GOP atmosphere stays the same or gets worse. Most Americans are non-ideological but subject to daily anti-Bush/anti-GOP propaganda from a variety of sources, especially the mainstream media. Go down into your own soul and ask yourself if you would rather have another Clinton presidency or if you could hold your nose and vote for Rudi. I am much more conservative than Rudi but I will do just that. I believe another Clinton presidency will be a catastrophe greater than anyone can reckon in today’s context.
I agree with this analysis...
He certainly is. I believe he is the only Republican who can win if the nation’s current anti-GOP atmosphere stays the same or gets worse. Most Americans are non-ideological but subject to daily anti-Bush/anti-GOP propaganda from a variety of sources, especially the mainstream media. Go down into your own soul and ask yourself if you would rather have another Clinton presidency or if you could hold your nose and vote for Rudi. I am much more conservative than Rudi but I will do just that. I believe another Clinton presidency will be a catastrophe greater than anyone can reckon in today’s context.
I agree with this analysis...
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.