...it's not dark yet, but it's gettin' there...

June 20, 2006

Question For You

Half of the reason I write this blog is to sample opinions from a wide variety of really smart people, that's you.

So here's a question I was thinking about today, which I haven't seen addressed anywhere.

Free polls from Pollhost.com
If Giuliani ran against Hillary in '08, who would win New York's 31 electoral votes?
Rudy Giuliani Hillary Clinton   

What do you think?

Posted by annika, Jun. 20, 2006 | TrackBack (0)
Rubric: annikapunditry


The question begs a simple truth. Rudy can not win the nomination. Give me a GOP candidate who can carry the red states. They are our salvation.

Posted by: Casca on Jun. 20, 2006

Okay, assume he wins the nomination. What do you think?

Posted by: annika on Jun. 20, 2006

Can some one explain "why Rudy can't win the nomination?"

The big states - where he would be expected to do well (California, New York, Florida) - have the most delegates. New Hampshire allows independents to vote, so he'll have the early momentum. Every poll conducted in the last four years shows Rudy winning in a landslide. He'll also raise a lot of money early on which would allow him to "survive" the states where he is predicted to not do so well - and again, which states are those, exactly?

And any answer including the phrase "conventional wisdom" will be disregarded.

Posted by: KG on Jun. 20, 2006

It is said Rudy cannot win the nomination b/c he is pro-choice. IMO, this is Dem wishful thinking, and Dem projection of their own rigidity. Pro life people - such as myself, are accustomed to living with pro choice law. Abortion is not the end-all/be-all issue of all time. There are lots of ways to work on saving lives: national defense, crime reduction, reducing auto accidents, reducing heart disease, et al. Abortion ought not be the narrow focus of one's attentions. Such narrow focus persons are properly labeled zealots. We cross the street when they are coming our way.

Red State evangelicals - and I am one, love Giuliani's toughness on national security. We love his seemingly impossible triumph in cleaning up NYC. These things will trump abortion.

The "tolerant" left will make much of Giuliani's history of personal peccadillos. The tolerant left doesn't understand red state evangelicals. We know - as well as anybody, that everyone falls short of the perfect glory of God. Giuliani's personal life will not be an issue. In fact, it is almost a plus. Rudy is wiser for having come through difficulty. It gives him a bit of a grizzled aura - like a Willie Nelson, or like Ann Richards, who came through drug abuse, and emerged wiser and more human for having done so.

Rudy's Catholicism will be a very small issue, because religious bigots make up a very small % of our number.

I would enthusiastically support Rudy Giuliani for POTUS!

Posted by: gcotharn on Jun. 20, 2006

As of this moment, I am the only person casting a vote for Hillary Clinton in your poll.

Assuming that Hillary and Rudy both get their parties nomination - a requirement for the set-up for the question, I am confident that Hillary would edge out Rudy for NY's electoral votes. Both Hillary and Rudy are well regarded in NY, but Hillary plays for the same team as most voters in NY. You would have to have a significant number of defections of Democrats from Hillary to Rudy for Rudy to win. I just don't see that happening in the charged political atmosphere that is NY politics.

Posted by: The Maximum Leader on Jun. 21, 2006

i don't know what the answer is, which is why i asked. But wouldn't most liberals in NYC remember what it was like before Giuliani, when they couldn't ride the subway, or walk in the park after dusk, or get an apartment above the 80's?

Posted by: annika on Jun. 21, 2006

I agree with Gcoth: unless all the polls I've read are completely off - and let's all admit it is very early to give them maximum credence - Rudy is the strongest candidate besides Condi. I would much rather see a seasoned executive who understands national security, and who has actually managed the nation's largest city (is LA bigger now?), than some southern Senator who has been part of the recent wave of disgraceful GOP spending. I hear a lot about Romni, but I think the Mormom-thing is a much bigger anchor than, for example, Catholicism. In my opinion, I think most Evangelicals see Catholics as fellow Christians. This is not the case with Mormoms, who I think they see more like Jehovah's Witnesses i.e. a very different theology. Still, he is an impressive speaker with a lot of presence. Anyway, I'm pulling for Rudy. I want the '08 candidate to be focused on national security and economics rather than abortion or gay-marriage. I know these are important to some conservatives and I respect those feelings; but they are not my issues. I am a little more worried about AQ blowing shit up than about Adam and Steve shacking up.

I voted with ML. In a head-to-head with very strong candidates, I think you have to go with the one whose party controls the state. Still, I have no clue as to NY politics and the intensity of like or dislike for each, so I'm just guessing.

Posted by: blu on Jun. 21, 2006

Rudy got my vote. I'm sure the NY'ers would trust him over Hillary regarding national security issues.

"I want the '08 candidate to be focused on national security and economics rather than abortion or gay-marriage. I know these are important to some conservatives and I respect those feelings; but they are not my issues."

Quoted For Truth, Brother.

Posted by: oreillyat7@yahoo.com on Jun. 21, 2006

Oddly, I disagree with my friend the Maximum Leader. I think the 2000 senate campaign is instructive in why. When Rudy was in the race, Hillary never lead by more than 6 points, and, through most of it, they were running even.

Keep in mind, this was while Giuliani was having a very public affair, his wife was running around in the Vagina Monologues, and finally kicked him out of Gracie Mansion altogether. Also, and people forget this, Rudy couldn't get out of bed in the morning without enraging New York's black population. And she still couldn't gain by more than six. Were it not for the cancer, I still think she would have lost that race.

Remember also that this was 18 months before 9/11. Giuliani has practically been sainted since.

Hillary has only complicated her own position lately. In trying to lock up the nomination, she's moving toward Joe Lieberman's position, which is only antagonizing the left wing of her party - which actually decides the nomination.

If some miracle happens and Hillary wins the nomination, New Yorkers will remember that Rudy, besides being the hero of 9/11, is also pro-choice, pro-gay rights, and pro-gun control. I'm not sure how those positions will play out in the rest of the electoral college, but Rudy's a comfortable choice for New York.

In fact, you could see a general election where Hillary runs to Rudy's right in a craven attempt to peel off a few red states. At least, that's what I'd do. On the other hand, I'm smart and she's not. There's nothing Hillary won't do with a sledgehammer that couldn't better be done with a scalpel.

Posted by: skippystalin on Jun. 21, 2006

Rudy can't win the nomination because primary candidates are elected by the party's true believers, and we are the party of ideas. The Rudy for Prez camp is simply too young to remember Nelson Rockefeller, and ideologically Rudy is the modern iteration. Any moves to win California or NY will only piss on the ardor of the base.

Posted by: Casca on Jun. 21, 2006


You are right about Rockefeller: I don't remember him. What I know about him, I've read. When I do hear other Reps speak of him, it is never good. Bascially, what I know about him is that he was a social and, more importantly, fiscal liberal.

I believe that the Rep party was much more liberal 30 or 40 years ago than it is now. So, even a "moderate" Rep today is unlikely to embrace the fiscal liberalism of a Rockefeller. So, I don't think the comparison between Rockefeller and Guilliani is convincing. Rudy is not viewed as some pansy liberal. He is viewed mostly as a crime fighting mayor, and a guy that showed tremendous leadership after 9/11: He "gets" the GWOT. And that is (or at least ought to be) the most important issue to Reps and "true believers."

Reagan paid his dues to Christian Right by giving religion its due respect (don't fool yourself into thinking Reagan was some big "born again") and its rightful place in the public square; but, his most important role was as the man who took on communism. If Rudy can use this sort of a model (replacing communism with Islamofascism), he has a chance, in my opinion, of winning in Red States.

I hope our party is more interested in the right kind of leadership in a Post-9/11 world than in ideological or religious purity.

Posted by: blu on Jun. 21, 2006

In the words of Chairman Bill (Buckley that is), "One should never argue transubstantiation with an alter boy."

Posted by: Casca on Jun. 21, 2006

While I hate to say it, I think Casca's right. While Rudy would make a great general election candidate, it's not the general election voter who decides who wins the primary. You only have to look as far as California to see that. The Republicans of California would have continued voting for "real" Republicans (who didn't stand a chance of winning the governorship) in the primary for years to come. Arnie got through only by way of the special election.

Rudy G.'s Catholicism has nothing to do with it. His pro-choice and pro-gay leanings--and his tendency to dress in drag on Saturday Night Live--do. And I say this as a pro-choice, pro-gay, drag approving guy. It's just that we don't carry much weight in the primaries.

I'd also have to agree with Maximum Leader that Hillary would take the vote. Skippy Stalin brings up some very interesting points about the last go around, but during the last go around large swaths of New York City (and other parts of the state) weren't gripped in a Bush/Republican hating fury that propels them to the polls lest their heads explode.

Then again, Rudy does have some 9/11 good will still under his belt.

Posted by: JD on Jun. 21, 2006

The last time I checked, "the base" (which, as you might know, is the English for al-Qaeda. Really, it is. Check) isn't all that fond of President Bush, either. However, they used to be, which I can't figure out because he was never much of a Republican. Bush isn't so much a Rockefeller Republican as much as he is a Johnson Democrat. The only exception being that LBJ passed significant, transformative things like the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts. Bush spent a ton of money on No Child Left Behind, which only encouraged the states to lie about homicidal teenagers, and a trillion dollar pharmaceutical giveaway. Oh, I almost forgot, 43 fights wars like Johnson did, too. George W. Bush decries "big government" as he increases its size more than Clinton, Carter and Johnson did combined.

A Rockefeller Republican (without the unfortunate drug laws he passed in New York) might just be a nice change at this point. Frankly, what I'd prefer is a good, old-fashioned Barry Goldwater.

Goldwater was the ideal Republican. He knew that the government that shouldn't get in your 401K should stay out of your pants, as well. He knew what a small government was designed to do, pave roads and kill foreigners. Goldwater couldn't give a shit about abortion and he actually supported gays in the military. And Goldwater's 42 year-old proposal to make Social Security voluntary is STILL more conservative than Bush's illegal scheme to turn it over to Wall Street. If he were alive today, Barry Goldwater would kick President Bush in the balls for calling himself a conservative, compassionate or otherwise.

Rudy Giuliani is, if anything, a Goldwater dressed as a Rockefeller. Yes, he pisses off the Jesus crowd. But the Jesus crowd is pissed off at Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush for not personally assassinating abortionists and re-criminalizing homosexuality regardless of what the Supreme Court and the Constitution says. "The base" is going to be forever furious at whoever the Republican Party elects, because the Republican Party continues to stubbornly insist on electing somewhat practical politicians.

You speak of Rudy's supporters being "too young" to remember the history of the party. Okay, let's explore that history.

Historically, the base of the Republican Party was the Eastern and West Coast business establishments. From time to time, they would win the farm belt and the industrial midwest. Southern Evangelicals - what is currently "the base" - were solidly Democratic before 1972. When they became sufficently annoyed with JFK and LBJ, they voted for George Wallace. Why? Because the Democrats were the "state's rights" party of slavery, segregation and stupidity before then.

Ronald Reagan co-opted the formerly segregationist religious right by taking up the mantle of abortion, knowing that there wasn't much he could do about it. The religious right was also dumb enough to fall for it, despite the fact that Regan had signed the most liberal abortion law in America when he was governor of California.

But the evangelicals fell for it, and they've continued to ever since. Republican presidents have kept proposing silly constitutional amendments on abortion, flag burning and gay marriage that everyone knows will never pass despite Republican majorities in both houses of Congress.

If Evangelicals were halfway smart, or the Republicans were halfway honest, they would just admit that they have a relationship based entirely on lies.

FDR's coalition was based on the civil rights movement in the North, Segreationist South and the union movement. It lasted for a grand total ot forty years, despite the obvious cross-purposes at which they were working. Republicans eventually became adept at exploiting the intellectual schism in the Democratic Party. Who can say that the Democrats won't eventually get just as smart at ruining the Republican internal divisions?

At some point there's going to a Strom Thurmond-style walkout at a Republican convention. I would posit that the sooner that happens, the better. And I think that anyone who values at least SOME honesty in politics, particularly the Evangelicals, would agree.

Posted by: skippystalin on Jun. 21, 2006

Gee skippy, BLAH BLAH rockefella, Blah Blah, Jesus crowd, Blah phukin blah.

My eyes glazed over. There is only one thing Rudy has to do to stay the front runner (besides campaign) and that is to announce he will appoint strict constructionists to the court.
Which by the way he has already done, more or less. He came out in favor of Alito and Roberts (strongly) because they were strict constructionists.
Unlike Skipster, I think most Republicans who are social conservatives understand that the courts are the only thing a president has to do with most of those issues anyway.

Posted by: kyle8 on Jun. 21, 2006

I prefer your ad hominems when they are aimed at Straw. But, hey, I can take it.

I guess we will take up this argument in '07 and then see who the alter boy really is. I'd rather be right than clever.

Posted by: blu on Jun. 21, 2006


Where do you place the rise of the neo-cons in your timeline? Many of the founders of the movement are Jewish and come from the Civil Rights era.

Posted by: blu on Jun. 21, 2006


If you were paying attention, you may have noticed that "strict constructionists on the court" is where the lie between Republicans and conservatives began and ended. Since 1969, Republicans have appointed 13 Supreme Court Justices. The Democrats have appointed a mere two ......... That's right, TWO!

Now, there ARE a couple of possibilities why SCOTUS decisions haven't gone your way. I'll explore them.

1) They made a secret deal with the Mason, communist hordes in the Senate who confirmed them.

2) The ghosts of William O. Douglas, Hugo Black and Earl Warren haunt the conference until the bench gives them the decision they want. C'mon, everyone knows that Republican appointees are afraid of the occult generally and ghosts specifically.

3) Ruth Bader Ginsberg sways the majority by showing a lot of leg.

4) "Strict constructionism" is just another empty platitude that craven politicians throw at easily mislead voters on both sides.

You decide which.

Posted by: skippystalin on Jun. 21, 2006


Thank you for impying, if not actually saying, that I thought Republicans were racist. That's because I never implied or said either. That's not to say that both Republicans and Democrats alike haven't exploited race. You'd have to be a child to believe that either hasn't.

As to the NeoCons, yes, they were mostly from the Civil Rights era. In fact, this because they - Paul Wolfowitz foremost among them - used to be Scoop Jackson Democrats.

As a matter of fact, I don't often use the phrase "NeoCon" because the left has made it to be a cathch prase meaning "filthy Jew." I find the implication distasteful, so I try to avoid it.

But if you were to examine the intellectual foundation of their foreign policy (and really, they haven't weighed in on any other kind of policy), you quickly find that it is based on the same Wilsonian nonsense that the Repubican Party spent nearly a century running away from.

Woodrow Wilson believed that you imposed an artificial democracy on a people (and an imposed democracy is by definition artificial), a Thomas Jefferson will rise from the horde and create a brotherhood of man. This was attempted in the wake of World War I and here's what it created, Yugoslavia and ..... Iraq.

Those countries have been with us in a nasty, un-democratic way ever since. In fact, this generation of Wilsonians believe the same things as the first: if you ask them nicely enough, people who hate each other will become a Coke commercial from 1976 and teach the world to sing in perfect harmony.

The NeoCon movement is what the Salvation Army would be if they were given real guns and a worse attitude.

That has nothing to do with them being Republicans or Jews, but it has a lot to do with them being wrong about virtually everything.

Posted by: skippystalin on Jun. 21, 2006

Heh Blu, I love you, but you're reasoning is jejune here. Besides, an ad hominum attack would be directly personal, i.e. you're a shithead. What I engaged in was elegantly telling you that you're wrong, and I didn't have the time to explain why. Now go in peace.

Posted by: Casca on Jun. 21, 2006

Hey SkipS,

I absolutely was not implying that you were racist. A thousand apologies if I gave that impression. I'll keep an eye on my writing and context because I don't think there are any racists on this site. If there were, we (Left and Right included) would run them off. Hope you believe me and accept my apology.

I mentioned the neo-cons because you left them out. I mentioned the early pioners (e.g. Irving Kristol) were Jewish to contrast them to many on the Right that are Christian - as you noted in your earlier post. Hope that explains what I meant.


Posted by: blu on Jun. 21, 2006

Live long and prosper, Casca. You still make me laugh more than anybody else on the site.

Posted by: blu on Jun. 21, 2006

I just went back and read some of the longer posts. You know, the ones with more than twenty words. "Blah, Blah, Blah" lmao Kyle, tou-fucking-che! BTW, when IS Kick-a-Canadian Day? It MUST be soon!

Posted by: Casca on Jun. 21, 2006