How Electable is Giuliani?
By TomlinsonDouthat Posted in 2008 — Comments (99) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
It is widely understood that, should Rudy Giuliani win the Republican nomination next year, he will alienate some number of the pro-life voters who contributed to President Bush's electoral coalition in 2004. This is certainly true, as it reflects an opinion not uncommonly heard within pro-life circles (the rank and file as well as the leadership), and it comports with polls taken on the matter. It is also generally believed that the loss of such voters would not matter in the electoral calculus, since 1.) these voters reside most commonly in safely Republican states, and 2.) they will be made up for and then some by pro-choice voters drawn into the Republican camp. It is therefore assumed that Giuliani's pro-choice stance will be a net electoral advantage. However, this theory is problematic and deserves much further scrutiny.
While it is true, on average, that pro-life opinion tends to be stronger in states that tilt towards the GOP, it is important to bear in mind that pro-life opinion is found throughout the country, and at levels that can constitute a formidable electoral force, even where pro-lifers on their own cannot muster anything approaching a majority. Even in states that are heavily pro-choice, pro-lifers provide the margin of victory in many elections. And in states where elections are often closely fought, even a small segment of pro-lifers can determine the victor, either by switching their support or by abstaining from the process.
Polls in recent years have given numbers within the range of around 15-35% of the American public as being unwilling to vote for a candidate who disagrees with their position on the abortion issue. (Some of these polls can be found on this page. Similar ones are mentioned here, here, and here.) This is a wide range, but since it is generally acknowledged that pro-lifers are more insistent on their position than pro-choice voters, it would be unwise, in trying to determine how many pro-life votes Giuliani might lose, to dismiss the higher figures within it. Further, we must take into account those more moderate voters for whom opposition to abortion is a net benefit in their decision to support a candidate, and was in their 2004 decision to vote for Bush, but who might be persuaded to vote for a Democrat in the absence of this distinction.
(There is no particular data regarding this latter group, although a clear majority of voters say that abortion is one of many factors that might affect their vote. To account for those voters—moderate overall but drawn to vote for Republicans because of their pro-life stance—it might be convenient to interpret the figures for insistent pro-lifers somewhat generously, giving still more reason to take the higher figures seriously. Note also that the loss of these voters would be doubly dangerous to Giuliani, since these voters would not just sit out or vote for a third party, but might easily vote for the Democrat, such that whatever their actual level of defection from the Republican coalition, their effective level of defection would be as much as twice that.)
It would be wise, then, to look at the effect of numbers throughout this range (and a bit lower, for those inclined to be conservative) and their various effects on the Electoral College. We can do this if we multiply the possible percentage of insistent pro-lifers with the percentage of pro-life opinion within the electorate of the various states (as tabulated here), and then compare this figure with the margin of President Bush's victory over John Kerry in that state in 2004. If the former figure for a given state is larger than the latter, we can consider that state, for the moment, lost to the Democrats, along with its electoral votes. And if the former number is within, say, four points of the latter, we can call this state close, and its electoral votes at risk if there is a higher-than-average proportion of insistent or swingable pro-lifers in this state, or if Giuliani should underperform Bush in other respects.
Such calculations yield the following table of Bush's 2004 states. Various possible levels of effective pro-life defection are considered here. For each scenario, the states that would be lost to the Democratic candidate are colored blue, and those brought to within four points are colored purple. Note that none of these levels of support would prevent Giuliani from winning the Republican nomination, even if they applied to Republican voters as a whole, rather than the somewhat smaller category of pro-lifers. 270 electoral votes are needed to win, and Bush won 286 in 2004.
(This table should only be read impressionistically, due to the multiple margins of error, the unavoidable assumption that the rate of defection will be constant in all states, and other factors. But bear in mind that these factors can work in both directions.)
This, of course, is only the first stage of analysis and does not account for any Kerry voters that Giuliani might gain in these or other states. But this is still a bracing amount of ground for him to have to make up. All but the very lowest rates of defection would probably put Giuliani in an impossible situation, and there is, so far, little evidence to indicate that such a low rate is at all likely.
You will note that the most important factor in these calculations is the closeness of the 2004 results, rather than the level of pro-life opinion. The most pro-life state in the union, Utah, is safely Republican under all scenarios, whereas the least pro-life of Bush's 2004 states, Nevada, is at risk in all of these scenarios, since a very small shift in votes could swing it.
Particularly interesting in this regard are the results for the figures in the middle of the range being considered, from 20-25%, since a striking number of the states at risk here, having voted for Bush in 2004 and (except for Iowa and New Mexico) 2000, went to Clinton in either 1992 or 1996 or both. All but North Carolina and Virginia fit this description. Most of the states on this list also currently have one senator from either party: only North Carolina, Arizona, and Tennessee (a close call only under the 25% figure) currently have two Republican senators. And all these exceptions (Virginia, North Carolina, Arizona, and Tennessee) currently have Democratic governors. In short, all these Bush states have a strong and recent history of voting for Democrats in important statewide elections. These are, according to a strict definition, swing states—the very literal difference between a successful and unsuccessful Republican presidential candidacy. And the scenarios under which these are swung are, in my judgment, the ones most consistent with the available data.
And remember that this table only considers the states that Bush won in 2004. There are pro-lifers in Kerry's states as well, and for Giuliani to lose some percentage of these votes will make poaching any states from the Democrats all the harder.
But what of the pro-choice votes he would gain? One would expect there to be a larger number of pro-choice votes to be gained than pro-life votes lost, since the pro-choice position is somewhat more popular amongst the American public. And one sometimes hears that Giuliani would see particular improvements in certain demographic categories of stereotypically pro-choice voters: suburbanites, women, moderates, and so forth. However, I do not yet know of any publicly available polls that would indicate precisely how much better than Bush, if at all, Giuliani might do among such voters.
We might, though, get some hint of the level of support Giuliani stands to gain if we contemplate just what one would have to believe in order to vote for Giuliani but not to have voted for Bush in 2004. One would have to be pro-choice, of course, but since Giuliani’s Democratic opponent will be pro-choice as well, one would also have to agree, on balance, with the Republican platform over the Democratic platform on foreign policy, economic policy, and other issues besides abortion. This must be the case, since Kerry and all the current Democratic frontrunners are fairly orthodox Democrats, differing from each other mostly on matters of emphasis and political strategy, and since Giuliani has been portraying himself, on issues other than abortion, as a conservative at least as orthodox as Bush—as indeed he must, if he is to have any chance of winning the nomination and retaining the support of a mostly conservative party.
Therefore, those voters who did not vote for Bush but might vote for Giuliani must have made their decision in 2004 on the basis of the abortion issue alone. Whether they decided to vote for Kerry or to sit out the election, there is no other issue that would cause them to behave differently in 2008. Giuliani, then, stands to gain votes over Bush not from the very large group of pro-choice voters as a whole, but from two much smaller subcategories of pro-choice voters: 1.) insistent pro-choice voters who incline towards Republican positions otherwise, and 2.) pro-choice moderates, also with a slight inclination for other Republican positions, and for whom Bush’s pro-life position was the only thing that tipped the balance against him.
The first category is surely very small, since most insistent pro-choice voters are political liberals otherwise. But even with the conservatively inclined subset of this group, we must ask ourselves how many of these would actually pull the lever for Giuliani. These voters must feel very, very strongly about the abortion issue. However, Giuliani has made noises in the campaign so far about appointing strict constructionists like Roberts, Alito, and Scalia—which could mean, in the very likely event that there should be a Supreme Court vacancy on his watch, that he would appoint the Justice that overturns Roe v. Wade. One might harbor doubts that he would actually do such a thing, but there would certainly be no risk of such a thing happening if the Democratic candidate wins the election. Therefore, such voters might feel obligated to vote the same way they did in 2004, even though they largely agree with Giuliani on paper. He cannot count on very many votes from this small category.
The second category presents us with a different problem. These pro-choice moderates are not as insistent on their pro-choice views, but consider abortion alongside other issues in their evaluations of candidates. In 2004, for these voters, it had to be abortion alone that tipped the balance of their judgment against supporting Bush, and they agreed with a slight majority of Bush’s positions otherwise. Today, however, the most prominent of Bush’s 2004 stances has become very unpopular amongst moderates, and this issue is also central to Giuliani’s campaign—the war in Iraq.
Only 20% of independents currently approve of the President’s handling of Iraq (as shown in the CBS News poll of September 14-16, found towards the bottom of this page). Given that only 6% of Democrats from the same poll think likewise, it would be naïve to think that support for the war is any higher than this amongst those moderates that Giuliani might poach from the Kerry electorate. According to all public opinion metrics, the Iraq War is far more unpopular today than it was on Election Day, 2004.
So if we have a moderate, pro-choice voter who was inclined towards the bulk of Bush’s stances in 2004, outside of abortion, he is likely to be far less inclined towards the most prominent of these stances today. If Giuliani had been running in 2004, this voter would probably have voted for him. Today, however, it would seem unlikely that their agreement on other issues would overcome this voter’s probable recent disenchantment with the Iraq War, a position that he would share with the Democratic alternative in addition to abortion and many other issues.
In fact, given the current unpopularity of the war amongst moderates and independents, we may presume that those of these groups who remain in favor of the war held this opinion with particular vigor in 2004, and that they considered this to be a very high priority. If this is the case, and given the respective positions of Bush and Kerry on the matter in that campaign, then we can presume further that they voted for Bush in the first place. Therefore, there would be trivially few of Kerry’s votes for Giuliani to gain amongst pro-choice moderates, things being the way they are now.
Also, consider the fact that Bush’s 2004 result was the strongest electoral showing for a Republican presidential candidate since his father’s election in 1988, and this in an election with particularly high turnout. No one who did not vote for Bush in 2004 can be presumed to have any history of voting for Republican presidential candidates since the end of the Cold War. The voters Giuliani might gain due to his pro-choice stance have spent the last two decades either not voting or voting for the Democrats. To presume that significant numbers of these might change their ways in a political climate trending against the GOP seems excessively hopeful.
In short, while Giuliani’s pro-choice position will certainly cost him some votes, it will be very difficult for him to make up for very many, much less all, of these from the pro-choice electorate. The table above, representing only the effects of pro-life defectors on Giuliani's electoral fate, could very easily resemble his actual electoral fate, the margin of his loss depending solely on the level of pro-lifers’ dissatisfaction with his, but the fact of a loss being certain. As counterintuitive as it might be, given the relative popularity of the pro-choice position, Giuliani's stance on abortion is an electoral handicap.
Giuliani might have other intangible qualities that will convince other voters to make up for this deficit: his charisma, his “leadership abilities,” etc. These may, in fact, account for the fact that he is doing so well in the horserace polls, which usually show him outperforming the other Republican candidates against the Democrats. However, such early polls have historically had little predictive power. In any case, even here he is still underperforming Bush’s results in 2004, and so we cannot be sure that there is any significant portion of his current support that did not also vote for Bush. In order to demonstrate that he has the capacity to swing Kerry (or non-) voters, Giuliani would have to get significantly more than 50% support nationally, which he has not yet done. And there is reason to doubt that these intangible qualities could accomplish this, since most of these are more easily connected to the war than to anything else—when he speaks of "leadership," his ability to push through a budget proposal is not the first thing that will jump to voters' minds—and so Kerry voters will be less impressed by these qualities than Bush voters. And even if he were able to demonstrate the capacity to win over Kerry voters in this way, we could not be confident that this would be enough, and that a significant number of his current, pro-life supporters would not abandon him once they became aware of his pro-choice stance, which many remain unaware of to this day.
Giuliani’s prospects might be improved by a revival in support for the Iraq War, but such an improvement would also apply to his Republican opponents. In fact, this would apply more easily to the other Republicans than for Giuliani, since, for them, support for the war would only have to return to a level that would enable them to recreate the electoral coalition of 2004 or 2000. For Giuliani, on the other hand, support would probably have to rise to a level so high that it would convince significant numbers of those who opposed the war as of 2004 that they were wrong to do so. (And if this were the case, his Democratic opponent would certainly start to sound more hawkish than most Democrats are sounding today, making Giuliani's task all the more difficult.)
The prudent course for Giuliani would be to do everything he can to reach out to pro-lifers and minimize their rate of defection. He may not be able to change his position entirely, nor would he want to, but there are many things he can do to convince some of the most insistent pro-lifers that it is in their interest to support him—promising to veto the Freedom of Choice Act, for instance, and making a serious and explicit effort to convince pro-life voters that he is sincere when he promises to appoint strict constructionists, even if that would mean the reversal of Roe v. Wade. Also, he could promise to work with pro-lifers to come up with a wording of the abortion plank in the party platform that would be acceptable both to him and to them, and which might be more achievable, to boot—perhaps backing an amendment simply stating that the Constitution is silent on abortion. Efforts like his commitment to promote adoption, however, will not be sufficient to persuade the voters he needs to persuade, especially considering that the Democrats can easily outbid him on this if it should become convenient for them to do so (as it surely will). He needs to do much, much more than this. (And declining the label “effectively pro-life” is a step in the wrong direction.)
Such actions as he might take would not convince all pro-lifers, but it could reduce their rate of defection significantly and position him better to take advantage of other electoral opportunities. And the time for him to do this is now, when such an appeal would not complicate his efforts to woo pro-choice independents in the general election, and when time remains for the long process of building trust.
And the prudent course for Republican primary voters is to disabuse themselves of any confidence that Giuliani is particularly electable if he does not take such measures.
You should've seen the first draft!
You say:
I'm not totally convinced that pro-lifers will not vote for Guiliani when the chips are down and they are looking at the possibility of a Hillary Clinton presidency.
But I think that's the answer to the wrong question. It's almost certain that most pro-lifers would support Giuliani in the general election, if he were to win the nomination. But it's just as certain that a significant minority won't, and there's a lot of evidence to back this up. The most important question here is how many pro-lifers would defect, and all the evidence I see indicates that it would be enough to severely affect Giuliani's prospects.
I agree, though, that Giuliani needs to paint himself as "effectively pro-life," but just this week he explicitly declined to do so, as per one of my links above.
I like to deal with rightists. They say what they really think—not like the leftists, who say one thing and mean another. — Mao Tse-tung
But it's just as certain that a significant minority [of pro-lifers] won't [vote for Giuliani over Clinton], and there's a lot of evidence to back this up.
Both clauses are flat wrong. The minority would be too tiny to matter, and you have no credible evidence for your proposition.
If someone tries to convince me to give him my wallet by threatening to blow up both of us, I'll promptly hand it over if I think there's even a small chance he's an insane idiot. If on the other hand I'm confident he's marginally sane and has at least a 2-digit IQ, I'll laugh at him and go on my way; he could rationally make that irrational threat hoping I'll fall for his bluff, but I'll know it's a bluff if I know he's sane.
I don't believe for a second that more than a trivial portion of social conservatives are irrational, even though I disagree with them on some issues. In states where the election isn't in doubt, I wouldn't be surprised if a significant number of them voted for a joke candidate to express their disapproval of Giuliani. In states where the election is likely to be close, no significant number of social conservatives will throw away their votes believing that letting Clinton pack the court with a few more Ginsburgs is no worse than what they would get from Giuliani. That's even before considering how many could in good conscience trash their soldiers, by inflicting Hillary on them as their Commander in Chief.
What everybody knows about Giuliani, whether or not they believe his endorsement of strict constructionists in general and Scalia in particular, is that Giuliani is firmly committed to winning the GWOT. The last thing Giuliani wants is judges who will invent rights for illegal combatants, e.g. an attorney during interrogation. Appointing strict constructionists is Giuliani's only dependable way to prevent such rulings, and that works against Roe v. Wade whether or not Giuliani cares about Roe.
I have a higher opinion of social conservatives' rationality than you apparently do. It's perfectly rational for them to try to nominate someone other than Giuliani that they have confidence in; given their numbers that's why I think it's more likely that Giuliani won't be the nominee. It's also perfectly rational for social conservatives to try to convince other Republicans to oppose Giuliani's nomination, by bluffing that they would be just as happy with Clinton in the White House as with Giuliani. What would be irrational is actual following through on that bluff if Giuliani is nominated, and I know the number of social conservatives who are that irrational is too few to worry about.
With respect to both clauses, in fact.
Well, I suppose we actually agree with respect to the rationality of social conservatives, as well as (I presume) most other voters. Where we disagree is on the point of whether it would be rational for a social conservative or a pro-lifer (there's a great deal of overlap in these categories, of course, but I think the distinction might have particular relevance here) to oppose Giuliani should he be nominated. I think that it might be rational—and perhaps even advisable, depending on how things fall out. However, the full case for this, as I would make it, is a little complicated and still in my "drafts" file. I'll get to work on it this weekend, and hopefully post it next week. I look forward to seeing what holes you can poke in my reasoning (if any!).
But on the question of how many pro-life voters might defect from the party under a Giuliani candidacy, I will simply note that I am just going by the polls. As I noted above, there's a fairly wide range of results, but the question has been asked fairly frequently, and the results are always more than trivial. It could very well turn out that these are wrong: polls often are, even multiple ones. But it seems to me foolhardy to assume that they are wrong, which I think is a requirement for the argument for Giuliani's superior electability.
I like to deal with rightists. They say what they really think—not like the leftists, who say one thing and mean another. — Mao Tse-tung
One pretty picture that shows the relative EV counts in your various scenarios would make all the difference, heh.
I couldn't get the colors quite right, but I trust the point gets across.
(And thanks, by the way, for the recommend.)
I like to deal with rightists. They say what they really think—not like the leftists, who say one thing and mean another. — Mao Tse-tung
Although I'm as pro-life as they come, I still believe Rudy is our best chance to avoid a President Hillary in what promises to be a tough year. I'm with "St. Louis Conservative"--if Rudy is the nominee, pro-lifers will vote for Rudy to prevent a President Hillary. Pro-lifers know that a President cannot, by himself, ban abortion or overturn Roe v. Wade--all he can do is appoint a SCOTUS justice who will join Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito in overturning Roe v. Wade. Pro-lifers who may hesitate about Rudy should think about whom Hillary would appoint to SCOTUS if elected, and the choice should be easy.
Giuliani certainly has "issues" and "baggage" in his past, but on "law and order" issues he can be trusted--he's a former prosecutor who was highly effective against the Mafia, despite his Italian surname.
Giuliani also has an advantage in this election that many conservatives overlook. As mayor of a heavily Democrat city, he has made his points confronted by a hostile press (one of President Bush's worst failures), and Giuliani is "street-smart" and appeals to urban voters. In 2000 and 2004, Democrats have won 80% or more of the vote in large cities, and Republicans are hard-pressed to win by large enough margins in suburbs and rural areas to balance lopsided losses in cities to win states. If Giuliani could reduce the damage in big cities (such as "only" losing 65-35 or 60-40), he could pick off states that other Republicans would lose, such as Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Michigan, and Wisconsin.
Despite some positions that rankle the "conservative base", Rudy seems to be our best candidate for 2008.
The bad news: Conservatism is hard to sell. The good news is that it works.
Pro-lifers know that a President cannot, by himself, ban abortion or overturn Roe v. Wade--all he can do is appoint a SCOTUS justice who will join Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito in overturning Roe v. Wade.
Indeed, that's about all that he can do, but what would Giuliani do? If you believe that he's going to appoint another Scalia, then it's all good. But if your expectation is that he'll appoint another Anthony Kennedy, at best, then, as far as the abortion issue stands, Giuliani would be no better than Clinton or any other Democrat.
Giuliani has to convince those pro-lifers who are skeptical of his intentions that he would appoint a Scalia rather than a Kennedy. He's already convinced a large number of pro-lifers that he would, but I don't think these are enough for him to be secure with respect to the party base.
Pro-lifers who may hesitate about Rudy should think about whom Hillary would appoint to SCOTUS if elected, and the choice should be easy.
But if a pro-lifer is convinced that Giuliani will only be appointing Kennedys, then it's six of one, a half-dozen of the other. In fact, given this presumption, it would be more convenient for the pro-life cause for the Democrat to be elected in 2008, so that there would be a pro-life nominee for the GOP in 2012, whereas, if Giuliani were elected in 2008, no progress could be made in overturning Roe until after the 2016 elections.
You might be right that Giuliani's urban experience will give him an edge in other urban areas. It's an intriguing theory. But I doubt that this would be enough to make up for anything but a trivial rate of defection on the part of pro-lifers.
I like to deal with rightists. They say what they really think—not like the leftists, who say one thing and mean another. — Mao Tse-tung
Pro-lifers know that a President can lift the ban on Federal funding of abortions in foreign countries, and lift the ban on performing abortions in US military hospitals. They know it because Bill Clinton lifted them immediately on taking office. George W Bush reimposed the bans immediately on taking office.
Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.
I should have been more clear and said that appointing Justices is the most important thing that a President can do, rather than "about all."
I like to deal with rightists. They say what they really think—not like the leftists, who say one thing and mean another. — Mao Tse-tung
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
I like to deal with rightists. They say what they really think—not like the leftists, who say one thing and mean another. — Mao Tse-tung
The chart is so wrong that it is useless.
The states are likely to be MUCH different in a race with Rudy. That is what all the state level polls show.
You can find a bunch of recent and informative state general election polls here. It breaks down pro-life percentages in the crosstabs for each state. Rasmussen's website makes other state polls available but doesn't provide crosstabs.
However, given that 60 percent or more of Republicans (and more of the electorate in general) are unaware of Rudy's position, and 27% of Republicans would vote third party if there was one, I'm not sure it tells anything.
Right now, Arkansas, Florida, Virginia, New Mexico, Iowa and Missouri would likely go to Hillary with any Republican. That's 69 electoral votes. If we add Washington state, Oregon, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, that would be 54. Even if those were the only states that changed from 2004, Rudy would win by a mere 4 electoral votes.
Let me also add that the pro-life percentages from SurveyUSA in the chart are polls for mid-2005 among adults. It doesn't account for registered voters, much less those who voted in 2004. It's also got a pretty hefty margin of error and some very significant variations over time. More recent SurveyUSA state polls on other issues and people (many limited to registered voters) prove it.
Is the chart useless because it contradicts current state-by-state horserace polls? It does, but you seem to doubt them also, and for much the same reasons that I do.
Is it just that the SurveyUSA numbers are a bit old and not Rasmussen-like in their screening? I can only say that this was the best and most recent complete set of state-by-state numbers I could find, and that they don't seem unreasonable relative to other polls on the matter—just a little on the conservative side, but I don't think that that's a bad thing. If you have a better set of numbers, it would be easy enough to run them, and I, for one, would be interested in seeing the results.
I like to deal with rightists. They say what they really think—not like the leftists, who say one thing and mean another. — Mao Tse-tung
Interestingly enough, the 2004 exit polls do not include that statistic since apparently the polling organizations decided not to ask it. SurveyUSA does give the breakdown for "likely voters" for some of the states in polls a few days before the 2004 election. The percent identifying as "pro-life" are:
AR 56
AZ 40
CO 38
FL 41
GA 48
IA 46
IN 52
KS 47
KY 56
MO 50
NC 45
NV 36
OH 45
OK 51
SC 51
TN 59
VA 39
In the 2008 race, I still feel based on many different polls that VA, AR, and MO will go to Hillary no matter which of the top four she runs against.
I'm guessing 20 years ago you'd be handing a bunch of states to Mike Dukakis, based on similar polling, too... :-)
simply must be armed with a poll that tells them what is and what will be. Linus's blanket I guess. These people are finger in the wind followers.
I'm into making the wind blow my way.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
It looks like these numbers are giving about four or five extra points to the pro-life side, as against the numbers I used. This sounds reasonable, and is well within the usual range of the national results on the question. This would probably swing an extra state or two away from Giuliani under each scenario.
I think there's reason to hold some hope for the three states you list. Candidate polls are always more volatile than issues polls. And consider that the Senate seats in Missouri and Virginia were only barely lost in a very bad Republican year, and by candidates who were charismatically challenged and gaffe-prone, respectively. You're right, though, that they'll definitely be on Hillary's target list, and she'd be able to make a very strong run there.
You assume that pro-lifers are really stupid.
If Giuliani had pledged to appoint Justices like Alito and Scalia -- and Hillary will appoint more Ruth Bader Gnsbergs -- then that sets an automatic pro-life agenda, with the courts leading the way.
A Hillary presidency would do the opposite.
Do you really assume we pro-lifers are this stupid? I argue with your entire premise.
one issue, deserves what they get.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Good post. As you've said it's very hard to determine how many pro-lifers will bolt if Rudy is the nominee, but your analysis is more scientific than any other I've seen. Just from talking to people I don't think the number will be insignificant. I think Rudy will have major problems with two groups of pro-lifers:
1.) generally politically uninvolved evangelicals. People who are very religious but mostly uninterested in politics, especially political issues besides abortion and same-sex marriage. Bush and Rove managed to get them to the polls in 04 because of a combination on Bush's pro-life position and personal Christianity, but in most elections they've sat out and they'll sit out a Rudy/Hillary contest.
2.) "social justice Catholics" -- Catholics who are economically liberal (and more liberal on foreign policy) but who held their noses and voted Bush in 00 and 04 almost solely because of his stance on abortion. These people are in danger of not just sitting out, but switching parties.
A majority of evangelicals are politically involved and Catholics who vote Republican tend to do so for other reasons besides just abortion. Nevertheless, I think both of these groups constitute significant numbers. I don't have any polls like you -- this is just based on conversations I've had with people, religious forums I've been to, and the like.
In a discussion about Rudy's electability it should also be noted that in every recent poll he looses to Hillary in the general election. McCain also loses but does at least as well as Rudy. Romney and Thompson do worse but they have less name recognition.
When we talk about electoral politics I think we often tend to forget that, to take a page from Soylent Green, polls are made of people. The people we meet on a day-to-day basis are likely to have some sort of a relationship to the electorate at large—not necessarily as the majority on any particular matter, but probably as representative of some significantly larger group, in some way.
I think the two groups you highlight are definitely important factors, and I suspect that there might be other groups as well that we aren't used to talking about. Consider the fact that only around a quarter to a third of Americans usually self-identify as conservatives or Republicans, but around 40-45% of Americans usually self-identify as being pro-life. That's a pretty significant disparity, especially considering that there are plenty of conservatives and Republicans in good standing who happen to be pro-choice. Multiply that disparity over the electorate at large, and you've got a heck of a lot of people who don't quite fit into our usual stereotypes of voting groups.
I like to deal with rightists. They say what they really think—not like the leftists, who say one thing and mean another. — Mao Tse-tung
to mollify anti-abortion sector of electorate is to pick a VP running mate who is anti-abortion. Do you think that will help?
Could be. I don't think he has any choice but to pick a pro-life running mate, since for him to pick a pro-choice running mate would inevitably be interpreted as a slap in the face of pro-lifers. But I don't think that just any run-of-the-mill pro-life running mate would help him get any votes he wouldn't be getting anyhow. To make a difference, he would have to choose a pro-life leader—somebody like Brownback, Santorum, or Rep. Chris Smith. Jim Geraghty talked about this prospect today, and offers a plausible scenario as to how that could play out to Giuliani's benefit.
But on the other hand, since the choice of a running mate is largely a symbolic matter, both parties can play at that game. There are a number of pro-life Democrats (actually pro-life, not just pro-life in the fake Harry Reid sense) who would make very attractive vice-presidential candidates. John Breaux would probably be first on this particular list. A lot of strongly pro-choice Democrats would be upset by this, but I suspect that most would understand it as an effort to fracture the base of the GOP and thereby nullify the influence of the pro-life movement. A lot of pro-lifers would understand this as well, of course, but those with inclinations towards Democratic policy otherwise might give the gesture more weight, with further electoral consequences.
I doubt this would actually happen, but it's something to think about.
Dems won't nominate a pro-life VP candidate. Gore was supposedly pro-life but when Clinton tapped him he ran as strongly pro-choice.
I think you're right though that he'd need to pick a pro-life leader like Brownback or Huckabee if it's to make a difference. And if he does this he runs the risk of annoting pro-choicers who are possible Republican converts. These people might think Rudy's pro-abortion stance isn't sincere since he's plainly pandering to evangelicals and that he'll cave into the social cons on judges.
I don't think it's likely that the Democrats would nominate a pro-lifer as VP. However, I have found in inadvisable to underestimate the cynicism of politicians, especially if they are running for President, particularly if they are Democrats, and above all if their surname is Clinton.
(At least over the past century-and-a-half or so. No offense intended towards the legacy of DeWitt Clinton or to any presidents named Polk.)
and their working so hard to rationalize helping Clintons to get elected to office?
My wife and I listen to Dr. Dobson daily. We are very pro-life.
But to assure the election of a Clinton, who willl use litmus testing on abortion, who will veto abortion reform, who hates our military, who uses their office to silent critics, is troubling to say the least.
Frankly if Dr. Dobson cannot tell the difference between Rudy and Hillary it makes me doubt his abilities in other areas of thought as well.
More vital to the 08 election is not who will sit out or change their vote, but who will sit on their hands or their wallets next year in protest of a Rudy nomination. Strongly pro-life voters are also very activist campaigners. Rudy would need to work very hard to motivate these people or to make up for the lack of their enthusiasm that even W enjoyed.
That's important, too. I think Jim Geraghty at NRO did an informal poll of Republican activists a while back, implying that activists might defect at even greater rates than the ones I discuss above, IIRC.
Something else to consider: the defection of voters and activists in states that have been safely Republican might force the Giuliani campaign to use up financial resources to defend these states, leaving him with less money to contest the usual swing states and poach states from the Democrats. Any of the other candidates would be able to use their resources more efficiently, not having this set of problems.
I like to deal with rightists. They say what they really think—not like the leftists, who say one thing and mean another. — Mao Tse-tung
And the defection rate in that regard would be higher. If he can't motivate the base to work to get him elected Rudy won't be able to compete against the highly active liberal moveon.org, antiwar base that Hillary will have in her pocket.
27% of Republicans Would Vote for Pro-Life Third Party Instead of Giuliani
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/27_of_republican...
I believe Rudy will split the party. If the party splits, Rudy is unelectable. If you want Hillary to be president, then suppport Rudy in the primary.
Dobson's op-ed on this issue.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/opinion/04dobson.html?ref=opinion
Anyone who believes Christians will all vote for and support Rudy just like any other Republican candidate frankly have their heads in the sand.
he WILL make promises not to expand the pro abortion state of the law as it stands now, and will appoint judges that could reverse Roe. He will not say that he will appoint judges that would, but given the Bork fed-soc bench, he would probably appoint a justice that would reverse Roe by mistake.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
He's already made a promise to appoint judges who could reverse Roe, but in terms that, so far, leave a lot of pro-lifers unconvinced that Roe would actually get overturned, whether intentionally or by mistake. There are a number of things that he could say to make his promise more convincing, and I think his political prospects would be greatly improved if he said them.
I like to deal with rightists. They say what they really think—not like the leftists, who say one thing and mean another. — Mao Tse-tung
lawyer, he insults my intelligence when he refuses to admit what ALL lawyers know: Roe was a joke.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
You'd think he'd at least be able to go that far.
I like to deal with rightists. They say what they really think—not like the leftists, who say one thing and mean another. — Mao Tse-tung
He actually once believed it should be overruled. Since that was back in the 80's, I suppose Casey changed him.
I don't know how many lawyers perceive Roe as having been overruled sub silentio with Casey (though I know some do), but I can't help but wonder if lawyers also find Casey to be as much of a joke. You'd think at some point, someone would have criticized O'Connor's incessant making of tests that continue to confuse people today.
on same.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
and I'm awake at this Godawful hour, I feel like an argument.
Perhaps Guliani is being too lawyerly about this subject. It is very hard for me to see any successful prosecutor accepting judges that are "outcome driven," the less ideological form of "living document" thinking, or who openly espouse "living document" thinking like the more liberal law professors do. Prosecutors NEED predictability in legal decision making. The squishy "living document" types don't give you firm enough ground to stand on as you structure charges and develop your case theory and presentation strategy. It's the defense that needs those types so they can come up with some theory that might make one moron with a driver's license develop a doubt.
It isn't at all difficult for me to understand how a conservative or "constructionist" judge would conclude that while Roe is not well reasoned, an outright reversal would be very disruptive of now over thirty years of precedent and statutory enactments. This is where the tension over stare decisis comes into play.
Just at the political level, Guliani taking a position today that he advocates overturning Roe and would appoint judges who would do so, would turn him into the greatest lightening rod in America, and should he become President after taking that position would make each and every judicial appointment an armageddon battle with the Left. Consequently, he takes a much more nuanced position.
This is where I have my political quarrels with the adamant pro-life advocates. In much of the Country, an outright overturn Roe stance is political death, but, likewise, in much of the Country, serious, meaningful restrictions on abortion are both politically possible and legally possible under Roe and, especially, its progeny, e.g., parental notification or consent with judicial override, third party transportation, transportation across state lines, restrictions on second and third term abortions, banning "partial birth" abortions, etc.
The all or nothing position on Roe that many on the pro-life side demand is politically impossible in most of the Country. Whether or not Roe is good law, and I, like you, believe that it is not, it has been the law for over thirty years now and that law is built into our society. I don't believe that stare decisis should offer any sort of blanket protection to bad law, but it certainly should cause any judge to pause and give thoughtful consideration to changing law that has become built into the assumptions of a whole society.
I know that there are some in our society who hold that on religious or moral grounds, abortion is never permissible and are willing to live by that moral or religious conviction. There are many more, and I number myself among them, whose belief that abortion is a moral wrong is not so absolute that I would not seek an abortion for my fifteen year old daughter and then take up the discussion with God. (And I thank God that I've now made it to a place in life where I don't have to face that decision anymore.)
Your thoughts?
BTW, I tried my hand on the defense side for the first time ever a couple of weeks ago. Took a case for a union trying to get a correctional officer's job back. Unfortunately, he was guilty as sin and there was no way to deny, minimize, or nuance the conduct. So, I went for the liberal arbitrator and tried to show that the employer had no history of dismissal for such conduct, so the arbitrator should set aside the dismissal and impose lesser discipline. Arbitrator took about three pages to hand me my head and send my client the bill for it! My only question is why couldn't I get him to rule like that when I was on the other side?!!!
In Vino Veritas
were wrongly decided. Presidents should pick judges that are driven to reaching constitutional outcomes. Their oath demands it. The Constitution is a contract between We the People and the government we formed. Judges are umpires. The Constitution is not a riddle on this issue.
As to stare decisis, nothing is more disruptive than the usurpation of the right to self government, for which blood was shed, by 5 lawyers.
Dred Scott and Plessey were disruptive. The 13th Amendment and Brown were corrective.
The fallacy in your argument is that surely Rudy would answer questions regarding whether he would pick a judge that questions Brown. Rudy has said the eminent domain case was wrongly decided.
I don't think Rudy should extract a promise from a judge that he would overturn Roe and Casey. I do think he should say that he would expect a judge to follow his oath to uphold the Constitution, and that the judges that ruled in the majorities in Roe and Casey didn't do that.
He should explain that if these decisions are overturned that then states would get to decide the law and that he would vote pro-choice as citizen of NY.
more later
just warming up
I will address the political concerns as well
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
any abortions as a practical matter, Ac. The partial birth abortion ban was great but all it really did was ban a procedure, not restrict the right.
I don't deny the necessity of continuity in the law and stare decisis, but when it comes to clear violations of the Constitution, I, like Bork and Thomas, believe its application is a violation of the constitution itself.
The point is that courts should not be making abortion policy. Its up to people in states.
On that matter, while I would favor a federal const amendment banning abortion except to save the mother's life, I recognize that it couldn't pass and also recognize that reaching agreement on the parameters of a "health" exception for the nation is not practical. So I favor returning it to the states.
Within a state, I would compromise to get a bill, so long as it s only exception was life of the mother or serious physical injury. I would not favor a rape exception as it could be turned into a vehicle for abortion on demand.
more later
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Now you sound like the liberals.
Neither Roe nor Casey allowed any restrictions. Parental notice, waiting periods, informed consent, and even "partial birth" abortion "bans" are worthless, unenforceable, and do nothing to reduce abortions. The core provision blocks ANY restrictions.
The court should NOT give consideration to public opinion. Besides, the only reason people panic at the thought of Roe being overruled is because they haven't got a clue how extreme it is. They don't know what it did or what reversing it would do. Over two thirds of the nation want second trimester abortion banned. Even more want third trimester abortion banned. Under Roe, Doe, and Casey, states cannot do that.
Overruling it would not create the problems you claim. Everything would stay the same everywhere until the state's legislature changed it. The state that brought the case to court would enact its law, and the few states with trigger laws would have one ready to enact. Most states probably would not change much.
Roe never WAS "law" as you claim because it is not for the judiciary to make laws. It never was in the Constitution or statute; it is NOT "law." No judge should "carefully consider" before overruling it. That is ridiculous! Who gives a fig about the "assumptions of society?!" That's NOT something a court should consider! If they did, they would be acting outside their role and in that of legislator. You care that people "assume" they can perform an abortion or easily access one in all states?! That's sick!
As I've said, I think it is bizarre to oppose abortion's legality on religious or personal belief. We don't oppose infanticide on those grounds, and abortion should be considered no differently. It kills an innocent human being, often through cruel and violent means, an act that cannot be justified by anything other than imminent danger to one's own life. It is NOT personal!
I'm also sorry to hear that you would want your grandchild murdered and slaughtered for causing your daughter emotional and/or physical pain.
I don't give a damn what you think. As to your foolish notion that a USSC ruling isn't "law" try that one if you ever need a legal defense. I've read enough of your rantings here that I'll not bother with any further response as trying to teach a pig to sing frustrates me and irritates the pig.
In Vino Veritas
as to stare decisis. I suspect that when Roe and casey are reversed, that the court may pull a Brown "all deliberate speed" clause or more likely, have Roe remain in effect for a set number of years.
I really don't thing religious beleif is crucial in the abortion issue unless it gets down to "intrinsic" value. Biology is the key.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
There are many different ideas of what constitutes overturning a prior ruling. On this issue, there are several possibilities.
I am assuming we mean here simply returning the issue to the states. However, I don't see how there could be any difficulty or confusion or lack of clarity with that, which would be a simple matter.
Edith Jones laid out a scenario in Norma McCorvey's case. 49 of the 50 states have devised some kind of law post-Roe that implicitly legalized abortion. The state whose law was being challenged before the court would now have a clear law. The few states with trigger laws would as well. The others would keep their current laws until their legislatures chose to enact new ones. Ironically, Vermont would be the only state with a problem.
Now if the court were to declare the unborn persons for fourteenth amendment purposes, then we would have a great deal of confusion, instability, and chaos. That is not what I am arguing for right now.
There are also modifications that could be made to Roe's central holding that would merely allow restrictions that most people did support. Allowing states to set gestational limits would be one. Eliminating "mental health" exceptions would be another. Viability is really an unworkable and meaningless standard that would be a perfect portion to overrule if the whole thing could not go. It's really not much different from the trimester framework O'Connor dropped in Casey. Another possibility is hospital-only requirements (even if for second trimester abortions only). All of those would be reasonable and workable compromises in tune with public acceptance and the laws from the other countries that so many justices seem to like. If there existed any state politicians who favored those approaches (rather than simply all-or-nothing), they might have a better chance. It is odd that almost no politician who favors abortion also favors all the restrictions that most people do. I guess that is true of a lot of other issues too though.
I disagree though that either Roe or Casey has become a part of society, and I don't think overruling would have much practical effect. A lot of women already drive out-of-state anyway. There are states where second trimester abortion is not even available. Some states have to fly in abortionists from other states to their lone facility. The biggest consequence would be the NARAL activists and NOW protesters.
yes, i suppose pro-lifers should be happy that Rudy promises not to expand abortion rights. We only have just about the most liberal abortion laws in the world -- far worse than most European countries -- why would we actually want to make any progress in the next several years? Only a few million more will die.
I don't think he'll appoint jiudges that overturn Roe "by mistake." Conservatives seem to think that judges are either strict constructionists or living document types but most judges fit into neither catergory (see Kennedy and O'Connor for example). Rudy will have no trouble finding judges that are tough on national security and socially moderate or liberal. I expect his judges to be more like Alberto Gonzales than Sam Alito.
The fact that he "promised" to appoint strict constructionists doesn't convince me. Even more honest politicians mislead people. Bush opposed campaign finance and then signed it into law. Naturally Rudy's saying what he feels he has to to get elected in a GOP primary. He knows he can't abandon his pro-choice position because he'd be skewered in a general elction for such a blatant flip flop. He's maintaining his pro-abortion stand while trying to wink at conservatives that he'll effectively be pro-life. I'm not buying it.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
the aging libs on the court would be unlikely to just retire right away under a Rudy presidency. And If he did appoint a Kennedy type, it would be at least a glass half full.
But under Hillary, you can bet we would get at least three, young, healthy, Ginsburg types!
So go ahead and fight for your own nominee in the primaries, but if Rudy comes out on top don't cut off your own nose.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
to react eventually, but the overwhelming majority of evangelicals are not going to allow Hillary to be preident.
period
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
If its Giuliani vs. Hill
Rassmussen's latest
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/27_of_republican...
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
it gives Republicans plenty of time to illustrate how stupid Dobson's idea of voting a third party really is. Unfortunately, my own experience is that there are way too many Christians who will not think for themselves and will buy into Dobson's lunacy.
The biggest disservice Dobson has done is to tell Christians that they need to vote their conscience in the general election in an all or nothing manner. The idea that they can't vote for a candidate unless he is 100% pro-life is a totally stupid, ignorant, wrong headed, naive proposal. Unfortunately, too many non-thinking Christians will hear the word "conscience" and agree that they can't violate their conscience. By taking a generally accepted idea about the inviolate conscience and misapplying it to an either/or election scenario Dobson is engaging in the worst form of sophistry.
Maybe Dobson himself should run for President and see if the electorate will recognize his superior policy ideas!!!!!
After all it was a humbling enough experience for Pat Robertson maybe now its Dobson's turn for some humility.
And yes that is how I really feel about it!!!
so I guess you can't relate.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
I know you're a Christian thinker and I agree with your earlier comments. However, when I talk to average Christians at church who are not politically active and minimally aware it is scary how so many look to someone else like Dobson or their pastor to guide them in their thinking.
Reread my comment and you will see that my concern is that more than we want will follow Dobson in his wayward train of thought and that is why I am angry at him right now.
a repub with the msm writing stories about what "leaders" say 13 months out.
It means NOTHING.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
My other point is that we are early enough in the cycle to argue against Dobson-think. I have seen some very good comments and posts on the subject at RS so far.
I believe Dobson is smart enough to know that voting third party will insure a Democratic victory. Remember how the votes for Nader in Florida helped Bush win the election.
So while I believe Dobson has some other political calculus at work his followers and some unsophisticated Christians will take his words at face value. That is my complaint against him. He is leading irresponsibly.
1980 there is no more loyal gop voters than christians. One source of comfort for you should be the fact that the overwhelming majority of them are hawks on defense.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Torrant, you deserve a more complete response. But remember, Its Oct 2007. That fact overrides everything.
1 - No reason to be mad at Dobson. He owes you and I nothing with respect to the republican party. Wanna be mad? Be mad at Newt's msm punditry telling us Hillary is going to win.
2 - Dobson's statements will probably have the effect of making us stronger in 2008. It will probably cause Rudy to concentrate his mind on what party he is asking to represent and what promises he needs to make.
3 - The minds of voters, incl Christians will get concentrated when there is clear choice next fall, and Christians are not going to give the dems the power to put their out of the womb children at risk.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
I also am disturbed by Newt's confidence in Hillary's electability. When I heard him I got the impression he was saying that as a rebuke to the kind of campaigns the Repubs have been running to date. Specifically, I think he was showing his unhappiness with Thompson's announcement on Leno, failure to show in New Hampshire and slowness in announcing. If he was really happy with Thompson he wouldn't have made the whole 30 million dollar announcement.
I guess I have had so many disheartening discussions with my fellow Christians about politics that I am sometimes pessimistic about their ability to think clearly and see the big picture.
A friend of mine is a liberal lefty Christian and it is amazing how irrational and uninformed she is.
Anyway keep up the good work.
a month or so out from election days. When Americans get focused on the choice between a lib and a conservative, esp during war, they choose the repub.
And Newt would better serve the cause by playing advocate that pundit.
All the air time he spends predicting and bemoaning the past would better be used recounting Hillary's socialist and unpatriotic statements and contrasting same with our candidates' statements.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
I think Newt is setting himself up to run against Hillary in 2012.
That does not show that he has a lot of confidence in our current stock of candidates. Frankly I agree with Newt, I don't have much confidence either as all of our guys seem unelectable to me for one reason or another, I don't really have much of a passion for any of the front runners..
I don't know maybe I'm just pessimistic today..
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Yeah, I just.. Thompson is not doing very well and I don't have a lot of hope for anyone else.
I'm voting for sure, but I think we are going to loose, I think Newt is right.
Fred is leading or w/i the margin of error in the polls. That is doing well.
Don't let msm talking heads trick you into playing the expectations game to determine "doing well."
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
He has flopped in my eyes, and it isn't a trick by the media. The guy just isn't that impressive to me. I think for the most part he is a less passionate McCain with a different immigration position. For a guy that has seemingly all the right position in regards to the base, he is still trailing a pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-gun control, New Yorker. I think he is at least slow out of the gate.
-My policy positions-
Non-Interventionist.
Unrestricted Free Trade.
Abolish the Fed.
Abolish IRS and use Sales Tax.
Privatize Social Security.
Government out of marriage.
Pro-Choice.
No Amnesty.
to see what those who are rooting for a Republican loss to see who THEY attack. The candidates who the opposition attack the most are the ones they fear the most!
I think he could pull it out.
-My policy positions-
Non-Interventionist.
Unrestricted Free Trade.
Abolish the Fed.
Abolish IRS and use Sales Tax.
Privatize Social Security.
Government out of marriage.
Pro-Choice.
No Amnesty.
to hold his tongue on talking down his own party's prospects
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
You can dismiss me as a minority opinion if you want, but I'm one who won't vote for Rudy or any other candidate who won't come out four-square to support conservative social values. It's not just pro-life, it's defense of marriage, anti-hate-crime, etc, etc.
And none of this mealy-mouthed "I'll nominate originalist constructionist super dee duper dee hoopers." He's got no cred on this issue, which means he's got to convince Dobson or somebody else we trust that he'll really do it.
Sooner or later the party better learn to live with its schizophrenia, that it takes BOTH social AND fiscal conservatives to win reliably. Hold your noses if you've got to, but libertarian, country-club and "progressive" republicans can't keep treating social conservatives like myself as "red-stated step-children," so to speak. Not just calculate around us, but embrace the fact that we're on the same team.
If Rudy or Fred or McCain want to represent only half the party, fine. Let them win with half the party's support. If my choice is a socially liberal Rudy or a socially liberal Hillary, at least if Hillary wins I can run against her in 4 years. And maybe by then my libertarian cousins in the party will remember who their friends are.
Basically the option you leave people like me is that we can vote against our beliefs or Rudy can vote against his. I'll give Rudy the honor of taking one for the team. Or maybe my pro-homosexual rights friends can save us all from Hillary by everybody coming together to vote for Keyes.
No, I didn't think so.
Count your numbers and split your differences, but there are too many Senate and House seats out there to lose as well as the presidency. If we go into 08 without a unified base that's ready for a full-contact, knives-and-razor blades fight there won't be many rainbows come the morning.
a majority of pro-lifers will probably vote Rudy, but some will bolt. Bust abortion isn't the only issue. Social cons will be turned off by Rudy's position on homosexual rights and guns too. Rudy's not talking about gay rights too much these days and he says he opposes gay marriage. Fine, but even John Edwards says he opposes gay marriage (although he doesn't know why). Rudy has supported civil unions (now he plays around a lot with the wording and is being very unclear just what exactly he thinks) and he'd be the first GOP nominee ever to do that. Likewise on guns he has a long history of opposition to the second amendment. Now of course he's trying to argue that it was only in NYC that he thinks people should be denied their constitutional rights. What else can he argue but federalism? All three of these issues are important ones and I want a president who will fight for conservative principles, not someone who will, at best, take a middle road because of political expediancy.
Yet it seems like so many conservatives have deluded themselves into believing that he's the only candidate who can win. McCain, Thompson, and Romney aren't perfect candidates by any stretch but all of them (or at least McCain and Thompson, Romney's harder to read) have just as good a chance of winning the general as Rudy and none of them will cause the collapse of the conservative coalition.
they have any chance of winning, and Rudy only has a slim chance, and specifically because of his differences. You see, to be elected to national office you must win over a majority of the swing voters, those are the independents.
I believe many in the conservative movement underestimate just how badly our reputation has been tarnished because of high-spending, corrupt, and philandering congressmen, a poorly run administration, and a botched "until recently war".
Independents are also turned off by some of the heaviest rhetoric comming from the social conservatives. You might not like it but it's the truth.
During normal times a genial, old guy like Fred could probably be elected, but I don't think he can now.
And, there is another reason for someone like me to support Rudy. The president has only a peripheral impact on social problems, But a MAJOR impact on spending and foreign policy, with the exception of the immigration issue, I endorse all of his policy prescriptions. McCain is insane, and Fred hasn't given us anything but platitudes. Romney is, well, Romney.(in my opinion far more likely to give us a bad court appointee than Rudy)
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
You're right that elections cannot be won without winning over independents, but you also need the base. There's always some defection, but in recent elections it has been limited to around 5-10% in both parties—a wash. If one side loses more of the base, then it can only win by winning over even more independents.
How does Giuliani win over these very high numbers of independents if he's campaigning as such a war hawk, when the war is so unpopular amongst independents? Even if he were to deemphasize his hawkishness and show his kinder, gentler side after the primaries end (an unlikely prospect, and probably impossible), he would, under these circumstances, lose even more support with the Republican base, since they will have nominated him for precisely the purpose of taking a hawkish stand.
Giuliani's married to the war in ways that the more conventional candidates aren't. The others are better situated to be able to calibrate their campaign style as circumstances warrant.
(Also, you're right that many independents are turned off by some of the heavier rhetoric coming from social conservatives. But not enough that it has prevented Republicans from winning five of the last seven presidential elections and six of the last seven Congresses.)
see Nixon landslide after 58,000 deaths
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
But Nixon also won in 1968, against the party that started the war, and on a platform of "ending the war" and "peace with honor"—pretty close to what the Democrats will likely be saying in 2008.
I like to deal with rightists. They say what they really think—not like the leftists, who say one thing and mean another. — Mao Tse-tung
Dems won't
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
He fixed New York City - a man who can fix New York City can fix anything.
What is wrong with the war and Bush? COMPETENCE [more accurately PERCEIVED competence] Katrina + War in Iraq
How unpopular was the war in Iraq when our troops pulled down that statue of Sadaam? It was pretty popular. It's gotten less popular because of perceptions of being poorly fought. Now with Petraeus it looks like competence is improving.
Will President Hillary get all American troops out of Iraq by 2011?
If yes, if we leave with our tail between our legs how is that going to deter the terrorists from attacking us here in America again?
If no, how competent is she going to be about managing a war that's going to last at least 3 years in her administration?
If the war is going to last several more years [and the big GWOT will], who is more competent to win it, Rudy or Hillary?
How long did it take Bush to dry out New Orleans?
Not nearly as long as it took Hillary to do something really simple like find some billing records.
When did Sadaam die? When did Hitler die? Do we still have troops in Germany?
If an independent voter wants Iraq fixed, then yes, he might vote for Giuliani. But if he wants Iraq over, then there is no chance he would vote for Giuliani. There are certainly some significant number of independents in both categories.
However, for Giuliani to win, he will need a large number of independents who voted for Kerry to vote for him this time around, because of the likely defection of pro-lifers. I think that it's quite likely that this particular subcategory of independents falls overwhelmingly in the camp of wanting Iraq over. The independents who would be won over by Giuliani's perceived competence likely voted for Bush in 2004, meaning that they would not be sufficient to make up for the deficit that Giuliani's abortion position creates.
McCain is not insane. He's still seen as a maverick who doens't always tow the party line and that helps him with independents. He's not as popular with independents as he once was because of his support of the war -- but then again Rudy will have the same problem with independents. I do realize just how poor the GOP image is right now. Rudy doesn't have a chance in the general because he divides the base and can't win independents because of his staunch support of a very unpopular war.
If in the next year or so the situation in Iraq seriously improves (there are signs that it is improving but this trend must continue and become even more obvious) then McCain is the one who should benefit from conservatives and independents. After all he was the one who was opposing the disasterous Rumsfeld policy all along and advocating for the surge (and other measures that have since been implemented). This should be popular with conservatives and independents because it shows he'll say what he believes even if it's unpopular within bhis own party. Rudy wants to please the base so he won't criticize Bush, who is often begging for criticism. Or maybe he just really doesn't have any good ideas on Iraq. Why should he? He has no military ior foreign policy experience. All he can do is talk tough.
you ignore two things. First of all, the base like Rudy much more than McCAin. That may not be true here, but the polls have shown it is true every single week since this race began. Secondly, you ignore the idea that Rudy may be able to "sell" the war better than GWB. Does anyone doubt that?
Molon Labe!
McCain certainly has problems with the base and a challenge for him would be to hold onto the base in a general election. However, McCain doesn't run the risk of a thirf party social conservative candidate emerging like Rudy does.
Rudy might be able to sell GWOT better than Bush. I know that McCain is able to.
in the South, incl evangelicals.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
I will not vote for a pro-choice candidate. I am not alone in thinking this way.
I also won't vote for a lesser of two evils.
Keep those things in mind when you consider nominating Giuliani.
runs as a third party candidate. For every "conservative" who abandons the GOP for the Ronulans, there are 10 kook-left-fringe who will abandon Hillary to vote Ronulan! It is a clear 10-1 victory for the GOP. HEY, maybe he can even crack 1 million this time around -- more than double his effort in 1988.
========
Considering where the good doctor's head was, when practicing medicine, is it any wonder that the man has issues?
are far left pacifists/blame Americafirsters
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Man,
I was about to do a post on this. Ron may actually help the GOP because I don't buy it that he's going to sit down and shut up after the Primaries with the cash he's gathered. He's also not going to pass the cash along to help the Republican nominee as he stated in the Primary. So what is he doing? Fleecing as many Libertarian leaning republicans to launch his Libertarian 3rd Party run come next year. That's just my two cents on the matter. And when that happens, Hillary is going to loose many Dems who like a fiscally conservative guy wrapped in pink.
The Constipation (or rather, Constitution) Party really wants him to run as their candidate, according to their website. I don't think they have anyone yet. It seems he is in line with their party on every issue, and he would fit in far better there than with the libertarians.
He outed himself here, and Moe sent him to a better world.
First off, I'm not totally convinced that pro-lifers will not vote for Guiliani when the chips are down and they are looking at the possibility of a Hillary Clinton presidency.
Guiliani basically needs to come out and say he may be personally pro-choice, but his stance against partial birth abortion and his pledge to select conservative judges like Roberts & Alito will make him an effectively pro-life president.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”