Carney says Brownback more likely than Rudy, McCain

Trackback URL for this post:
http://race42012.com/2006/11/28/carney-says-brownback-more-likely-than-rudy-mccain/trackback/

21 Responses to “Carney says Brownback more likely than Rudy, McCain”

1. Tano Says:
   November 28th, 2006 at 2:06 pm

   I think your characterization of Dems is wrong. McGovern was not an extremist – he was an anti-war candidate at the time when the country was overwhelmingly anti-war. His problem was that Nixon ended the war in time for the election, and since McGovern had pretty much made himself a single issue candidate, there remained no compelling reason to vote for him, for the average American. If you campaing saying “we must do X”, and the incumbent (who would have the advantage anyway) does X before the election, then you are going to lose.

   Anyway, that is ancient history. You point to Dean as another example, but, of course, the “inmates” eliminated him in the first primary, so the Dean example argues for the opposite of your thesis.

   As for Rudy – I remain to be convinced that someone who is more socially liberal than a fair number of Democrats will be palatable to the Republican base. Thats not saying that the GOP will necessarily nominate an extremist candidate, but Rudy may simply be unacceptable to a sufficient number of base voters to bar his nomination.

   Also, I would love to have it explained to me some day why being the mayor of a city that is attacked, and doing a good job in the hand-holding and trauma mangement roles, equates to having any knowledge of international politics or military matters.

2. jake Says:
   November 28th, 2006 at 2:37 pm

   Tano. . .I’m sure I won’t be the only one to defend the Mayor here, but I’ll do my best. Your last line [Also, I would love to have it explained to me some day why being the mayor of a city that is attacked, and doing a good job in the hand-holding and trauma mangement roles, equates to having any knowledge of international politics or military matters.] can be said of nearly everyone who ever ran for president, with the exception of Eisenhower and Wesley Clark, and even they only had military experience, not international politics. What knowledge did Bush have, or Clinton, or Reagan? Look at history: Most successful presidential candidates have been governors. I can’t remember the last presidential candidate who entered office directly from Congress (Kennedy? and before him???). Giuliani was mayor of a city with a larger population and much bigger problems than many states (and some countries), and even his biggest detractors say he did a good job managing it – less crime, better economy, improved racial climate, the list goes on. And his “trauma-management role” says more about him and how he’ll run the country than any experience with international and military matters ever could. If anything, he has better experience in international issues than most candidates since his city was made up of millions of people from every nation on earth, all personally and simultaneously facing the nation’s biggest tragedy in decades. This meant dealing with issues of emergency healthcare, economic growth, transportation and infrastructure, security and law enforcement, etc. Issues that he dealt with on a daily basis before 9/11 took on even more significance after that historic date, and the entire world was watching him do it. Name one other candidate who can say the same thing. Katrina showed what can happen when a mayor or governor can’t cope with a tragedy (Mayor Nagin and Gov. Blanco will never be president). Giuliani showed what happens when you have the competence and ability to handle a crisis. I’ll take that over international political experience any day.

3. Matt Says:
   November 28th, 2006 at 2:43 pm

   I personally think Rudy can probably overcome his social stances to some extent by a strong advocacy of federalism, something he’s already begun. In my opinion, his “wives” issue is going to be alot tougher to overcome. I’ve lived in NJ most of my life, so I was quite familiar with Guiliani before 9/11 came around. I hadn’t formed any particular political attachment at that point (I was too young I suppose) but I liked Guiliani. When that whole thing with Judith came out, it was a really big issue where I lived. I remember being pretty shocked and disappointed at the time, and in spite of his 9/11 heroics, the issue has clouded my perception of him ever since. Now I’m not some reactionary who believes that politicians should be moral saints. I’m actually a Republican who believes, gasp, that Bill Clinton was a decent president, and I can’t say I was terribly shocked by the Clinton scandal at the time (that said, being just 10 years old, I wasn’t entirely sure what he’d actually done). But all in all, I consider myself relatively willing to forgive gross personal failures. And I have with Guiliani. I’m certainly willing to support him in the general election and I’ve overcome whatever opposition to his personal faults I might have had. But it took me awhile to get there. I can’t say for sure, since I’ve always been in the New York media market, but I’d wager most Americans aren’t really aware of Rudy’s odd personal life. I’d also wager that it’s something that, once it becomes more widely known, they’re capable of accepting. The question is, can they accept it in time? I think if we see these types of issues become more widely circulated in mid 2007, Rudy could lose an awful lot of momentum, especially in the early Iowa staw poll. He seems most likely to reach his nadir at precisely the time he needs to be nearing a plateau. Because if someone like Romney walks away with the Iowa straw poll, it could quickly become a two-horse race (McCain’s early strength in Iowa isn’t as relevant due to his strength in New Hampshire).

4. DaveG Says:
   November 28th, 2006 at 2:48 pm

   “Also, I would love to have it explained to me some day why being the mayor of a city that is attacked, and doing a good job in the hand-holding and trauma mangement roles, equates to having any knowledge of international politics or military matters.”

   If the depth of one’s knowledge regarding international affairs was the primary qualification for the next Commander-in-Chief, both parties would be scouring the upper echelons of academia for a nominee. Rudy’s national hero status has nothing to do with the number of voluminous works he’s read on international or military affairs (though he may have read many for all I know), and has everything to do with the way he *responded* to a crisis. The leadership Rudy showed on 9/11 and afterward demonstrated to Americans that he has the character traits inherent to all great leaders.

   And if you don’t think Americans prefer strong leadership to intellectualism and eggheadedness, (and I say this as an intellectual and an egghead), remind me again how many electoral votes President Adlai won. Twice.

5. Matt Says:
   November 28th, 2006 at 2:50 pm

   As for Brownback, I agree considering him a more serious contender then Guiliani is just absurd. He’s neither particularly dynamic, nor particularly conservative. He’s a big government “compassionate conservative” in the vein of Bush. Just totally unnacceptable. And no one knows who he is. Mike “Nanny” Huckabee is a better bet to become the 4th man, and the alternate (non-Romney) conservative, in this race.

6. Tony Says:
   November 28th, 2006 at 3:11 pm

   The question in my mind is, what comes first? Poll numbers, or the structural strengths (campaign team, party connections, issue alignment with important party groups) and personal abilities of the candidate? To predict based simply on national poll numbers seems short-sighted … it’s like looking at the direction of your nose to determine where your body’s going to go – it works until your mind changes your head’s direction.

   Giuliani and McCain have high poll numbers because they have national exposure which up to this point has been almost unremittingly positive – but to what extent are those numbers a mile wide and an inch deep, largely driven by positive press which would likely change in a serious competition (primaries or general election)? Giuliani had a moment where his political star shone like no other in the past 10 years, and DaveG is right that in the minds of much of the electorate this reflects important leadership abilities. I agree with Matt above, though, that most Americans probably aren’t aware of Giuliani’s personal life and social positions, and I can’t shake the feeling that he would have his knees cut out from under him in the primaries without some sort of backing that could, in effect, overcome the influence of important groups in the Republican base.

7. James Boulder Says:
   November 28th, 2006 at 3:28 pm

   Matt,
   Why is it that you call Huckabee a nanny? I agree that he is going to be in the race and at a
   level higher than most of the others. I think he will edge Romney once he is in and with Rudy being
   not acceptable to most Republicans (once they know more about him than his name and 9/11 fame) it will be between
   McCain and Huckabee with Huckabee winning the nomination. I just don’t get why you call him a nanny.

8. Sean Says:
   November 28th, 2006 at 3:35 pm

   ” agree with Matt above, though, that most Americans probably aren’t aware of Giuliani’s personal life and social positions, and I can’t shake the feeling that he would have his knees cut out from under him in the primaries without some sort of backing that could, in effect, overcome the influence of important groups in the Republican base. ”

   Rudy consistently performs well among RedStaters and Freepers in polls, who aren’t exactly the squishy moderate type. He’s tough on crime, has personal charm, and really, really wants to kill terrorists, which may make up for his other issues in the minds of enough conservatives to hand him the nomination.

   BTW, is there a way to stop that wrap-around effect with the typing window? Every time I want to leave a comment the field wraps around the screen, and I can’t read it.

9. Tano Says:
   November 28th, 2006 at 4:08 pm

   Jake, and others,

   I dont dispute the fact that many presidents are new to the realm of military matters or global politics. And I am not arguing that Rudy’s lack of experience in these realms is any bar to his election. My question relates to why so many people (especially here) seem to claim that he DOES have experience in those realms, based on his 9/11 efforts. Or that “national security” cred is something that works in his favor.

   Seems to me that his public pronouncements on these matters, since 9/11, have been pretty much in lockstep with the Bush administration, such that he should share the fate of anyone who has aligned themselves with these policies (for better or worse).

   As for his mayoralty – it should be remembered that his approval rating on 9/10 was probably down in the twenties or so. He managed over eight years to alienate most everyone in the city, and became pretty much a laughingstock over his last year, in large part because of his messy and public divorce, but also, because he had no one willing to go to bat for him.

   I know he gets a lot of credit for “cleaning up” NY, and I suspect that positive cred will stick, even if undeserved. The scientist in me says that when you seek an explanation for something, one of the preliminary questions is to see on what scale the phenomenon occured. Crime went down in teh nineties in every urban area in the country. That tells me that the driving factor was on a similarly large scale – most likely simple demographics. One of the most straightforward predictors of crime rates is the proportion of young men in a society. As the boomers aged…..

   To the extent that policing was improved, it improved under Ray Kelley (the police commissioner appointed by Rudy’s predecessor, and reappointed by his successor). Rudy gave us Bernie Kerick, remember.

   Bottom line here. Rudy is on quite the pedastal. He has only one way to go.

10. jake Says:
    November 28th, 2006 at 4:39 pm

    You’re correct to say he’s riding high with one way to go. But I take issue with your description of his two terms in office. No I’ll preface this by saying that I live in PA, not NY, so my knowledge of his pre-9/11 years come from what I’ve read and heard from my family in NY (both pro and anti-Giuliani). I don’t think he was the laughing stock you say he was. His popularity had gone down, but that was in the second half of his second term, not the best year for any politician. Two years earlier, he won his second term with nearly 60% of the vote, in NYC, as a Republican. That’s a number even Democrats would be jealous of. Unemployment and crime were down nationally, but in NYC unemployment was over 11% under his successor David Dinkins (arguably one of the worst mayors the city has known). Crime was at levels unseen in most US cities. He’s gotta get the some of the credit for bringing those numbers way down – it can’t all be credited to fewer young males in the demographics. And it wasn’t just violent street crime that wend down. He went after corruption and the mafia, stemming back from his days as a Federal attorney, a time that many people don’t really know much about (and will only serve to enhance his biography). As for the wife problem. . .and at the risk of sounding like I’m defending one form of adultery over another, which I’m not, and trying to sound politically correct here. . .Giuliani had a wife that I wouldn’t wish on too many men. He had an affair – definitely wrong on any level – with a woman he ended up marrying and is still married to. This wasn’t a Jennifer Flowers/Paula Jones/Monica Lewinsky type of an affair. (Sorry, couldn’t resist.) Even at his worst, Giuliani allowed his wife to live in the mansion during the messy divorce while he lived with friends – as we all now know not exactly benefiting his political future. Again not to defend adultery, but as affairs go it wasn’t exactly the worst we’ve seen in DC – not by a mile. I just don’t think this will be as bad for Giuliani as it could have been. My opinion is that all the positives – his tenure as attorney and mayor, fighting crime, improving the economy, and yes, 9/11 – will far outweigh any negatives his affair will cause.

11. George Temper Biggs Says:
    November 28th, 2006 at 4:54 pm

    I really doubt that Mike Huckabee of all people will be chosen as the nominee. He is just like Brownback: very socially conservative, but of the “passionate” type that has no fiscal responsibility. Huckabee is also a big nanny stater, and he also believes that the obesity epidemic is the worst problem facing America today. Gee, Mike, how about terrorism or the war in Iraq? That’s why I won’t be supporting him in the primaries.

12. Jay Carney Says:
    November 28th, 2006 at 4:54 pm

    In disagreeing with what I said on Hardball last night about Rudy Giuliani, Dave G said some very smart things about the GOP and how the party goes about picking its nominees for president. I would just like to clarify a few things. I did not say — and did not mean to imply — that Sam Brownback was more likely to win the nomination than Giuliani, merely that he would be more appealing to social conservatives. That, to me, is virtually self-evident. And I certainly did not say Brownback was more viable than McCain. As for Giuliani, I may turn out to be wrong — which I said very clearly last night — but I find it very unlikely that the activist social conservatives I know and have covered would find the former New York mayor a palatable GOP nominee. To suggest, as Blankley and others do, that social conservatives would be willing to abandon their core principles — on abortion, on gay rights and on gun rights — just to see a Republican in office strikes me as wrong-headed and a bit condescending. Thanks – Jay Carney

13. Matt Says:
    November 28th, 2006 at 5:18 pm

    I know you like Huckabee James, but there are an awful lot of problems I have with him. He passed and pushed through a huge public smoking ban earlier this year and has suggested, quite candidly, that he’d like to pass a similar bill affecting pregnant women (i.e. pregnant women can’t smoke) and even hinted, I think not so subtly, that he’d be ammenable to a complete smoking ban. Now whatever you tbink of these ideas, they are certainly not conservative. They’re the essence of nanny-statism. He’s also been poor on taxes and spending, advocating big government, compassionate conservatism, solutions to both (elimination of taxes on the poor, increased funding for education without any advocated change in the system, etc). Beyond his obvious social conservatism, there’s virtually nothing in his record to point to him as Republican. I don’t see a niche for him. I earlier thought that, if religious and social conservatives didn’t have an actual conservative choice, Huckabee’s status as a former preacher might be enough to let them forget that he’s not terribly conservative on a whole host of issues. But as it is, Romney seems to be appealing to this group, as an actual conservative, with more people jumping on his bandwagon by the day. And I think Huckabee’s going to find himself in an awfully difficult and untenable situation trying to sell himself as “the conservative” in the race. So he’s just another moderate who’ll strip away votes from McCain and Guiliani moreso then Romney.

14. DaveG Says:
    November 28th, 2006 at 6:08 pm

    Jay,

    First, thanks for stopping by Race42008, and thanks for your commentary.

    Forgive me if I read a bit too much into your statement. As a wordsmith, and an avid political junkie, I’m always trying to “read between the lines,” so to speak, making inferences where they seem logical. Perhaps I should have been a bit more prudent when interpreting your language on Chris’ show last night. In any event, your commentary on this site has cleared up any remaining ambiguities.

    As for Rudy and religious conservatives, while I can’t speak for the good Mr. Blankley, it has long been the position of I and other Rudy supporters on this blog that the mayor will likely square the proverbial circle on cultural issues via a triangulation strategy that emphasizes federalism and the courts. Instead of running as a “pro-life” or “pro-choice” candidate on abortion, for example, he will run as a candidate who believes that judges shouldn’t make social policy, which would make a Rudy presidency a de facto victory for social conservatives due to its likelihood to produce the types of jurists that will overturn Roe, act as a firewall against the imposition of gay marriage by judicial fiat, and so on. In fact, we’re already seeing the roots of this strategy in the mayor’s statements and speeches, where he’s gone from praising judges like Alito and Roberts to actually suggesting he’d appoint jurists of the same mold, and referring to Scalia as his pick for Chief Justice. As such, Rudy’s personal views on abortion, gay rights, and other comparable matters become irrelevant for the most part, with only those conservatives who want proactive federal legislative action on those matters — a distinct minority of Republicans — left out in the cold. Rudy won’t get every Republican vote with this strategy, but it is my belief that he can at least get to 51%. And after that, in a race against Hillary, even those voters who are first and foremost “culture warriors” will likely find more to like about the mayor than Ms. Rodham.

    Again, thanks for stopping by. And please feel free to continue to visit Race42008 for smart, highly analytical coverage of the race for the Republican presidential nomination.

15. Sean P Says:
    November 28th, 2006 at 6:33 pm

    Tano, oh, Tano, where to begin? How about this:

    “As for his mayoralty – it should be remembered that his approval rating on 9/10 was probably down in the twenties or so.”

    Not according to the New York Post, which found his approval rating as of April, 2001 (five months before the 9/11 attacks) was 69 per cent, and that a majority of New York’s residents wanted the next Mayor to continue Giuliani’s policies, for the most part (source: http://going2newyork.com/display_column.asp?id=84). Giulia’s numbers did sink below 50% in some polls between 1999-2000, while he was campaigning for the US Senate, but they never even came close to the level you believe they did.

    And another thing: this is New York City we’re talking about here. NYC went for Kerry 74.9% to 25% for Bush. If Rudy carried 45% of the NYC vote he would win New York state against any Democrat not named Hillary.

16. Tano Says:
    November 28th, 2006 at 10:19 pm

    OK Sean, I was wrong, but you too. I looked it up. On 9/10, his approval was 40%. I found some other interesting numbers, from a few years beofre that:

    80 – 17 percent that he can get things done;
    27 – 68 percent that he has a likable personality;
    74 – 23 percent that he has strong leadership qualities;
    48 – 45 percent that he is honest and trustworthy;
    26 – 68 percent that he is sympathetic to the problems of the poor;
    32 – 60 percent that he works well with other political leaders.

    Seems like a mixed bag to me.

17. jake Says:
    November 28th, 2006 at 11:17 pm

    Intersting what those numbers say. He is a strong, honest leader who gets things done but no one likes to work him. And that’s before 9/11. After that date he was liked by everyone. (Well, not Tano, but everyone else. haha) We’ve seen polls here and elsewhere say that Rudy is known by nearly everyone (very low unknown numbers) and his positives far outweigh his negatives. That puts him in a somewhat enviable position by people in both parties. Granted these numbers mean absolutely nothing two years out, but it’s a pretty good place to start. Beats starting at the bottom and working your way up.

    Tano – thanks for your NY perspective. I like hearing the opinions of those with more personal knowledge of the candidates – those who actually lived with the decisions made by the candidates. I’m curious what your thoughts are of Hillary and how a matchup with Rudy would go over in NY.

18. Tano Says:
    November 29th, 2006 at 1:01 am

    Jake,

    I’ve not lived in NY for awhile now, so I’ve not been around during the Hillary years. So I guess that means that my Rudy attitude is also not necessarily reflective of NYers, because it was formed wholly by pre-9/11 Rudy. I am sure that NYers have a much more complex and mixed view of him because of all those years, but I cant really say if the positives from 9/11 would push him over the top against a good Dem candidate, esp. Hillary. Even if there is now a much better view of him, I dont think it would translate easily into support at the presidential level. NYers are perceptive enough to understand the implications of a Republican administration, even one led by a favorite son (if they see him that way).
    The presidency is not a reward for good service – there are real issues at stake, and NYers tend to be up on their issues.

    My guess is that hillary wins the state. Another strong Dem might do so as well. A weaker Dem, who might no resonate with the city folk, could easily allow Rudy to run up his upstate vote enough to win the state.

19. marK Says:
    November 29th, 2006 at 1:34 pm

    Tano: “The presidency is not a reward for good service”

    The “Presidency” may not be, but far too often the “nomination” is. Else why did the GOP nominate Bob Dole in 1996?

20. Sean P Says:
    November 29th, 2006 at 3:55 pm

    Tano: You looked it up where?
    As far as the 69% approval number, that’s not me, that’s the NY Daily News. If you think their poll is wrong, take it up with them.

21. Sean P Says:
    November 29th, 2006 at 3:57 pm

    NY Post, not the Daily News.