NRO’s Contributing Editor backs up his claim with some very compelling evidence:
The oddest thing about the conventional wisdom may be its almost bulletproof imperviousness to the facts. An excellent example of this phenomenon is Arizona Senator John McCain’s oft-trumpeted status as frontrunner for the 2008 Republican nomination. Conversely, the cognoscenti titter at former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani as terminally liberal.
A new Quinnipiac University survey is just the latest in an almost unanimous array of polls that shows Giuliani, not McCain, heading the GOP’s 2008 parade.
The November 27 #quot;Feeling Thermometer#quot; from the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute asked 1,623 registered voters to rate the warmth of national leaders from 0 -100. #quot;The higher the number, the warmer or more favorable you feel toward that person, the lower the number, the colder or less favorable.#quot; Among 20 top American leaders, Rudy Giuliani is rated No. 1 with a #quot;temperature#quot; of 64.2. McCain is third at 57.7. Giuliani’s standing among the 490 self-identified Republicans Quinnipiac surveyed is even more compelling. Republicans give Giuliani a very comfortable temperature of 71.7. That puts him just behind Rice (72.3) and Bush (72.1), neither of whom is expected to be on the ballot in 2008. Among those who might run, Giuliani is well ahead of McCain (62.2), Gingrich (58.9), and Romney (52.8). (Error margin for this subset: +/- 4.4 percent). Most fascinating is Giuliani’s performance among self-professed #quot;White evangelicals/Born-again Christians.#quot; Here again, among 439 of the study’s most socially conservative respondents, Giuliani is at the top of the heap. He scores 66.3, ahead of Rice (64.4), Bush (58.1), McCain (57.1), Gingrich (47.8), and Romney (46.4).
In other recent surveys, Giuliani also leads the way. Pollster Scott Rasmussen found Giuliani with 24 percent to 18 for Rice and 17 for McCain in a November 4 – 7 national survey of 1,050 Republicans and 203-GOP-leaning independents. With Rice excluded and her votes reallocated, #quot;Giuliani would top McCain 32 percent to 22 percent,” Rasmussen told me.
In Strategic Vision’s selected state-by-state surveys released November 6, Giuliani outpaced McCain by nine points in Georgia, 19 in Florida and Washington State, 22 in New Jersey, and 23 points in Pennsylvania. Romney rose no higher than third in these states. McCain only can point to Michigan as a state where he tops Giuliani ‘ specifically 33 percent to 25. The conventional wisdom further argues that Giuliani benefits from his high name ID in the wake of his universally covered and highly appreciated leadership on September 11. But Giuliani is not outshining a state senator here or a second-term House member there. McCain is widely known from coast to coast, as are Gingrich, Bush, and Rice. Giuliani easily outpolls the former speaker of the House of Representatives and the man who was runner-up for the 2000 GOP presidential nomination. Giuliani tops the current secretary of State and the president of the United States in general #quot;warmth#quot; and comes within 0.6 and 0.4 #quot;degrees#quot; of them in popularity among Republicans.
As for his alleged liberalism, Giuliani, to be sure, will face resistance from Republican primary voters who differ with him on abortion, gay marriage, and gun ownership. While Giuliani’s views on these issues eventually may gravitate to the right, he will address his potential critics with an enormous reservoir of goodwill, as Quinnipiac’s numbers show. Some have speculated that Giuliani’s numbers will fall once GOP voters across America learn that he favors civil unions, is pro-choice, and has called for greater gun regulations. Perhaps.
But his numbers could hold or even rise once Republicans outside Gotham learn that, as mayor, he cut the local tax burden by 19 percent, jettisoned racial and gender preferences for contracting (during his first month as mayor, no less), hunted deadbeat dads and made them pay their child support, implemented charter schools, promoted #quot;vouchers#quot; (always embracing that word), and hosed down seedy, crime-infested areas such as Times Square. It now is safe, literally, for Mary Poppins ‘ a new Disney musical that opened on 42nd Street, where pornographic films unspooled prior to Giuliani’s tenure.
Can you say, #quot;family values?#quot;
What we can today is that Giuliani currently outruns his rivals for the GOP nomination, even if most of the press corps’ eyes are too welded shut to notice. With the polls showing him ahead and the conventional wisdom dismissing his prospects, Rudolph W. Giuliani has achieved the impossible: He’s a front-running underdog.
My biggest complaint regarding 2008 analysis is the near constant meme of “Once GOP voters find out about Rudy’s past, his support will nosedive.” Charlie Cook is one of the biggest proponents of this theory, despite the fact that his own polling directly contradicts this conclusion (Cook conducted a poll where he specifically laid out all Rudy’s past social views and then asked his Republican supporters if they still supported him for president. The answer was a resounding yes.-See here).
It is also curious that these pundits never consider that opinions on Mitt Romney will change once his support of Abortion and Gay Rights pre-2002 are publicized by evangelical groups that have only just started on this project.
Stating that Rudy will lose support among the Republican rank-in-file once his past social views are known is an opinion, not a fact. What I would like to start seeing from these pundits is some empirical evidence to back up their claims. Mr. Murdock has laid his cards on the table, it’s time for the critics to show theirs.
November 30th, 2006 at 1:13 pm
Simple explanation. Those individuals who demand the perfect pedigree in their president are in the notable minority. Historically, how many GOP nominees had splotchy records? In the end, evangelicals line up behind the nominee who currently represents their political views.
Christian conservatives will focus more on Romney’s personal morality and his current views than his past statements or his faith. — Jerry Falwell
November 30th, 2006 at 2:09 pm
“Historically, how many GOP nominees had splotchy records?”
Reagan signed the most liberal pre-Roe abotion law in the country, Bush I was pro-choice (probably even when he ran for Pres), Dole was not exactly an evangelical.
In that vein, I think people make a mistake by assuming that evangelical christians are necessarily looking for “one of their own.” The Robertsons, Buchanans, and Bauers of the world have not exactly fared well in Republican primaries. I think, like most voters, these voters are affectational — they vote for someone that they believe has a character and worldview similar to theirs, rather than any particular voting pattern. That’s why I think pictures of Rudy cross-dressing will ultimately have more of an impact on him than being pro-choice.
Even in the Reagan years, very little was done on social issues. Many of these evangelicals are more traditionalist than “theocon,” and that’s what Reagan did so well — play to the nostalgic idea of early pre-1960s America, and celebrated local communities’ ideas, rather than looking down his nose at it like many liberals are often perceived as doing. That’s why things like cleaning up Times Square from pornographers will ultimately have a better impact for Giuliani than his position on civil unions, especially if he finesses the latter in a way that plays to his Reaganesque strengths (eg exactly the opposite of what McCain did in 2000. No speeches condemning the religious right. A speech saying that there are things he disagrees with them on, but that he respects their viewpoint and believes that local communities should be able to set standards. Something along those lines).
November 30th, 2006 at 2:18 pm
“Simple explanation. Those individuals who demand the perfect pedigree in their president are in the notable minority. Historically, how many GOP nominees had splotchy records? In the end, evangelicals line up behind the nominee who currently represents their political views.”
But my question is why is Rudy held to a different standard than Mitt? Because Romney moved to the right to run for president? Shouldn’t Giuliani at least be given a chance in this regard?
November 30th, 2006 at 2:23 pm
At this stage of the game, the polls are primarily name-recognition and general impressions. What does the average voter really know about Giuliani? They know (or think they know) that he is a tough bird who fought an uphill battle to bring New York City back from the brink. They know for a fact that he was truly magnificent after 9/11. This last one really stands out when contrasted with Ray Nagin’s pitiful performance post-Katrina. There should be no mystery why the majority of the voters have a favorable impression. I doubt that favorable impression will ever die.
But there is a long way between liking a guy and voting for him to become President.
What else do they really know about Rudy? To be honest, not much. What sort of judges will he nominate? What sorts of people would he gather around him? What sort of things would he veto? What sort of things will he fight for? Can Giuliani persuade the majority of Americans to follow him? Will he even try, or will he weakly follow Bush’s rather anemic example in this area?
Then there are the more pedestrian concerns. Can Giuliani make a decent speech? Can Giuliani hold his own in a debate. Can he think on his feet? Can he handle the hostile press?
These are the kinds of things that will be sorted out in the months ahead as the campaign begins in earnest. The voters will compare the Big Three (and likely one or two others) side-by-side, apples-to-apples, oranges-to-oranges. Then and only then will the polls start to mean something serious.
November 30th, 2006 at 2:26 pm
“But there is a long way between liking a guy and voting for him to become President.”
For the average voter, it is shorter than you think.
November 30th, 2006 at 2:28 pm
Nah, it’s not a different standard. Any candidate who ascribes to pro-choice or pro-gay-marriage views in the GOP primary is going to have more trouble than a candidate who at some point previously ascribed to those views. I’m sure Giuliani will be given a chance, that’s what the debates are for. I’m also doubtful as to whether he can pull it off, when there are other candidates in the race who will make the same promises on judges while in addition demonstrating that they share the beliefs of evangelicals w/r/t abortion or other issues.
November 30th, 2006 at 2:35 pm
Kavon,
Yes, Rudy should be given the chance to change. Remember, however, that Mitt has been gradually evolving over time. First he was pro-choice. Then he was pro-life, but promised not to advance or scale back abortion rights. Then he vetoed every abortion and stem-cell bill that came across his desk. Finally, he has come out very strongly pro-life. So it isn’t that hard to take at face value his turn-around on abortion.
Can the same thing be said about Rudy? I don’t know enough to say.
There is also the possiblity that Giuliani could try to take a flip-page from Romney’s book and admit to being personally pro-abortion, but promise not to advance the agenda of either side. Would that fly? I don’t know.
November 30th, 2006 at 2:39 pm
Sean, I try to be a little more positive about the average voter than that. (-:
November 30th, 2006 at 2:47 pm
Kavon said – “Cook conducted a poll where he specifically laid out all Rudy’s past social views and then asked his Republican supporters if they still supported him for president. The answer was a resounding yes.”
Some questions about this methodology.
1. The poll asks which Republican the interviewee would have as their first choice. Giuliani gets 32/83, so 38.5%.
2. Combining first and second choices, Giuliani gets (32/83 + 21/85) = (38.5% + 24.7%) = 63.2%. Assuming people didn’t say Giuliani as their first and second choices, that’s 63.2% of Republican or Republican-leaners choosing Giuliani as first or second.
3. Then it is asked to the same people (RANDOMIZE ORDER) “Some people say he really cleaned up New York City as Mayor and made it a safer place, and then he showed real courage as a leader after the attack on the World Trade Center. Other people say that his views on some issues – because he is pro-choice on abortion, supports gun control and gay rights – makes it hard for them to support him for President.” “Having heard that, which of the following two statements comes closer to your opinion: (RANDOMIZE ORDER) The Republicans should nominate Giuliani for President, or the Republicans should not nominate Giuliani for President.”
56% say they should, 38% say they shouldn’t.
Several questions with this:
a) Do most people know what ‘nominate’ means in this context (that is, the nominee will be the final leader)?
b) We have no comparative data. How would they respond for McCain? For Romney?
c) How should we compare the 56% who say the Republicans should nominate Giuliani to the 63% who choose him as first or second, or the 38.5% who chose him as first. Did just the brief revealing of some of his social positions cause an 7% drop? Did it result in an 18% climb? What’s going on here? It’s not clear.
c) Noting his positions on certains issues in a poll is not the same as getting into a campaign where other candidates and interest groups have spent months going after him on those positions. Does claiming that social positions antithetical to the base’s are going to be a drag on a candidate require lots of data, or is it just basic logic?
Re: Romney, that’s exactly why he’s making a dramatic rightward move on same-sex marriage (among other social issues) – can the same be said for Giuliani?
November 30th, 2006 at 2:48 pm
I found this poll very favorable toward Condi Rice, our Sec of State. The poll gave Hillary
56% as most qualified to become president and Condi was given a close 50%. Come on, where is that
bit of news? Condi is also seen by 45% the Quinnipiac voters as the most powerful woman. Today, Condi was at the Bush-Malaki breakfast meeting and at the press conference. Then she flew to Jerico, West Bank to meet with PM Abbas, holding another press conference, and then off again to Israel to meet PM Olmert in a ceasefire conference. This woman is dynamite and where is the news coverage?
In case you missed, she is listed as a possible PERSON OF THE YEAR by Time magazine. Here is why I give Condi my respect and best wishes for the 2008 race.
1) After the assassination of former PM of Lebanon, Rafik Hariri in Feb. 2005, Condi was part of the support group helping the people of Lebanon stand up for themselves in defiance in the March Cedar Revolution. She stood up for the rights of people in one nation to push out the violent boot of the Syrian forces.
2) Condi went to New York after the North Korean Kim violated the stern warning from the UN Security Council not test his nukes. After July 4, she flew to New York and strong armed the members into making a unanimous agreement against Kim, and she was there to raise her own hand on the matter.
She put it bluntly, what does the UN Security Council stand for if they can’t stand against this slap in the face of the UN? My daughter was home from work that day and taped Condi at the United Nations and she was the face of power.
Her Asian Tour connected Russia, S Korea and Japan to get North Korea to come back to the 6 party talks. Only the POWER OF CONDI could have accomplished that goal in such a short time during one foreign policy tour. ( Unlike the weeks on a ship at sea for Jefferson or Monroe to settle international affairs)
3) During the Hezbollah conflict, sparked by killing Israeli soldiers and kidnapping another, she said YOU CAN NOT HAVE ONE FOOT IN POLITICS AND ONE FOOT IN TERRORISM. You must make a decision. That put pressure on Lebanon as well to defend their young representative government and accept foreign nations sending troops to the Southern region, like France and Spain and Germany.
4) Today, Shuttle Diplomacy has returned. Condi was at the Bush-Malaki breakfast meeting, and press conference, then flew to Jerico in the West Bank to meet with PM Abbas and next flew to Jersuleum for a meeting with PM Olmbert to jump start the ceasefire which began this past Sunday.
Not only should Condi be given credit for her efforts on these matters, but she is the only hope President Bush has to get a clear point of view without having to brag in front of the cameras.
Sorry to be so blunt, but as a military fellow, there is NO OTHER woman who I would trust to be in charge of our nation on matters of foreign policy or in the White House. Whether she becomes the next president or vice-president, our nation needs her at the helm of the Ship of State.
Likewise, in the latest Quinnipiac poll, American voters give Condi 56% support as the most powerful woman in America. The answer to why they think that is based in part on what I have listed above.
Even Donald Trump wants Condi to be tougher, like he wants her to be a B###h in order to get more done.
I think her Margaret Thatcher style is just fine.
November 30th, 2006 at 2:54 pm
marK,
Not meant as disparagement, just as an observation. The President is also the figurehead/leader of the country, and I believe that people tend to vote along those lines. In fact, I think that’s a big reason that we didn’t get President Gore or Kerry, and why Reagan was so popular. People generally just don’t have the level of sophistication that many in the blogosphere have – and I don’t mean that as an insult, I think most of them just have more important things in their lives and sense (not without reason) that the marginal difference to them of a President who supports a Patient’s bill of rights with a limitation on liability vs. one who supports a Patient’s bill of rights without such limitations isn’t that big (hard to believe that was the big political debate in summer of ’01). Instead, they look for someone who has a positive vision for America’s better days, and who seems to have the personal qualities that lead to good decisions.
November 30th, 2006 at 2:56 pm
I think part of it is certainly that Romney is “currently” espousing conservative positions on these issues. Another reason I’d suspect is that Romney has much less to answer for. His supposed “flip” on gay marriage is totally non-existent. In 2002 he was opposed to both it and cil unions. I’m not aware of him ever espousing any position supporting civil unions and he has repeatedly stated, as far back as 2003 (that’s as far as I’m aware of any statements specifically on the issue) that he has always opposed both and has never expressed support for either. I’m aware that Rudy does not support same-sex marriage either (only civil unions). I’m not aware if this is the position he’s always held, but his current support for civil unions could harm him and, to the extent that that’s an important issue to people, he certainly deserves criticism. I think another reason why Romney’s former positions are less problematic is he’s been much less vocal on these issues. One gets the sense, due to his never directly bringing up issues like abortion unless asked, that his heart has never been in it, so to speak. Perhaps that’s that’s just better political calculation, but judging by numerous things about Romney, I highly doubt he anticipated running for President 12 years ago. I highly doubt that he’s ever considered politics, as an institution, important enough to re-order his very life. Otherwise he’d of stayed in Michigan, or in Utah in 2002. Or he’d be dancing back to Michigan now instead of, as all his actions indicate, staying in Massachusetts, an awful place for a Republican to run a presidential campaign from. One issue, where Romney has been a bit of an advocate (as opposed to merely stating a position) is his vocal endorsement of a state assault weapons ban. He’ll certainly have to answer for that and rightly so. Guiliani or the other hand, has been MUCH more vocal about issues like abortion. He’s made very publicized statements (promising he’d give his daughter abortion money were she to desire one for instance) that go beyond the pail of what most pro-choice Democrats are willing to publicly advocate. On the issue of gay-marriage and civil unions, he’s appeared at every gay-pride event in New York city for years. He’s publicly cross-dressed. He’s lived with gay individuals and hired gay officials. I personally have very little problem with any of this. I support same-sex marriage. I wouldn’t be caught dead a gay pride parade, but that’s for principled reasons (why in the world should one be proud about something that’s “beyond their control”?). But the idea that a man who has been so vocal and supportive of gays in so many other venues, truly opposes gay marriage or civil unions just strains the credulity. Maybe he does. But it’s alot less believable then the idea that a devout Mormon Republican has truly become pro-life. That I think, is what’s going to give him trouble. And on guns, Rudy’s position is only slightly to the right of Mike “no one needs guns” Bloomberg. Romney’s stated position on guns is, at this point, absolutely no different then the position then Governor Bush held when running for president.
November 30th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
Sean,
I understand your point. You want to like whom you vote for. I fully agree.
My point is that while I have met and liked a large number of people over the years, I would trust only a very small handful with my power of attorney
November 30th, 2006 at 7:17 pm
“Rudy’s position is only slightly to the right of Mike “no one needs guns†Bloomberg. Romney’s stated position on guns is, at this point, absolutely no different then the position then Governor Bush held when running for president.” – I think guns is where Rudy cam make the most inroads fastest among conservatives, especially conservative males. Though in the past has has been a firm proponent of gun control he can now become Rudy the federalist and say in New York City guns are a bad thing, but if you live in rural America you should be able to own an assault weapon. This is not only a legitimate point of view, but it will seem less calculated and morally tacky then suddenly discovering pro-life tendencies. Also, I think conservative males, especially in rural America, probably care more about fun rights than pro-life/choice issues. If Rudy can make a strong case for himself as the candidate for gun-owners (it would be difficult) I have trouble seeing someone else win the primary. All the early primary states are filled with conservative males who love their guns. I am uninformed as to how strongly McCain supports gun-rights, perhaps someone could enlighten me.
November 30th, 2006 at 7:57 pm
I don’t think that’s a terribly legitimate view John R. It’s debateable whether or not it’s a legitimate view in terms of sheer practicality, but it’s hardly one as far as the constitution is concerned. The second amendment is one positions people hold, to the extent that they’re supportive of it, almost entirely on principle. I don’t own a gun and doubt I’ll ever own one. But I nonetheless am extremely against most gun control in any scenarios, on principle.
November 30th, 2006 at 8:07 pm
I agree with you that, constitutionally, it should be across the board. However, our jursiprudence indicates that a state may regulate firearms through such things as the assault weapons bans. You may find it constitutionally illegitimate, but I have known a number of good conservative constitutional lawyers who believe that firearms in Boston should be strictly regulated, but you should be able to own military-grade munitions in rural Maine. Constitutionally I do agree that everyone should have the right to bear arms no matter where you live (with some basic limitation, i.e. felons), but I think with the current state of accepted jurisprudence it is a legitimate position for Rudy to say “look, it was one thing in New York City… but here in rural town X you guys should pack whatever you like.”
November 30th, 2006 at 8:19 pm
If we take seriously, and I think we must, that the purpose of the second amendment is to allow citizens to protect themselves, then I think precisely the opposite argument should be made. Why should you be more entitled to own a weapon in an area where you have a GREATER chance of needing it (i.e, more crime)? That said, I’m against the assault weapons ban, but not vigorously so. I certainly expect that most Republicans, running for national office, will at least not vocally campaign against it. My issue with Rudy is on other types of gun control. For instance, I’m pretty sure (admittedly no link at hand) that Rudy has said that people should take a test to own a gun. I don’t think that position is going to fly, even if he disavows it outside of cities.
November 30th, 2006 at 8:19 pm
Less entitled I meant to say.
November 30th, 2006 at 9:14 pm
“Why should you be more entitled to own a weapon in an area where you have a GREATER chance of needing it (i.e, more crime)?” – Whether you like it or not (and I do not) guns are pretty useless in cities for purposes of protection because you would need protection from robbery and according to both tort and criminal law you cannot shoot (even to wound) someone for attempting to rob you wihtout major liability. Also, the police are always close, unlike in rural areas where they are up tp 20 minutes away and there are critters out there. Most residences are also outside of the big cities (obviously apartment dwellers excluded) and the majority of times where it is legal to use a gun in self-defense is in protection in your home. I agree it is a stretch for Rudy, but my point is it is less of a stretch than making a switch to pro-life stances as that would seem more skeavy on a moral level. I agree with your stance on the Second Amendment, but you should really keep in mind that a lot of good conservative legal minds are fully in favor of the stance I have outlined for Rudy to take. It would also fly well in the primaries as there are no big cities in early primary states where he would have to be consistant with his New York stance, so virtually he would be saying to Iowans and New Hampshirites that they should be able to arm themmselves as they see fit.
December 1st, 2006 at 12:29 pm
John:
If memory serves, McCain had a near perfect rating with the NRA going into the 2000 primary and racked up a fair amount of support among gun owners. Since 2000, however, McCain has sponsored or supported a number of laws considered anathema to gun owners, including a failed proposal to regulate sales at gun shows, and has a C+ rating from the NRA.
I think McCain’s problem with guns is considerably more serious than Rudy’s because Rudy can simply, as others have mentioned, simply say he is a federalist on gun control issues. Or, he could simply “evolve” on the issue by citing some post 1995 research on the effects of gun control legislation (I think primary and general election voters will allow Rudy one free flip flop without tarnishing his reputation as a straight shooter). McCain, by contrast, will have to “double flip” back to his original position on gun control, which will be much more difficult
to accomplish credibly.
And, although you didn’t ask, Mitt Romney signed a law banning assault rifles in Massachussettes in 2004.