Talk about good timing. Apparently the Q&A I put together below covers the exact same topic that two conservative heavyweights penned pieces on today. NR’s Ramesh Ponnuru argues that nominating Rudy is a major gamble for the GOP due to the changed composition of a Giuliani-led GOP from that of a Bush-led party. Philip Klein of Am Spec disagrees. I’m with Klein on this issue, but let me just sum up my view in a pithy paragraph or two for those who haven’t the time to read my informative and slightly amusing piece below.
I do think that the Rudy Coalition, that is to say, the voters that come together and elect Rudy Giuliani as president, will look somewhat different than the Bush coalition. Unlike Ramesh, I believe this will be a positive development for the GOP and not a negative one. First, Rudy’s positions on the issues are shaping up to be just as acceptable to conservatives as those of President Bush. Rudy is pro-growth and low-tax, supportive of an aggressive national security policy, generally inclined to utilize market forces to solve problems, pro-trade, and has promised to appoint conservative judges. Rudy is also probably more conservative than Bush on immigration and the budget. All of this should bring 90-plus percent of the Bush voters to Team Rudy in a general election. The few Bush voters who won’t vote for Rudy will either be those who simply refuse to vote for a candidate who isn’t explicitly pro-life or pro-FMA (or equivalent) or those who only voted for Bush because of cultural reasons, i.e., because he’s a Texan or a southerner or an evangelical or all of those things.
The reason I believe the Rudy Coalition will be beneficial to the GOP is that the voters Rudy loses from the Bush Coalition as described above will have almost no adverse impact on Republicans electorally, while the voters Rudy brings into the party will have a great deal of impact. Republicans aren’t going to lose Texas because a Texan isn’t on the ticket. We’re not going to lose Alabama because a southerner isn’t running. And we’re not going to lose Utah or Louisiana because the GOP nominee is nominally pro-choice while promising to be functionally pro-life. The reason is that the few Bush voters we lose in those states won’t be enough to make a real difference in the electoral vote count due to the GOP margins in those states being so high. The voters that will change the map are those who will vote for Rudy but who wouldn’t vote for Bush. Identity politics alone will ensure that the Rudy-led GOP ticket receives more votes from voters in industrial states than did President Bush. This will be similar to the dynamic we observed in 2000, when Bush won lots of southern and evangelical voters that didn’t vote for Bob Dole. Most voters aren’t political junkies and prefer to vote for the guy they can relate to. The folks that can relate to Rudy at a gut level will be located in states like Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Illinois, and New Jersey. These states have lots of electoral votes, and most of them were very, very close in 2004. Sure, New Jersey’s always a tease, but can anyone imagine Rudy not winning Pennsylvania, which the president lost by only 2 percent? Or Wisconsin, a 1 percent state for Kerry? Those two states together have 31 electoral votes. If Rudy gains just a few points across the industrial north and midwest, he changes the electoral vote totals dramatically. And he does this, remember, without losing any southern or western states.
Further, a Rudy-led GOP ticket will put less emphasis on cultural issues than did Bush in ’04. Again, a few less votes in South Carolina, but no loss of electoral votes. The real difference will come with the increase in socially agnostic and libertarian voters that will vote GOP, many of whom are concentrated in the southwest and northeast. Again, we lose nothing while gaining something, such as the fortification of states like Nevada and Arizona and the return of New Hampshire’s electoral votes to the GOP column.
I respect Ramesh immensely for his intellect, but to suggest that a Rudy-led GOP would actually hurt Republicans, especially just following an election where the GOP was wiped out in every region BUT the most culturally conservative ones seems a difficult claim to put forth. It’s more likely that Rudy would hold the south and the plains states while upping GOP numbers in the southwest and industrial states. And that’s a huge win for a GOP that’s on the ropes in every state north of the Ohio River.
February 15th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
[...] post by DaveG and software by Elliott [...]
February 15th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
Ramesh’s position is like arguing that Dems made a dumb move nominating a centrist who carried new states for them in 1992 and 1996. Absolutely killed their coalition, it did.
If Bill had been able to keep his libido in check, we’d be gearing up for a Lieberman candidacy right now.
Oh the ironies there . . .
February 15th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
I just think that some people refuse to believe that the Republican Party is as screwed as it truly is right now.
Yes, America is still fundamentally a center-right nation. However, your average voter no longer believes that the GOP is a center-right party because so many of our elected officials have betrayed the party’s principles in furtherance of GOP Inc.
Who we nominate in 2008 is going to determine whether the GOP sinks into a 20 year minority party or forms a new coalition and begins the journey back.
February 15th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
To me at least, this analysis seems specious. For starters, Hillary is already beating Rudy in Ohio and would probably take back “Red” states like WV, AR (for sure, and probably LA b/c of proximity) and will be very competitive in MO, IA, NM (especially if Richardson is VP), KY, TN, FL, etc.
I don’t see Rudy winning Michigan or Pennsylvania because of his free trade, fiscal conservatism. Most of these voters are still too fiscally liberal/anti-free trade to vote GOP. Bush was somewhat close because of his cultural conservatism. Quite a few Democrats in these states are pro-life.
Socially liberal Republicans, like this author, somehow believe that Rudy will put states like CA, NJ, WA into play. I think that is quite optimistic because each of these states have a hard core Democratic base, even Arnold didn’t win the bay area. Repeatedly pro-choice Republicans have gone down in defeat in these states, despite being positively touted: Tom Campbell, Michael Huffington, Tom Kean, Doug Forrester, Mike McGavick. Even if a Republican is pro-choice and fiscally conservative, that doesn’t mean the result of the election is going to be in the GOP’s favor. If you look at Washington state politics, pro-life Dino Rossi almost won the governorship because he motivated religious conservatives while still appearing moderate. People were generally unenthused with McGavick.
Also if the GOP does abandon its social conservatism, it’s going to be very hard for it to win or hold congress because there are actually very few districts, states where the great majority of the populace makes a six-digit income. People generally care about bread and butter issues unless there are social issues out there. And the affluent may not vote for Rudy anyway. I live in formerly Republican suburb of Minneapolis that went from a moderate, pro-choice, pro-business Republican representative to solidly Democratic, liberal, teacher’s union lackey. Fiscal issues aren’t the be all end all.
February 15th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
Well, one of Ramesh’s points, and one that I should’ve touched on, is that it’s certainly not a negative to be pro-life in the Great Lakes region, and that the very states I’m targeting for Rudy, states like Pennsylvania, are ones in which Dems have tried to find social moderates like Casey to win.
I agree, but I think Ramesh is missing the other half of the story, as embodied by one Rick Santorum.
Having spent most of my life in Michigan, I can attest to the fact that voters in the Great Lakes region are sort of tempermental social conservatives. They don’t want the government to get involved in the culture one way or the other. The reason the gay marriage ban passed in Michigan has to do with just that: redefining marriage would have an effect on the culture, and those voters do not want the government to do something that will dink with the culture. To those voters, the culture is something that gov’t shouldn’t get involved with. Note that this is quite different from the south and plains states, where many voters want government to act to advance certain values, and where guys like Coburn and Brownback win statewide, and win regularly.
Another way to think about this is that midwestern voters view social issues as they do religion. They’re socially conservative, but they don’t want to talk about it. Since coming to the DC area, I’ve met lots of southerners, and I’ve learned that religion is far more of a public topic in the south. One friend told me that inviting friends to church and debating the Bible is pretty much a part of the culture down there. In Michigan, people go to church. But no one talks about it, outside of evangelical circles of course. People read the Bible. But no one talks about it. And people would prefer there not be gay marriage or partial birth abortions. But no one talks about it. And when politicians talk about it too much, Michigan voters get freaked out. And they’ll vote Kerry. After all, he’s against gay marriage too. But he doesn’t talk about it.
That’s why I fail to see how the functionally pro-life Rudy would be outside the mainstream in Pennsylvania when he is to the left of Santorum on the issue but to the right of functionally pro-choice Bob Casey, Jr. If anything, Rudy is the perfect candidate to run in Pennsylvania, and in all the Great Lakes states.
February 15th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
“I don’t see Rudy winning Michigan or Pennsylvania because of his free trade, fiscal conservatism.”
I completely disagree. Bush 41 creamed Dukakis in both states. And he was another former social liberal with northeastern roots and a pro-business, pro-market philosophy. I’ve analyzed 2006 numerous times, and the votes the GOP lost were those of secular suburban voters in the north and west. Rudy’s just the guy to get them back, including some that haven’t voted GOP since 1988.
“For starters, Hillary is already beating Rudy in Ohio”
The GOP brand name is tainted right now. Wait ’till the campaigns start.
“and would probably take back “Red” states like WV, AR (for sure, and probably LA b/c of proximity) and will be very competitive in MO, IA, NM (especially if Richardson is VP), KY, TN, FL, etc.”
Do you really think that a shrill feminist who reminds every man of an unpleasant ex and seems like she burned her bra on campus 35 years ago is going to do 7-10 points better in the SOUTH than Kerry did against Bush? Because that’s what it would take to win most of the states you’ve just listed. Florida is a different animal, but Rudy will do well there because of ex-NYers. NM and IA can probably be held, but aren’t ultimately necessary for victory.
“Also if the GOP does abandon its social conservatism, it’s going to be very hard for it to win or hold congress ”
No one is talking about this. We’re talking about nominating a candidate for president who will be operationally pro-life, oppose new federal gun laws, oppose same sex marriage, but leave these issues with the states to regulate one way or the other.
February 15th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
Although I don’t support Guiliiani personally, I do get a sense of hope for the GOP party when reading about what he could possibly do (like, win, for example). I’m curious as to which direction the party will take, if being pro-live, pro-FMA isn’t manditory then what does the party stand for? Obviously national security and fiscal responsibility are the other main issues that republicans claim, but is that all they are, claims? What about border security (in my view, part of national security)? We’ve all seen what a republican controlled congress accomplished fiscally over the last several years (I believe that was one of the factors for the result of the latest election).
February 15th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
What about IN-8, DaveG? A SoCo was defeated by a populist…is that a sign of economic liberalism growing in Southern Indiana/the Ohio River region?
February 15th, 2007 at 10:58 pm
I want to be sure that it is clear: I am strongly republican. I believe that conservative principles are what’s best for this country. I’m just thinking out loud here about the future of the party.
February 15th, 2007 at 11:15 pm
Nusrat,
Good question. And believe me, those who say the industrial midwest has a good deal of populists are exactly correct. I grew up in a family full of Michigan Buchananites! But here’s the thing. Each one of those Michigan Buchananites voted for Kerry in 2004. Bush’s so-con creds did nothing to sway them. In fact, those may have turned them off a little because of the issue I was talking about earlier, i.e., people up there don’t like pols who talk about social issues.
But I guarantee you that in a Rudy v. Hillary race, at least half of DaveG’s Michigan family members who voted for Kerry would vote Rudy. This would occur for a variety of reasons. Kerry was a war vet and a fairly normal guy. Hillary’s a shrill rhymes-with-witch. Rudy can communicate to those voters better than Bush. Not just because he’s more communicatively gifted, though he is, but because he’s got working-class Italian northern roots and so he’s culturally a lot more like DaveG’s working-class Italian Michigan family. And there are lots of those folks in Michigan. And a few in Ohio. More in Pennsylvania. A lot more in New Jersey.
And yes, the Ohio River region will probably see some votes lost to the Democrats if we run a more fiscally conservative, less socially conservative nominee, but the suburbs of Detroit and Cleveland and Pittsburgh and Philly will see more voters move to the GOP, which will make up for those losses and some. This is all just speculation at this point, but I think Rudy does well enough among the suburbanites in the industrial states as well as the small town types like DaveG’s family who will culturally identify with Rudy that he’ll experience a net gain even if he loses a few populists to the Dems, and I doubt that he’ll lose many if Hillary heads the ticket. Edwards would actually give Rudy a run for his money in the midwest, but Edwards would lose all the big coastal states to Rudy for the same reason he’d win the midwest: populism.
February 15th, 2007 at 11:17 pm
If I remember correctly, the republicans here in Indiana lost by the same number of votes that the Libertarians received. In my county, the last democrat to get over 50% was Evan Bayh in 2004. For the most part, Indiana is quite conservative, and I think that the losses last year were because of general discontent and frustration with the congress as a whole not because of Hostetler and Chocola and the other one (I forget his name).
February 15th, 2007 at 11:44 pm
first off, if Iraq is still the overwhelming and negative issue in 2008 that it is now, it doesn’t matter who the GOP goes with, they’ll lose.
2nd of all, it seems that what Ramesh is advocating is to stick with the Bush/Rove plan. That approach, while it has won 2 elections, hasn’t exactly been dominant.
It lost the popular vote in 2000 and won a narrow victory in 2004 largely based on the strength of an incumbent in wartime. In both elections Bush defeated a sub-par, boring candidate with the charisma and personality of plywood.
In 2 elections, Bush hasn’t topped 286 EVs. He’s the first President in 100+ years to win with under 300 EVs and he’s done it twice.
Basically, it consists of drawing an inside straight and hoping that both Ohio and Florida come through. It also helps when your brother is the Governor of one of the states you have to win.
In short, it’s not a great strategy going forward. I don’t think the GOP wants to be in a position where they have to sweat out election after election, down on their knees at 1 AM wednesday morning praying that Ohio comes in Red, having a max 51% voting for them and the other 50% of the country hating their guts.
Does anyone remember Reagan winning elections with 489 and 525 EVs and 60% of the vote, Bush Sr with 400+ EVs and 55%, elections that were over in time for the local news? Is that all the GOP is destined to be from now on, a party that has a narrow base and squeaks out elections while having half the country despise them? Wouldn’t it be nice to have a candidate that could win without these razor thin margins that happen in the dead of night?
I don’t think Ramesh’s approach is viable either. I don’t know who he supports but if he supports Romney I don’t have much respect for his pro life convictions. Who out there has a chance to change the map, to move beyond the 286 EV threshold that Bush reached, that could win an election taht doesn’t depend on a few votes here and there in one state at 1 AM? I don’t know if that guy is out there right now, and maybe Iraq has destroyed the GOP for a generation just like Vietnam destroyed the Democrats, but if that guy is out there, I hope we can find him.
February 15th, 2007 at 11:53 pm
It’s not all about winning (although none of the issues matter if we lose) when selecting a candidate. We need someone who can lead and accomplish the tasks that face the president.
February 16th, 2007 at 12:28 am
Dave,
I dont know where you get this “shrill rhymes with witch” stuff from – been listenting to too much talk radio? Maybe its your sincere opinion, and it obviously is the line that the wingnut activists want to spread, but it really sint accurate, and I really dont think the average American feels that way – whether they support her or not.
She is actually quite calm and dignified, and her positions are to the right of the mainstream of the Democratic party. She has won over a fair number of Republicans in NY, and in the Senate. I really think you are underestimating her.
February 16th, 2007 at 12:44 am
Well, I think she’d beat Brownback, Tancredo, and most of the lower tier GOP candidates. But what I do know is this: my grandfather and my dad, two Kerry ’04 voters, do not want to vote for Hillary. My dad calls her a rhymes-with-witch, and my grandfather won’t even dignify her to that extent. If they are given a Republican they can connect with, lots and lots men in the industrial states will vote for the candidate who’s not Hillary.
Full disclosure though. My mom and grandmother can’t wait to vote for Hillary. In the Democratic primary. Such is the life of the black sheep in a family of Reagan Democrats
February 16th, 2007 at 1:27 am
Rudy may not be perfect on all the SOCON issues, but as of now,(this could change) he appears to be the only Republican that can win against any Dem. As stated above, we got creamed in the suburbs( cost George Allen the Presidency ), and unless we can get a nominee suburban voters will be comfortable with,forget 2008.Rudy has proven he can pull suburban votes and cut into the ethnic Democrat base .His states rights stands on abortions ,guns and gays may not play well with the most ardent believers in the Bible belt,but not enough to cost him in most of the South.
The question is will it play in Peoria? I think it will. Though a lot of Mid Westerners are Conservative leaning,they have a strong Libertarian streak and Rudy’s viewes are less threatening and more in tune with their States rights-Gov stay out of my life philosophy.A VP pick with strong So Con credentials should hold most of the So Con votes.
What we really have to worry about is the Women’s vote if Hillary is the nominee for the Dems. She will bring out all the welfare ,single moms, and working single women in droves because of her social welfare promises to provide them security( the Nanny State) they haven’t gotten from a man in their lives. That’s why we must have someone who can really appeal to men and surburban moms.
The Iraq war is a real albatros around any Republicans neck ,especially with women.I see Rudy’s strong credentials on security giving us our best chance of at least partially neutralizing this issue. In any case, it’s going to be a tough campaign for the GOP.
February 16th, 2007 at 2:09 am
what about Mitt’s first name? Much like Newt or Barack, I find it hard to believe the public will elect a guy with an unorthodox 1st name. I just don’t know if they’d go with a Mitt or a Newt or a Barack as President.
If you look at Presidents they tend to have conventional names: George, Bill, George, Ronald, Jimmy, Jerry, Richard etc…
Mitt and Barack are kind of out there, name-wise.
This hurts Giuliani too last name wise as no one with an ethnic name has ever won.(Eisenhower is the closest and he was such a national hero that no one else has even come close since perhaps Grant, another guy with an unorthodox first name(Ulysses, btw. Rudy may be known for 9/11 but he’s no Ike)
But he’s so known by his 1st name that I don’t know if it would hurt him. If he goes up against Obama they’d cancel each other out, but against Edwards or Richardson, it could make a difference.
I don’t think it’ll be a big deal, but it could be one of those little things that adds up in a general election that tips the scales.
February 16th, 2007 at 3:19 am
Jim,
Technically Mitt’s first name is Willard. Another unorthodox name no doubt, but I like the ring of Mitt. But, if you subscribe to the ‘names make the candidate’ theory, then last names take greater precedence. Afterall, it’s the last names that are typically printed on the election signs. When looking at the previous matchups, those with longer names or more syllables tend to win. George Bush vs Al Gore (almost a virtual tie in length and the election), Clinton vs Dole, and Clinton vs Bush. We can assume, the more syllables the better, right. Not so with Michael Dukakis. It looks like 2 syllable last names are the sweet spot.
With the Ronald Reagan vs Walter Mondale and RR vs Jimmy Carter, the names and syllables are very approximate to eachother, but he creamed both of them. I attribute this to the alliteration effect. When a candidate has the repitition built into his full name, it sticks better. Also, the R’s subconciously reinforce his ‘Republican’ political alignment.
Moving onto 1976, Carter vs Ford shows once again that 2 syllables are better than 1. I could go on and on. Seriously though, I just made up all this on the spot, and it could seem to be the case, but who is to say that the next election will not hold true or everything to this point has been coincidence.
February 16th, 2007 at 6:01 am
The Rudy Coalition…
…
February 16th, 2007 at 8:51 am
Your Rudy dream is just that. Believing otherwise merely demonstrates a severe lack of understanding about the GOP nominating process.
February 16th, 2007 at 8:54 am
Kavon this is the smartest think I’ve seen you post here: “Who we nominate in 2008 is going to determine whether the GOP sinks into a 20 year minority party or forms a new coalition and begins the journey back.” You are exaclty right. And the right man to bring the GOP back to its socially conservative principles is Mike Huckabee.
February 16th, 2007 at 9:39 am
As long as we’re going off topic, there’s a new post by Terry Michael in the politico that highlights one of the many reasons I’ve long believed that Mitt is infinitely electable http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0207/2778.html It somewhat frightens me at times, because in interview sessions especially, I find that Romney positiely hypnotizes me and apparently I’m not alone.
February 16th, 2007 at 10:03 am
“Most voters aren’t political junkies and prefer to vote for the guy they can relate to”
Great post Dave,
My cousin is in this category. He is an Independent and had a hard time voting for Bush, but he is very interested in Rudy. Rudy seems to break the Republican stigma that the MSM has created. He could ever rebuild support for the Iraq War.
February 16th, 2007 at 10:33 am
This is great. We have come a long way from Rudy can’t get nominated because of life issue. Some must be reading the polls. When I wear my Rudy t-shirt, I get only positive comments. No one says they can’t stand Rudy.
February 16th, 2007 at 10:57 am
Grant,
I have had the same positive feedback. Everyone seems to like Rudy.
February 16th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
The argument for Rudy Giuliani and against the status quo conventional Republican wisdom (that their presidential nominee must be pro-life) is simple: Republican rhetoric has not gotten us conservative public policy, let alone fewer abortions, only conservative office holders who do little but disappoint once elected because their goal is merely to maintain power; Giuliani gets results and will tackle and make decisions on the tough issues (Social Security reform; Medicare reform; immigration reform; border control; healthcare reform; education reform; tax code reform and simplification; Pentagon reform; international trade reform) by taking on entrenched special interests that want no change. Debra Saunders of the San Francisco Chronicle made this point in her column from yesterday – http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/who_makes_the_tough_decisions.html.
February 16th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
Republius,
Will you be “holding Giuliani’s feet to the fire” in the same manner as you grilled Romney several weeks ago? I’ve been looking forward to the equal treatment from the site’s best “devil’s advocate”.
February 16th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
murphy,
Judging from the number of posts, articles, and stories about his stance on abortion, guns and gays, I would have to say Rudy has been grilled extensively.
Despite all this, Rudy’s numbers continue to clime.
You gotta like that.
February 16th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
GOP Activist,
You might not have been posting here back when Republius promised an equal grilling for every candidate. He may prefer Giuliani (or may not), but I still considered him to be serious about his equal treatment.
And you can’t seriously think that those poll numbers of Rudy’s are based on knowledge of his political beliefs. People on this site have given you evidence of polls proving this to be incorrect. I’m not sure you’re willing to admit to reality in that regard, so I won’t spend much time banging my head on this one.
February 16th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
I do think that the MSM will take that approach.
Their only hope is to keep Rudy from winning the nomination, because as these polls indicate, they know he is the only candidate that can defeat Hillary.