The latest meme coming out of the folks on the Right not yet committed to Rudy concerns the Mayor’s ability to cobble together an electoral college majority. Ramesh Ponnuru of National Review and Phil Klein of the American Spectator sparred over this very topic last week. This week, it’s Terry Jeffery who’s making the case against Rudy’s electability in the general:
The Christie Todd Whitman Republicans have long promulgated the myth that the GOP can expand its appeal by dropping the social issues. The truth, as Kate points out, is the opposite. The Republican Party expands its appeal through social conservatism. Not only does social conservatism help keep the South where there are many evangelical Christian voters solidly Republican (this was one of Zell Miller’s arguments for why national Democrats cannot win in that region), but it also helps the GOP win Catholic voters in Midwestern swing states that are likely to determine the outcome of the 2008 election just as they determined the outcome of the 2004 election…
In the key swing state of Ohio, whose electoral votes determined the outcome of the 2004 election, Bush had an added advantage: Thanks to Ken Blackwell, there was a marriage amendment on the ballot that won 62% and helped turn out socially conservative voters. Nonetheless, in that rust-belt state, the economy was more important with voters than it was nationwide. Twenty-four percent of Ohio voters told the exit poll the economy was the most important issue deciding their vote, while 23% said it was moral values. Kerry won 83% of Ohio’s economy voters, and Bush won 85% of its moral-values voters. Significantly, Catholic voters made up 26% of the Ohio electorate, and Bush beat Kerry among these voters by 11 points.
Bottom line question: If the GOP runs a candidate such as Rudy Giuliani, who mirrors the Democratic candidate’s liberal positions on key social issues, and who will not benefit from the presence of a marriage amendment on the ballot, does the GOP increase or decrease its chances of winning Ohio?
Running against a senator who just won a landslide reelection in New York, Giuliani is far more likely to paint Ohio blue than his home state red.
Again, Jeffery is a very smart guy who says very smart things about politics. But I’m still not buying the argument that Rudy will underperform Bush in the electoral college. I think the Jeffery argument, which last week was the Ponnuru argument, is suspect for three reasons.
First, I disagree vehemently with one of the major premises of the Jeffery/Ponnuru argument.
The notion that Rudy Giuliani will, as Jeffery put it, mirror the Democratic nominee on social issues is just not correct. If we Rudy supporters were contemplating running Christie Whitman for president, Jeffery would be on point in this aspect of his analysis. But we’re not. Instead, we’re running a candidate who, while personally not conservative on many social issues, will govern as a functional social conservative on most of the big issues cultural conservatives care about. On the Second Amendment, Rudy has stated he will oppose additional federal gun laws. Neither Hillary nor Obama have made that pledge. On abortion, Rudy has promised to appoint jurists who will uphold abortion laws made by the people and their elected representatives. Hillary’s judges will overturn those laws. Rudy supports the partial birth abortion ban. Hillary voted against the ban. No, Rudy won’t sign a blanket ban on abortion if Roe v. Wade were overturned tomorrow, but such an initiative hasn’t a chance in Purgatory of getting through either house of Congress. And no, he doesn’t support the FMA, but again, if the GOP Congress of 2005 and 2006 couldn’t push that initiative through, does anyone expect Speaker Pelosi’s House to act on it? Social conservatives are smart enough to know what their feasible goals are at the federal level. Rudy will help them to advance those goals. Hillary and Obama won’t. As such, the idea that there will be no real difference between Rudy and the Democratic nominee on social issues becomes a very difficult claim to make.
The second flaw I find in the Jeffery/Ponnuru analysis lies in the assumption that Rudy would underperform Bush in the industrial midwest. Given that, as discussed above, Rudy will be running as a functional social conservative, it seems that those midwestern voters in states like Ohio that only pull the lever for the Republican because of social issues will have a few very good reasons to vote for a Rudy-led GOP, not the least of which being the replacement for Justice Stevens. Sure, Rudy will lose a few votes here and there because he’s not as proactively socially conservative as Bush, but he’ll also gain votes — lots of votes — from urbanites and suburbanites in northern Ohio, the same sorts of industrial voters and northern ethnics that Rudy has been winning throughout his political career. Rudy will be far better at communicating the GOP message to these voters than Bush, a fellow from the deep south who seemed just as foreign to them as the patrician from New England. I would argue that Rudy will actually outperform Bush ’04 in Ohio, as well as in comparable states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. All of these states came within a whisker of turning red in 2004.
Finally, the Jeffery and Ponnuru theories really seem to downplay Rudy’s chances in the northeast and on the west coast. Again, Rudy’s been winning elections in the northeast for his entire political career. He has a personal connection with voters in New York’s neighboring states, New Jersey and Connecticut, both of which were moderately blue in 2004. Rudy has a real shot to flip both states. He’d also almost certainly bring New Hampshire back into the fold, which Kerry won by a hair, and Delaware and Maine would be on the table. And the real prize that no one seems to be talking about, California, is a must-win for the Democrats. A pro-freedom Republican like Rudy, who favors limited government, low taxes, and free markets, would definitely put the Golden State in play.
Given all of these considerations — the fact that Rudy will be running as a functional social conservative, the Mayor’s ability to connect with suburban Kerry voters in the industrial midwest, and Rudy’s ability to flip blue coastal states — it seems to me that Rudy is far more likely to add electoral votes to the GOP column than to lose them. Rudy may not be the choice of many conservatives for president, but to attack him on this front makes little sense.
February 23rd, 2007 at 3:00 am
This concept of the functional social conservative is interesting.
I could run for Senate and say to the voters “I hate taxes but I don’t think its my job as Senator to vote against them but, don’t worry, I’ll vote to approve judges who will prevent my raising taxes”
I wonder how inept an opponent I would require to still get elected.
February 23rd, 2007 at 8:27 am
Functional social conservative is a laugher. I will grant that Rudy could (I’m hardly convinced) be solid on judges, but that is far from the totality of social issues confronting the President.
As I’ve said before, a promise to nominate “originalists”, “textualists”, “strict constructionists”, and justices like Alito and Roberts sounds good, but it hasn’t always worked out well in the past. For someone who has clearly spent his life in active support of the liberal social agenda (not merely sitting on his hands, but cheerleading at a NARAL convention), he’ll need to give me something a little more substantial than an open-ended promise to nominate a certain type of judge. After all, some conservatives felt David Souter, Anthony Kennedy, and even Harriet Miers were judges “like Scalia.”
I’ll repeat it for the hundreth time: give us names, Rudy. Tell us you’re planning on nominating Judge W. Pryor, Judge E. Jones, and JRB and I’ll know your conception of a judge “like Alito and Roberts” is the same as this SoCon’s.
As a native NY’er, I’ll be honest with you, Rudy was a better mayor than we could have ever hoped for or deserved. As a Presidential candidate, he’s less than what the GOP needs or expects.
February 23rd, 2007 at 8:53 am
I agree with econ grad stud. I think DaveG, Kavon, and other Rudy supporters vastly underestimate the negatives involved with Rudy actually espousing socially liberal beliefs. He was easily my second choice, but fell to 5th after Gingrich, McCain, and Thompson after his Fox News appearance. Because its not simply a question of “functional pro-life” credentials. It’s about what sort of values we want to have at the forefront of the Republican Party and, further, our clear willingness to argue with those who don’t agree with us on these deeply important issues. Mark y words, this is all going to be very bad for the Republican Party. I can see the whole sordid path right now. Some angry pro-lifer is going to pull something similar to what that heckler pulled on Romney with Mormonism the other week. He’s going to say “you sir, support murder”. And maybe everyone in the crowd boos him, or maybe they don’t. What’s guaranteed though, is that some of those who are pro-life by default, but who otherwise have a favorable impression of Rudy are going to say to themselves “look what hatred can do to us?” “Rudy’s a great man, and I don’t want to be associated with such a hateful movement”. And they’re gone. I’ve already seen Rudy convert one person from pro-life (a long, long, held belief) to pro-choice simply by a sheer desire to emulate the man. The pro-life movement is going to be turned into a blocking the school doors moment and we’re going to be able to do nothing to stop it. What good is overturning Roe, if there no longer exists, nearly anywhere, the political will to “enforce” one’s beliefs on another.
But in terms of the effects Rudy’s going to have on more firmly pro-life voters, there’s a more clear problem. Rudy’s language. He’s using the term a “woman’s right to choose” which, unless otherwise stated, implies a general approal of Roe v. Wade. And he’s not stating otherwise. He’s saying things like “appointing someone to uphold Roe wouldn’t be a priority” or “I suspect the Supreme Court is going to limit Roe” or “I know other people wonder if it was decided correctly, or on the right basis”. But he’s not saying anything about how he feels about the case. I imply don’t think that’s going to cut it. But he’s has another problem. If he fully comes out against Roe, he loses his electoral viability from another corner. If I, a pro-lifer who likes Rudy, am assuming based on Rudy’s current language that he approves of Roe generally, then pro-choicers who also like Rudy are assuming the same thing. His talk of strict constructionists not withstanding. So they’ve got a fairly decent chance of voting for him. But the moment he comes out against Roe, what precisely is their rationale for supporting him? “Well, he personally feels the way that we do abortion, but his actions will accomplish the oppositions goals”. How’d that work for John Kerry on abortion in winning over pro-lifers? It’s nonsensical. If Rudy’s not going to protect Roe, then they have no good reason to cross over to support him. And then he just becomes another generic Republican, with star power but a sordid past. I don’t agree that Rudy is unelectable, but I think that when the dust settles, he could well be looking at an electoral victory margin somewhere between Bush’s 2000 win and his 2004 win. Not nearly so comfortable as many would hope. And on guns, Rudy is simply not credible. On May 20, 1997 Rudy said “”Gun control works,” Mr. Giuliani said. “The fact that we have strong gun-control laws is one of the many reasons why we lead America in the reduction of violent crime, murder, shootings and gun crimes…”If the rest of America could do what we’re doing, we’d probably get another 30-40 per cent reduction in crime”. The line that Giuliani only supported gun control for NYC, because of the propensity for crime, or that he doesn’t support gun-control as a general principle, is untenable. Giuliani wanted the rest of the country to adopt his views. Or, if he somehow truly believed that gun deaths would decrease 30-40% if NYC’s cgun control laws were adopted everywhere, it’d be rather peculiar for him to say “we don’t need any new gun laws”. It’d also be peculiar for him to say that, while a decade earlier publicly, and prominently, supporting the crime bill. What Rudy seems to essentially be saying, when one looks at his record and past statements, on a whole host of issues is “if I had my way I’d implement new gun laws, repeal abortion laws, implement nationwide civil unions, but I’m happy to pander to you and promise to ignore my preferences if you’ll vote for me”. It’s nonsensical and cuts directly against his “straight-talk” image. And it’s leagues worse then what people accuse Romney of.
February 23rd, 2007 at 9:08 am
Krusty is having a haiku contest for the one year anniversary of his blog. [http://krustykonservative.blogspot.com/2007/02/krustys-birthday-haiku-kontest.html]
Since it’s cogent to this thread, I thought I’d share my entry here as well:
Rudy’s people say
He’s a “Constructive SoCon”
Is you serious?
February 23rd, 2007 at 9:44 am
This entire Jefferey/Ponnuru analysis is laughable. It is like saying Clinton would not be able to win because he was so far to the right on economic issues and certain social issues (eg death penalty). He had has sister souljah moment. And he won two overwhelming electoral majorities (with the help of a deranged Texan, though he probably would have still won without Perot), and is beloved by African-Americans. Politics is a strange thing, but you rarely completely lose your base by tacking to the center on a few issues, even if they appear to be high salience.
February 23rd, 2007 at 10:18 am
“heckler pulled on Romney with Mormonism the other week”
I agree with Matt on this point.
There will be a very small percentage of people who disagree with Rudy, but Rudy is not pandering for pro-life votes like Romney and McCain. If the far right overreaches, there will be backlash against them, very much like there was against the anti-gay soldier funeral protestors.
February 23rd, 2007 at 11:02 am
First of all, Ohio is going to be a tough call for the Republicans no matter who they nominate. The difference between nominating Rudy and a conventional so-con is that Ohio remains an absolute must-win state for a so-con Republican, whereas for Rudy its importance would be demoted to the level that Pennsylvania is now (helpful but not essential to victory).
Secondly, even assuming a so-mo (is that a word?) has less appeal to Ohio voters than a so-con, this anti-electability argument falsley assumes that this election will occur in a vacuum. Specifically, even if this hypothesis is correct, Rudy’s appeal in blue states will force Democrats to alter THEIR election strategy in such a way that will make them less appealing in the Industrial Midwest as well, regardless of their nominee.
Since Clinton left office, the Democrats have increasingly been drifting back to their old protectionist platform, a platform that is very popular in the I.M. and which cumulated in huge wins for Dems in Ohio and Michegin. Not only that, these wins have occurred WITHOUT correspondning losses in California, Washington, New Jersey or other states where the economy is dependant on free trade. Why? Because the so-con platform is so anathema in places like California voters there are willing to overlook the leftward drift of the party on economic issues.
If Romney is the nominee, the Dems will continue to have their cake and eat it too, by pounding on free trade where free trade is unpopular, and crusing to election in the places where it is (which tend to be coastal regions, and therefore socially liberal). A Giuliani nomination, by contrast, would immediately make solid blue New York competitive, and California and Washington potentially competitive. Not enought to flip Cal or Wash, but he would bring the Republicans close enough to force the Democratic candidate to trim their anti-free trade sails a bit. And what effect do you think that’s going to have in Ohio and Michegin.
February 23rd, 2007 at 11:02 am
But that’s the point TM. When the far-right overreaches attacking a Democrat, at least they still have their defenders. When someone calls Hillary Clinton a “murderer” because she supports abortion, she’s unlikely to find any passionate defenders on the right because, while many might agree that statement is counterproductie and harsh, they associate it with Hillary Clinton who they already intensely dislike. The pro-life movement doesn’t collapse because there’s a sense from pro-lifers that, while the heckler might not have been entirely fair, he nonetheless hit on a central truth: that Hillary is a terrible candidate who advocates terrible positions. When someone on the far-rght attacks Rudy, it’ll be a different situation entirely. Conservatives LIKE Rudy, so they don’t want to think of him as a murderer, and thus will be more likely to react not just against the heckler himself, but against the movement that created him. It is astonishing to me that conservatives don’t understand this dynamic, or fantacize that some sort of good could come to the pro-life movement following Rudy’s nomination. And whether or not you or I know enough about political processes to caution the far-right against this reaction, it’ll nonetheless be employed. And the whole pro-life community will suffer for it.
February 23rd, 2007 at 11:11 am
Matt,
I think a better analogy would be Code Pink (the far left) heckling Hillary. They have already done this, but this has resulted in helping Hillary cement the center left in her Party to secure the nomination. We are already seeing this in the Polls. Hillary will also benefit from this in the general election, because it makes her look more centrist.
February 23rd, 2007 at 11:19 am
Econ Grad Stud,
Ah, but the position you’ve stated is actually far less ridiculous than you imply. Imagine if a politician were to say:
“I hate taxes. I don’t like to pay them. Heck, no one does. But we have to pay for the government somehow, and, as such, I will continue to support the government’s ability to tax the American people. I also think decisions on what to tax or how much to tax belong in the democratic process, and that the courts should defer to the people on these matters.”
Isn’t this basically the position of almost every politician in America?
Thanks for making my point for me!
February 23rd, 2007 at 12:59 pm
This is before my time, but does anyone know if it was a federal law against abortion before Roe v. Wade, or was it a state law. In my opinion, this should be a state law, just like murder, not a federal law. Does anyone know what it was before Roe?
February 23rd, 2007 at 1:05 pm
When Roe came up to the USSC in ’73, 29 states had already outlawed abortion (among them California and New York), but Roe came from Texas and worked it’s way up through the appeals process.
In essence, it was a States’ rights issue, with those rights firmly protected under the Tenth Amendment. But the USSC and the federal government didn’t see things that way. Griswold v. Connecticut technically opened the door for Roe. That was the infamous case that gave us the misinterpreted, broad-sweeping “right to privacy.”
And for future reference, as Roe did give us abortion, i.e., making it legal, a little known case decided the same day in Doe v. Bolton gave us abortion on demand.
Thomas
February 23rd, 2007 at 1:13 pm
Not a perfect analogy, but I think I’m getting the hang of this…
“I hate abortion. I don’t like killing babies. Heck, no one does. But we have to get rid of them somehow, and, as such, I will continue to support the woman’s right to choose.”
February 23rd, 2007 at 2:38 pm
I agree with Dave. The Ponnuru/Jefferey strategy seems to be premised on simply preserving the Bush/Rove map of 2000/2004. It provides virtually no margin of error. It requires victory in Florida and Ohio and basically writes of 250 EVs as unwinnable. It basically seeks to continue the red/blue divide in perpetutity. Rove used to speak of a lasting GOP majority. You can’t do that when you can never top 286 EVs. In 2 elections Bush never topped 286EV or 51% of the popular vote. By comparison, Clinton never dropped below 370EVs.
Given recent events in Ohio and other states, as well as Iraq and the general anti-GOP mood in the country, to place all our hopes on simply pulling off a repeat of 2000 or 2004 is not a smart move.
Whoever we nominate, he is going to have to be someone who can expand the electoral map and give us a chance to win in places Bush couldn’t. I think most would agree that the nominee will either be McCain, Romney or Giuliani. Given that, which of the three has the best chance to compete electorally?
I don’t see Romney flipping any blue states(and in any event he has less of a chance to do so than the other two). So a Romney ticket is basically one that hopes we can repeat 2004′s map, hold Ohio/Florida and all the other red states. It basically cedes all the blue states to the dems and allows the campaign to be fought entirely on our turf. Given the fact that Jeb won’t be Governor of FL in 2008 and Clinton’s popularity there, FL will be tougher in 2008. Ohio is already trending away from the GOP.
I see a Romney ticket at best being a very close victory that the GOP wins by one state again at around 1 or 2 in the morning on Wednesday and one that barely if at all tops 50% of the vote.
On the other hand, a Giuliani or McCain ticket, as Dave points out would be competitive in states like NY, NJ, PA, CT, WI, MI, and the big one CA. They might not win them but they’ll force the dems to compete there and spend money and it will be better overall for the campaign. Some of these states have large Italian populations as well that could be a handy swing bloc. FL has a large snowbird and Jewish bloc that would be far more likely to go with Giuliani than Romney. Giuliani will be afr more competitive in the mid-atlatic than Romeny or McCain. McCain has advantages in the Northwest and Upper Midwest(although if he keeps moving to the right, he could put that in jeopardy). I just don’t see Romney having any appeal beyond the red states(and even there, there’s questions).
With a McCain or Giuliani, Republicans might actually win an election with more than 300EVs(remember when that happened with Bush, Reagan and Nixon?). We might win comfortably and not be sweating it out and having some skin of our teeth-like Bush victory. Having a President that comes in with a larger margin of victory will put is in a better position than one who wins with the bare minimum of EVs. It could help us in the Congress in areas where we’ve been wiped out(the Northeast, for example)
Also, no one mentions that there might be plenty of people who would vote GOP but don’t because because they’re turned off by the religious right or the social conservatives. They could easily cancel out those who would stay home. Reagan and Bush won 3 landslide victories in states like CA, NY, IL, PA, NJ, MI, etc… They got plenty of pro choice/socially liberal and moderate voters. Those who would vote GOP are still out there but if they feel that the party has simply become the vehicle of the social conservatives, they’re more likely to vote dem.
I think the main reason for articles like Ponnuru’s and Jefferey’s is that they rightly fear that if a Giuliani were to get the nomination and win the election, then the power of the social conservative wing would be reduced. A President Giuliani wouldn’t feel beholden to the James Dobson’s and NRTL’s of the world. They’ve spent the last 8 years with one of their own in the WH(even though I don’t think Bush really cares about the social issues that much)and having a Rudy in the WH would cut off their access and influence. That’s the real reason.
Guys like Ponnuru and Jefferey would still be opposed to Rudy even if it was 100% guaranteed that Rudy would win in 2008 with 350 EVs and 52% of the vote. They’d rather see a Hillary or Obama win then a pro choice Republican. All this talk about electoral math is just a distraction. The real issue is that they feel there’s a chance the pro-lifers could lose their influence in the party. They don’t oppose him because of some potential electoral map, they oppose him because of his views on abortion. That’s certainly their right, but all this talk of who wins what states just obscures that.
February 23rd, 2007 at 3:01 pm
I’ll add that I have to give Rudy some respect for sticking to those views on abortion by and large(he has moved on partial birth abortion).
He and his advisors had to have a pretty good idea that he was running for President on September 12, 2001.(It was pretty obvious)
They also had to know that as a Republican his views on abortion would be a huge obstacle.
And they knew that 2008 was seven years away.
He easily could have given some big speech in 2002 talking about how his experience with Prostate cancer and with all of the grieving families and seeing death up close through 9/11 had relaly given him a much greater appreciation of life and its value. He could have talked about how as a busy, urban prosecutor and mayor, he never really had time to think about the abortion issue in depth, and being in NYC and around a bunch of “liberated” women(including his ex-wife), he had natuarlly bought in to the pro choice/feminist line, but his recent experiences had caused him to reevaluate.
By now, he could have had a solid 5 years of being pro life and had taken some actions to back it up.
He’d be in much better shape and I think at this point be the unquestioned and presumptive nominee.
You might say that would be obvious pandering and opportunism. But certainly changing one’s mind based on a brush with your own mortality and seeing thousands of deaths up close including close friends over the course of a year or so is just as plausible a reason if not moreso than a one off brief meeting with a Harvard professor.
February 23rd, 2007 at 3:19 pm
Jim,
I agree that all those experiences of Rudy’s would have made a very plausible reason for a change of heart. In fact, maybe it should have. But despite Rudy’s experience with prostate cancer and with all the grieving families and seeing death up close, he still has the same lack of appreciation for life that he always had. And yet, he’s also perfectly willing to flip on partial birth abortion, and lie about the facts of his public record on the topic.
Hmmmmmm….I’ll go with the convert.
June 30th, 2009 at 4:25 am
check mine out……
keep up the good work man…….