In 2004, the Great Lakes states comprised the nation’s most significant swing region, with the six states of Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Ohio ranging from Kerry +3 to Bush +1, and with the region as a whole containing a massive 85 electoral votes — nearly a third of the electoral votes needed to win the presidency. In 2006, these states experienced a significant swing towards the Democrats, with every gubernatorial and senatorial race in each state save one resulting in a decisive victory for Democrats. If the Dems are able to repeat this performance in the Great Lakes region in 2008 at the presidential level, the election will be lost, as the Republicans simply cannot cobble together 270 electoral votes while losing the entirety of the northeast, west coast, and Great Lakes region. Give all of these states to the Democrats (the 2004 blue states plus Ohio and Iowa) and the Democratic ticket garners 279 electoral votes. Watch the double-digit losses in states like Iowa and Ohio reverberate throughout the border states of Missouri, Kentucky, and Virginia, and things begin to look even more dire. What soon becomes clear is that the GOP presidential ticket must not suffer the same fate as Dick DeVos, Mike DeWine, Rick Santorum, and Mark Kennedy, all Republican politicians who lost statewide in the Great Lakes region last November by double-digits.
What was so interesting about the GOP’s performance in the Midwest last year was that there was no single factor that unites all of the Republicans who lost statewide, other than the (R) after their name. Santorum and DeWine were ideological and tempermental opposites, yet both were decisively defeated. Nor did this trend simply hit GOP incumbents in the region; Dick DeVos, Ken Blackwell, and Mark Kennedy were all running against the machine as challengers, yet all suffered the same fate as their fellow Republicans entrenched in Washington. In race after race, Republican politicians were defeated in the Midwest, both incumbents and non-incumbents, both moderates and conservatives. The sole survivor of the Late Unpleasantness sits still in the governor’s mansion of the State of Minnesota. He is a rising star of the GOP, and a man who can possibly clue Republicans into just how to cobble together an electoral majority in 2008. I am referring, of course, to Gov. Tim Pawlenty.
If the GOP is to win in 2008, it will have to figure out how to win back what I call the “Pawlenty Democrats” of 2006 — Midwestern voters who cast ballots for Democrats in other races but who split their tickets in Minnesota to re-elect T-Paw. To demonstrate just how decisive these voters will be in 2008, let’s examine the 2006 results throughout the Great Lakes region:
2006 Statewide Elections — Great Lakes Region
PA Senate: D+18
PA Governor: D+20
OH Senate: D+12
OH Governor: D+23
MI Senate: D+16
MI Governor: D+14
WI Senate: D+37
WI Governor: D+8
IA Governor: D+10
MN Senate: D+20
MN Governor: R+1
If Republicans are to win in 2008, they absolutely must win at least one of the six contested Great Lakes states. In order to do that, the GOP presidential ticket must be able to figure out how to win the sort of Midwestern voter who cast ballots for both Amy Klobuchar and Tim Pawlenty in 2006. Unless there is a massive template change in the dark-red states of the south and interior west, or in the deep-blue west coast and northeast, it will be the Pawlenty Democrats of the Great Lakes region who decide the race for 2008. It’s time for Republicans to figure out just what makes this voter tick. A good place to start would be by examining the victory of Tim Pawlenty.
May 13th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Fantastic post. Rudy is very strong in PA and OH already, and can hopefully find the way to appeal in MN, despite the fact the upper midwest leans so-con/econ-lib while Rudy is so-lib/econ-con.
I would like to know more about what worked for Pawlenty. Turning a deficit into a surplus had to be key elements.
May 13th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Agreed. Any natives of Minnesocold care to give us some insight?
May 13th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Competent incumbents tend to win re-election. The fact that Paw won by only 1% makes me think that his race was also affected by the anti-GOP surge. He just had enough residual popularity to escape the consequences by the skin fo his teeth.
You dont have any competent or popular incumbents running in the presidential election. So I doubt that T-Paw offers much of a model. The underlying problem is the anti-GOP surge that affects the region (and others) and shows o sign of abating. The roots of that, of course, lie in the Oval Office and in the general culture created by a party that is anti-government, and yet seeks to control government (setting up a situation where, when power is acheived, there is little vision of what to do with it, leading to a tendency to just use the power to reward friends and supporters – i.e. corruption).
To combat the anti-GOP tendencies throughout the country, your candidates need to make a break from this very unpopular administration – its war policies, its (lack of) domestic policies, and its instinct to divide the country rather than bring it together.
But then you guys wouldn’t be Republicans, would you?
May 13th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
Romney could easily carry Michigan and could probably carry Minnesota, Ohio, and Iowa. The GOP convention in St. Paul will probably help the GOP there.
May 13th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
#3….that is me.
May 13th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
Turning a deficit into a surplus doesn’t always do the trick. Over here in Maryland, Bob Ehrlich was the only incumbent governor to lose re-election in 2006, despite the fact that he turned a massive deficit into a massive surplus. He lost mostly on his pro-business stances, though. He won in 2002 only due to the fact that Kathleen Kennedy Townshend ran a horrific campaign and chose a white male as her running mate — as opposed to Ehrlich choosing Michael Steele — which pissed off a bunch of black people in Baltimore.
Anyone who thinks Romney could carry Ohio or Minnesota in 2008 is delusional. He might be able to carry Michigan due to his legacy, though.
May 13th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
TLG,
Romney could easily carry Minnesota, Ohio, Iowa, WI and MI. Any one who thinks he couldn’t doesn’t know anything.
May 13th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
I think “easily” might be quite overstating it! If he’s aligning himself as a traditional conservative Republican on all counts, it would be essentially stupid to conceivably think that he could win any of those states except Michigan — if that. If a Republican is going to win in 2008, he’s going to have to separate himself from party orthodoxy in some way. There is nothing particularly great about Romney that can’t be found in any other rank-and-file Republican (again, I’m being generous, saying that Romney’s views this time are actually real). Rudy is the Hero of 9/11 and is liberal on some social issues, and McCain is known as a bipartisan atypical pol, albeit a hawkish one. They are the only two with any chance in 2008.
May 13th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
I’m from Michigan and I wouldn’t say “easily” for Romney. Yes a lot of people fondly remember his father but unless he has some clear cut ideas on how to help our horrible economy in this state it isn’t going to happen. The automotive industry is doing very poorly and our unemployment rate it very high. Over 1/2 of our new college graduates leave the state to find jobs. To pull this state from a Democrat he is going to have to do more than invoke his father’s name.
May 13th, 2007 at 6:56 pm
You do have to consider that in almost every one of those races, the Democrat was an incumbent. It is simply very difficult to defeat incumbents, especially in wave years. Witness the fact that Republicans control nearly half of the state legislatures. At any rate, I agree this area is tough sledding for Republicans, which is a large part of why I’m a fan of a candidate like Rudy or McCain who can put some states in New England and/or the West Coast into play.
May 13th, 2007 at 7:02 pm
Michigan was ready for a change and a good strong candidate could have knocked “Jenny On The Block” out of the game. DeVos was actually leading in the polls before he was caught lying. As it is the biggest problem for a GOP Presidential candidate is that we remember a great economy under Clinton and terrible times under Bush. Any GOP is going to have a tough time of it here when it comes to the presidency.
May 13th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
“To combat the anti-GOP tendencies throughout the country, your candidates need to make a break from this very unpopular administration – its war policies, its (lack of) domestic policies, and its instinct to divide the country rather than bring it together.
But then you guys wouldn’t be Republicans, would you?”
Clearly we need a uniter like Hillary Clinton.
May 13th, 2007 at 7:20 pm
Casey, the automotive industry is doing very poorly in large part due to the extravagant costs of health care. Companies like GM have promised large health care benefits to employees, and are essentially going bankrupt in the process. Nobody on either of the aisle, has as much credibility on health care as Romney. He’s the only person to have actually implemented a serious health care plan, and a universal one at that. To be sure, there are some potential problems in the future, but I’ve following it’s development fairly closely, and any serious difficulties which might arise (only might), aren’t likely to appear for a few years at least. If he makes it to the general election, he’ll easily be able to run on the positive effects of his health care plan. And yes, with anything approaching reasonable branding, Romney should easily carry Michigan
TLG,
We’ve had these discussions previously on this site, but as you’ve likely missed the fun, I’ll repeat some of this. There’s an awful lot to be said for identity politics. Romney comes across as a cross between a midwestern Republican, and a northeastern Republican. He has both the heritage and, to large extent, the positions to reinforce that image. Just like his father, he’s focusing intensely on energy efficiency, and energy independence. It’s a subject mentioned to virtually audience and always among his top priorities. Again, an incredibly useful focus in places like Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota.
Even without that that sort of premeditated branding on his part, Romney’s simply going to play better in those states by virtue of who he is. A deeply competent businessman and governor of an incredibly blue state, in much the same way that Thompson receives “points” in the South, merely for his drawl. My dad’s a lifelong Democrat, but generally a swing voter. He voted for Kerry in 04′, Bush in 00′, Clinton in 96′, and Bush in 92′. The other day, we were discussing politics, and with absolutely no prompting from me (I’d never even mentioned Romney’s name in his presence), he said “I like this guy Mitt Romney”. Why? Because, my father’s an ideological moderate who values competence. He also feels a much closer cultural connection to Romney then he did to Bush. This stuff matters, sometimes more then we’d hope. But, there’s little question that Romney’s particular background and cultural identity, will allow him to play better in blue states, particularly those in the Upper Midwest, then a Bush-like candidate. Whether or not he’ll gain enough swing voters to turn around deeply anti-Republican sentiment is an open question, but certainly he seems more well positioned then anyone outside of McCain and Giuliani, and perhaps even them.
May 13th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
As far as identity politics goes, I do recall McCain being huge in Michigan. Pretty much all my family members like McCain, and they range from moderate-conservative Bob Dole Republicans to FDR Democrats to Perot/Buchanan populists. I also think Rudy will go over well with the “white ethnics” that heavily populate at least the Ohio/Pennsylvania/Michigan part of that region, a group that is also strongly represented in my family and in the community where I grew up.
May 13th, 2007 at 7:30 pm
Matt, it’s really more than that. Yes health care is a massive expense, so is pension (that alone adds $2000 to every single American car) but it’s also perceived unfair trade practices. Bush (and the GOP) is at a real low right now. I don’t know if the Romney name can even help that. All of our ills are being placed squarely on Bush’s back and the idea of a GOP President isn’t something most can even picture right now. Yes Romney has name recognition and some of the older people might be eager for him, but there are a lot that won’t even consider. Add to that the fact the Clinton’s have a great ranking with the minorities and it’s nowhere near as rosy of a picture you’re painting.
May 13th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
Casey,
I’m not attempting to paint a “rosy” picture. But one of the main reasons Bush failed to carry states like Michigan, concerns strengths and priorities. Michigan, and much the upper midwest, was deeply concerned with domestic issues. Bush wasn’t, either in 2000, or in 2004, remotely credible on domestic issues. Poll after poll in 2004 showed that voters trusted Kerry more with the economy, with health, with education, etc, etc. Bush won the election because of his perceived strength on defense. Virtually any Republican candidate, is going to have an easier time selling themselves as domestically competent, then Bush did in 2004. And Romney in particular, who’s been dubbed everything from the “competence candidate” to a “turnaround artist”, is going to be particularly credible domestically. Romney not only can compete with Democrats on domestic issues, but he can WIN against them, particularly on issues involving the economy and health care. I’d agree that generally Rudy and McCain will be perceived as more credible on defense, but of the two only Rudy has any chance whatsoever of winning the debate on domestic issues with Democrats. If we win the domestic debate, and can tread water on foreign policy (and I think Romney certainly sounds serious and informed on those issues), we win the election, regardless of any anti-Republican tide.
May 13th, 2007 at 7:59 pm
See, now, Matt, I hate Mitt’s Massachusetts health care plan. Any government intervention in the economy except to protect people against the use of force is something I am opposed to.
Anyway, anecdotal evidence — like the story about your dad — does nothing for me. The hard poll numbers do. Romney’s up in Michigan in the GOP primary because of his family name. He’s down everywhere else because there’s nothing remarkable about him. Steve Forbes was plenty competent; nobody was jumping up and down for him. Romney is *certainly* not a uniter in the same way Giuliani is, because the views he has articulated are rank-and-file Republican. He’s not even a conservative first, he’s a *Republican* first, at this point. Giuliani is Giuliani, and people remember him fondly as the Hero of 9/11. Turning the Olympics around and having a famous father won’t compensate for that.
It’s sort of sad that “cultural identity” matters so much, on another note.
May 13th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
Would Romney be able to present himself as a “fixer” of business problems, thus assisting a victory in Michigan, and perhaps helping his competitiveness against the Dem nominee in states like Ohio? Certainly his business record is better than Bush 43′s.
Of course, if the area is viewed as important (which it is, along with the close MidWestern states) then Pawlenty is a likely choice for VP. Is there any Pres pick who wouldn’t pick up MN with Pawlenty as the VP nominee?
May 13th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
“Romney could easily carry Minnesota…”
As a lifelong Minnesotan, I would be remiss if I didn’t observe that this comment betrayed a total and utter ignorance of Minnesota politics.
No candidate in the top tier would fare worse here than Romney (OK, Brownback would do so well either, but at least he’s from the Midwest). Minnesotan’s despise candidates who emphasize social issues in the way Romney has. That factor (not the war), is the biggest reason Bush lost by more in 2004 than he did in 2000 here.
T-Paw’s secret is that he is a social conservative who does not wear his believes on his sleeves (just like Ronaldus Maxiumus).
May 13th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
Kavon,
You’re kidding yourself if you think Romney’s going to run hard on social issues in the general election. Bush had to, because he had nothing else to remotely recommend his candidacy. But, simply from a quick perusal of some of Romney’s more “mainstream” appearances, it’s clear that he has no intention as running as a primarily values candidate in the general election. I don’t expect that Romney would “easily” carry Minnesota, but he’s going to be running as entirely different candidate then Bush circa 2004.
May 13th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
Jason,
Romney could easily carry Minnesota, Ohio, Iowa, WI and MI. Any one who thinks he couldn’t doesn’t know anything.
Seconding Kavon, as a lifelong Wisconsinite, there is no way that Romney could win here. None at all. The politics of Wisconsin and Minnesota are very similar and both states really oppose socially conservative candidates who try to legislate morality. Wisconsin in particular has a very fierce independent, maverick streak. We love politicians who think outside the box. That’s one reason why 55% of Democrats voted for Tommy Thompson during his last race and 48% of Republicans voted for Russ Feingold in 2004. That’s why McCain and Giuliani would be so viable in the state.
And considering how much the state has swung to the left since 2004 (Gov. Doyle was the first Democrat re-elected to office in 35 years and won by more votes than any Dem governor in more 40), Romney doesn’t stand a chance.
Not only in this state and in Minnesota, but let alone Ohio (which I’m not sure any Republican can win in 2008).
May 13th, 2007 at 8:35 pm
Matt (#20) good point. Romney is emphasising social issues now to get through the Primary, .
Once its the General, he’ll focus on his business success to “revive the economy”, getting as far away from Bush as possible.
In fact, no matter who the nominee is, they will run away from Bush. Gore kept his distance from Clinton despite Billy’s good approval ratings. Bush 43 does not have good approval ratings, so if the Repub candidate stands shoulder to shoulder with him they are daft indeed.
May 13th, 2007 at 8:35 pm
I have seen the percentages, but I have never seen the actual voter counts. Do anyone here know whether in each of these state, there was less voters in 2006 than in 2004, 2002 and 2000?
Also, there was a lot of crying of Pelois being a Speaker from Republicians’ side, rather than focusing on the what the Republicians actually did (well, they did not do much of things that were well, really). On the Democratic side, they did have the, umm, what did they called it, “6 for America” or something like that. It may be that we need the “Contract With America II”.
May 13th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
#23 it was interesting that voters seemed to prefer the more positive Dem platform than the negative Repub platform. (I say “more positive”, the Dems obviously slagged off Repub candidates and policies also).
The Republicans in 2002 & 2004 did very well by destorying their opponents. Demonising the likes of Kerry, who still hasn’t recovered. It appeared to be smart politics, but come 2006 it appeared to backfire. Will the Repubs try it again in 2008? If Hillary is the nominee its hard to see them not doing it.
I long for the day when both parties focus on what is best about their positive ideas for the country, rather than try and win a “least worst” competition.
May 13th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
Thirding Kavon and LJ w/r/t Michigan. Politicians who run hard on social issues are considered panderers or crazy in the Great Lakes states. Voters up there don’t think it’s the job of government to try to engineer society. That’s why Republicans who win up there tend not to talk about social issues, even when they are solidly socially conservative.
The upper midwest is also very isolationist. If we’re still in Iraq in 2008, it’s going to be hard to win any of those states with any candidates.
May 13th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
Question for all those (Kavon, LJ, DaveG) tlaking about “politicians who run hard on social issues” – given all Republicans other than Rudy are pushing social issues hard, will they all lose the Great Lakes states? Or will their changing emphasis to economic & foreign policy issues after the Primary (plus potentially a VP assist) mean they can win?
May 13th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
McCain isn’t pushing social issues hard. He’s doing it just right for that region. Emphasizing economics and national security while still packing a 0-percent NARAL rating.
I used to have high hopes for FDT, but he didn’t wow me with his speech last week, and now he’s supposedly trying to correct that by emphasizing social issues, which will put him in the same boat as Romney, Brownback, etc. It’s possible that voters have shorter memories than I give them credit for, but these pols who are getting introduced to voters as culture warriors are going to come into the Great Lakes states at a natural disadvantage.
May 13th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
DaveG (#27) you aren’t the only one to be unmoved by his speech last week.
Politico reports it as follows:
“After failing to wow a key conservative audience in California last week, Fred Thompson tries to keep his hopes alive with a new speech.”
Once FDT is a serious candidate, the gloss will come off. Its starting to go already.
May 13th, 2007 at 9:08 pm
I think DaveG, Kavon, and LJ have a very skewed view of elections, which I find given I know they all have substantial experience in the political world. Candidates run towards the base in the primary, and towards the center in the general. Now of course this is harder for candidates like McCain and Giuliani to accomplish because 1.) They have substantial and sustained disagreements with the base on key issues, and 2.) They’re well known enough that any running to the base will be noticed, and used against them in the general election. Candidates like Romney or Fred Thompson have a somewhat easier hoe in some respects. Romney can talk about strengthening the American family, and having babies before marriage, all day long before crowds in rural Iowa, because 1.) Because no one is paying enough attention to pinpoint the changes in emphasis, and 2.) He’s not well-known enough politically to be stamped with a particular type of ideological label (hardcore social conservative, moderate, etc).
In 2004, Kerry failed to effectively sprint to the center, because he had nothing to sprint to the center on. He had an extremely voting record, and had never managed any enterprises. Romney, on the other hand, has plenty of accomplishments to tout which transcend ideology (balancing budgets, eliminating waste, fixing health care, etc). He won’t even need to sprint to the center in the general election. He’ll need to focus more heavily on domestic and economic issues, and less heavily on social issues. It will be, literally, an incredibly easy thing for him to accomplish. Again, that’s not to say he’ll absolutely win running in this manner, but it suggests that any predictions about Romney’s likely performance in the Upper Midwest, based on his tendency to talk about family values to conservative audiences in South Carolina is likely to be grossly inaccurate.
May 13th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
I’d also note, that even now, Romney’s hardly running as a hardcore social conservative. You need only look at first 3 commercials to see this played out. The first one emphasizes a Republican governor turning a Democratic state and saving the Olympics. The second emphasizes that he likes vetoes. The third talks about building a stronger military. Conspicuously absent is any mention of social issues. In interviews with the MSM, he repeatedly discusses taking organizations apart, and the general need for change in Washington by someone outside the beltway. Social issues are clearly playing a less then prominent role in his pitch the general electorate, and a relatively equal role (along with economic and defense issues) in his pitch to the GOP base.
May 13th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
And then you could go to his website and talk about how “to lead the family of nations around the world, we cannot suffer the collapse of the family at home,” or read his speech to Regent where he says that marriage/pro-creation is the greatest thing any person can do, and that what goes on in the “four walls of the American home” are more important than anything else.
So, um, yeah, out of the Big Three, he’s the social issues guy. Can you imagine McCain or Rudy saying something about the paramount importance of what goes on in the four walls of the American home? I mean, aside from the cheesy language Romney uses (“family of nations/family here at home”), the issue itself is not something those Romney is lagging would bring up. McCain’s the hawk, and Rudy’s the go-to guy for economic conservatives (in addition to siphoning off support McCain had for national security). Romney is attracting social conservatives first and foremost.
May 13th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
And then, of course, he says that “he can’t imagine anything worse than polygamy.”
ANYTHING? Does his ridiculous hyperbole know no bounds!?
May 13th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
Are there any other VP candidates in the Great Lakes States? Or is Pawlenty the frontrunner?
There’s more options in the MidWest, although if McCain or Richardson are at the top of the ticket that probably won’t matter much.
May 13th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
Ugh, I sure hope Pawlenty isn’t the VP. He’s what hard-core conservatives *think* McCain is. I’d like to see Rice, myself, but I don’t think that will happen. I don’t see anyone appealing in the Power Rankings of this site. VP candidates are always chosen to offset a perceived weakness of the guy at the top, so don’t be surprised if Rudy picks someone known for his anti-abortion stance.
May 13th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
Oh yes, I *am* saying Rudy will get the nomination.
May 13th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
TLG, your belief that Rice is would be a good VP boggles the mind. She’s not even competent enough to be Secretary of State.
May 13th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
Assuming Rudy makes it to the top of the ticket, which is no guarentee.
Rudy, Romney & McCain would never be VP candidates. Romney brings nothing to the bottom of the ticket, McCain’s too old, and Rudy would struggle to marry his leadership stance with a VP stance (opponents would phrase that, “his ego wouldn’t permit being #2 to anyone”).
I thought Hagel would be a good pick, as he’s a social conservative but gives the Presidential pick breathing space on Iraq in the eyes of independents. But his flirtation with an Indie run probably counts him out.
May 13th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
I agree with Matt. When you listen to Romney speak he talks about “Strong Families”, “Strong Economy” and “Strong Military/Defense”. This theme and his record of accomplishments fits perfectly with the Midwest. That doesn’t mean he will win easily or even in a majority of those states, but I think he can win 2 of those states, which is all a GOP nominee has to have (best chances to win are MI, IA and possibly MN based on the convention being there).
I don’t know how you can say that Romney is emphasizing social issues. The only time he talks about abortion or other social issues is when asked about it. Abortion is usually a losing issue in the general for any candidate, pro-choice or pro-life, Dem or GOP. Bush in ’04 challenged this and won, but he did so indirectly by talking about social issues in code. “Strict constructionists” are much more popular generally, I assume this is also true in the Midwest.
Social issues are an even worse for Romney because his base still doesn’t totally trust him about that. Romney wants people to feel comfortable with his position, not annoint him as a champion of the issue. For that reason he has chosen “Strong Families” as a subtle way of being against gay marriage, pro-life, and the rest of the Socon platform.
Romney has by far the best economic platform for middle America and will beat any GOP nominee on economic issues. That doesn’t automatically mean he would win the more states than McCain, Thompson or Giuliani, but it certainly helps especially in OH and MI where jobs are flying out of the state.
Finally let’s not fall back into the same old trap of predicting who will win states based on current polling. Haven’t enough examples been posted disproving this whole theory? Bush should have killed Gore in PA at this point but lost. Dukakis was beating Bush 41 in TX at this point. The list could go on forever.
May 13th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
Wrong TLG. This has been refuted time and again when observing various cross-tabs of polls. Romney’s support is only moderately more conservative then Giuliani or McCain’s. In that latest New Hampshire poll, for instance, he gained substantially more independent support then Giuliani. In all sorts of polls, we see him getting a lower percentage of self-described “evangelicals”, relative to his total support, then Giuliani (though these polls were pre-Giuliani abortion meltdowns).
Romney’s certainly attempting to be the social conservative among the Big 3, but they haven’t hopped on board yet. DaveG, I believe it was, had a front page post maybe 2 months ago, that looked at a poll showing all these things where he essentially asked “where’s Romney’s support coming from?” because it had become increasingly clear that it wasn’t coming from hardcore social conservatives. More evidence of this is the complete lack of effect the inclusion of Thompson in polls had on Romney’s numbers.
May 13th, 2007 at 10:04 pm
As far as VPs, I think some of it will depend on who the Dems nominate and who the Dem VP is. Edwards and perhaps Obama would require a Southerner on the GOP ticket. Obama because he could turnout many more African Americans than normal, though statewide this tends not to hold true in the South, it could make it worse, just ask Harold Ford Jr. Edwards because he could trick a bunch of moderates Southerners into voting for him based on his accent alone.
I think Romney and Giuliani would have to chose Sourthern VPs no matter what, based on them being viewed and NE moderates and the general distrust Southerners will have for them. McCain and Pawlenty are rumored to be linked and I could see McCain choosing Pawlently, though McCain would face the same problem in the South as Romney and Giuliani. I think Thompson would choose either Romney or someone like Pawlenty. (I don’t think Rudy would take a VP slot)
May 13th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
Dskinner – “Edwards because he could trick a bunch of moderates Southerners into voting for him based on his accent alone.”
Thats soo true, and very disappointing. Although to be honest the support will probably be residual from 2004, when he ran as a moderate. He’s shifted big time since then, but non-junkies probably don’t know it.
May 13th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
Matt — You misunderstood me — I meant that Romney is trying to appeal to social conservatives more than the others, not that it’s actually *working*. So, yeah, we’re basically on the same page.
DSkinner — It boggles the mind that you would say that Rudy will be less appealing than Romney to economic conservatives. The economic issues are a litmus test for me, and I find Romney’s mixed-economy health care scheme in Mass. to be terrible, as well as his less-than-stellar record on taxes. Sure, he never raised them, but he never got them cut, like Rudy did. And Rudy comes from an even more Democratic area than Mitt, so don’t give me that crap about Romney not being positioned to do it.
Overall, their records are unmistakable. Romney is a completely unremarkable figure. He accomplished absolutely nothing unique. He’s a standard pol inside and out. To stand him next to Rudy and say that Romney is by far a superior candidate simply baffles me.
May 13th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
I third that remark about Edwards, by the way. The poll numbers prove that point.
May 13th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
Who’s a good Southern VP? Would Barbour or Sanford risk their 2012 aspirations by going on a 2008 ticket?
I wonder if DeMint backed Romney in the hope of a VP slot. As you say, Romney needs a Southerner, and as a former Governor an experienced Senator would make sense…
May 13th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Dskinner,
Based on those SurveyUSA state polls with Fred Thompson the other day, I think Obama is going to have an awful time in the South because of bigotry. Southern States, with a large percentage of blacks, like South Carolina, are too conservative to be won by any Democrat. And, if those polls are any indicator, the rest of the South is going to have a difficult time voting for him. I’m starting to think that Edwards is the only truly potentially Dem. Obama and Hillary could win, but would only do so in virtue of the heavy anti-Republican tide, whereas Edwards might be mildly electable even in a roughly even political climate.
May 13th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
Finally, what on earth makes any of you think that in order to win in November we need to move to the middle. This is exactly what Erick at fRedstate is “Going to war” over. If the GOP had reduced spending and the size of government, avoided corruption and fixed immigration, the ’06 losses would have been minimal.
Dick Morris is unusually right in this regard, the Iraq war is the disease that killed the GOP in ’06, but the issues listed above are what weakened the GOP’s immune system.
We need to move back to the right in order to win in ’08, especially if Iraq is still an issue. In addition to Iraq, many people voted to teach the GOP a lesson. We get those people back by being more conservative, not less.
May 13th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
Ooh, Sanford! I could go for Sanford. And we don’t need to “go to the middle” — we just have to run far, far away from George W. Bush. Which actually leads us to the right on a ton of issues.
May 13th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Is Bush 43 no longer regarded as right-wing? I’m confused. We have to distnace ourselves from Bush AND move to the right?
May 13th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
Note to all political psychic hotline operators: Nobody knows which GOP candidate could carry which swing-states or marginally competitive states in the general election until three things happen that we are not anywhere close to – 1) All the GOP candidates are vetted in a primary campaign, 2) The Democrats settle on a nominee such that we know who the head-to-head opponent would be, and 3) We reach the point in the cycle where citizens are voting such that they are paying a lot closer attention and know a lot more about the candidates, which will then make the polling data a lot more reliable predictively.
Claiming that GOP candidate X would carry such and such a close state in the general election is sheer bravado rather than analysis at this juncture.
May 13th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
Republius, agree re definitive predictions, but don’t you agree that some candidates are more likely to carry certain states than others (e.g. Pawlenty more helpful if you want Lakes states than if you want to play for the East coast states – where Giuliani is more helpful)
May 13th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
Dskinner, we don’t need to go to the middle, but we also don’t need to go to war with ourselves, as Erick (a.k.a. Markos Moulitsas Zúniga) is calling for at Redstate. We just need party discipline like we had in the mid ’90s, which Denny Hastert et al haven’t been competent enough to enforce. The fact of the matter is that more than anything else, we need another Gingrich in the House in order to achieve conservative aims.
May 13th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
TLG,
Obviously people who trust Romney over Rudy are not going to be Libertarians. I don’t know what makes you think you are representative of moderate voters. 45+ million Americans are uninsured. Because insurance is transient depending on employment, the number of people who have been without insurance in the past year is actually much higher than 45 million. Some estimates have it as high as 70 million. The moderates among this group will love the fact that Mitt found a solution that doesn’t involve socialized medicine.
Rudy’s image is largely cast already. He is “America’s Mayor” who will be tough no terror and who is pro-choice. He can let people know other things, but it will be like chasing a squirt gun after a shot gun. Romney’s image is largely not formed. Right now he is “The Mormon”, and a moderate who has changed some of his positions on social issues. That obviously isn’t great, but relatively few people have any idea at all about him. The image of being a flip-flopper is also soft because it is recent. Romney will be able to do much more to shape his image than Rudy will. Romney can be the extremely successful, competent, outsider and turnaround specialist who will be tough on terror. Rudy can only be tough on terror 1st and good on the economy second. This has nothing to do with the actual policies or record of them, just the images they will be able to present.
Finally, people generally will respect Romney’s success much more than Rudy’s because it is as an outsider from the private sector. The reason he is different than Perot or Forbes or other successful business men who have run previously is that he has shown he can translate that private success to public success. Look at Washington’s approval ratings, people don’t want a politician they want a problem solver. I’m not saying Rudy can’t solve problems or that he can’t portray himself as an outsider, but Romney will be able to enact this strategy much more effectively.
May 13th, 2007 at 10:53 pm
JayPe, precisely (or is it unprecisely?) correct, I think (in #50).
What can be hypothesized is a probability, everything else being equal, that a candidate, from what we know now, would be better positioned than another to carry a state in the general election over a generic Democrat nominee. As my graduate school of business economics professor would say, “Note your assumptions [when answering].” And there are just too many assumptions to note that are fluid for these analyses to have very high predictive value, I think. Plus, unfortunately these kind of claims of who would run strongest in the general election fail to note and support their assumptions.
Giuliani, as of now, would be more likely to carry New York than any other GOPer, for example, in a general election. But if Hillary is the nominee then even Giuliani’s odds of carrying New York go down. And if the Giuliani of today is not as strong in November of 2008 then New York might stay blue in any event. So the claim that Giuliani wins New York or makes it very competitive in a general election rests on a questionable foundation right now, I think.
I think DaveG makes a good observation here about the need to attract moderates and independents to the Republican fold, but the ensuing analysis assumes that such a GOP nominee energizes and turns out the Republican base. Again, rule one is energize and turn out your base. Rule two is be able to reach out to the middle. Both must be done simultaneously. I don’t question that Giuliani could reach out to the middle as the nominee, and the same goes for McCain; but I think there is a real question as to whether Giuliani or McCain energizes and turns out the base. If we are talking about potential nominees who would obviously energize and turn out the GOP base (with Gingrich probably being the best example of this type of candidate), then the question becomes whether they could attract voters in the middle in a general election.
In addition, everything else is not going to be equal and what we know now may be very different from what we know at this time next year.
First, more revelations will come out about candidates that will change the head-to-head match-ups. Second, as we just noted, this kind of analysis usually does not factor in how those GOP candidates who are hypothetically more likely to attract middle-of-the-road voters in a general election might also alienate base voters in states heretofore considered safely Republican as well as in blue states; yeah, it will help to win Pennsylvania by reaching out to moderates and independents, but the state will still be lost to the GOP if the base is unexcited about our nominee; this is single-entry bookkeeping analysis when so many voters do not know enough about the candidates or do not know as much as they think or as much as they are going to about the candidates (which renders current polls suspect as to their predictive value). Third, candidates will come out battered and bruised in multiple ways after the primary – ideologically and financially – in ways we cannot forecast now. And of all this clearly applies to the Democrats as well as the Republicans.
As always, the eagerness of folks to support their favorite guy engenders hyperbolic predictions this far out. I would be more inclined to side toward the end of the spectrum that this is all relatively meaningless as of now than toward the end that this is all highly instructive as to who the strongest GOP nominee would be.
I think this whole approach begs the question (of who would be the strongest nominee), which we can’t know until we see how they do in the crucible of a primary election when voter interest and their knowledge of the candidates is high.
Bottom line for all of us, I think: If you are going to opine that such and such a specific candidate or such and such a generic type of candidate makes the best GOP nominee for president in the 2008 general election, you better be prepared to show how that candidate 1) energizes and turns out the GOP base voter and 2) attracts moderates and independents. Thus far, I think we are seeing advocates of specific candidates advance only one of the two factors with any specificity, while assuming away the other factor.
May 13th, 2007 at 11:10 pm
DSkinner — What exactly is Romney 3.0 “moderate” on other than health care? And I never claimed to representative of “moderate voters.” I claimed to representative of economic conservatives — the serious ones, not the “Romney’s health care plan looks fantastic!” ones.
Nothing in your message is something that couldn’t have come verbatim from a Romney for President press release. Does your candidate possess no flaws?
And JayPe — Post 48 — Bush 43 is a communitarian. He’s what Fred Barnes describes as a “big-government conservative.” I’ve heard him described as “big religion,” as well. He’s been good economically, but he has not emphasized those issues and didn’t come out swinging for anything except his tax cuts. He’s got no stamina, and has basically thrown his hands up in the air and stopped caring.
But show me a conservative who supports NCLB or the Medicare expansion and I’ll show you someone who needs to re-think their ideological label.
May 13th, 2007 at 11:11 pm
Er, be representative, rather.
May 13th, 2007 at 11:12 pm
JF,
I wasn’t saying go to war, I was saying we need to return to conservative principles.
I disagree that Gingrich ran a good ship. He got kicked out for corruption (in addition to losing the “Budget Showdown” will Clinton. What I mean is our politicians need to do what they campaign on when they are running for office.
I agree that to accomplish this type of “return to principles” they need strong leaders. I think McConnell is great. I don’t like Lott and I don’t really don’t like Boehner and Blunt. Pence and Shadegg would do a much better job of implementing conservative principles.
May 13th, 2007 at 11:24 pm
Pawlenty won because an Independent got some votes and allowed Pawlenty to win with less than a majority of the votes. Without the Independent, the Democrat candidate (a weak one, at that) probably would have beaten Pawlenty.
Given recent voting trends, I can’t imagine any GOP candidate winning MN in 2008 unless the Dem candidate implodes.
Because so many of Michigan’s industrious and talented residents have left the state for better opportunities elsewhere, that state is more Democratic every year. Romney could win it in the general, but it certainly wouldn’t be easy.
Wisconsin split almost 50/50 between Bush/Kerry and Bush/Gore. Romney could possibly win the state, though the odds would be much better for him if he chose Tommy Thompson as his running mate. In fact, electoral math indicates that Thompson is a strong possibility for the VP slot regardless of who wins the GOP nomination.
May 13th, 2007 at 11:24 pm
Dskinner (#56), I agree that the Senate is doing well, but the House leadership, as you point out, missed an opportunity to appoint strong leaders. Gingrich had his problems, and obviously I’m not calling for a continuation of that (we’ve had enough these last ten years), but he had vision and got the House Republicans to unite around that vision. Welfare reform was unbelievable, and that was with a Democratic President. I’m beginning to think that another Democratic President can be contained and another GOP wave could be engineered in 2010 as the economy slows and the Democratic President is left to pick up the pieces of Iraq and a resurgence in terrorism. Reform of the entitlement behemoth led by a reinvigorated House would go a long way towards enabling the implementation of the rest of the fiscal conservative platform (especially balanced budgets and additional tax cuts). A Democratic President will essentially preserve the status quo on the Supreme Court, as I believe that the justices who plan to retire soon are liberals (I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m wrong), so we can survive this.
May 13th, 2007 at 11:34 pm
TLG,
My post included Romney’s two biggest negatives at this point. Being Mormon and having changed positions on abortion. The focus was not analyze the candidates negatives, it was what are their images and how they can change those images. Moderates vote more on image than issues and that is why I think it is relevant to purple states.
Obviously when I am telling you what Romney’s campaign theme is it is going to sound like a press release. Did you think I was going to up his campaign theme and that it would be totally unfamiliar to you? Rudy’s theme is “tough on terror” which I also mentioned.
Whatever type of conservative you want to call yourself, you don’t represent a critical voter in this election. You aren’t part of the GOP base and you aren’t a moderate. Sorry it sucks that nobody will pander to you in the primary or the general, but that is life in the GOP for a libertarian. Like Republius said, it is turn out the base and attract moderates.
I don’t believe the Mass Healthcare plan will alienate many of the base because Heritage helped write it, because many of the worst things about it came on things that Romney vetoed and because Romney is not saying those are absolute requirements for a plan.
I am as GOP base as you can get and this is one of the reasons I am for Romney. Healthcare is broken and something needs to be done to fix it. If the GOP doesn’t fix it eventually the Dems will try, but instead they would make it worse.
May 13th, 2007 at 11:38 pm
Great and significant point, I think, touched on by ThatLibertarianGuy (in #54).
Given that so many of us GOPers voted twice for George W. Bush as a conservative alternative when in fact his administration has engaged in such pursuits as creating an additional and ridiculously expensive entitlement program, drastically increasing federal education funding, failing to take a strong stand against affirmative action in the University of Michigan cases, nation building in Iraq, steel tariffs (even if only temporarily), a soft stance against illegal immigration, acquiescing to increased pork barrel and earmark spending from Congress (by failing to exercise the veto), turning a blind eye to human rights violations in China, etc. – we really are at a point in time where the terms conservative and Republican need redefining (or rebranding as marketing types like to say).
I, for one, want to hear, in the face of such apparent political apostasy listed above from the current administration, from GOP presidential candidates as to what their vision for conservatism and the Republican Party are and how they would go about implementing them. And I will start by refusing to assume any of them are truly Republican and conservative until they can prove it; the last thing I want is an Arnold Schwarzenegger presidential nominee.
May 13th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
Republius, how can they prove it besides their records? Everything else is mere rhetoric.
May 13th, 2007 at 11:49 pm
I question whether mandating that people buy health insurance is the way to go. It hardly seems Republican or conservative.
States are allowed to mandate car insurance because they have a right to establish licensing procedures for automobiles that require the former.
What is the equivalent governmental nexus to the automobile license in mandating the purchase of health insurance? In addition, third-party insurance carriers are responsible for much of the fraud and inefficiency and perverse incentives in the current system, which I admit is broken.
Kavon knows a lot more about this issue than I do or ever will, but what has always made sense to me is to have tax free health savings accounts with supplemental insurance for catastrophic care and Medicaid for the poor who cannot save.
Think about it. If health insurance is truly the way to go for all health care, then the best way to reduce rates for everyone is to create the largest pool possible of purchasers, which leads to one giant governmental system – allow everyone to purchase Medicare or the congressional health plan. And that clearly creates a single-payer system that conservatives and Republicans claim to not want.
Color me very skeptical of what Romney has done with healthcare in Massachusetts. I applaud him for tackling the issue, but I am not sure he has solved it or even made it better.
May 13th, 2007 at 11:56 pm
JF (in #61), records are the best concrete way to prove fidelity to any given policy or principle. But obviously without having had the job they cannot have a record on everything that is germane to being president. So at that point you have to analyze things like conviction, specificity, passion, knowledge, and vision in their words and their general approach to and temperament in solving problems they have previously encountered (is it a governmental or market based approach?; is it a conservative or liberal approach?). Admittedly it isn’t easy, especially when the science of campaigns has become so good at selling images absent substance.
May 13th, 2007 at 11:58 pm
Republius (#62),
Are you kidding me? That’s the hole we have right now, a hole big enough to drive a several hundred billion dollar deficit through. All of those who are currently uninsured will say they are too poor, and meanwhile, will buy their SUVs and plasma TVs. If you look at it honestly, we currently have Health Savings Accounts, so your solution doesn’t bring anything new to the table. People who should otherwise save into their HSAs buy HDTVs instead. There are only two solutions: force them to buy insurance or let them bankrupt themselves through their poor choices.
Do you really believe that if the GOP advocates leaving the status quo that the Dems won’t manage to institute a far more damaging form of socialized medicine? I think Romney’s plan is the least damaging version of universal health insurance by far, and also the most conservative version, because it puts the onus on the individual. I see this as the equivalent of the recent bankruptcy law reforms. Instead of letting people dump their financial problems on the lenders, it allows the lenders to hold the borrowers responsible for their own stupidity or lack of discipline. And guess what? It’s working.
May 13th, 2007 at 11:59 pm
59 — Economic conservatives aren’t a critical component of the Republican base? They’ve been the disillusioned ones; the ones who have been weary of the GOP in the Bush era. Although I am a libertarian, what I look for in a political candidate is based on their economic record. That’s why I can confidently support Giuliani, even though I may strongly disagree with him on gun control and immigration, for example. Economic conservatives are sick of being neglected. As someone pointed out a week or two ago on this site, we keep voting for Republicans, even though the party gives us nothing but religious right candidates to vote for. The party has been actively recruiting and endorsing religionists, not capitalists. Those in the party who aren’t obsessed with abortion and gay marriage are tired of it, and want their voices heard just as much as the so-cons. That’s why we’re lining up behind Rudy — because we’re sick to death of being passed over.
May 14th, 2007 at 12:00 am
One more thing: we already have universal health care, but no one wants to call it that. What do you call taxpayer-covered visits to the emergency room for people who won’t/can’t pay? That’s the situation that Romney was looking to address.
May 14th, 2007 at 12:05 am
Post 64 is that frightening kind of statism — if some moron wants to buy an HDTV instead of save in an HSA, that’s their own stupid decision. The government you envision plays a mommy role, scolding their child for doing something she considers to be naughty (buying an HDTV instead of saving money for health care), and making them to go their room to clean up the mess (forcing them to buy insurance). The government I envision has a leader that says — you know what? Don’t complain to me if you do something dumb with your money; you can set your own priorities, and besides — it’s your money. The government you envision is a dictatorial one. You don’t believe in a free society, to be blunt.
How about we stand up and fight back instead of appeasing all of the irrational demands of the opposition? Romney is Nixon’s detente to Rudy’s ‘tear down this wall’ on this issue. That’s why we need someone like Rudy — he doesn’t want the government to be your mommy — and not someone like Romney. He said out and out: we need market-based solutions, not government intervention. Romney has already shown us that he wants the government in a mommy role.
May 14th, 2007 at 12:24 am
I’d agree with you TLG, only as JF points out, we’re already paying for health care for those who can’t or won’t purchase health insurance. And it’s considerably more expensive health care at that (emergency care is horrendously inefficient). Personally, I don’t know that Romney’s plan is the best way to go. I think it’s coercive in the wrong way. I’d rather give people incentives to purchase insurance, then mete out penalties if they fail to. I had an idea for health care awhile ago, which essentially allowed people to purchase health insurance plans, for an entire, in one lump, sum at about a 20% discount, and purchase as many plans as they wish (with the plans being transferable). I.e., middle class people could purchase extra health care plans at discounts, and sell them at higher, but nonetheless reduced rates. If you purchase more plans then you can sell…well, it’s like any small business in that regard. But the main point would be, getting millions of perfectly healthy 20 somethings, into the pool of insurees by giving them an incentive to enter the risk pool (they’d be required to keep one plan for themselves). The insurance companies get immediate capital (a help thing potentially) and have to deal with less actual salesmanship. Frankly, I have no idea if it’d actually work, but I think it’s the sort of thinking we ought to be doing on the issue.
May 14th, 2007 at 12:25 am
I support Romney because he is the only candidate who I think has the capability of actually implementing all of the conservative principles that are important to me.
I can envision that in 8 years we will have a 6 to 3 advantage on the court of strict constructionists; that the border will be secured by a combination electronic/physical fence; that illegal immigrants will be dealt with in a way that is fair to America 1st and fair to the immigrants as well, but not at the expense of America; that the GWOT will be fought overseas through the military and through support of moderate Muslims governments with education and healthcare; that taxes will be lower; that the government will be much smaller and more efficient; that we will be paying off the national debt; that Social Security will be fixed and solvent through the end of the Baby Boomers and the Roe bust generations; that many more millions of Americans will have healthcare through market reforms; that the education system will be decentralized and parents will have more choice; that we will finally get tort-reform; that we will be energy independent without hurting the economy; that our economy will be in a much better position to compete with Asia; that it will be popular to be a conservative because of Romney successfully advocating our cause with his bully pulpit and finally that any new issues, like Katrina or 9/11 will be dealt with in a swift competent and conservative manner.
I know that accomplishing all of this is unlikely, but I think most of it would happen and I think all of it is possible, however unlikely. I believe that Romney would be able to make this happen even with a Democratic Congress.
I think that the other candidates can make some of this happen, but I think that he is the only one with the leadership skills and the platform to make all of this happen. Feel free to disagree with me, but this is my opinion and this is why I support Romney. I feel we need the most capable person ever to run for President in the most important time with the most complex problems in history.
May 14th, 2007 at 12:31 am
TLG, mandating the purchase of insurance isn’t quite what you described, as it’s not a punishment. Joe Q. Public won’t be able to buy his HDTV, because he’ll have already been forced to buy insurance.
Again, in an ideal world and outside of a democracy, I would agree with you. We would have a miniarchy and that would be that. But in a democracy, universal healthcare buys votes. If that’s the case, why don’t we impose the most conservative solution possible–forcing people to buy private insurance of their choice–rather than allow socialized healthcare? It’s naive to assume that we can afford to do nothing. Universal healthcare in one form or another is coming, and we need to address it. The current system is inefficient, costs taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars, costs private business hundreds of billions of dollars, and still leaves vast swathes of the population without coverage. We need to seize control of the steering wheel and turn right before the Democrats turn us left.
By saying that Romney is against market-based solutions, you only betray your ignorance. Really, read up on his program and then you’ll be educated enough to criticize the plan. It’s flawed, but to call it non-market based is a falsehood.
May 14th, 2007 at 5:53 am
Economic conservatism is a political loser. I’m not commenting on the non-political merits of economic conservatism. I’m commenting on the fact that economic conservatism divides the GOP and turns off centrists.
A majority of GOP voters support universal healthcare, stricter environmental regulations, raising the minimum wage and repealing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.
With this fissure between Republican voters and Republican politicians its not surprising that all types of Republicans lost everywhere except for the economic moderate, Tim Pawlenty.
If you look at Republican governors who won in blue or purple states in 2006 you see what they have in common isn’t social issues but economic moderation (Tim Pawlenty, Charlie Crist, Jodi Rell, Jim Douglas).
We must face reality if we wish to win in 2008.
May 14th, 2007 at 7:04 am
Punishing people for not spending their own money the way the government wants them to…
How far have we fallen?
Is Econ Grad Stud a troll? “A major of GOP voters support…repealing the Bush tax cuts” ‘for the wealthy’ and socialized medicine (stop using your opponent’s phrasing!): What in hell are you talking about? You are correct about the minimum wage and environmental protections, though.
Again, I don’t do ‘detente’ on issues that we can still win. I’m more of a ‘tear down this wall’ guy. We can still win on socialized medicine. We just need someone people will listen to. I say Rudy’s the only one who believes in the market that people will listen to.
May 14th, 2007 at 7:08 am
Well, Breaking News. It looks like Fred Thompson’s speech to the CNP went very well. For those of you not familiar, probably the most powerful group on the right. Falwell, Robertson, Bauer, LeHaye, Helms, Levin, C. Thomas, R. Land… just a few names in attendance Saturday night! We’ll see what happens, and who comes out vocally, ubt this is the same group that rallied behind Bush!
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20070514-124527-5197r.htm
May 14th, 2007 at 7:09 am
Reminder, it’s a private group with confidentiality, so you’re not going to see any direct quotes.
May 14th, 2007 at 7:14 am
From the Above Article:
“Several leading Christian conservatives say they will rally to former Sen. Fred Thompson, who they expect to announce “in a matter of weeks” that he will seek the Republican nomination for president next year.
“It’s not ‘if’ but ‘when,’ he will announce,” one Protestant evangelical leader says of the behind-the-scenes maneuvering for position in the 2008 race.
A prominent Roman Catholic social conservative says the three Republicans who have raised the most money and have led the polls — former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, Arizona Sen. John McCain and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney — fall short of social conservatives’ expectations, but Mr. Thompson doesn’t. “He’s right on the issues … He’s better than all of the above.”
May 14th, 2007 at 7:15 am
Dskinner — Romney “is the most capable person ever to run for President”? Oh, the hyperbole never ends!
Does anyone agree with DSkinner, honestly? Romney is the most capable person EVER to run for President? We can think of no one — generals, vice-presidents, other governors — that have been more qualified and ready for the job than Romney?
Please reveal your reasoning!
May 14th, 2007 at 7:18 am
uhhhh….
so was Ross Perot
May 14th, 2007 at 7:24 am
George HW Bush, Al Gore, Nixon, T. Roosevelt… just off the top of my head were as qualified, resume wise
At least in my opinion
May 14th, 2007 at 7:25 am
That’s not saying I’d vote for them all, but they were very qualified
May 14th, 2007 at 7:27 am
Who was the least qualified in that aspect?
Abe Lincoln
May 14th, 2007 at 7:40 am
TLG, it’s funny you’re asking if I’m a troll because I’ve identified an uncomfortable truth. I’ve read here that you’re a Marylander. Well in 2002 I worked for Ehrlich’s campaign on the Eastern Shore(actually have a few pictures with him and Steele at campaign events). I’m no troll.
I’m not arguing the merits of the average voter’s views on health care, minimum wage or tax policy I’m simply telling you what polling and election results indicate. Only a few economic conservative issues are still popular (private accounts for Social Security is one of them).
The public sides with Democrats on most economic issues, in fact majorities of GOP voters are siding with Democrats on some economic issues. It’s a troubling fact that explains why some economically moderate GOP governors were re-elected in blue or purple states when all other types Republicans in competitive states were being defeated.
It also explains why Mitch Daniels a supposed economic conservative is moving to the center economically.
If you’re interested in how public opinion is shaping up check out:
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=943
http://people-press.org/reports/tables/242.pdf
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/03022007_poll.pdf
May 14th, 2007 at 7:44 am
It’s funny you’re asking if I’m a troll because I’ve identified an uncomfortable truth. I’ve read here that you’re a Marylander. Well in 2002 I worked for Ehrlich’s campaign on the Eastern Shore(actually have a few pictures with him and Steele at campaign events). I’m no troll.
I’m not arguing the merits of the average voter’s views on health care, minimum wage or tax policy I’m simply telling you what polling and election results indicate. Only a few economic conservative issues are still popular (private accounts for Social Security is one of them).
The public sides with Democrats on most economic issues, in fact majorities of GOP voters are siding with Democrats on some economic issues. It’s a troubling fact that explains why some economically moderate GOP governors were re-elected in blue or purple states when all other types Republicans in competitive states were being defeated.
It also explains why Mitch Daniels a supposed economic conservative is moving to the center economically.
I posted some links to support my claims but they’re awaiting moderation for some reason. If they don’t go through e-mail me.
May 14th, 2007 at 8:35 am
For the record, TLG, I don’t in fact agree with Dskinner. Not even close. Even if he became president, he wouldn’t be the most capable/qualified president we’ve ever had. At the very least Teddy Roosevelt, George H.W. Bush, and John Quincy Adams would have more, and more relevant experience. Not to mention any number of extremely qualified who never even received the nomination. I don’t even think Romney’s the most qualified/capable in the 2008 race. That distinction probably belongs to Richardson. But I do think he’s probably the most qualified/capable on the Republican side, with Tommy Thompson giving him a run for his money.
May 14th, 2007 at 8:37 am
As Tommy mentioned, Nixon and Al Gore are probably comparable as well.
May 14th, 2007 at 10:51 am
Great post Dave,
Rudy would be able to play offense in these key swing states.
Rudy is the strongest offensive player we have.
May 14th, 2007 at 11:03 am
“Well, Breaking News. It looks like Fred Thompson’s speech to the CNP went very well. For those of you not familiar, probably the most powerful group on the right. Falwell, Robertson, Bauer, LeHaye, Helms, Levin, C. Thomas, R. Land just a few names in attendance Saturday night! We’ll see what happens, and who comes out vocally, but this is the same group that rallied behind Bush!”
I really hope FDT does not make these loons the backbone of his campaign. What an unsavory bunch…and this is coming from an Evangelical. I think embracing this bunch is a losing strategy politically.
May 14th, 2007 at 11:10 am
He can’t embrace that bunch, UGADawg. They’re confidential in their membership. What it means is financial support and lots of fundraising. Most of the candidates have spoken there at one point in their political careers. If they back Thompson, you won’t hear anything about the meeting, only endorsements.
May 14th, 2007 at 11:11 am
also, there was a lot of big names there, not just those. It just needs to be pointed out that the other candidates, at least some of them, have been actively courting the religious right. I’ll post some more names when I check the list that leaked.
May 14th, 2007 at 11:16 am
Fred Thompson does not appear to be a viable candidate. If Fred is unable to defeat Hillary in Kentucky, how could he ever win any Blue state?
Kentucky Thompson 40 Clinton 53
Minnesota Thompson 37 Clinton 53
Wisconsin Thompson 43 Clinton 46
Ohio Thompson 38 Clinton 53
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/poll_surveyusa_fred_thompson_v.php
May 14th, 2007 at 11:25 am
Some connected names (I’m not going to say membership, because it’s a confidential group, so only speculations)
Coors, DuPont, Jack Kemp, M Levin, Meese, North, Bennett, Frist, Burton, Callaway, Keyes, Sununu, Ashcroft,
May 14th, 2007 at 11:30 am
Fred Thompson does not appear to be a viable candidate. If Fred Thomson is unable to defeat Hillary in Kentucky, how will he win any “Pawlenty Democrats” in swing Blue states like Minnesota?
Kentucky Thompson 40 Clinton 53
Minnesota Thompson 37 Clinton 53
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/poll_surveyusa_fred_thompson_v.php
May 14th, 2007 at 11:50 am
The fact that he’s doing as poorly in Kentucky as Minnesota suggests he isn’t well known. Almost any GOP candidate should do much better in Kentucky than Minnesota.
May 14th, 2007 at 11:51 am
TM; Those polls this early have already been debunked. Dukakis led Bush Sr. in Texas at this point in 1988. I’d go down to the blog on this particular subject.
May 14th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
FDT is doing poorly in all the Swing states. He’s also have major problems keeping many of the Red states.
It’s hard to imagine any Blue state the FDT could win.
May 14th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Maybe as McCain continues to drop in the polls, Pawlenty will decide to support Rudy.
Pawlenty has the ability to pull in many of these Midwest blue states.