National Journal GOP Political Insiders Poll
Who among your party’s current crop of governors has the brightest political future?
- Bobby Jindal 21%
- Haley Barbour 20%
- Tim Pawlenty 17%
- Charlie Crist 13%
- Mark Sanford 8%
- Jon Huntsman 6%
- Mitch Daniels 5%
- Sarah Palin 5%
- Arnold Schwarzenegger 1%
The survey was comprised of the following 99 GOP political insiders: Dan Allen, Stan Anderson, Gary Andres, Saul Anuzis, Rich Ashooh, Whit Ayres, Brett Bader, Mitch Bainwol, Gary Bauer, David Beckwith, Clark Benson, Wayne Berman, Brian Bieron, Charlie Black, Kirk Blalock, Carmine Boal, Jeff Boeyink, Ron Bonjean, Jeff Buley, Luke Byars, Nick Calio, Danny Carroll, Ron Christie, Jim Cicconi, Cesar Conda, Jake Corman, Scott Cottington, Charlie Crist, Greg Crist, Diane Crookham-Johnson, Fergus Cullen, Mike Dennehy, Ken Duberstein, Steve Duprey, Debi Durham, Frank Fahrenkopf, John Feehery, Don Fierce, Carl Forti, Alex Gage, Sam Geduldig, Adam Geller, Benjamin Ginsberg, Bill Greener, Jonathan Grella, Lanny Griffith, Janet Mullins Grissom, Doug Gross, Todd Harris, Steve Hart, Christopher Healy, Ralph Hellmann, Chris Henick, Terry Holt, David Iannelli, Clark Judge, David Keating, David Kensinger, Bruce Keough, Bob Kjellander, Ed Kutler, Chris Lacivita, Jim Lake, George LeMieux, Steve Lombardo, Kevin Madden, Joel Maiola, Gary Maloney, David Marin, Mary Matalin, Dan Mattoon, Brian McCormack, Mark McKinnon, Kyle McSlarrow, Ken Mehlman, Jim Merrill, Tim Morrison, Mike Murphy, Phil Musser, Ron Nehring, Terry Nelson, Neil Newhouse, David Norcross, Ziad Ojakli, Jack Oliver, Todd Olsen, Van B. Poole, Tom Rath, Scott Reed, David Rehr, Steve Roberts, Jason Roe, David Roederer, Dan Schnur, Russ Schriefer, Rich Schwarm, Brent Seaborn, Rick Shelby, Andrew Shore, Kevin Shuvalov, Don Sipple, Robin Smith, Javier Soto, Fred Steeper, Bob Stevenson, Eric Tanenblatt, Richard Temple, Heath Thompson, Jay Timmons, Warren Tompkins, Ted Van Der Meid, Dirk van Dongen, Jan van Lohuizen, Stewart Verdery, Dick Wadhams, John Weaver, Tom Wilson, Dave Winston, Ginny Wolfe, and Fred Wszolek.
May 16th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
Here are the results among 99 Democratic political insiders:
May 16th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Is “Charlie Crist” the name of another political insider? I noticed the name is in the “insider” list.
May 16th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Haley Barbour? Really?
May 16th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Yeah, I would have said Schweitzer for the Democrats and Jindal for the Republicans.
May 16th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
For you Palin fans, is this in any way a surprise or disappointing?
May 16th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Barbour is a fine governor, but he is old. How much of a future can he have? I am excited about the numbers for Pawlenty and Jindal, wish that Sanford had gotten more, surprised at Palins number, and dismayed over Crist and Huntsman. However, I bet this poll was conducted before Huntsman showed his true colors.
May 16th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Guys,
Read who the respondents were in the poll: they were self-proclaimed GOP Political Insiders. The results aren’t a surprise. I’m surprised that Mitch and Huntsman weren’t higher among this crew.
Since there’s no superdelegate system for our side, I’m not seeing too much relevance in this poll. The last Rasmussen and Fox News poll had more relevance than this one since they were of Republicans, though noted for the small sample sizes.
May 16th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
It’s because Barbour was once RNC Chair and these folks worked with him.
May 16th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Of course, insiders would have a warped view of the world. They hate Palin. This poll actually confirms why she’d be good.
I like Jindal and Barbour a lot, but the hatred of Palin and Sanford by insiders is a blessing. The fact Crist and Pawlenty, two complete duds as far as national leaders for the GOP go, together get 30% shows you the type of braintrust our party has put in power.
May 16th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
So Ambinder thinks Rubio-Crist, Specter-Toomey, and Huckabee-NCNA are healthy for the party.
Huntsman To China
http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/05/huntsman_to_china.php
Huntsman was not yet in a “frontrunner” position for the 2012 nomination, but he would have certainly hastened an intra-party conflict that needs to happen in order for the GOP to recover. Now, a fairly orthodox 2012 Republican presidential primary is inevitable unless someone else drops in. The back story to this will be fascinating… Huntsman’s political team is astonished…. as many in the White House are pleasantly surprised.
May 16th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Mike,
I don’t agree that the “insiders” hate Sanford…they just like the Pawlenty/Jindal types better. He probably embraced the Tea Parties too much for their liking.
May 16th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
Does anyone else think that Jindal’s strong showing in this poll highlights one of his greatest assets: the fact that both insiders and reformers in the party like him?
May 16th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Aren’t the insiders the same thing as the reformers? The insider and reformer types were pretty anti-Tea Party from what I read and from what I consider to be insiders and reformers. The insiders and reformers pretty much aghast with what happened with Toomey and Specter and are not thrilled with the upcoming Crist-Rubio battle.
May 16th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Tommy,
I guess I interpreted “reformers” as grassroots members of the party. Is that incorrect?
May 16th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Yeah, we have a different intepretation of the term “reformer.” My interpretation of “reformer” are the New Majority/Reihan Salam/Next Right types, who do not seem to buy the notion that we lost because we weren’t conservative enough.
That mentality seems to be held by the majority of the “grassroots” but not by the “reformers.” It seems that the insiders side with the “reformers” on the point, if not overtly publically (though they have made their thoughts known more publically lately with their endorsement of Crist and their failure to endorse Toomey) but privately through their actions and what they tell news outlets such as Politico off the record.
May 16th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
I consider myself more of a “Jay Cost” kind of a guy, removed from the grassroots and the reform types if that makes any sense.
May 16th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Barbour? Why?
And if I had to pick…
GOP: Jindal
Dem: Brian Schweitzer
Who do you guys see as rising Democratic stars?
May 16th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
“For you Palin fans, is this in any way a surprise or disappointing?” No, because she already is part of the Big 3 she should not have even been in the poll. I know that many in the M & M world think she’s a lightweight, but the 3 way fight is no close race and she is in it. M & M would like to have the floor to themselves, but they need to clear at least one P before that can be the case and we won’t give up without a fight.
May 16th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Barbour turns 62 this year. He’d better hurry up if he wants to be POTUS one day.
May 16th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Of course, insiders would have a warped view of the world. They hate Palin. This poll actually confirms why she’d be good.
Because insiders don’t consider her to have the brightest future in the party?
Good grief. Anything other than worshiping Palin is interpreted by you freaks as a complete hatred of Heartland America.
I like Jindal and Barbour a lot, but the hatred of Palin and Sanford by insiders is a blessing. The fact Crist and Pawlenty, two complete duds as far as national leaders for the GOP go, together get 30% shows you the type of braintrust our party has put in power.
Hatred? How do you derive any hatred from this?
May 16th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Knepper,
Are you trying to be deliberately obtuse? Get out of the NM/Frum echo chamber once inawhile and you’ll find out what Mike is talking about, putting his over-the-top rhetoric aside.
May 16th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Marco Rubio should run for FL governor. He would be on the inside track for VP.
May 16th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Why would any Republican hate Sarah Palin? It only takes one look back at the Couric interview to know that she is not ever close to being qualified for POTUS, but to not like here doesn’t make sense. If she can get herself up to speed on the issues, she will be a fabulous package someday. She has natural political talent, but at this time, she just doesn’t know very much.
May 16th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
Are you trying to be deliberately obtuse? Get out of the NM/Frum echo chamber once inawhile and you’ll find out what Mike is talking about, putting his over-the-top rhetoric aside.
Who’s Mike?
May 16th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Why would any Republican hate Sarah Palin? It only takes one look back at the Couric interview to know that she is not ever close to being qualified for POTUS, but to not like here doesn’t make sense. If she can get herself up to speed on the issues, she will be a fabulous package someday. She has natural political talent, but at this time, she just doesn’t know very much.
My main problem with her is the divisive identity politics rhetoric.
And, yeah, she doesn’t know very much.
May 16th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
“Good grief. Anything other than worshiping Palin is interpreted by you freaks as a complete hatred of Heartland America.” No, we just want the same respect for our candidate as the others. BTW, Mr. Frum is not a bad chap, but I do not want him picking our next Prime Minister, I mean President.
May 16th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
MikeKS is the blogger’s name….seems to be a new arrival, but I usually just shorten the names for the heck of it (e.g., Illionisguy becomes Illinois).
May 16th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
No, we just want the same respect for our candidate as the others. BTW, Mr. Frum is not a bad chap, but I do not want him picking our next Prime Minister, I mean President.
I do grant your candidate the same respect. I judge her by the same standard that I judge every other candidate by. Certainly she is not entitled to be loved, however, by me, just because I am a Republican, nor was she entitled to do well in this poll. For all you know, all ninety-nine of them might have thought she has a bright future. The poll simply asked who has the brightest.
May 16th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
“Who’s Mike?” Hello, MikeKS, the guy you just referred to.
May 16th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Oh, right, MikeKS.
Yeah, you think that our party doesn’t have any serious problems right now with connecting to the American people and I’m the one who’s in an echo chamber.
May 16th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
Knepper,
There are two echo chambers: the chamber that believes we weren’t conservative enough and the chamber that you find yourself in with Frum. Both chambers are nauseating. I just find both sides contradictory in some of the arguments and tactics that they advance.
Where are the Jay Costs in this party?
May 16th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
I’m not exactly sure what you think I’m advocating that’s so absurd.
You people worship “the base,” and that disgusts me, because the almighty base alone doesn’t give us a majority party. Noooooo! Don’t praise Jon Huntsman! He’s a RINO! So is Crist! So is Snowe! So is Collins! So is Colema — oh, wait, no, he’s pro-life, he’s not a RINO, even though Huntsman is pro-life also, he’s a RINO too because he doesn’t want to nuke the Obama White House — and so is Giuliani, and so is McCain, and so is anyone who doesn’t adhere to 100% orthodoxy! All hail the Secret Club!
May 16th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Half this damn party are RINOs by you people’s insane estimations. In your mad quest for purity, you people won’t stop until we’re a party that only 15% of the electorate identifies with.
May 16th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Knepper,
Get off your horse and out of Frum’s echo chamber. You expect 100% orthordoxy on the issue of free trade with our national candidates even though you conceded earlier that it hurts us tactically and politically in one of the most important elecotoral areas in the country. Anyone who doesn’t support free trade to the same extent as you do is all of a sudden not as enthuiastic about capitalism as you are. The same principle rhetoric is employed by yourself.
May 16th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Hell, I agree with you that we shouldn’t compromise on trade…it’s just that we have to hope it isn’t a big issue in the Rust Belt come ’10 and ’12.
As far Crist and Huntsman, I would love nothing more than those two guys in the race. Let’s get Mitch in there as well.
May 16th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Free trade is quite literally a no-compromise issue, because we will not be competitive in the 21st century if we don’t have open markets. If it becomes clear that we absolutely cannot win with pro-free trade candidates in Ohio and Michigan, I’d be willing to compromise in those states, but it seems that we might be able to still. I’m not willing to compromise America’s competitiveness in the global economy because some uneducated morons are too stupid to understand economics.
May 16th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
I don’t want to speak for the Palin crowd, but I can’t see any reason why they’d be surprised by a poor showing in a poll of “insiders”. That is definitely not her audience.
May 16th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
I mean, look — look! — Bush won Ohio in 2004 and Bush is a fairly down-the-line free trader. McCain almost won Ohio, which was redder than the nation as a whole, and he is a completely down-the-line free trader, and even opposes ethanol subsidies!
May 16th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
In the end, elections are about compromise. Out of two candidates (or what ever), which comes closest to your believe. Although we all deploy RINO’s, in the end, we will vote for one if the Democrat is liberal enough.
As far as Kneppers 15%. Really? Where did you get your numbers. Conservatism when explained well, wins elections, especially when faced with Liberalism.
May 16th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
As far as Kneppers 15%. Really? Where did you get your numbers. Conservatism when explained well, wins elections, especially when faced with Liberalism.
I agree…but we’re communicating it so freaking poorly that the electorate is running away from us. They see us as the Secret Club, rather than Reagan’s Big Tent.
May 16th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
“I mean, look — look! — Bush won Ohio in 2004 and Bush is a fairly down-the-line free trader. McCain almost won Ohio, which was redder than the nation as a whole, and he is a completely down-the-line free trader, and even opposes ethanol subsidies!”
You do understand my point wasn’t that we should move to the middle on trade but rather to throw back your own rhetoric at you as to what you consider to be non-negotiable issues.
McCain’s ethanol opposition did hurt us in Indiana though. Sean Oxendine had a good-write up about it.
May 16th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
You do understand my point wasn’t that we should move to the middle on trade but rather to throw back your own rhetoric at you as to what you consider to be non-negotiable issues.
Anyone who thinks that two men getting married is going to destroy America needs to get to a psychologist, not a political rally. Becoming protectionist will indeed destroy America’s economic vitality in the 21st century.
Somehow, Massachusetts has survived the past five years.
McCain’s ethanol opposition did hurt us in Indiana though. Sean Oxendine had a good-write up about it.
Wouldn’t doubt it. The ethanol subsidies aren’t a huge deal to me, although I obviously oppose them.
May 16th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Cap and trade comes with a whole host of anti-trade baggage in tow. So support for cap and trade makes a number of potential GOP candidates anti-capitalist and anti-trade in my book, unless they are willing to drop that heresy.
That’s right: I said “heresy” — even at the risk of being labeled an unrealistic purist. Frankly, I don’t care which party they’re purged from or run to, I just won’t entertain voting for them in a general election.
May 16th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Alex,
When you start talking about “no compromise” issues you give the game away. You’re not for pragmatism; you’re for pragmatism on other people’s issues, and on those issues where you’re simply so far out of the mainstream it costs you nothing to be pragmatic. How about showing some pragmatism on issues where the national party could conceivably adopt your platform, but would hurt their electoral prospects by doing so? Free trade is one of those issues, where we can clearly adopt your principled stance, without throwing away the whole ballgame, but where we’d be better off electorally by adopting a more nuanced position. Being willing to let the welfare state survive isn’t “pragmatic” in a country where nearly 40% of the population openly prefers socialism.
May 16th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Forty percent of the country does not openly prefer socialism. They prefer Obama’s economic policies. If we shout ‘socialism’ from the rooftops, they’ll come to affiliate it with Barack Obama. I can assure you that forty percent of the country does not want the state to own the means of production.
I’m for pragmatism on lots of issues that I support…just not free trade or foreign policy. The rest are all up for negotiation…Thankfully, the party is fairly united on such issues that I support. There’s also something to be said for the party’s future. Only so-cons are screwing us up in the Northeast…when’s the last time you heard of a Huckabee type winning in the Northeast? A centrist or a Giuliani center-right type can win up there…a Huckabee/Palin type cannot…and which candidates are most mocked amongst the young? The Giulianis and McCains? No…the Palins.
May 16th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Knepper,
I think you’ll get an education about the Northeast and California with the election results in November 2010. The social cons will have their hands clean when the landslides start coming in for the democrats in those states.
May 16th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
I think you’ll get an education about the Northeast and California with the election results in November 2010. The social cons will have their hands clean when the landslides start coming in for the democrats in those states.
If — if! — the centrists lose, it’ll be by a far smaller margin than what Huckabee types would have lost by.
May 16th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Until the term free trade is defined it means nothing. I take the position that some things about today’s situation is simply unfair to the American worker. I say those things need to be addressed whenever we are negotiating trade agreements with other countries. To do so does not make it any less ‘free trade’, but just make a more ‘fair’ free trade for America. Some of you act as if the status quo is the definition of ‘free trade’, and any modification of the same is somehow not ‘free trade’. That’s a narrow viewpoint with no foundation in realitiy.
May 16th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Alex,
“I’m for pragmatism on lots of issues that I support…just not free trade or foreign policy. The rest are all up for negotiation…”
Come on…the only significant submovement within conservative politics, in the last three decades, is opposed to PRECISELY those planks of the platform. Pat Buchanan, Ross Perot…amconmag types…they’ve all been excised from the party, with nary a kind farewell. I don’t see you crying crocodile tears for the loss of Daniel Larison.
Free trade, even within the GOP, garners less support than either the pro-life plank or the pro traditional marriage plank. And it gains FAR less support within the general electorate. A CNN poll from the election had free trade at 35% with 51% opposed.
“Only so-cons are screwing us up in the Northeast…when’s the last time you heard of a Huckabee type winning in the Northeast? A centrist or a Giuliani center-right type can win up there…a Huckabee/Palin type cannot…and which candidates are most mocked amongst the young? The Giulianis and McCains? No…the Palins.”
And yet…there’s ample evidence that the electorate has moved farther to the left on economic issues than on social issues. On, and Huckabee’s and Palin’s don’t run in the Northeast, because they don’t exist. So-cons in the northeast are overwhelmingly ficons as well. The reverse isn’t true. The economically populist so-con is a peculiarity of the South for the most part, and those who come vaguely close to that ideal in the North- Pawlenty for instance- do quite well actually. The best that can be said about this particular point is that Northeasterners laugh at social conservatism before dismissing it; they just ignore fiscal conservatism.
May 16th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Free trade = No barriers, no tariffs, no duties, no restrictions, no nothing. The entrepreneurs set the terms, not the government.
May 16th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Yes, Alex, and that IS NOT THE CURRENT SITUATION AT ALL!
May 16th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Come on…the only significant submovement within conservative politics, in the last three decades, is opposed to PRECISELY those planks of the platform. Pat Buchanan, Ross Perot…amconmag types…they’ve all been excised from the party, with nary a kind farewell. I don’t see you crying crocodile tears for the loss of Daniel Larison.
It’s a dead ideology.
And yet…there’s ample evidence that the electorate has moved farther to the left on economic issues than on social issues. On, and Huckabee’s and Palin’s don’t run in the Northeast, because they don’t exist. So-cons in the northeast are overwhelmingly ficons as well. The reverse isn’t true. The economically populist so-con is a peculiarity of the South for the most part, and those who come vaguely close to that ideal in the North- Pawlenty for instance- do quite well actually. The best that can be said about this particular point is that Northeasterners laugh at social conservatism before dismissing it; they just ignore fiscal conservatism.
What is your “ample evidence”? That forty percent of the electorate “prefers socialism”? Do you even think that forty percent of the electorate could even properly define socialism? Our own base can’t even do it. Polls still show that Americans think that tax cuts are good for the economy, that tax hikes are bad, and that big government is seen as a bigger threat than big business.
Pawlenty? Minnesota ain’t the Northeast.
Northeasterners don’t necessarily ignore economic conservatism. There are the Greggs and Giulianis of the world; we just need to scout them out and run them.
May 16th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Yes, Alex, and that IS NOT THE CURRENT SITUATION AT ALL!
…Correct. What’s your point?
May 16th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Look, does anyone know anything about the opinions of the various regions of the country, historically? The north was never what we’d call fiscally conservative or libertarian. At various points it was mildly socially conservative (think Puritan influence). It’s been entreprenurial, but no moreso than other regions of the country. It’s been hierarchical and prone to dynasties and machine politicking. There’s all sorts of things you can point to which might plausibly fit into a historical sense of conservatism; but fiscal conservatism doesn’t make much of an appearance. To the extent that the northeast was ever fiscally conservative, it was a result of their seaports and big cities which were trade hubs in our early history. With manufacturing all but gone, even those issues don’t sway them substantially.
May 16th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Then let’s run centrists? Somehow, Snowe and Collins manage to win in landslides. Pataki won. Gregg won. Sununu could have done a lot worse. Simmons is ahead of Dodd, thanks to Dodd’s corruption, which we are rightly taking advantage of. Vermont has a centrist Republican governor. Giuliani was elected NYC mayor. Romney won in 2002.
May 16th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Alex,
Giuliani was one of the most lauded prosecutors in New York history. He was a demi-God in Republican politics in New York city, and he still lost his first time around the pass. The Giuliani’s, Weld’s, and Carcieri’s are exceptions, not the rule. More likely are the Jim Douglas’s, Whitman, Chris Christie’s, Celluci’s, etc, etc. Fiscal conservatism, as a general principle, isn’t anymore appealing in the northeast than social conservatism. It just happens to be more likely to succeed in a few exceptional circumstances because northeasterners don’t HATE it, they just…don’t want it.
May 16th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Giuliani barely lost his first time around, and once he had a chance to govern, he won in a landslide for re-election.
There sure are a lot of exceptions, it seems.
Whitman is more conservative than you give her credit for, I think.
But if you think that the Whitmans, Christies, etc., are the rule, then why not go with them? They’re a lot better than, say, oh, Bernie Sanders and Jack Reed, wouldn’t you agree?
May 16th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
Knepper,
Rudy hasn’t won in election in a decade. Judd Gregg’s last win was six years ago. Pataki hasn’t won anything in eight years. Simmons is behind Dodd according to some polling (citation Research 2000/Daily Kos) despite Dodd being at his lowest point. As of right now, SurveyUSA shows 57% of Minnesota voters do not want Pawlenty to run for re-election.
My argument is that the NE and California has changed dramatically. We’ll see if I am right in November 2010…I suspect the landslides that I have predicted will prove me correct and that we can all stop talking about the NE and California for quite some time.
May 16th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
I wonder who is was that determined the “Republican Insiders”? Is it the same person that keeps picking the losers to represent Conservatives, Republicans, and/or the Right on those television debate shows?
May 16th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
What is the 2010 gubernatorial in California looking like?
Meg Whitman vs. Jerry Brown or Dianne Feinstein, right?
The Democrat will probably win.
May 16th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Alex,
Well, first of all I’d note that Rudy ran to the left of his current posture, fiscally, in NYC. On some important issues, like vouchers and welfare reform, Giuliani moved right once in office. So it’s not even quite true that Giuliani’s an example of a rock-ribbed fiscal conservative winning in blue territory. The principle issue of the 1993 campaign was a social issue, crime, and Rudy took a strongly conservative posture on it.
I’d also note that, broadly speaking, I’m in favor of running the Snowe’s, and Christies, and Whitman’s in the northeast. I’ve said so on more than one occasion. But, only in the states that would be extraneous electorally- i.e, they couldn’t possibly provide the 270th electoral vote.
May 16th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
“Fiscal conservatism, as a general principle, isn’t anymore appealing in the northeast than social conservatism. It just happens to be more likely to succeed in a few exceptional circumstances because northeasterners don’t HATE it, they just…don’t want it.” Bingo, at least R.I. for example has a few SoCons, but essentially they have no capitalists. Fiscal Conservatism has not won for about 10 or 20 years north of NJ. Capitalism just does not sell there anymore. Good luck in 2010.
May 16th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Rudy hasn’t won in election in a decade. Judd Gregg’s last win was six years ago. Pataki hasn’t won anything in eight years. Simmons is behind Dodd according to some polling (citation Research 2000/Daily Kos) despite Dodd being at his lowest point. As of right now, SurveyUSA shows 57% of Minnesota voters do not want Pawlenty to run for re-election.
And Snowe? Collins? Douglas? Carcieri? SPECTER????
May 16th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Isn’t Governor Carcieri from Rhode Island a social con? He didn’t get a very high grade from the CATO institute in 2006 but got a B in 2008.
May 16th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
Well, first of all I’d note that Rudy ran to the left of his current posture, fiscally, in NYC. On some important issues, like vouchers and welfare reform, Giuliani moved right once in office. So it’s not even quite true that Giuliani’s an example of a rock-ribbed fiscal conservative winning in blue territory. The principle issue of the 1993 campaign was a social issue, crime, and Rudy took a strongly conservative posture on it.
Sure, but he pushed fiscal conservatism without an electoral backlash — mostly because he stayed socially liberal, I think. All in all, the Northeast is still amenable to law-and-order, fiscally — if not economically — conservative candidates, as long as they’re perceived as tolerant, enlightened, educated, “reasonable.”
May 16th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
“So it’s not even quite true that Giuliani’s an example of a rock-ribbed fiscal conservative winning in blue territory.” Bingo, we just refer to those guys as fiscally Conservative because they are slightly more fiscally Conservative than they are Socially Conservative which isn’t saying much.
May 16th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
I also take issue with your point about the paleocons. You can either argue that we shouldn’t reach out to paleocons, despite their decision to abandon the party, because they have an unpalatable ideology; or you can argue that we should reach out to the “centrists”, despite not sharing their ideology. You can’t do both and remain consistent. Because I might well say “yes, yes, all well and good, but I find the ideology of the “centrists” unpalatable, whereas I simply disagree with the paleocons and given that they’re both former or possible Republicans, and given that both could bring us a majority, I’ll reach out to the latter and insist that the “centrists” have a dead ideology which should be ignored”. I mean, we could have a debate about that- whether centrism is more palatable than paleoconservatism. What we can’t have is you declaring yourself a pragmatist for insisting that we reach out to your favored group of apostates, while insisting that I’m a hardliner because I’d rather bring in a different group of apostates. In that scenario, we’re both pragmatists, we’re just pragmatists for differing core values.
Oh, and Sununu and Gregg are both social conservatives, if not caustically so.
May 16th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
“And Snowe? Collins? Douglas? Carcieri? SPECTER????” Yeah, haha, there fine examples of capitalism, or at least 3 of those 5 names.
May 16th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
I also take issue with your point about the paleocons. You can either argue that we shouldn’t reach out to paleocons, despite their decision to abandon the party, because they have an unpalatable ideology; or you can argue that we should reach out to the “centrists”, despite not sharing their ideology. You can’t do both and remain consistent. Because I might well say “yes, yes, all well and good, but I find the ideology of the “centrists” unpalatable, whereas I simply disagree with the paleocons and given that they’re both former or possible Republicans, and given that both could bring us a majority, I’ll reach out to the latter and insist that the “centrists” have a dead ideology which should be ignored”. I mean, we could have a debate about that- whether centrism is more palatable than paleoconservatism. What we can’t have is you declaring yourself a pragmatist for insisting that we reach out to your favored group of apostates, while insisting that I’m a hardliner because I’d rather bring in a different group of apostates. In that scenario, we’re both pragmatists, we’re just pragmatists for differing core values.
Not really. Is there a particular region of the country where paleoconservatism sells where conservatism does not?
May 16th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
“And Snowe? Collins? Douglas? Carcieri? SPECTER????” Yeah, haha, there fine examples of capitalism, or at least 3 of those 5 names.
Better examples of capitalism than self-defined socialist Bernie Sanders.
May 16th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
Alex,
“Sure, but he pushed fiscal conservatism without an electoral backlash — mostly because he stayed socially liberal, I think. All in all, the Northeast is still amenable to law-and-order, fiscally — if not economically — conservative candidates, as long as they’re perceived as tolerant, enlightened, educated, “reasonable.””
Sure, if you have a series of race riots engulfing the city, and crime spiraling out of control…or if the economy is collapsing on a Democrat’s watch. Fiscal conservatives are the Northeast’s janitors and are treated as such when there’s not a spill that needs to be mopped up.
May 16th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
Answered my own question on Carcieri.
RI Gov. Don Carcieri backs traditional marriage campaign
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/national/northeast/view/2009_04_08_RI_Gov__Don_Carcieri_backs_traditional_marriage_campaign/
May 16th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Governor and his wife participate in anti-abortion rally
http://www.boston.com/news/local/rhode_island/articles/2008/01/31/governor_and_his_wife_participate_in_anti_abortion_rally/
May 16th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Of course they are better capitalists then Mr. Sanders, all of us, except maybe Tano can claim to be better capitalists than him.
May 16th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
Haha, if the the most liberal state of the union, a SoCon can win the Governor’s Mansion.
May 16th, 2009 at 7:09 pm
Sky is falling in for Palin.
May 16th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
Not necessarily; she could have come in 2nd or 3rd on a bunch of them and you wouldn’t know it by this pole
May 16th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
These are supposed to be knowledgeable insiders?
Who the hell picked Schwarzenegger?
May 16th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
Matthew,
“The economically populist so-con is a peculiarity of the South for the most part”
Actually, there are quite a few in the Midwest as well, and in PA and WV. I think the Midwest has about as many pro-life, pro-union Democrats in Congress as the South, if not more. Think of guys like Colin Peterson, Jim Oberstar, Bart Stupak, Brad Ellsworth, Joe Donnally, (former) Jim Traficant, etc… Both of WV’s Democratic reps (and governor) are populist pro-life Democrats. The Republicans can be a little more populist as well, relative to their western counterparts.
But out west and in the northeast (ex. PA)? I think they are about as common as Nazi Zionists.
May 16th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
I was combing through the exit polls from NH’s ’08 GOP primary to try to gauge whether there’d be enough of an opening in the Granite State in 2012 for a socially moderate defense hawk like Giuliani, with McCain no longer in the field, and came across some data that suggests an opportunity may still exist for the former NYC mayor.
And with no Democratic primary in ’12, Indies will be voting in only the GOP one, making it even more pro-choice/gay-friendly than ’08′s primary.
May 16th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
Goldman,
What you don’t tell us about the Iraq war vote in New Hampshire is that Rudy finished behind Huckabee among those who strongly or somewhat approved of the Iraq war according to the exit poll.
McCain cleaned up among those who strongly or somewhat disapproved of the Iraq War by a margin of 2-to-1, a result that certainly goes against the conventional wisdom.
So, I think your hypothesis about Rudy’s national security credentials and how they relate to New Hampshire is flawed upon closer inspection of the data. It could very well be the case that those who strongly or somewhat approved of the Iraq War correlated with those who believed abortion should be illegal. I think my hypothesis is a little stronger.
May 16th, 2009 at 11:32 pm
McCain cleaned up among those who strongly or somewhat disapproved of the Iraq War by a margin of 2-to-1, a result that certainly goes against the conventional wisdom.
But would Rudy also, absent McCain? If McCain did, Rudy could, too, you know.
What percentage of the electorate did that make up?
Also, how about people who strongly approved? Did they go for McCain? Might they go for Rudy second, absent McCain?
You’re reading things into the poll that aren’t there.
May 17th, 2009 at 2:03 am
Knepper,
Perhaps the hypothesis I advanced wasn’t clear. I’m arguing Rudy faces a conundrum in New Hampshire at least with respect to the national security argument that Goldman advanced. Here is the conundrum:
The New Hampshire voters for whom Rudy’s national security positions would be appealing are overwhelmingly pro-life. Huckabee and Romney both performed very well respective to their actual percentages in New Hampshire among New Hampshire voters who were the pro-Iraq War. I think a reasonable inference can be drawn that there is a lot of overlap between the pro-lifers in New Hampshire and the Iraq war supporters. Keep in mind too that McCain needed to do very well among this pro-life/pro-Iraq war crowd to defeat Romney. I think it’s reasonable to assume that pro-life/pro-Iraq war crowd will go for a pro-lifer if they view that pro-lifer on equal footing with Rudy on foreign policy.
May 17th, 2009 at 3:49 am
Ruby would have been out of office for TWELVE YEARS.
HE WON ONE DELEGATE LAST TIME.
There is a reason no-one is even talking about him for 2012. Great guy but move on already!
May 17th, 2009 at 10:52 am
I agree, Heath. Rudy led — LED — the pack for over a year. Many times, his lead was in the double digits. He spent tons of money in states where he was supposed to do well.
Yet in the end, he didn’t win a single contest and ended up with only one delegate. One delegate.
He will not run again.
May 18th, 2009 at 9:48 am
Looks like the insiders will give Jindhal a pass on his Republican
response speech. Barbour as sacrificial lamb…interesting. Given
that crop, unless the party is radically altered after 2010, I would
think that Mitt, Newt and Huck will be battling for the nomination – and not
too hard if Obama gets lucky with the business cycle.
May 20th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
[...] Barbour has seen his stock rise in the past couple of months. Less than a week ago, a group of GOP insiders gave only Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal higher remarks on which governor has the brightest future [...]