Skip to comments.Giuliani: Put More States In Play, Or Else We'll Use [sic]
Posted on 04/23/2007 11:05:52 AM PDT by meg88
April 23, 2007 Giuliani: Put More States In Play, Or Else We'll Use We've heard Giuliani advisers make this argument, but we've never heard it from the candidate himself.
Interviewed this a.m. on the Imus substitute on MSNBC, Giuliani said
"From a political point of view, I probably have the best chance of putting states like New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Washington, Oregon, California in play. And as a Republicans, if we don't put those states in play next time ... we may see a Democratic president."
Pennsylvania and New Jersey are realistic. California, Oregon and Washington are second-tier. Connecticut is unlikely.
But Giuliani's point holds, right?
Putting more state into play.....brilliant!!!!
Well - he’s right.
However,,,, more states can be won in more ways than one - right?
Didn’t Reagan prove that?
Sorry to go back 25 years - but hopefully you understand what I mean.
The polls I’ve seen say that Giuliani is the only candidate who can beat Hillary in Florida. If we can’t win even in Fla., there will definitely be a Dem President.
Anyone who gets California in play won’t get my vote.
It won’t matter.
Either way we’d get a liberal.
On the other hand, if the base isn’t motivated in states like Ohio and Florida because of Guliani’s social liberalism, he could cost us those states.
Giuliani is a poo-poo head.
Wouldnt have been a Reagan man huh?
Reagan had the advantage of running against Jimmy Carter, a recession and numerous military embarassments. We don't have that advantage this time around.
His ship is sinking and he expects the R’s to keep it afloat.
Sorry Charlie it is too early in the campaign to keep one guy afloat.
Run, Fred Run,
What if he puts the entire south in play for the democrats?
Ohio is the weak spot for republicans in 2008 - any republican. The republican brand name there is so damaged, we need to start thinking how we can make up for that electoral loss.
For Rudy, its with PA and NJ. For Thompson, he would have to flip Wisconsin.
I think Rudy would encourage turnout in Florida & Ohio rather than depress it.
Good point - I stand corrected..
Thompson would win Florida (otherwise, you are right, its over). Ohio is the back breaker for us in 2008.
Several states have turned or leaned toward the Dems in recent years.
Arkansas is one. Missouri is another that is teetering.
Some FReepers have listed a few other states, as well.
The GOP has allot of work and allot of bridge building.
The talkshow talkies were saying that, if the Dems lost in 06, the Dem Party would basically be finished. Instead, however, the GOP seems to be the party in disarray. If the GOP can’t muster a win in 08, they may find themselves in the minority for decades.
Every poll that has Hunter, Paul, or Thompson in it, Hillary and Obama go down in flames.
Run a RINO, we lose. Run a real conservative, we win big.
I think the name says most of it, but WTF here?
We’d get Jersey too, which is now Rudy territory.
What makes you think that he could increase Repub turnout in FL and OH?
We'd all lose.
This isn’t 1980, dude. I live here. If 50% of us support someone, that person is a flaming socialist.
Excellent point. New Jersey has sunk so far to the left, I don’t think it is worth competiting for anymore. Genuine swing states like Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, New Mexico and possibly even Michigan can all be put into play without abandoning your base. New Jersey is a pipe dream less realistic than Hawaii or Delaware.
Giuliani’s right. I also think that Connecticut is more likely than New York.
Nominating Rudy makes the electoral picture moot, because a liberal would win either way.
“From a political point of view, I probably have the best chance of putting states like New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Washington, Oregon, California in play. And as a Republicans, if we don’t put those states in play next time ... we may see a Democratic president.”
Oh Rudy! Trying to SCARE people into voting for you.
Geesh, how low will you go?
If we don’t get REAL conservatives in there that aren’t shy we will lose. Rudy YOU are a losing candidate.
Step aside for the sake of the GOP.
When Fred Thompson announces, more states WILL be in play....
Bush’s victory in 2004 was a function of social conservatives engaged and working their butts off. It was the telling factor in winning Ohio, Iowa and Missouri, probably Florida too.
Social conservatives will be utterly disheatened if a pro-abortion, gun-grabber like Rooty is anywhere on the ticket.
If conservatives don’t come out in Florida, the Republican candidate loses. Ditto in Missouri and Ohio.
You lose those three and the election’s gone.
No, his point is bunk. Why do we need “more states in play”? Does he expect to lose the existing red states? Why do we need to win more states than we did before?
Sure, it’s nice to think about winning more states, and it would be great if we did.
But if I’m living in a solid Red state, damned if I understand why I should support a guy who appeals to New Jersey on a philosophical level, at the expense of what I care about.
Let’s run the RIGHT person with the RIGHT philosophy. And then, let’s let HIM or HER make the appeal to the blue states. We’ll get them by convincing conservative voters in those states, and previous non-voters in those states, that it’s worth their effort to come out and vote.
I’d rather attract a million new conservatives to the polls, than win by attracting a million democrats to vote for my candidate because he appeals to them philosophically.
I haven’t seen any polls that have Hunter, Paul or Thompson in it in Fla, either. I can’t imagine that Hunter or Paul could beat Hillary in Fla., though. Thompson, maybe, but even that seems like a stretch.
I’ve lived in Minnesota and New Jersey. Republicans have a MUCH better chance in New Jersey than in Minnesota.
Oregon is as likely as PA, perhaps even more likely. Oregon and maybe WI are the only shots that anyone (considered so far) beside Rudy has at flipping to the GOP, while the risk of losing states we previously held is much higher.
Interesting speculation, but I believe: 1) Mr. Giuliani vastly overestimates his appeal in many of these states (New York and New Jersey, for example); and 2) he’s awfully presumptuous in stating that enhancing the party’s appeal in dysfunctional, radically left-wing states is somehow a good idea.
Rudy would throw states into play that we haven’t dreamed of getting while keeping the base close.
Well, it’s good for us then that the election isn’t today.
Anybody who bases their support for a candidate based on who the most people support deserves a candidate that doesn’t do anything they want.
I will work for and support a candidate I can be proud of and who will do what is right for the country, rather than whoever is winning in some opinion poll.
Giuliani is a NY liberal plot to split the GOP vote and elect Hillary.
Why do you think he is right? Join the discussion, don’t be a defeatist yes-person.
Home News Tribune Online 04/19/07
TRENTON, N.J. (AP) New Jersey hasn’t supported a Republican for president for nearly 20 years, but a new poll released Thursday shows former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani leading all presidential challengers in New Jersey.
The Quinnipiac University poll found the Republican with similar leads over the three leading Democratic presidential candidates.
Giuliani leads New York Sen. Hillary Clinton 49 percent to 40 percent, the poll found. He leads Illinois Sen. Barack Obama 48 percent to 38 percent, and 2004 vice presidential candidate John Edwards 48 percent to 41 percent.
New Jersey hasn’t supported a Republican for president since 1988.
“”It makes no difference who the Democrats put up
Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama or John Edwards
former Mayor Giuliani continues to knock out all challengers in the New Jersey presidential race,’’ said Clay F. Richards, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.
Not a very convincing argument.
If Rudy is nominated, he will through the entire South “into play” and had the ‘Rats their biggest victory since 1964. And even if I’m wrong, it still doesn’t matter, because all this is doing is INSURING THAT A LIBERAL WILL WIN THE PRESIDENCY.
If you have a Republican candidate who can’t articulate CONSERVATIVE ideas to the masses, then we are doomed even if we keep the White House.
Upon reflection, the GOOD I can see coming out of this, is maybe the whole “coattail” thing - maybe people would vote for OTHER (R)s on the ballots for other offices, and we could get congress back.
THAT would be nice.
On the flip side . . . Giuliani might be the only Republican in modern history who could actually put states like Texas, Idaho, Wyoming and Nebraska in play.
no way. Thompson can win the general, but the idea that he is going to turn the map into some Reagan landslide is not true. In fairness, Rudy can’t either. But Thompson’s electoral strategy is as narrow as the Bush stategy was in 2000 and 2004. Thompson isn’t winning NJ, would need a miracle to win PA.
Thompson would have to work to flip Wisconsin, hold Iowa, and hold Colorado and Nevada if Richardson is the VP. That’s his game plan.
Don't be fooled by his charisma. It is obvious to anyone who looks that he has holds positions that are politically beneficial to him at the time -- a classic ends justify the means trait that this country really doesn't need right now.
Electing Rudy is almost as sure fire a way of guaranteeing our moral decline before the fall. Check the history of Rome for reference.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.