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?
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.
We. Hahahahaha.
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.
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.