Posted on 03/07/2007 4:32:54 AM PST by Verax
|
John Bender
|
| Rudy Giuliani can’t win the general election. No matter how much some people in the Republican Party wish he could, he can’t and here’s why. There is about 30% of the voting public in each camp who vote for the party no matter what. The Republicans have so-called conservatives who would vote for Arlen Specter rather than Thomas Jefferson, because Specter is a Republican and Jefferson was a Democrat. On the Democrat side, they have a group who would vote for Zell Miller rather than Lincoln Chafee, because Miller is a Democrat and Chafee is a Republican. Neither of these groups have any political clout in the general election. They are irrelevant to the political debate. Neither party, nor any politician, has to work to get their vote. Consequently, their issues are of no concern to either party. The battle in every election is to get out the vote of people who lean toward a party or candidate, and to get the vote of issue voters. The 40% or so of voters who either switch their vote from party to party, or who withhold their vote, when dissatisfied, are the ones politicians have to court and motivate in any general election. Neither the unmovable Republicans nor the unmovable Democrats are of any real interest to the respective parties. Those votes are there and counted before the polls ever open. The parties and individual politicians fight for and court the other 40% of the voters. Rove knows this and spoke about it after the 2000 election and adjusted his campaign strategy in the 2004 election accordingly. In 2000 Evangelicals didn’t turn out in their customary numbers and almost cost Bush the election. Rove was determined to change that and said so more than once between 2000 and 2004. In 2004, Rove made it a point to go after the Evangelical vote, including an unprecedented heavy Republican push in the nation’s Black churches. Evangelicals and other Christians responded by getting out and voting for Bush. This included a record 16% of the Black vote in Ohio, just about all of which came from the Black churches because of social issues like abortion, gay marriage, etc. That 16% of the Black vote was not only almost double the percentage of Black votes the Republican historically gets in presidential elections, it was more than double the Black vote Bush got in Ohio in 2000. The increase was also more than Bush’s margin of victory in Ohio. It gave him the election. Without the Black vote Bush would have lost Ohio and its 20 Electoral votes. Take those twenty votes from Bush and give them to Kerry and you have President Kerry no matter how Florida voted. In fact, remove the increase in the Evangelical turnout nationally; and it is impossible for Bush to have won a second term. Rove worked on pushing those issues that motivate Evangelicals and it gave Bush a second term. If the party again removes the Evangelicals who stayed home in 2000, PLUS some of the other social conservatives, some of the Second Amendment voters, and some of the defend the borders voters, there is no way one can come up with a GOP win in 2008. The party isn’t going to attract enough pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-open borders, to offset the loss from the above mentioned groups. It just isn’t going to happen. Now, some in the 30% who are unmovable Republican voters are happy the party has moved to the Left and wish it would move a little farther Left. Others don’t like the slide to the Left, but are so locked into the party they will accept the slide, vote a straight ticket and hope for a better candidate in the next election. Those in the second category, they’d like a more conservative candidate, but will vote for whoever gets the GOP nomination, are actually helping assure that they will never get what they want in a candidate. They are not helping get a more conservative candidate because they come right out and say they will vote for ANYBODY who the party nominates. They are making themselves irrelevant. Why should the party try to please them? They are going to vote for the party no matter what. They are telling the party to ignore them. The people who make the party earn their vote are the ones who can push the party back to the Right. They are the ones that the politicians have to please. Don’t be fooled by the Republican establishment’s mantra that someone is too conservative to win. They said the same thing about Reagan. Reagan twice showed that attracting social conservatives and fiscal conservatives produces landslide victories. The Republican establishment doesn’t like conservatives. They never liked Reagan. They didn’t want the people to believe he would win in the general election. In 1976 Ford’s Chief of Staff called Reaganites “right wing nuts”, a term that also pops up in several Ford internal campaign memos from that year. In 1980 Bush the Elder said Reagan was an extremist and that his economic policies were “voodoo economics” that could never work in the real world. None of this was true then and it isn’t true now. There are now four conservatives in the race for the Republican nomination; Rep. Ron Paul, Rep. Duncan Hunter, Governor Jim Gilmore, and Rep. Tom Tancredo. Any one of these gentlemen could beat Hillary or Obama in the general election. Giuliani can’t do it. The Rockefeller Republicans, who are the party bosses, and the Doubting Thomas Republicans who are pushing for Giuliani’s nomination are going to hand the election to the Democrats if they succeed in nominating Giuliani rather than a conservative. It’s up to the party’s base to stop that from happening. The only real choice for the anybody-but-a-Democrat voters is to work to make sure one of the conservatives gets the nomination or accept the fact that they helped put a Democrat in the White House in 08.
"Published originally at www.EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact." John Bender is a freelance writer living in Dallas, Texas. He is a past Ether Zone contributor. John Bender can be reached at: jbender@columnist.com |
Still, the 2000 election was a squeaker. In 2004, the GOP received a decent victory margin (51% - 48%) and Bush became the first Presidential candidate since 1988 to receive a majority of the popular vote. In 2004, Bush increased his vote total to 62 million, an 11 million increase, while Kerry received 59.4 million of only 8.4 million. A fraction of that increase probably came from Nader supporters, as the long time consumer activist received only 400,000 votes in 2004, vs. 2.4 million four years earlier. Bush's improvement is largely attributed to evangelical voters supporting him. In 2000, Bush received 68% of the white evangelical vote, increasing to 78% in 2004. In both elections, white evangelicals represented 23% of the electorate. About 5.3 million more white evangelicals voted for Bush in 2004, representing almost half of the Bush increase that year.
Conversely, what hurt the 2006 GOP Congressional campaign was a falling away by both economic and social conservatives. Unfortunately, I don't believe fear of the Clintons will be sufficient to draw these conservatives to Giuliani. In 1996, Dole received almost the same number of votes that the elder Bush had in 1992 (39.2 million vs 39.1 million) in spite of four years of attempts to socialize medicine, permit open homosexuals in the military, mysterious deaths like that of Vince Foster, and gossip about Bill Clinton's sexual escapades. Additionally, some 11.5 million voters who had supported Perot in 1992 either voted for another candidate in 1996 or did not vote.
As for Hillary's lack of charm, remember that no one ever accused either Gore or Kerry of being personable or lovable, yet both men received almost half of the total national vote.
Even without a strong third party candidate, Giuliani will lose a portion of the conservative vote, especially white evangelicals and possibly church-going white Catholics as well. Gun owners and economic conservatives also have reason to be unenthusiastic about him. However, Giuliani may be able to offset the loss through breaking the lock the Democrats have had over the 11 Northeastern states and California. Picking up PA, NJ, NH, DE, and maybe ME and CT would make up for possible losses in the Upper South and the Border states. If he can turn California, as Schwarzenegger has with his brand of politics, away from the Democrats, he can win even if he loses OH, IA, and maybe NM.
We're in agreement.
Who wants an annointment? Most Rudy supporters would be happy to see some credible competition from his Right.
This annointment claim is too old and ridiculous to be taken seriously in any case. That was the EXACT thing that was said about Bush in 2000. It was false then and false now.
Are YOU are Republican or just someone who pretends to be one, too?
And what does Hillary have to do with my question to a NON-Republican?
It has been trending RAT over the last few years so she MIGHT have a chance there. Maybe they like her better for leaving. But MIGHT is the best I will give her.
Every time Duncan Hunter speaks people are drawn to him!
Other Oklahomans will tell you otherwise. Oklahoma will NOT give its electoral votes to Hillary THAT is certain.
You're right, of course! I misread. :(
Your tag line is disgusting. I am surprised you weren't asked to remove it.
If you *say* so.
I like Duncan Hunter but that is not the point. Hunter's speech at the CPAC was ok even though he was given a very difficult spot having to speak first while people were wandering in half asleep. But his showing in that straw poll just killed him.
Who I like or you like really has no impact on the political realities of who can win.
I know of two women he made this statement to, "to have and to hold till death us do part". In short don't put what rudy tells you in the bank.
I know of two women he made this statement to, "to have and to hold till death us do part". In short don't put what rudy tells you in the bank.
A major one never talked about is the US Attorneys. The democrats are corrupt and in blue states only the US Attorney stands in their way.
With Rudy you get a strong national security/foreign/defense policy. The democrats will bring us to disaster.
You get fiscal responsibility and tax cuts versus taxes up the kazoo.
You also get conservative republicans in Congress who will have influence on a republican president. They are cooked with a dem in the WH.
And you get CONSERVATIVE JUDGES who just might overturn Roe, and are the only chance to do so. It will NEVER happen with a dem.
I disagree totally. I am fed up with conservatives who are too meek and mild to speak up to the left and defend themselves. I haven't seen a true conservative who I think would stand up to even Pelosi or Reid, both of whom deserve a public verbal smack down. Rudy wouldn't hesitate to speak his mind and he wouldn't stand still for the abuse of the judicial system that is going on in our courts.
Exactly. I would tend to pick Romney in the primaries. But I damn well will vote repuiblican against Hilary or Obama.
Why do you assume that if we elect a republican president the Congress will be democrats? They are linked. If people stay home they doom the rest of the ticket. WEe need republicans throughout. And BTW, I post all the time about how much I hate republicans.
Yes, and Rudy says he will appoint conservative judges. You have to understand if Roe is overturned, all the liberal states will still have legal abortion. Overturning Roe is NOT making abortion illegal. It just removes Constitutional protection from teh right to have an abortion. Rudy can allow conservatives on the court.
Unless some southern or western conservative decides to run a third party campaign.
Then how many electoral votes will Rudy get?
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.