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 |
While I don't expect it to be a large percentage, I believe that with an election such as 2008 where the VP of the current Prez is not running, the candidate that is able to draw those that never vote/rarely vote/first time voters combined with cross-over votes will win the gig.
With all of Rudy's misteps/faults in regards to his marriages, etc., can Hillary and Co. really engage in the questioning personal morality? Did Rudy lie under oath, subourn(sic) perjury, have countless extra-marital affairs, etc.? Can anyone honestly state that Bill and Hillary are actually married on a physical/loving level? Of course not so he instantly can play the high road while 527s highlight Hillary and Co's hypocrisy.
Against all of that, Rudy Giuliani cannot rally any traditional GOP support. He won't rally the gun owners. Hillary may be just as likely to take our guns, but letting Rudy win as a Republican means that we no longer have a political party that will say "No" to the gun-grabbers. He won't rally the pro-lifers. Hillary may do less to protect life, but again, a Republican winning with Rudy's position means that pro-lifers no longer have a party to represent their beliefs. He can't rally those who understand that national security starts with border security because he stands against border security.
He'll make things closer in New York because he'll win more votes in the city than Republicans typically do. He'll just lose too many votes outside the city to tip the state to his side. He'll make California a little closer, but ultimately, the "first woman president" draw will keep California on Hillary's side. He might win New Jersey, but he'll lose Ohio because he can't win Reagan Democrats. Arkansas comes into play again in the South. The beltway folks in northern Virginia mean that Virginia is always in play, but this time, the Republican candidate won't get a boost from the rural areas of the state. The more traditional Republicans learn about what Rudy Giuliani really believes, the less likely they are to vote for him. States that have been solidly Republican will come back into play for the Democrats. Rudy Giuliani is not the ideal candidate to beat Hillary Clinton.
On top of all of these things, Rudy Giuliani will suppress Republican turnout overall. He doesn't represent the people who traditionally vote Republican. His "coattails" will likely help the Democrats more than the Republicans, so his nomination will mean the Democrats gaining more seats in Congress.
Bill
There is a tradition, especially in very old organizations, of "drag" routines in shows for charity. Those who classify this as being "a cross-dresser" are morons. I say that as someone who has danced in a charity show in Baltimore in a Carmen Miranda dress.
Call me a cross-dresser, and I will rearrange your nose. Intellectually speaking, of course.
Congressman Billybob
Second, absolutely just reporting. I was there for a seminar and was stranded for four days after. Lots of time to converse with the locals.
One of the problems Rudy has is that there is a growing feeling around the country that only things East of the Appalachians are of interest to the ruling class. Rudy has name recognition but we will see how deep his draw is.
The cops who did that never said, "It's Giuliani time." That was a lie made up by Sharpton and the victims lawyers. Giuliani helped to save thousands of black lives by helping to dramatically reduce the murder rate in NYC. His anti-crime policies saved countless black women from becoming victims of rape. Countless numbers of black people in NYC avoided becoming victims of many other crimes as a result of Giuliani's anti-crime initiatives.
I don't know whether they said it or whether your claim is just a whitewash of the Giuliani record. In either case, his "successes" for the black community don't change the fact that there were notable attacks and killings of innocent black men by the police under his watch. Maybe the destruction of some innocent people by police is considered a reasonable price to pay in New York City. I'm not interested in having that policy brought to my neighborhood. Furthermore, that trade isn't going to play well among blacks in most parts of the country. I suspect that any Democrat nominee will regain the black vote in a big way if Rudy Giuliani is the nominee.
Thank you sir, coming from you I am honored.
"Sharpton shows up whenever he sees a chance to encourage race hatred -- his most recent contribution was persuading Abner Luima, the black man brutalized by New York police, to say that the cops had said, "It's Giuliani time!" before inflicting their torture."
(This was later unmasked as a total fraud.)
Mona Charen
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/charen041599.asp
There are shootings of unarmed people by police all over America. There are cases right now in NYC. Is Bloomberg responsible for that? More blacks are killed by black cops in Washington D.C and Detroit than in NYC? Is Giuliani to blame for that, too? The cop who shot the "groom to be" in NYC recently was black. Did "racist Rudy" tell him to pull the trigger? What policy did Giuliani institute to allow cops to kill "innocent blacks." Democrats will have the black vote no matter who Republicans nominate.
Whether he did something that resulted in these practices or not, Rudy Giuliani will lose votes from people who believe that he covertly encouraged police officers to shoot without justification and to abuse innocent people in custody. His being in the race will give Democrats something to use to motivate blacks to vote to be sure that if he did something to encourage those practices, he won't get a chance to do more on a national level. Finally, his stances on moral and cultural issues will drive away those who were turning to the Republican Party to escape the open sewer that the Democrats would like to make of this society.
Mr. Giuliani's supporters love to talk about how strong he'll be in the election, but they are wrong. He is not going to be strong with the conservative voters who have been a traditional core group in the Republican Party. He may find a few shills to try to help con conservatives into voting for him, but many will not be fooled. He's going to lose these votes. Another area where he will be at a disadvantage is among minorities. He's going to lose more of the votes that President Bush won in 2004. As the thread states, Rudy Giuliani can't win the general election.
If you believe in unrestricted abortion on demand, then he's your candidate. If you believe that private citizens should not be allowed to own firearms, then he's your candidate. If you believe in amnesty for illegal aliens, then he's your candidate. If you're just looking for someone who is certain to beat Hillary, then you're deluding yourself in thinking that Rudy Giuliani is that candidate.
Bill
You sound like you really hate the Socons
But you still needs them to win, it must really tick you off
You keep saying that, doesn't make it true. I say it will be your fault for putting forth a candidate who we can't vote for, who's right? -- therefore it is a poor argument on your part.
Rudy is at best a RINO. At worst somewhere left of RINO. Everyone at this site rightfully complains about the RINOs and the way they have hurt the party etc. I'm not voting for one for president. Especially some dressup queen :)
I think what I read of this article is exactly right. I think if Rudy is the nominee..... many conservatives stay home in November 08. They did it last November and it can happen again. That's the bottom line.
Oh great, sorry I misunderstood. Since you are in the South what do they think of Rudy in NC?
HUH?
>>>> "the only voters who have a voice in government are the ones who make the politicians work to get their vote">>>
Correction: The only voters who have a voice in government are the ones who win!
Correction: The only voters who have a voice in government are the ones who win!
Wrong. How much political capital does a politician spend on voter groups who are going to vote for his reelection no matter what he does? That's the reason GOP pols govern left of their constituents, they are trying to recruit voters they don't already own.
When you find the politician that agrees with 'you' 100% *AND* he can win, let me know. Until then YOU are going to be on the outside looking in.
Politics is the 'art of the compromise', you haven't figured that out yet.
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.