Freepmail me to join the Duncan Hunter Pinglist
Freepmail seanmerc to join the Veterans for Hunter Pinglist
Contribute to Duncan Hunter's Presidential Campaign -- http://www.gohunter08.com
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 |
Politics is the 'art of the compromise', you haven't figured that out yet.
I have figured that out. You seem to think that compromise means total surrender. People won't compromise with someone that they know will cave as soon as negotiations begin.
Makes sense.
Well, while you try and find a Reagan-type candidate to support I will be supporting the candidade that can beat Hilldabeast. Best of luck.
The president is not going to be able to grab your guns, and especially not if you elect a republican Congress. I don't know what brain disconnect would possess conservatives to elect a left wing democrat president and Congress. And that is what they started last election, that is what they will accomplish next election.
So you really don't care WHO wins as long as it's a Republican. Is that your position?
"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."
Except that I'm not "putting forth a candidate." I'm voting for the person who I think has the optimal combination of right ideas and electability. Very seldom in our history have those two characteristics come together into one candidate. I can only think of Reagan and possibly Bush.
I guess the answer to your question boils down to how much difference one sees between the Dem and GOP candidate. Some claim here that they see little or no difference. But what I've tried to argue that I see far less difference between what America would look like under Reagan and under Giuliani than the gap I see between Reagan and H. Clinton.
yeh yeh yeh!!! Hunter(a good guy) or Ron Paul or a Newt have as much chance winning a general election as I do. I always felt I had the luxury to be a purist and even abstain from voting if a candidate didn't meet my criteria. Watching the new congress of barely 2 months has snapped me into reality. We can ill afford to put our national security into the hands of a democrat or a fortress America type. I'll even hold my nose and vote for McCain who I viscerally dislike because I fear a dem. If Rudy's polls hold up I'll vote for him because he's good on the most pressing issues of our time, those being homeland security winning the wot crime and taxes.
Thanks for posting this. Its 100 percent correct.
The Repubs were a minority party UNTIL the social conservaties came along in 1980 and made them a majority party.
Nominate Gulliani and Joe Sixpack - who votes Repub because of social issues - will stay home or vote Democrat.
The internet represents a skewed reality. Its full of articulate Social liberals/Economic Conservatives. These voters represent probably 5% of the voting population. The other group Social Conservatives/Economic Liberals represent probably 15-20% of the population.
We need to go hunting where the ducks are. Go the Dole/Ford/Bush'92 route and we are doomed to defeat in 2008.
To misquote Lincoln: God must love Reagan Democrats because he made so many of them.
Great column, CBB. I found the attacks on you for daring to write this objective analysis to be hilarious.
This column reminds me of this one:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/939395/posts
That analysis turned out to be deadly accurate.
Rudy is quite simply the only popular Republican in the country, the only candidate with strong support in every region, the only candidate who appeals to members of both parties and independents, and the one with the most name recognition (except for Bill's WINO).
In addition, Republican candidates who lead early get the nomination -- unlike on the 'rat side. Unless Rudy screws it up, which I don't expect, he'll get the nomination.
Rudy also is helped by the fact that the other three main candidates have obvious flaws, and the rest are a bunch of mini-mees. Particularly amusing are the members of the "Jaeger Battalion" -- who are no doubt passionate in their support but lack the numbers to have a realistic shot at victory.
I see the SC Primary as key. Rudy has a strong organization down there, and his selection to speak to graduates of The Citadel is IMHO hugh and series! That indicated support from the movers and shakers of the Palmetto State. If Rudy wins SC, I don't see how anyone could stop him from the nomination.
If it is Rudy v. Hillary that will be the biggest NY battle since Ali-Frazier I.
oops, replied to the wrong thread!
Ok, I'm convinced. I will stay home and elect a left wing liberal traitor democrat. Not.
"Ok, I'm convinced. I will stay home and elect a left wing liberal traitor democrat. Not."
Ah, the "logic" of a rudy supporter.
How about: Support someone other than a pro-war liberal for the GOP nomination and THEN vote for that person?
..it would be a real test of the adage "we do not beat them by being like them".
Giving the country a clear choice rather than 1 or 2 degrees of difference, IMO, will give the GOP a better chance at victory in the general.
But we are WAY ahead of things here--the mayor has a monumental task of convincing the Religious Right, Gun Owners etc that he is the guy...
In the general election I will vote for any of the various republican nominees. There is only one possible exception that comes to mind - Chuck Hagel. But I don't believe he has a remote chance of getting nominated.
I think with Giuliani there will be a problem with this number. The "no matter what" is a little different this time around because in the past the "no matter what" that you ended up voting for was at least a conservative, even if the person wasn't your first choice among the conservative candidates.
In the past we have never had a Republican nominee that was pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-gun control and pro-amnesty all wrapped up in one. I think this is a completely different ball game.
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.