Skip to comments.Rudy Giuliani Will Not Win Republican Nomination, Abortion Main Reason
Posted on 12/10/2007 4:49:38 PM PST by wagglebee
The race for the Republican nomination for president is up in the air and plausible scenarios exist whereby several candidates have a realistic shot at receiving the GOP nod. While the former New York City mayor is one of those candidates, I'm willing to go out on a limb and make a bold prediction: Rudy Giuliani will not be the Republican nominee.
Perhaps I'm embolden by my own success in accurately predicting the exact electoral vote of the 2004 presidential race or, as detractors may say, perhaps I'm guilty of some wishful thinking.
Let's look at the past, present and future of Republican presidential contests and see why Giuliani will not represent the GOP next November.
Pro-Abortion Candidates Fare Poorly
Rudy Giuliani is going against the grain in trying to capture the Republican nod while laying out a position solidly in favor of legalized abortion.
Going back to 1976, the first serious primary following the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, President Gerald Ford, who backed abortion, defeated pro-life challenger Ronald Reagan.
This is the only GOP nomination since Roe that went to an abortion advocate and only because a) abortion wasn't nearly the political football it is now and b) Ford had the advantage of incumbency. Pit a Representative Ford, rather than President Ford, against Reagan in 1976 and the results may well have been different.
Fast forward to 1980, and a pro-life Reagan defeated a pro-abortion George H.W. Bush and eventually raced to re-election in 1984. Bush won the nomination in 1988, but only after he had fully converted to the pro-life position.
The next nomination battle occurred in 1996, where pro-life Sen. Bob Dole secured the nomination.
Lamar Alexander ran as a pro-life candidate but caused enough question about his views on overturning Roe that Iowa Republicans dropped him to third and he bowed out of the race after a poor New Hampshire performance.
Steve Forbes ran as an officially pro-abortion candidate and heavy in-state work from the National Right to Life Committee kept him in fourth in Iowa. Pro-abortion candidate Morry Taylor never got off the ground, despite pouring millions into his campaign, and almost finished last.
In 2000, President Bush won his first nomination and finished ahead of Forbes, who did better in Iowa the second-time around in part because he changed his position on abortion. No pro-abortion candidate stayed in the race long enough to earn caucus votes.
Most people forget that pro-abortion presidential wannabes California Gov. Pete Wilson and pro-abortion Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter never got off the ground and dropped out before Iowa voted. That's despite media support, government experience and coming from large states.
Pro-abortion candidates fail because polls show Republicans are solidly pro-life and abortion issues are always important for GOP voters.
Giuliani Falling in Current National Polls
Rudy Giuliani began the 2008 Republican presidential primary long before most candidates and quickly ascended to a lead in the national polls. His name identification and role in responding to the September 11 terrorist attacks played a large part.
Those polls should be discounted in much the same way that national polls in the general election are meaningless -- they don't represent individual state support.
National surveys represent voters in fifty states. Yet, unless you live in one of the seven states that will vote in January (most of them sparsely populated), your input in a poll doesn't matter much. Michigan and Florida are the only two large states to vote early and a few of the candidates will have likely dropped out before they head to the ballots.
Although voters in other states can have an impact in terms of donations or promoting candidates, the fact remains that 80-90 percent of voters surveyed in national polls won't have any tangible input at the ballot box on determining the nominee.
Yet, if you take the national polls into consideration, a clear trend is obvious -- the closer the nation gets to the primary voting days the worse Giuliani does. Giuliani polled as high as the upper 30s in March, but has steadily declined over the months and has been at his lowest point overall during December.
Polls in Primary States Show Giuliani Fading Fast
State polls in the early battleground contests are much more instructive.
Giuliani has dropped to fourth or lower in Iowa and has been trailing Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney for weeks. His campaign has written off the state and is doing little to prop up his candidacy there beyond some direct mail. Even a new Newsweek survey has him just one percentage point ahead of a surging Ron Paul.
His drop in the first battleground state is no surprise as 70 percent of Republican voters told the Des Moines Register they want most or all abortions illegal and Giuliani does especially poor with these voters.
While New Hampshire is more open to abortion, South Carolina voters feel about the same and Giuliani will have a hard time playing his pro-abortion views in the South.
The former mayor hopes to hold on to New Hampshire and use a win there to keep him in the mix.
But polls are showing Giuliani now trailing there as well. Romney continues to hold onto a strong lead and John McCain shows up in second. Huckabee's surge has helped him somewhat in New Hampshire and he is now just five points behind the mayor and rising.
Giuliani can't count on other states where he had early leads either as they've begun to fade with a greater focus on the campaign.
The last poll in Michigan has him one point behind Romney, an ARG survey has him running third in Nevada and he's lost his South Carolina lead and now is behind both Huckabee and Romney there.
Giuliani's Florida-Super Tuesday Strategy Won't Work
The mayor's only hope to win the nomination rests with Florida, where recent polls show his support dropping although he maintains a strong lead still. Somehow, Giuliani must use a strong showing there to catapult himself into the Super Tuesday contests.
But the wait-until-the-big-states strategy has never worked in the modern era because it relies on assumptions that just won't come true.
It assumes the primary process won't chew up candidates who lose in early states.
The old adage is that, in an open primary, Iowa typically yields three tickets to candidates to move on and New Hampshire two. Michigan and South Carolina then put one candidate in the lead to win the nomination.
With the closeness of the race, more candidates will likely survive -- but whether Giuliani will be in the race once Florida comes is a serious question.
At this point, Romney and Huckabee appear poised to come out on top in Iowa. Fred Thompson is the likely third place winner, but his recent announcement that he's going to essentially take up residence there for the next month may move him up. (Fred's team goes further and acknowledges that waiting until South Carolina won't work, yet alone later in the primary battle.)
McCain has turned his campaign into a New Hampshire or bust strategy (a replay of 2000) and both he and Ron Paul (who does well in this libertarian state) may surprise Granite State observers.
Coming off a likely fourth or fifth place finish in Iowa, Giuliani will have no momentum going into New Hampshire (and likely won't find any either in Wyoming in its January 5 caucus as most residents look down on East Coast liberals).
Already running second or third in New Hampshire, a strong Iowa showing will move Giuliani down the pecking order to fourth (Huckabee moving up) and possibly fifth (if Paul's momentum continues).
Media stories about a northeastern mayor having a hard time winning in his own region won't help as the campaign moves forward.
Michigan votes just one week later but two strong showings in Iowa and New Hampshire will have the media talking about Romney and Huckabee. McCain can point to a strong New Hampshire showing (second or third) and past success in Michigan, Thompson will be fighting hard to get from Iowa to South Carolina to stay in the race, and Paul's people are going nowhere.
This leaves Giuliani out in the cold and likely looking at a third-fifth place showing in Michigan and Nevada.
The second assumption in the Giuliani strategy is that his current standing in the polls in states in the second half of January will stay stable. It ties in with the third -- that his fundraising will remain the same as he loses early campaigns.
As Iowa and New Hampshire have shown, Giuliani's name identification can't carry him when voters start to look at the issues and there's little reason to think Michigan or Nevada will help him recover on his way to South Carolina, where Romney, Huckabee and Thompson will likely outperform him again.
Primary races are all about momentum and, when Florida rolls around, Giuliani's tank will be empty. With little momentum, media stories questioning his ability to win, and likely a hit in fundraising income, it's difficult to see how Giuliani stages a strong comeback in Florida, where his support is already beginning to sag.
I wouldn't be surprised to see Giuliani leave the race somewhere between the New Hampshire contest and South Carolina or right afterwards. It's doubtful he would stay in until Florida but he will be history after the Sunshine State votes.
By the time Super Tuesday voters have a chance to have their say, Giuliani will almost undoubtedly be on the ballot in name only and abortion advocates will have to wait at least four more years to try to take over the Republican Party.
Stop Rudy Ping
Rooty appears to have the Morals of an Alley Cat. Actually I don’t want to demean the Alley Cat. he appears to have the morals and leadership abilities of a Democrat of this Era!!
Any Republican candidate on the wrong side of these two issues can forget it. I don’t care what Rudy says about appointing “strict constructionists”...... I don’t trust him, and won’t vote for him. I’m very suspect of Romney’s sudden flip-flop on this issue as well.
Anyone who thinks the main reason Reagan beat Bush in 1980 was abortion is on drugs.
The reality is abortion has never mattered nearly as much in any Presidential Election as either pro-life or pro-choice people like to think it does.
Regarding Rudy banking on Florida..... powerful Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio just endorsed Huckabee. Sorry Rudy.
Subtitle: GOP Will Not Win General Election. Romney is a Joke Main Reason
and so I would have to assert that a Pro-Life Democrat (is that an oxymoron) would never win the nomination of his party either.
I certainly hope this is correct, but I fear it may not be.
Guiliani still gets the most votes in the polls, and he just moved past Huckabee today in Rasmussen after trailing him for about a week.
The bottom line is that the remainder of the GOP field is filled with pro-lifers and some nominal ones, but they split the vote between them. Unless one viable one can rise to the top and cause the others to drop out, Guiliani will get the nomination based upon only 25-30% of the GOP vote.
Abortion isn't the main reason it's just a part of the reason.
Rooty Toot also has made it clear that he thinks Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a good justice and he has said that, “Presidents, going back to the beginning of the republic, generally appoint people on the Supreme Court that they believe agree with them.” And in Rooty Toot’s case this means he would appoint pro-abortion justices.
Being pro-life goes far beyond just the issue of abortion.
Our Forefathers could not conceive of anybody but
an insane person wanting to murder an unborn baby.
Now some people think it is convenient to plan the
murder of the most helpless.
Which is why the right to life is not covered in the Constitution, they could never envision a day when people would sanction the killing of the innocent.
“Being pro-life goes far beyond just the issue of abortion.”
For most protestants the term pro-life means “against abortion.” It does not include being against capital punishment. Truthfully, the term “pro-life” is actually inaccurant in my case. I am “anti-abortion” and don’t need to make that sound “positive” by word spin. The pro-abortion groups forced this by using the spin term “pro-choice.”
“Which is why the right to life is not covered in the Constitution, they could never envision a day when people would sanction the killing of the innocent.”
Right, but it is still the number one issue for millions of Republican or would-be Republican voters.
What many conservatives seem to be missing is that ANY of the top GOP candidates, if elected, would save America from the cataclysm of another Clinton presidency. Each of them has his strengths and weaknesses but none of them “loathe” the military. None of them admire Noam Chomsky, nor Saul Alinsky. None of them will work with the jackass congress to pass the largest tax hike in US history. None of them will appoint radical collectivists to the US Supreme Court, nor sprinkle leftists throughout the judiciary. None of them will “save” Social Security by hiking taxes on “the rich.” None of them will appease our enemies for a shallow and temporary peace. None of them will work like a demon to socialize medicine and the economy at large. Mrs Clinton will do all of the above, and I have just barely scratched the surface of the harmful gorillas she will set loose on America.
First, correct me if I am wrong, but has a pro choice candidate ever been in the lead before this election? This article assumes that the voters will just change their mind at this late date, based on the abortion criteria.
Second, we have never had an election (except 2004 which President Bush was the only candidate) since 9/11. Many pro life voters have, for better or for worse, decided that the WOT is their primary campaign issue. IslamicFascists want to take over our way of lives, and the abortion issue won't matter if we let them.
And third, the primary elections are so compressed this year, Super Duper Tuesday WILL make the difference, especially if none of the other top tier candidates dominates in all the States that come before that. If Huck wins Iowa, Romney wins NH, Rudy or Romney win Michigan, and Romney, Huck or Fred wins SC, there will be no "front runner", so Rudys dominance on Super Tuesday (and probably Florida before that) will keep him in the front.
As of today (a bunch could change in a month) Huck is the only one that could change any of this, and I, personally don't think he is a War Time President, so I hope he doesn't.
Giuliani is the kind of guy I would like to see confront the Islamofacists. I’m hoping either he, or Romney get the nomination. Fred is a good guy too, but he doesn’t seem to have much of a chance, at this point. So for me, it’s come down to Rudy or Mitt.
Declaration of Independence
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all
men are created equal, that they are endowed by
their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit
I have stated before, I will only vote for Giuliani if he is the only alternative against Hillery. Sorry, but it is not even the abortion issue, he is not a Conservative. I love President Bush but I want a true Conservative this time.
Wrong. I don’t like it, but, I am facing reality.
My point being, in reference to the headline, abortion is just a part of the reason to not support Rootie as a conservative.
I don’t think Romney will be the nominee either.
Too many flip-flops.......reminds me of “perfect hair” Kerry. Too slick.
The woman Hillary or the man Hillary doesn't leave much room for a viable option.
The fourth branch of government pushing their weight again...
Then you must include Ronald Reagan in that group. Because I covered that Campaign. And in every stump speech he gave he emphasized his PRO LIFE stance.
Lots of my fellow media people felt Reagan was making a terrible mistake about being so openly pro life. The Bush people were sure that pro abortion was a good issue for them.
It is interesting to note that by 1988 Bush 41 was Anti Abortion. He figured out that any other postion would cost him the nomination and the presidency.
Reagan told me the media did not understand the voters. That those that were Pro Abortion, did not have that as their main issue. That someone could be anti abortion and still get a lot of the pro abortion voter's votes. But for the Anti Abortion group being pro abortion would cost their votes.
Reagan said in 1980 that no Republican who was pro abortion could get the nomination or be elected President.
Willard Romney has the same “credentials”
Abortion has mattered to very many.
It matters to me to the point that I will never vote for Rudy. Ever. For any reason. There are many like me.
And if Huckabubba wins the nomination, the GOP loses the election in 2008.
I also would be very surprised if Mike Huckabee wins the Republican nomination. Mike Huckabee also has too many things about him that upset conservatives too much for him to really have any serious chance for victory in the Presidential race. I’m hoping for a Fred Thompson/Duncan Hunter ticket in ‘08!
Maybe the Republican party will survive after all.
If the bluebloods had won, they would have sucked out the party’s soul.
That is absolutely the truth! Exactly why the left is pushing him so hard.
Duncan Hunter is the one to trust.
It’s too bad pubbies have wasted time, energy, and money promoting RINOs instead.
“Which is why the right to life is not covered in the Constitution, they could never envision a day when people would sanction the killing of the innocent.”
But it is:
“nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law;...”
“nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
If the mother is within the state’s jurisdiction, so is her baby.
All kvetching aside, based on the demise of the Federalists and then the Whigs, I think the GOP is in its death throes. The nation has always had a major party Protean in its political positions (the democrats) and a major party that adhered to principles, first the Federalists, next The Whigs and then the Republicans. When the party that held to principles became like the democrat party, it died. If the GOP continues its complete abandonment of prinicple for purely for political advantage, it will wither away as the Federalists and Whigs did before it.
That was the first time I voted, and I voted for Reagan BECAUSE he was constantly touting his PROLIFE belief.
The Republican Party offers numerous candidates who are BOTH pro-life AND anti-Islamofascist. All Democratic candidates insofar as I know are anti-life and pro-Islamofascist. Perhaps it would make sense to vote for Giuliani against a Democrat, against corurpt or incompetent competition, or even against Ron Paul. But let’s get real here. Pro-life pro-war voters have their pick among several deeply flawed but not wretched candidates, especially Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and Fred Thompson. At this point, I’m guessing that all three of these candidates (and possibly Ron Paul) will win at least one state or several delegates in January.
Well, it has certainly been locked in battle for several years.
Yet, despite the MSM’s opinions to the contrary, average Republicans remain socially conservative.
I admit I have been concerned about the battle, and thought I would have to sit out the first election of my life.
It is looking a little more hopeful now.
I called a talk show and, among other things, told the talk show host that I will vote 3rd party, if it’s Rudy, and I canNOT pull the lever for Rudy.
Some people are still supporting Rudy, because they think he is the one who can win against the Dem candidate.
We need to let people know that many pro-lifers will stay home or vote 3rd party, if it’s Rudy, so it’s better not to compromise our principles.
Remember the 2004 election!
“It is looking a little more hopeful now.”
It sure is.
See you at the primaries so we can vote against Rudy.
Rudy has completely fallen off the radar here in Iowa.
Romney may be a joke to you, but I’m still thinking about voting for him.
Articles I read many months back found that the Giuliani supporters were mainly people for whom the War on Terror/Iranian nukes/etc. trumped their concern about abortion. They were mollified by Giuliani's promise to nominate solid conservative judges for the Supreme Court.
A number of those people are now looking at Thompson, Romney, and apparently Huckabee.
I am going to give Rudy his due. Whatever feelings I have about his personal life and his liberal social stands, I credit him with being solid in fighting crime and wanting to fight terrorists and states sponsoring terrorism.
Rudy’s going downnnnnnnn!
“Whatever feelings I have about his personal life and his liberal social stands, I credit him with being solid in fighting crime and wanting to fight terrorists and states sponsoring terrorism.”
Rudy would not fight the WOT well, either, because he is pro-ILLEGAL immigration, and has talked about a virtual fence at our borders.
Border security = national security
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.