Posted on 02/20/2007 7:25:29 PM PST by dirtboy
OK, who amongst the "family" did NOT turn out in 2004? In 2004, the socon base delivered to the max - 80/20 Bush and a record turnout. Did we win 45 states? no, we won by 65000 votes (swing) in Ohio.
so who didn't vote for us in 2004? In other words, show me a candidate that can max the socon base like Bush did in 2004, AND get some more votes amongst the other "family" members that Bush could not get. why do I say "more" votes? Because we are going to have to do better then 2004 - trends are showing we are going to do worse in 2008 amongst Hispanics and Generation Y voters. We've got to make that up someplace. Where do we go? Is there some candidate that can get 90/10 white evangelicals? I don't know. OK, we'll pick up more generic white male voters who would not vote for Shrillary (few men will vote for a woman who reminds them of their nagging wife), I give you that. But we are also going to see a higher turnout amongst single young women who think its "chic" to elect the first woman president. And I also think Hillary is going to shift the "Oprah" voting block - married suburban independent women - slightly more in her favor.
So let's forget the specific candidates for a moment, and focus analytically on the demographics.
Oh, we understand it alright. We're just tired of being Boxer the horse when the only ones who get to run the farm are the pigs.
I disagree. Even if social conservatives all sit out this election, Rudy will (after beating McCain for the Republican nomination of course) draw so much support from among independents and "Rudy" democrats - as well as republicans - that they will form a large enough voting block to sweep him into office.
Rudy is a great leader. And he's conservative where it counts: the war on terror, the economy, law and order issues, and supreme court nominations. And he's got great legs.
Yep, and a lot of those swing votes were pro-life Catholic Dems and independents. That's the problem. Rudy won't pull them.
I'm really not sure how the GOP can win in 2008. The party seems rudderless. However, I do know what the answer ISN'T - it is not to nominate someone who will be unable to hold the party together and unable to pull in key pro-life and/or pro-gun Dems. Rudy simply is NOT the answer.
From the Intro above:
And this talking point shows the precarious nature of the Rudy booster's existence - namely, that they believe that their candidate can hold together the GOP despite the lessons of 1992. That Rudy can pull in key pro-life Catholic Dem swing voters despite getting awards from NARAL. And that a pro-war candidate can survive if he strikes out leftward in search of votes into regions that are increasingly antiwar.
Please detail just HOW and WHERE Rudy will get the votes to replace any lost social conservatives. Specifics, please, not generalities.
Made me happy to hear him pointing it out.
you are be right, he can't pull (some of) them.
but look at states like PA - almost hopeless now for a republican presidential candidate. why? Because we are getting destroyed in the metroplexes. Mind you, I'm not talking about the inner cities. The mostly white suburbs tied closely to the urban metroplexes, are trending further and further Dem. So we can't win PA because we do so poorly in the Philly and Pittsburgh suburbs - white, suburban, middle/upper middle income, and trending Dem. The same pattern is emerging in Virginia - northern VA as a suburb of the DC metroplex, also going in this direction.
We have to change that trend.
Don't waste your time. These anti Rudy folk are only interested in clucking among themselves and pretending to make political sense.
I think an anti-amnesty and anti-illegal immigration position will pull more Dems that people realize. A lot of blue-collar Dems stand in opposition to their union leaders on that subject.
Still waiting for you to tell us just where and how Rudy can pull in Dem and Indy votes.
well, how many of them will sit it out? all of them, 50+% of them? big numbers like that sitting it out, and even I don't believe we could win with that formula.
but hey, this is what polls are for. and yes, polls (especially the internal ones the parties use) do work, and you can bet these are the kinds of scenarios being looked at by the Republican party.
That is an excellent comment! I hope most of the folks here get it, because it neatly sums up our (SC) dilemma.
Oh, and thanks for the new talking point.
ping
What are you guys gonna do next, prove that Giuliani can't win using "geometric logic" while you roll ball bearings in your hands? I don't see this frenzy of attacking the supporters of other candidates as being a particularly good strategy to build support for your own candidate. Uh, you do have one, don't you? You'd never know it around here.
That's a favorite talking point when the details cannot be dealt with - ask about our guy when your guy is so flawed. Of course, you will turn around and say our guy can't win because of the fundraising issues with a front-loaded primary schedule. What you are basically saying is shut up and put some ice on it.
What guy? "Our guy" - what does that mean?
Chickened out the first time.
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.