April 07, 2007
2008 Reality Call: Republicans Need a Giuliani to Win (By Guest Blogger Charlie Prince)
Many people, Karol included, are excited about Fred Thompson as the GOP candidate for 2008. So in the spirit of being a troublemaker guest, what could be more appropriate in my first post here at Karol's request, than to argue that she's dead wrong. :) I'll be interested to hear whether you, the readers, agree:
Fred is at least the 6th candidate that conservatives have rallied around in this election cycle, going back to the excited discussions and articles introducing the idea that "Sen. Allen is our conservative darling" (I mean Romney, er, Huckabee, no wait, it's Brownback, never mind, here comes Gingrich). Now everyone's telling me it's actually Fred Thompson, HE'S THE ONE.
For each of those candidates, who I will refer to collectively as "_________" in this argument, I remember having honest discussions with conservative friends I trust who said "this one's for real, take a look at __________". Each time, in response, I asked the same question "why should I think _________ can beat Hillary?" and 2 hours later I was convinced they couldn't. On top of that, they only garnered between 13% and more often 2% or less in the conservative primary polls, which we all know is very weak. That's the background of my response to all the new urges to get excited about Thompson, so I hope you'll excuse my sense of thinking it's "The boy who cried wolf" now that Fred is here, but let's think it through.
Now, take for granted that I would be happy to have any of ________, Giuliani or McCain win, and so I am approaching this from purely a pragmatic perspective -- I do not want Hillary Clinton to command as President over a doting Congress whose majority fawns on her every move. That must not happen. So, what to do?
I would suggest two things: (1) despite six efforts, there has not been a rally to date (2 to 13% of conservative primary voters is not a rally), and (2) even if 100% of such voters rallied behind Fred or any of the other five, none of them will beat Clinton or Obama. The points are, I would argue, related.
Excitement for ________ seems to follow a pattern. Romney Supporter X ("RSX") finds it inconceivable that a maverick/socially moderate Republican could win the nomination, so RSX scrambles around and each time RSX finds someone who is socially conservative, RSX gets excited. RSX points out all the evidence that conservative voters indicate they want someone other than Giuliani/McCain and have been voting for nobody in the GOP polls, a la 40+% of CPAC attendees, and that ________ can fill that gap. RSX points out that the Webb's of the world suggest there's a national appetite, even among Democrats, for conservative policy, and that _________ could appeal to them. RSX points out that __________ is a known and trusted name in GOP circles. And lastly, RSX points out that there is a lot of "buzz" for __________ and that everyone in conservative circles is talking about them, i.e. momentum is building. That's the argument for __________.
Let's assume all those facts are true, and then let's talk about Ohio. You and I know we're almost certainly going to lose Ohio in the 2008 presidential election no matter who we put up. Local scandals there have made the "GOP" brand toxic, and we barely won in 2004. Without Ohio, we need a major, major state, or series of states, to replace it (even if we win Florida!), in order to make up for Ohio and avoid President Hillary Clinton. As for candidate replacements, we have Penn, Mich, MN, etc. -- you know the list, and you also know that we haven't won any of those states in ages. GW Bush didn't win those states in either election, when the national mood was far more supportive of the GOP than it is today. That's the electoral battle we're up against, and it is very much dire. And of course far more GOP Senators are up for reelection than DEM ones, which, even were the odds balanced, would make it hard for DEMs not to pick up seats, so that makes the presidential race all the more important.
The atmosphere that is layered on top of that electoral uphill battle is well known. Generally speaking, after spending 8 years in the White House, the chances of winning the next four are very bad in any political environment. On top of that, the President's approval numbers are at record lows, the war is deeply unpopular, support for giving up is shockingly high, the economy is not on fire thanks to subprime housing problems and oil prices, and in any case, the GOP didn't get any electoral traction in 2004 even though the economy was rocking. The national mood has shifted such that now a recent Pew poll reports 50% of the country identifies as Democrats, as opposed to something like 35% as Republicans, a significant shift away from 2004 numbers. This is an even more dire fact than what we face locally in Ohio, and, together, those cold hard facts combine for a sobering prediction: we will not turn the tables in Ohio, we will not win Penn or Mich or MN to make up for Ohio, and Hillary Clinton will be president -- unless something radically changes in national or world affairs (and Iraq clears up) or we can present an outstanding candidate to overcome these odds.
Which brings me back to my question for RSX: Why should I believe that ________ will beat Hillary? A "true conservative" that "gets conservatives excited" did not win us PA, Mich, MN etc. in 2000 or 2004, why would it in 2008 in a far worse environment for Republicans? Answer: it won't. _________ will not win PA, Q.E.D., _________ will lose to Hillary. And when such a realization accomplishes nothing in my conversation with RSX, it confirms in my mind what I have thought all along: RSX is attacking a different problem than I am. RSX finds it inconceivable that McCain or Giuliani could be nominated, is alarmed and dissatisfied to see them leading in the polls, and is devoting all available energy to find a candidate to plug that gap. The "anyone but Giuliani" movement. Thus, the argument is that "_________" fills that gap, not "_________" can beat Hillary in 2008. That's not good enough.
I don't share RSX's concern (or what I perceive to be RSX's concern), which is at least to say that not losing to Hillary is more important to me than putting up a socially conservative candidate. In order to win in 2008 we need more than an exceptional candidate, we need someone who can distinguish themselves from the public negativity associated with G.W. Bush, and these candidates certainly exist.
Personally, I wonder whether Giuliani is such a candidate. Polls show Giuliani (and sometimes McCain) barely beating Hillary in a national poll, which is presumably more favorable (and thus slightly misleading) than an electoral vote analysis in which we lose Ohio. What's more, anti-Bush sentiment that will make it hard for any Republican nominee to win will likely wash off Giuliani's back because he is perceived as different, which is probably not as easily dodged by a candidate known primarily as a "true conservative". It is also plausible to me that as a moderate, a Giuliani could win in PA -- heck, he might even be able to deliver New York. That I see as a shot at a GOP win. Plus, he's way ahead in the polls on the GOP side, with more support than Thompson, Romney, Brownback, Huckabee, Gingrich and Allen combined. That I see as momentum.
I know RSX will be deeply unmotivated by a Giuliani, and I don't want to lose RSX's support in the party, but I can't endorse anything but the most likely acceptable candidate to beat Hillary, and nothing I've heard convinces me that ________ can beat Hillary, so I can't support __________. So, that's my argument, and that's why I'm not excited about Fred.
What do you think, am I wrong, can Fred beat Hillary in 2008?
Technorati Tags:
Yes, Fred can beat Hillary, on both image and substance. Solid, familiar, and reassuring will beat shrill any day. Hillary is like fingernails on a chalkboard.
I think you're wrong about this serial rallying-around that you say conservatives have been doing. I hang out with a lot of conservative activists, and none of them have been excited about Allen or Romney or Huckabee or Brownback or Gingrich. They are excited about a Fred Thompson run.
Posted by: Michael Bates at April 8, 2007 12:04 AMOk, interesting -- I certainly hope you're right!
But take it a step further. Let's assume you're right about the rallying -- let's assume Fred has unprecedented "buzz" in conservative circles. If we agree that local scandals virtually guarantee a GOP loss in Ohio (worth 20 electoral college points in 2004), what states could Fred win to make up for it in 2008 and still win? Let's even assume that he holds onto traditionally Democratic Iowa, which Bush won in 2004, New Mexico, which Bush lost in 2000, and Florida, plus all states that traditionally vote GOP. Where will Fred make up for Ohio's 20 points?
PA is worth approx. 21, but the GOP hasn't won there since 1988. MN? That's preposterous - we haven't won in Minnesota since 1972. Will Fred really do what no GOP candidate has done in 20 years in this, notably anti-GOP climate?
Personally, I think the chances of a Thompson winning in those states in this environment is not remotely plausible. But that's what you have to argue if you argue he can beat Hillary in 2008. National polls don't work, shrill or not, you need a win in PA, Mich, MN or Wisc. (assuming, again, the far-from-guaranteed win in FL, IO, NM, etc.).
Ohio is no joke, and I don't care how shrill Hillary is -- we are almost certainly going to lose Ohio, chalkboards and all.
Posted by: Charlie at April 8, 2007 01:07 AMI agree with Michael, I have felt zero excitement for any of the conservative comers. I like them all well enough, I can handle a President Romney, a President Brownback, a President Gingrich or even a President McCain (versus Hillary or Obama, even someone as anti-McCain as I must become pro-McCain) or whomever we ultimately choose. But Fred sparks something in me that doesn't happen often. Giuliani has inspired the same sensation but I am terrified he doesn't win the primary and we get stuck with a candidate who A)isn't that great but merely passable when compared with Obama or Hil and, B) might not be able to really be competitive against the force of nature that are the Clintons. Thompson is special because I can see him winning both the primary and the general. He reminds me of Reagan--there I said it. It's not that they're both actors, it's that they so plainly communicate a great conservative message that will be palatable to a wide range of people. He also has this hopeful quality that isn't present in the other candidates. I would gush about him more but I'm afraid of getting too excited over someone who has yet to even announce.
Posted by: Karol at April 8, 2007 06:05 AMYou know, I don't quite understand the misconnection there seems to be around the blogosphere. Everyone and their grandma can vote for Fred! in the Republican primary, but if the electoral college doesn't think he can do a better job than Hilllary, we're toast. Hillary was a first lady, is a current sitting Senator, a high ranking member on a number of committees, is one of the top 100 most powerful attorneys and was first lady of Arkansas.
Fred was a Senator for a few years, and now sits on a few non-governmental boards. I personally think Fred! is too inexperienced to be the next President. He can talk tough and tell us everything we want to hear, but if the electoral college doesn't believe in him, we're looking at a Dem in '08.
Posted by: Benny at April 8, 2007 11:43 AMUmmm why do you people believe Giuliani is that electable... he cheated on his wife twice, his kids don't talk to him, he has some seedy connections with Bernie Kerick, and to top it all off his firm lobbied for Venezuela. This is just the beginning of the Rudy skeltons. I think you people really are drinking some koolaid to think that this won't affect his electability.
Posted by: Mark Harris at April 8, 2007 07:16 PMOh and I forgot that Rudy's taxpayer funded abortions will put him to the LEFT of many Democratic nominees on abortion. We're talking about an 80/20 issue that Rudy is on the wrong side of which as tremendous staying power. If you are pro-life there can be little doubt that ads in a general pointing out how far left Rudy is will have a real impact.
The truth is I believe that a Republican winning in 08 is very unlikely. Historically holding the White House for 12 years is a big rarity.
Posted by: Mark Harris at April 8, 2007 07:22 PMBecause, Rudy was still able to manage a city, cut crime by 3/4, put mob bosses behind bars, bring the city out of a slump, lead through the worst terror attack, and come away with an over 70% approval.
Regarding the public funding. What he said, is he wouldn't touch the Hyde Amendment. It mandates funding for abortions in cases of incest, rape, or if the delivery would put the mother's life in danger. No President has done anything significant to try to remove the amendment, since it was brought into law 18 years ago. Bush hasn't even touched it.
What makes Fred so electable? The fact that he's talked tough on a few issues? That makes people their man? The most the guy's ever managed was a Senate staff, and his acting career. Giuliani at least successfully managed the US's largest city.
If you remember, Bush talked tough on immigration. Now what?
It's hard to deny the possibility that Giuliani *could* win -- if the election were held today, polls predict he'd win the popular vote. And check out these latest numbers on GOP primary polling:
Giuliani: 52%
McCain: 13%
Gingrich: 3%
Thompson: 3%
Romney: 4%
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ny/new_york_republican_primary-264.html
Giuliani's numbers are incredible, but you can't dismiss those numbers, which have been consistently 48% or higher since mid-March. After all, the nomination will be settled in 10 months or so, which isn't all that much time. What will Romney say in the next 10 months that he hasn't said in the last 10 -- and which earned him a rousing 4%? And Thompson has even less, without a national campaign staff in place and with next to no campaign money.
And the fact that Giuliani's numbers have stayed consistently as high as they have, despite months of endless articles that read "Giuliani leads GOP polls despite being socially liberal on X, Y and Z policies", means (to me) that voters do not care as much about his personal life as pundits have predicted. The argument that "Wait until they find out where he stands on social issues, then he'll melt down" is less credible over time. After all, everyone already knows he's from NYC, one of the most liberal cities in the country, so they can't be too surprised. And if it were true, you'd see his GOP primary poll numbers dropping as people become more informed, but the numbers aren't dropping at all.
It's also interesting, and consistent with what I wrote above and what I've seen, that nobody who opposes Giuliani wants to talk about the electoral college, even though that's the key. I haven't seen anyone argue that Thompson or Romney could win the electoral states to overcome losing Ohio. He may get you excited in a way that you haven't felt since Reagan was running -- but that's not enough. PA is enough, MN is enough, "buzz" is not.
And I think the general public will largely see a Thompson or Romney as running on a platform that is essentially a continuation of GW Bush's policies. If it walks like a Bush, quacks like a Bush -- it will get voted on like a Bush, which in 2008 means a DEM landslide like we saw in 2006.
And don't get me wrong, I'd love for us to be in a position where any of these candidates could win, and sit back and figure out which one I like best, but that's deeply unrealistic. And I'm not going to sacrifice the white house to Hillary simply for the benefit of staying in denial.
Posted by: Charlie at April 9, 2007 01:05 AM"Ummm why do you people believe Giuliani is that electable... "
Ummm, why do you think any of your points are news to anyone? They're the reasons Karol is deathly afraid that Rudy will collapse in the primaries. But my point has always been that if Karol knows it, the people who vote in primaries already know it too, and Rudy still leads the pack in every significant poll I've seen of likely primary voters.
In the general, Rudy trounces Hillary because Hillary is Hillary. I'm not so sure about his chances against Obama, because "none of the above" is going to look damn good to a large chunk of voters, and for good or ill Obama would be "none of the above" in the General.
Posted by: Mark Poling at April 9, 2007 11:14 AMCharlie,
Please don't throw polls out because those numbers are ridiculous. FDT has been doing great in most polls, yours aside. Don't tell me that hardcore Repubs and grassroots conservatives aren't excited about him, they are. Deal with it.
Rudy has more baggage than Lovey and Thurston. And if you want your tax dollars to pay for abortions, vote Rudy. I am a NYer and I really like him, but the thought of him appointing SC justices scares the daylights out of me.
Posted by: myra langerhas at April 9, 2007 11:58 AMI think it is entirely too early to be either endorsing or dismissing any candidate, on either side of the aisle. There have been no serious debates or coverage of any candidates, beyond what sound bites the media deems appropriate to throw out.
Posted by: Nicole at April 9, 2007 12:15 PMmyrna, Rudy has said he would appoint strict constructionists to the Court. Do you think he's lying? (Yeah, I know the rap that the judges he appointed in NYC "leaned left", but consider the talent pool he had available, please.)
And as an aside, the fetishization of abortion is one of the reasons I refuse to call myself a Republican. (The flip side is the fetishization of abortion is one of the reasons I refuse to call myself a Democrat, too...)
Everyone keeps trying to resurrect Reagan. Well someone tell me exactly what the Gipper did to fight the wave of abortions sweeping the land in the 1980s.
Anyone?
It's a wonder there's been any children born at all in this country since Roe v. Wade.
Posted by: Mark Poling at April 9, 2007 02:03 PMWell Mark, you can worry about the 'fetishization' of the abortion issue, and I'll worry about its 'trivialization'.
I wonder how a person who supports Roe v. Wade can be taken seriously when he says he will appoint strict constuctionist justices. Aside from overturning Roe, there are a number of ways a President's politics can affect abortion policy - parental notification, partial birth, etc.
Posted by: myra langerhas at April 9, 2007 03:02 PM
