Pollapalooza: Under Attack

Astute commentary as usual. Excepting a firebrand or two, most Republicans seem to assume Rudy can't win the nomination because of what everybody else will do. Once again, "everybody else" is a fiction. If every pro-life Republican plans to support Rudy at least in the general and many plan to support him in the primaries, he'll win both.

And, as you said, most conservatives admit that they themselves will not support McCain, and have plenty of reasons for not doing so. Interestingly, McCain's support is strongest among those who aren't Republicans and in the bluest of states. He's a nominal conservative who is playing the modern-day Rockefeller role.

It is also important to note that this is not 1989 anymore. We don't have two distinct groups of Republicans known as moderates and conservatives. We're the majority party now, and it's much more complex than that. We have guys like Buchanan who are socially conservative but liberal on everything else and candidates like Rudy who are conservative on everything BUT a few social issues. I think many conservatives are stuck in the past. They still think they are fighting the Brennan Court, the Rockefeller Republicans, the Democratic Congress, and the Gore election fraud machine. All of those things are gone. Conservatives need to realize that they have won the argument. And President Giuliani will be a temporary break in the string of pro-life Republican presidents, not a president who turns the GOP into the pro-abortion party just as TR didn't turn the GOP of his time into the environmentalist party. Both TR and Rudy were mavericks in the sense that they disagreed with the GOP of their times on a few big issues. But both unified the country after a number of divisive elections and set the stage for a few more decades of GOP rule. We have our modern-day TR. And he'll be the next president.

By '08 SCOTUS will be 2 or 3 steps to the right, National Security/GWOT will still be issue #1, and Social Conservatives will take winning over losing to "any" Dhimmicrat, especially the Hilabeast. Rudy will move slightly right to a rational and widely held view on abortion, will support domestic partnerships keeping "marriage (the word)" sacred.

For the Party to hold the Presidency in a war weary nation it is going to have to move slightly towards the center with a big name.

Show me a name other than Giuliani that fits the mold.

A lot can happen between now and 2008, but if the primaries were starting in a few months, here's what I think would happen.

First, there'd be essentially three primaries-within-the primaries. One would be the race between McCain and Rudy for the "hawkish liberal Republican loved by the media" spot. This person will certainly last in the primaries because they'll have media backing and crossover support in open primaries. It's possible that Rudy could actually win the nomination from this spot, because Republicans see him as one of the good guys who's wrong on some social issues (whereas McCain is loathed by the GOP base).

The second would be the race between Allen and Romney (and almost any other governor that jumps) for the "center-right establishment candidate" spot. Whoever comes out in front here will have conventional wisdom behind them, and is the probably nominee.

The third race doesn't really have to happen (and depending on who runs, might not), as it only happens if Brownback moves from being seen as the pro-life candidate to the Conservative candidate, and/or others from the right of the party do so. This person almost certainly will not be nominated, but may stick around for a while if the establishment candidate's conservative credentials are lacking on an issue or two.

The side effect of all this is that the primaries are actually going to matter, and will last a while (it won't be like the Democrats quickly settling on Kerry in 2004); it won't be 2000, where Bush & Gore got pushed a bit, but everyone had been expecting them to be the nominees for years.

great work on this. DJ's off his rocker on this one.

"McCain-skepticism among the base is much, much more direct: I viscerally dislike the guy because of: McCain-Feingold / the Gang of 14 / tax cuts / Kyoto / baiting the religious right / (insert support for any item on Democratic domestic agenda here.) McCain checks certain boxes ideologically -- though barely, but he is not very partisan. And anyone who thinks that doesn't matter should read Unconventional Wisdom's engrossing take on how the GOP nomination process actually works."

That's just dumb statement.

My bet is McCain. The only flaw I have been hearing about the man which is a valid one. He is just too old! But, then again didnt they say that about Reagan?

McCain in the past couple months has been looking like a rockstar.

Just because he is not g'dubs best friend in the senate is not a reason for him not being able to win.

Also, A side note from a polticial op to another. This primary race is going to be interesting. The more people in the race will most likely help McCain win the nomination.

Being a Southerner who thinks she is pretty tuned in to Southern sentiment, I just don't see a Rudy nomination happening. Never. Southerners LOVE Rudy personally, but there's a big "but" when it comes to the highest office.

Everyone knows about his pro-choice stance, that can't hurt him anymore than it already has. But his attitude towards illegal immigration is a big unknown, I don't think Patrick even mentioned it, and it mirrors Bush's and people are having less patience with it.

These two negatives together are bigger, I think, than the sum of their parts and would torpedo his candidacy.

Patrick,
Great stuff! But I think we need to take these results with more than a BARREL of salt.

First, the results of your poll vs. "media" polls showing McCain ahead remind me of the Kos-and-company web polls showing Hilary placing behind Dean, Clark and even Gore(!) while "real" polls see her wiping out the field. If you say this IS unscientific and speculative, then it has no worth in determining that Rudy is in, and McCain is out.

Second, Rudy will have a VERY hard time establishing his conservative bona fides with the pro-life crowd (or, as you call them, the "anti-abortion zealots"). I won't say he CAN'T win, but this is one point that McCain, who is also pro-Bush on GWOT (with Rudy) that distinguishes them in the GOP - in McCain's favor, in my opinion.

(In your assessments of 43/Dole/41's wins over their GOP opponents - you forget that all three were also pro-life).

Sure McCain has ticked off the conservatives, and he may not win either. But Guliani, a moderate Northeasterner, will have a hard time getting voracious support from conservative Southerners and Westerners.

Thanks for the links showing the dialogue, Patrick. I appreciate the virtue of having an early look at the field for 2008, but I took issue with your presentation of the results as "statistically valid" (your own choice of words), and with the emphasis given by the blogs which linked your straw poll with the image of relative strength influence which the evidence does not actually support. This is always a dangerous practice, and as I noted, hurt the Democrats' own effort to vet their nominee properly in 2004.

Now that blogs are gaining influence and respect as analytical tools and as movers of opinion, it's more important than ever that we do not, even accidentally, give an impression which the facts do not support.

The reason Rudy got the most applause at last year's RNC was that he was the only one who clearly traced the development of modern terrorism. I believe he began at the Munich Olympics of 1972, and drew a straight line through the Iranian hostage crisis, Achille Lauro, the TWA hijacking, the multiple (unanswered)attacks of the 90s, right into today.
He made the best case for the war, better than even W can.
I don't give a damn about his personal past; I'd love a chance to vote for Rudy for prez.

As soon as Dick Morris's new book "Condi vs Hillary" hits the bookstands in September, millions of people will be considering Secretary Rice for 2008 in the "REAL WORLD". Condi might seem like a fantasy to Ruffini, but during the past 6 months, total strangers walk up to my Mini Cooper with "Condi 2008" stickers to start conversations with me and also donate money to our group. That is REALITY. The fact that polls are including Condi's name (USA Today/CNN/Gallup and even FOX) clearly shows they are hearing the buzz from the blogworld and from our efforts at political events. Yes, we have legs and have been very active in Las Vegas, Tallhassee, Washington DC, North Carolina, and evern Iowa. We are a natiowide group at americansforrice.com; speaking to our friends and being interviewed on the radio or by newspapers. As citizens, we speak freely while we pay for the costs of our travel out of our own pockets.
Ruffini spoke about the convention in New York last August, ok, I was there too. When Condoleezza Rice entered the president's box of Father Bush along with Barbara Bush, her charisma attracted thousands of eyes watching her. I was seated a few feet away, pondering her as the next president. She inspired and motivated me to consider spending my time and money to "draft Condi" for president. Since January 2005, our group has been formed, we speak each week to reporters and pundits about the 2008 race. It is possible to have a debate on leadership for our nation and foreign policy between Condi, Rudy, and McCain. It will be a race for delegates, that is how the system works. And if President Bush puts his arm around Condi as his preferred candidate, she will clear the field. She could easily be the "heir apparent" since VP Cheney is not running. We will be at the next Iowa event in September building support in a key state for 2008. We have "People Power", we are not pundits, or $100,000 a year consultants, or political gurus. That is what makes all of this so amazing, a group of ordinary citizens can build a network of support for the person they believe can be their next president. It is called "representative government"; selecting who is the best person to represent our nation to the rest of the world.

I'm confused--Unconventional Wisdom's piece made it pretty clear, to me at least, that McCain is the most likely to win. Like Reagan and Dole, he was the runner-up last time, and people know who he is. Giuliani has a chance, but there are plenty of us who simply won't vote for him. (DaveG, why is it that McCain is a "Rockefeller Republican," but Rudy, who is actually liberal and actually comes from New York, is a "maverick"?)

BA is right that calling McCain a "nominal conservative" is misguided. I'm not the biggest McCain backer in the world, but his detractors are doing more to convince me to support him than anyone else. The man is pro-life, anti-deficit, anti-gay marriage and pro-war on terror. Those seem to me to be pretty conservative credentials. That he packages them so as to win over the New York Times strikes me as a plus, not a minus.

Agreed, Tim. There's no perfect candidate out there. Never has been. I'd have no problem with either Rudy or McCain. They're right(large AND small case "R") on the most important issue of the day.

Gonna hafta disagree with Emma on this. I am a southerner who would vote for Rudy in a heartbeat. He's tough enough on the issues, and, most importantly, he's actually a leader. And those who say he can't win the fight in the primaries, did anyone see Pat Robertson endorse him a few months back? Yes, Robertson is an idiot, but if more Christian leaders move that way, maybe they can sway enough people. Besides, if it came down to Hillary vs. Rudy, would southerners really stay home just to not vote for a Yankee? Sounds like a screwy way to let Hillary become President.

D.J.,

Much of this comes down to a debate over semantics. "Statistically valid" was perhaps an inartfully chosen phrase, but it spoke to the large sample size the poll was able to achieve with a large, representative segment of the right-blogosphere participating. A result set from a given state with 5 votes is b.s. that can't be analyzed -- the results if you have 100 votes are inherently more solid even in an unscientific environment, provided you've put in place adequate protections against duplicate voting and half the votes aren't being routed from some pro-Tancredo message board.

That's my main beef with media polls. They give us the top-line figures, but with their small samples, they don't give us anything else. Is McCain's support coming from non-Republicans? How about people who voted in the 2000 primary? Or folks from the South? Media polls don't tell us. And it takes a screen 3 or 4x looser than likely GOP primary voters to get to where they're at now.

Since my poll is not scientific, I'm not going to make any ironclad statements, but looking at the map I believe the results are internally valid and may hint at the behavior of certain segments of the electorate (though not all). It probably is the case that Rudy Giuliani has more support in New York than he does in Arkansas as my results show -- and if not, it will be once disengaged GOP primary voters begin to resemble early consumers of 2008 information on blogs. Am I taking a bit of a leap with that statement? Sure I am. Lord knows there's no sure thing in punditry. But it's at least a step above the unsourced statements on blogs suggesting "Rudy can't win" or "X will clean the floor with Hillary" or "Allen has no charisma." Why? Because it's based in numbers. I'm using numbers from the audience to test some of the previously untested claims emanating from said audience. It's at least a start.

I've enjoyed having this discussion. Take my poll results for what they are; no warranty is implied! I'm not Warren Mitofsky and can't pay some drugged up college student to stand next to the MoveOn table trying to get a representative sample. :0) And with 28 polling months (shudder) till the Iowa Caucuses, there's always room for improvement.

Crystal, you need to address Rasmussen's latest Hillary vs. Condi item.

I'm the scary religious right guy. I liked Randall Terry back in the old days, not so fond of him as a politician now.

Bottom line, I'm for Condi. If she's really not available, sign me up for Rudy. I live in AZ. I voted for the Democrat against McCain, don't know who she was, but she could have been Lucifer J. Satan & I would have voted against McCain. For all the reasons listed, plus the MSM likes the SOB.

If the Senate gets it's stuff together - far from certain - and Bush gets two more nominees the SOCTUS is as conservative as it will ever get. The only issue that people will vote on is the GWOT. Everything else is too complicated for Congress to do anything about anyway. Condi and Rudy will both protect my grandchildren (as yet unconceived), no Democrat will.

Anyone who claims that Rudy Giuliani will win the Republican nomination does it at the risk of ignoring the facts and the history.

Rudy was the mayor of NYC. He is pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, pro-gun control.

1. Name one mayor who won the Presidency in the last 100 years? Well, heck, in the last 200 years? None. So Giuliani is out.

2. Name one pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, pro-gun control canditate who won the Republican nomination or the presidency in the last 50 years? None. Rudy is out.

3. Name one North Eastern liberal who won the Presidency in the last 50 years?
(a) Kerry?
(b) Tsongas?
(c) Dukakis?

None. Rudy is out.

4. The Presidents come from Southern governors.

(a) George W. Bush (Southern governor) - twice
(b) Bill Clinton (Southern governor) - twice
(c) Ronald Reagan (spoke and acted like a Southern governor) - twice
(d) Jimmy Carter - (Southern governor) - once

GOVERNOR George Allen is the best nominee. Let's repeat, governor, governor, governor.... now let's say it aloud - Southern, Southern, Southern...

5. The past elections show that the party that motivates, mobilizes and gets its base out - wins.
Rudy CAN NOT mobilize the pro-lifers, the social conservatives, the evangelical Christians and Conservative Catholics and Orthodox Jews, the gun owners.

Assuming Rudy wins the nomination,
(a) the aforementioned groups will stay at home. Dems will win,
(b) there will be a third party or the Rep party will fracture.

6. DO NOT ANSWER TO MY POST, UNLESS YOU ANSWER # 1-3. Otherwise, you can take your shot

#11 Timothy:

Take a look at #16 and that will answer your question about Rudy and McCain. #16 is a self-proclaimed "scary religious right guy" (lol). And he would vote Rudy and not McCain.

The latter is a Rockefeller Republican not because he shares the views of his namesake, but because he is currently being embraced the strongest by a) the most liberal Republicans and independents and b) in the most liberal states. McCain polls best in places like MA. The bluest of states. His support is almost entirely from non-Republicans and Chafee-type Republicans. I wasn't talking about where McCain is on the issues, at least nominally, I was referring instead to his base of support. It's just not Republican.

Rudy is a Republican. He's pretty much a conservative too, everyone just gets sidetracked on the four issues he's liberal on: abortion, gay rights, immigration, and guns. Because those are such emotional issues, and because those are the issues where the media agrees with him, that's all we ever hear about the guy. We don't hear about Rudy's tax cut, Rudy's spending cuts, Rudy's attempt to reform education, etc. Rudy's a South Park Conservative: a center-right Republican who is libertarian on cultural stuff.

#17: Your post is filled with "rules" that will be true until they're not. And your trends will be broken in 2008. Was Reagan a Southern governor? Please. It seems that some southern conservatives think that they're re-living the Civil War with the whole red/blue divide of today. The best thing that could happen to the GOP in 2008 is a Rust Belt that turns red, with MI, PA, MN, WI, and all those states north of Mason-Dixon embracing the Republican candidate. That won't happen with an insular, culturally-southern candidate who doesn't know how to talk to northerners.

I understand your points, Patrick. I wonder if you realize the effect of a national advocacy this early; you haven't commented on the effect I mentioned in the winter of 2003-4, where Dean roared to prominence on nothing more than rumor. Is it really unreasonable to consider the effect of a national celebration of a chosen few, at a time when many individuals are weighing whether or not a run is worthwhile?

Also, "large" does not automatically equal "valid". That's why I brought up the 1936 Literary Digest poll. It was much bigger than the Gallup or Roper polls of the same year, but completely blew the call. While I agree that there are threshold levels of participation, the lack of demographic weighting is a significant concern. But I'm repeating myself.

I get it, that your poll was just an early look at the race. But a lot of blogs linked to your articles, and a lot of folks noted your conclusions without examining the method used to reach them. That should be seen for a red flag, not a red state's opinion.

Thanks again for the forum.

Dislaimer: I voted for Romney, then Rice in Patrick's poll, and will probably vote for the "center-right establishment candidate", whoever it is, in the CA primary.

#1 - Name one mayor that's made a serious run for the White House, or that ever had Rudy's national profile before. Rudy's unique.

#2 - Rudy could easily get killed on social issues. Or he could say that what's right for New York isn't necessarily what's right for Texas and come down strongly in favor of federalism.

#3 is irrelevant. Rudy's not a northeastern liberal, he's a northeastern centrist (which looks like a conservative in New York City and a liberal on a conservative web site, because we consider actual liberals to be total loons not worth talking about). And northeastern centrists have won the presidency before, most notably JFK and George H. Bush.

#4 - Extrapolating from small sample sizes is not a great idea. Reagan was a western governor (don't try and call him a southern one; he wasn't). George H. Bush was a northeasterner turned Texan VP. Nixon was a western governor. JFK was a northeastern senator. LBJ was a Texas senator. Ike was a general. Gore was a southern senator turned VP, and came very close to winning; Kerry was a northeastern senator that came very close to winning.

#5 - In 2000 and 2004, neither candidate was anywhere near the communicator of a Reagan or a Clinton. Both were solidly in the mainstream of their parties (limitting crossover appeal based on policy). Neither presented any new ideas with broad-based appeal. And nothing happened to destory either candidates credibility enough to wreck their candidacy. Rudy has tremendous crossover appeal and is something of a rock star with the media; if his nomination creates a third party candidate from the right, it's quite likely that such a figure will be marginalized (as a serious conservative, like Brownback, would never make a third party run).

A New York City mayor as president? Sorry my crystal ball says Billary is more elected to be acclaimed empress for life by Texas. Interesting exercise though.

As an extremely conservative republican living in NYC, I can honestly say that Rudy ran this city better than any of the so-called national"conservatives" have run their states or the country. He kept the budget in good shape with no tax hikes, got rid of the homeless preoblem, cleaned up crime, put the chronic city naysayers and trouble-makers in line, and generally made this city livable again. He threw Yassir Arafat out of Lincoln Center during a show for "world leaders" while people were giving him Nobel Prizes and Bill Clinton was having him for constant overnights at the White House.
Abortion and gay rights are divisive issues with no consensus yet. The social conservatives are not going to get what they want on these issues no matter who is elected. Rudy will otherwise govern like a true conservative.

Very interesting opinions from the right. I think as we get closer to Jan 2008, we'll see about 6-8 candidates, I think Rudy and McCain will wipe each other out, and George Allen rises to the top, maybe he places third in Iowa, Second in NH and wins SC, then the road is his. As for Condi, perfect qualified, able candidate for VP, runs with a southerner, attracts and shows outreach for Women and blacks, furthering the Mehlman outreach is for real. It also paves the way for Condi in 2112, (assuming a loss) or 2116 to take it all.
I think Allen/ Rice beats everybody on the left, Hillary; Bayh; Biden; Kerry or Gore.

If Jeb doesn't run, (he won't), and Cheney doesn't retire or expire before Nov., 2008. If Cheney is replaced it'll be Rice and she will be the front-runner possibly with no more than token oppistion. I figure Bush would elevate her or possibly Gonzales if Cheney resigned. Imagine the look's on Schumer and Joe Biden's faces (:>( at that hearing!!
A Red guy in barely Blue state. (Wisconsin)

Sorry Patrick,

In this case your results are more an indication of the limitations of your survey then anything else.

Rudy may have press now with Allen an unknown, but there is thin chance that a philandering abortionist with an authoritarian streak such as Rudy will go far in the primaries outside of the North East.

If you want to sink the GOP and flatten turnout, Rudy's the man.

Yes, I like #23's vision of Condi becoming the VP if Cheney has to retire for health reasons. She can slip into the Senate President's chair with the term "Madam President" ringing from the lips of Kennedy, Schumer, Durbin, and Clinton. Ah yes, the Cspan audience will love it.

We are unveiling our first TV ad on September 2, it is not a cartoon or a joke. It is with a sense of pride that I speak of this reception; proving we are group of serious-minded citizens maintaining our focus on 2008. Getting our message out to the people is done by newspapers, radio interviews, and advertising. Laying the groundwork now is Phase 1 of the "Eisenhower Plan"; next year we will be closer to achieving our goal of getting Madam Secretary Rice on the ballot for 2008.

Well, it may be a nice wish, but that nearly the only appeal that Condi has--as a wish fullfilling fantasy candidate.

If we were speaking seriously about her innovations in government, bold stands, or achievements, it would be another story. Remember, Reagan was a successful governor--not just a conservative movie actor.

Again, another indication that the results of this poll are for entertainment puposes only--just like the Zogby interactive polls.

Possibly, with a better sampling technique, this poll could be something more than a way of driving thousands of internet denizens to a polling site. Patrick does seem to have a decent knack for analysis given the results he has.

If we could put Patrick together with the Mystery Pollster, that would be something.

Well, I'll tell you that I like Rudy's personality, but not his social positions, especially his support for abortion. No matter how much I might like him, I can't vote for anyone who supports the killing of innocent babies in the womb, no way-no how, ever!

I emailed McCain concerning the fillibusters of Bush's nominees, asking him to vote for the nuke option. He sent a letter back to me saying how proud he was of the compromise, which I considered pathetically weak.

Then the first sentence of the last pargraph said this.... "Someday, I hope none too soon, Republicans will again be in the minority and a Democrat will be elected president."

McCain is a traitor, pure and simple who wants so badly to be president, that he would jump ship for the democrats to run with Hillary as Veep.

This would be the progressive/moderate ticket to blur the lines if they could pull it off. But it would require people to forget who these two really are, and what they're about... themselves~!

So I would not support either McCain or Rudy G., because neither has what the republican party needs to stay on top.

Oh, and don't give me Frist either, talk about a panzy, geesh!

I'm still checking out Allen.

http://threeforthsright.blogspot.com/

Your poll, unscientific though it may be, points out and reinforces an important truth......the Republican Party has a big tent. It has a broad cultural, geographic, economic and social base with room for a variety of views. This is something that many in the media and on the left try to mask or simply do not understand, but it is reality. There are probably some on the ultra far right who do not understand this either. Rudy is strong on national security and has earned his chops in that area like our current president. Rudy ran a fiscally responsible administration. He is an awesome fundraiser. Additionally, Rudy is a fabulous communicator, (unlike our current president whom I wholeheartedly support). While I think it is way too early to be focusing so strongly on 2008 because I worry that all the 2008 talk imposes a lame duck status on GWB while he still has three years of work to do, I am thrilled that Rudy has surfaced as someone to watch.

McCain is the last man the GOP will turn to, and he should know it. However, his talk at the convention was extremely good, defending the war. Rudy's talk was a bit schmaltzy, but effective. I don't see Rudy getting it, either. Probably George Allen. Frist has burned his bridges, and never had the common touch, anyway.

Patrick:

You are wrong about Rudy and McCain. The type of Republican who votes for the guy whose "turn" it is, is going to vote for McCain. Secondly, Rudy is not just for gun control he's practically a gun confiscator. How can such a man win the Republican nomination? McCain is at least pro-life and if there are more than 20 people West of the Appalachian's who care about campaign finance reform I haven't met them. Rudy had a chance to stop Hillary in NY, and both times he ducked (first time understandable). Your polling does not detect what campaigns actually do. Set aside Iowa and its cacauses. How long will a constant spot light on Rudy's gun control, abortion,and homosexual views fail to bring him down? Add to that that he did nothing to build the Republican party in N.Y., his third marriage after two messy divorces and the Bernie Kerik type relationships N.Y. is prone to and you have a guy who looks great the day the campaign starts and then its all down hill.

McCain has been there before and if he doesn't go out of his way to offend the Right he can take the nomination.

So, DaveG, McCain is bad because, even though he's essentially conservative, he gets support from non-conservative groups. That's fine. One question, though:

Are you insane?! That's exactly who we need--he'll beat Hillary like a bongo drum and run up Republican victories across the country.

Here's what's going to happen, barring entry by Condi: the race will be Giuliani vs. McCain, and McCain will be the conservative in that race. There shouldn't be a question about who will take the Republican nomination at that point. The #16s of the world certainly exist, but they are a minor, irrelevant faction, even if there are a lot of them on the Internet.

Here's a challenge for the anti-McCainites: name one subject on which Giuliani is demonstrably more conservative than McCain.

Tim,

Rudy and McCain are equally likely to defeat Madam Hillary -- this is well established by most independent polls. McCain does it somewhat more with independents, Rudy does it by firing up the base more (surprise surprise). Rudy's favorables with the GOP base are about 15 net points higher than McCain's.

Put another way: Rudy can win without selling his soul to the New York Times. And if only McCain and Rudy can beat Hillary, then the choice between the two of them is clear.

Why? Because loyalty matters. Being a team player matters. Knowing where somewhere's gonna come out on an issue -- even when you disagree with him -- and not just based on who p*ssed on his turf last, that matters too.

By that standard it's Rudy all the way.

I'm liking this - when Rudy and McCain punch each other out, there will stand Mitt. A bona-fide communicator and conservative, but not so far right as to alienate swing voters like Allen does.

Patrick, you're kidding yourself. Rudy Giuliani- if he is foolish enough to run- will not survive Iowa. He will not be a major player in 2008.You're simply out of touch with the Party out in the country.

Rudy is leading in the polls because a party unfamiliar with his positions on social issues admires him personally. Familiarity with his positions will preclude actual support for most of those supporting him in your polls and others right now.

If by some miracle he were nominated- and he has a better chance of becoming Miss America- enough of the party rank and file (myself included) would refuse him our votes to provide Hillary probably her only realistic chance of being elected. And yes, before anyone asks, I would rather have Hillary in the White House than have the differences between the parties on social issues disappear, and be left without a voice on the issues which matter to me most. And enough Republicans see things the same way do deny Rudy the election even if he did the impossible, and won the nomination.

I wouldn't vote for Hillary, and I don't suggest that any appreciable number of Republicans would. The point, though, is that enough of the base would withhold our votes from Giuliani that he would have no chance in the general.

All of which is academic, because he won't survive the early caucuses and primaries. Rudy is a non-starter. You're dreaming if you think otherwise.

Better to lose than to win with Rudy- which we wouldn't.

By the way, Patrick, I happen to agree with you that at this point George Allen is the most likely nominee.

August 29, 2005/07:36PM#15: s7_g writes: Crystal, you need to address Rasmussen's latest Hillary vs. Condi item.******

Ok, I can accept that challenge. Our 2008 election will be decided state by state, the person who wins the electoral college wins the White House. Now, the Rasmussen poll shows the viability of Condi and Hillary; both strong women. NBC/Wall St Journal reports Condi has 60% job approval, and low negatives while Hillary was 50% favorable with 45% against her. At this point, the mood of the public is more likely to show Condi ahead in polls taken by states like Iowa instead of a national test of the political waters. Look at California, Condi's home state where she was the Provost at Stanford for years; earlier teaching classes as a professor of politics. There is admiration for Condi and her successful path becoming Secretary of State based on her brainpower, her loyalty in the Bush Adminstration, and being a team player. If Condi wins Califoria, Florida, and Texas in 2008, she will become our own Margaret Thatcher.
Here is my view; Condi is a self-made person; rising based on her own success not by having a husband clear the politial path for her. Condi is the 800 pound elephant in the room; and IF she decides to accept the support of the people to seek the White House, then she will be a power to deal with in the Republican party. Men admire her too, and in my travels in Iowa recently, they spoke highly of her. In fact, the men spoke in support almost as much as their wives; showing to me that Condi brings gender-balance and diversity to the Republican party. The field may be wide open, but to see and hear members of the general public speak respectfully and proudly about Condi in August 2005 is an amazing point no one can dismiss whether you are Republican or Democrat. This is the reality and americansforrice.com has changed the debate for 2008.

#34 Bob Waters: If there's anything that the general public does know about Giuliani right now, it's his social positions. Even voters who only watch things peripherally at this point know Rudy is a New Yorker on culture. Why? Because the MSM loves to tell us about it because that's where they agree with the good Mayor.

What most Americans don't know about Rudy is that he's conservative on everything else. Not just foreign policy, but fiscal policy and gov't reform as well. Rudy'd be the kind of guy who would try and reform Social Security. He'd be a guy who would refuse to raise taxes and would instead cut spending. We know this because he did all this in NY. If anything, once voters find out about this, his GOP support will actually rise.

As an aside, if a few unwilling social conservatives decide to try and sabotage the nomination by sitting on their hands if Rudy is nominated, not only will Rudy still win due to the Instapundit voters who went for Clinton, Gore, and Kerry, but you guys who stay at home will lose your ability to have influence on a Rudy Administration. By sitting at home, you will basically prove to the GOP that they don't need your support or your vote, and effectively disenfranchise yourself. That's not a position that anyone wants to be in. Politics has been about compromise for thousands of years. It's not gonna change because contemporary idealists on either the left OR the right want it to.

Tim: Machiavel said it best. I don't know what McCain truly believes in his heart. I do know that his base of support is largely non-Republican and largely in the bluest of states. I'm a big fan of flipping blue states. In fact, I routinely bash red-staters who are trying to maintain an us v. them status quo because they're afraid the blue states will corrupt conservatism (which is silly considering that modern conservatism was started by guys from NY and CA while the "red" south was still voting Democrat). One of the things that turns me on to Rudy is that he would turn the Rust Belt red and add MI, PA, WI, MN, and NJ to the GOP fold.

But by picking McCain, you'd be turning the country on its head. You'd have New England supporting him and the deep south unsure of what to do. I've lived both north and south of M-D. The south still hasn't forgiven McCain for 2000. They just haven't. But they like Rudy, and despite a few loudmouths who will rant and rave about him until Election Day, Rudy is very much a red-stater in temperment: tough, decisive, goes into a knife fight and comes out smiling. They may not agree with his values, but as long as he promises to uphold the Constitution and respect the principles of federalism as president, he's a lot closer to being a red-stater than McCain.

On the issues, Rudy cut taxes in NYC. McCain opposed the Bush tax cuts. Rudy tried to reform education via vouchers, indicating a support for using private services to reform state entitlements. McCain has given little support to any such efforts. Both are deficit hawks and defense hawks, but Rudy has a record on both, while McCain only has votes. We don't know what McCain would do as an executive. We do know what Rudy would do because we've seen it.

Guiliani has wiggle room on social issues. He can de-fang that problem by endorsing federalism, & promising to nominate more judges like Scalia.

McCain, on the other hand, is dead man walking. His problem isn't issues, it's character. Most GOP voters hate his guts.

In addition to all the hurdles Rudy faces in a GOP primary add this: he is pro gun control. Even Dems are moving away from that. Expect GOP oppo research on Rudy's past statements as mayor of NYC in favor of gun control, licensing, etc.