Rudy: Still Likely to Fail

With regard to some recent dust-ups, I fall into the "enormous respect for Thomas Edsall" camp, but I've found myself tending to disagree with a lot of his more recent work. For example, he has the current cover story in The New Republic, arguing that Giuliani can, too, win the GOP nomination as a pro-choice, pro-gay candidate largely because Republican primary voters don't care about that stuff anymore:

Giuliani is the beneficiary of an upheaval within the Republican electorate--an upheaval that was catalyzed by September 11 but is becoming apparent only now, as the GOP hosts its first primary battle since the terrorist attacks. In brief, among Republican voters, the litmus test issues of abortion and gay marriage have been losing traction, subordinated to the Iraq war and terrorism. According to the Pew Research Center, 31 percent of GOP voters name Iraq as their top priority, and 17 percent choose terrorism and security. Just 7 percent name abortion and 1 percent name gay marriage.

This is interesting stuff, but I'm not sure it indicates that abortion and gay marriage have fallen in salience nearly enough. After all, I wouldn't say abortion is my top priority in the coming election, but if Barack Obama were to announce tomorrow that he's pro-life and wants to about justices who'll overturn Roe v. Wade my level of enthusiasm for his candidacy was drop to zero. Precisely because it would be so unusual for a Democratic candidate to come out for overturning Roe or, say, privatizing Social Security, I can afford to make those issues litmus tests even though they aren't my top priorities.

Right now, neither Fred Thompson nor Newt Gingrich are in the race, neither Mitt Romney nor John McCain are people Republicans are enthusiastic about, and neither Tommy Thompson, Mike Huckabee, or Tom Tancredo are considered "viable" so there's no coalescence of pro-life, anti-Rudy sentiment. But this is where that business about it being early comes into play. At the end of the day, I think you'll find that most Republicans really want their party to be against abortion and if Giuliani is still front-running months and months from now somebody (my guess is McCain) will emerge as the pro-life alternative and win.

Comments

Yeah, there is a big difference between top priorities and deal breakers. I mean, since only 1 % view gay marriage as a top priority, the Republican elecotrate obviously wouldn't have a problem with a candidate who married his gay partner, right?

Posted by blah | May 15, 2007 4:56 PM

"Precisely because it would be so unusual for a Democratic candidate to come out for overturning Roe or, say, privatizing Social Security, I can afford to make those issues litmus tests even though they aren't my top priorities."

Exactly. What's salient depends on what's in play.

Posted by K | May 15, 2007 4:57 PM

I've made quite clear my contempt for Giuliani's prospects of getting nominated. I loved this offhand shot from Ana Marie Cox today:

Leaving aside that Michael Bloomberg seems like exactly the type to "blow a billion* dollars on a fantasy," let's focus on why Podhoretz thinks the story isn't true: because it "makes no sense." Would that such logic ruled the campaign season! I, personally, still don't believe Giuliani is running.

But surprisingly, I thought Edsall's piece was close to spot on. It lays out quite nicely how Rudymania could happen. But I didn't think Edsall was saying Rudymania was the likely outcome of the nomination race.

Posted by Petey | May 15, 2007 5:03 PM

I thought Edsall's piece was close to spot on. It lays out quite nicely how Rudymania could happen. But I didn't think Edsall was saying Rudymania was the likely outcome of the nomination race.

Like a lot of the less-good journalism done by good journalists, the article wound up being kind of ambiguous as to what it was arguing. On the one hand you had a solid, but not especially thrilling, article about what things would need to be the case for Rudy to win. On the other hand, you had the bold, provocative, and incorrect thesis that these things are in fact the face.

I think "WHY THE GOP'S FUTURE BELONGS TO RUDY" was a pretty irresponsible claim to slap into the deck, though of course that's not really Edsall's fault.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | May 15, 2007 5:10 PM

The entire Radical Right, and most Republicans, want a Strong Man above all else. Giuliani currently pretends he is, and can easily become, a Strong Man.

Therefore I suspect he _will_ win the nomination.

Just think about it: President Giuliani; Chief of Staff John Yoo; Attorney General David Addington; and of course the return of Political Adviser Karl Rove. IOW, a guy who is not only brutal but smart at the top, backed up by the worst of the W pro-torture crowd.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | May 15, 2007 5:10 PM

FWIW, my very Republican sis-in-law, who worked on Haley Barbour's gubernatorial campaign, likes Giuliani, & when I teased her on his abortion stance, said she's "not as single-issue as you think." This from the one with the "Choose Life" license plate.

I wonder what Rudy's numbers are among women?

Posted by Anderson | May 15, 2007 5:13 PM

Cranky -

I am hesitant to believe that Giuliani would take on Rove as an adviser. Rove depends upon intimidating his clients and Rudy doesn't seem like the type take it.

Posted by Scott Ferguson | May 15, 2007 5:16 PM

"I think "WHY THE GOP'S FUTURE BELONGS TO RUDY" was a pretty irresponsible claim to slap into the deck, though of course that's not really Edsall's fault."

Yup.

"Like a lot of the less-good journalism done by good journalists, the article wound up being kind of ambiguous as to what it was arguing."

Meh. I assume the assignment was to explain Rudy's appeal and potential, and I think he did that nicely.

Check out the multiple caveats I've bolded in his summation:

Hawkish on defense, bullish on unrestrained capitalism, socially tolerant on some questions, acidly intolerant on others, despised by his foes, beloved by his allies, eminently comfortable with combative politics, he is plausibly positioned to capitalize on--and perhaps drive--the reconfiguration of the Republican Party. This would have seemed improbable a decade ago, given the substantial differences that separated him from his party's base. But, today, he seems less a misfit in the GOP than a candidate with the potential--if he doesn't short-circuit--to become a transformational figure at a crucial moment in the party's history

He wasn't arguing that Giuliani has the numbers to actually pull it off. He was just laying out the scenario.

And hell, it is possible. I'd take action on Giuliani at 15 to 1 odds.

Posted by Petey | May 15, 2007 5:20 PM

I forgot to also bold the word "perhaps" in there...

Posted by Petey | May 15, 2007 5:21 PM

FWIW my experience is the opposite of Anderson. My Catholic mother-in-law (who says she is a registered Democrat but admits she hasn't voted for a Democratic nominee since Carter)says she will not vote for Guiliani because she does not trust him on the abortion question. She'll vote McCain, unless the Democrats miraculously nominate a pro life candidate.

Posted by DoubtingThomas | May 15, 2007 5:25 PM

Scott,
Does Rove intimidate Bush? I am not so sure.

But my overall point is that the W Administration has shown the way for the next Republican Strong Man. Giuliani can see the way clear to assuming near-dictatorial power, and I think that he would very much like to do that. Rove knows where all the bodies are buried and would be very useful.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | May 15, 2007 5:28 PM

It didn't seem like Edsall controlled for likely GOP _primary voters_, as opposed to just registered Republicans. Big difference there. Abortion and (to a lesser extent) gay rights are a deal-breaker for the die-hard base. I guess you have to give Rudy credit for having the cojones to stick to his guns here, but he's going down.

Posted by jonas | May 15, 2007 5:47 PM

I can't say I know know for sure what Republicans are thinking, but if I had to guess, then I say that it's not just his view on abortion (which if I recall correctly involves being pro-late term abortions), it's not just his stance on gun control, and it's not his views on gay marriage/civil unions. It's all three of them combined, despite how arguably superficial some of these views are. If he were a pro-life, anti-civil union candidate who happened to support gun control, for instance, he'd have a much easier time getting the nomination, since he'd be able to distance himself from his unpopular position much more easily.

Posted by Brian | May 15, 2007 6:03 PM

McCain seems the most likely nominee to me -- after taking a long look at Rudy and Mitt, I think Republicans will grudgingly settle for him. The Fred and Newt options may also look attractive.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | May 15, 2007 6:24 PM

The rush to judge Edsall innocent should be resisted. Just because Alterman likes him doesn't mean he's OK. Alterman stuck up for Safire, as I remember. If Edsall doesn't like being misunderstood he should not try to make people misunderstand him. And if he perhaps has some doubts about Broder, perhaps the way to communicate that is to say what your doubts about Broder are. (That's my revolutionary new theory of communication, which is a theory of communication and which is mine.)

A few less snarkmeisters in the media would be sorta nice.

Posted by John Emerson | May 15, 2007 6:30 PM

Jonas:
You hit on what pretty much what I was thinking. I think Edsall's use of that poll was rather disingenuous. If you're asking people to list their general priorities, they're going to respond with issues that affect them directly... hell, I'd wager the price of a gallon of gas would trump gay marriage for the average person.

I'd like to see the same control group be asked "are you pro/con on gay marriage. on abortion? etc.". I suspect those results would be more telling (but of course, that would undermine Edsall's point).

Posted by raff | May 15, 2007 6:30 PM

IM betting on a Fred Thompson insurgency. Just look at the right-wing blogosphere: they are thirsting for another candidate. My second bet would be on a default McCain.

And as Matt pointed out, those polls are useless, as most polls are. But especially in this case: of course everyone is going to say Iraq is the number 1 priority for them. How does that come as a suprise? That doesn't mean they wont take a pro-War candidate who is also pro-life over Guiliani. The media pretends as though Guiliani is the only Republican in the field who is pro-Iraq War and 'tough on terrorism'. Please.

Its not just that Guiliani is pro-choice that flusters the GOP base. He is also pro-illegal immigration (in their words), and New York was made a sanctuary city if I recall correctly. Furthermore, he has been the target of the 'gun-grabber' slur.

Posted by Neal M | May 15, 2007 6:43 PM

With reluctance I think I agree with the "Strong Man" theory people are posting here. They want a king, Giuliani can be theirs. And unfortunately I think that kind of appeal has a lot of pull, not only among Republicans but among voters in general. The facts of his policy preferences - abortion, gun rights, etc etc - are of only secondary importance compared to the HUNGER the "base" has for personal submission (as seen in Action Figure Bush) and for tightening their grip on power to make "those people" feel bad. Schadenfreude is the root of politics (you feel it yourself, admit it) and Giuliani is the perfect man.

--CG

Posted by CG | May 15, 2007 6:47 PM

Off topic:

I'm probably wrong, but I always thought the "choose life" plates were in essence side-stepping roe v wade, and just saying "legality aside, please don't have an abortion." Basically the classic "I find abortion immoral, but I'm not going to legislate my beliefs onto others." I find that to be a perfectly acceptible sentiment.

If, however, "choose life" means "choose pro-life politicians who will overturn roe v wade," well then that's a different story.

Posted by Lee | May 15, 2007 7:13 PM

> If Edsall doesn't like being misunderstood
> he should not try to make people misunderstand
> him. And if he perhaps has some doubts about
> Broder, perhaps the way to communicate that is to
> say what your doubts about Broder are.

Agreed - I have to say it was a bit bizarre to hear key players responding to a criticism that there is too much insiderism in DC journalism by saying that one of the practitioners they respect speaks in a code language that only insiders can understand.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | May 15, 2007 7:36 PM

GOP primary rules favor Rudy. If no single candidate emerges as the culturally conservative alternative to Rudy, Rudy could win by capturing other types of conservatives who although they may disagree with Rudy on issues like abortion and gay rights, they are more disgusted by how their party has been dragged through the mud by social conservatives. An obvious group is economic libertarians, but don't count out so-called "law and order" types who love Rudy's "tough guy" approach.

And that's what this is all about. Rudy is trying to project an image of courage by standing against his party's base on a few of its most important issues. It's a gamble, but if long-shots like Brownback refuse to budge, and if McCain and Romney cancel each other out over trying to appeal to the religious right, then GOP primary "winner take all" rules favor Guiliani.

Simply put, Rudy's move to run as a socially liberal candidate ready to bring some "fucking law and order" is brilliant. The calendar and, like I said, GOP rules favor him, and he also may lure independents to the primaries where they don't have to register for a party.

The only issue I really see potentially hurting him is immigration. Abortion and gay rights will only affect him if a lot of candidates drop out between now and January. A lot.

Posted by Matthew Struhar | May 15, 2007 8:27 PM

I wrote a piece a year ago suggesting that I thought Mr. Giuliani could get the GOP nomination because the base of the party is more riveted by swarthy Arab types than gay pagan types these days, and that he could well win if he doesn't cave to them on abortion.

I still think that today.

Posted by Linus | May 15, 2007 9:14 PM

It's definitely plausible that Guiliani could win. On the other hand, if the combined power of the conservative institutions and their activists focus on taking him out, he can be taken out. Ask Howard Dean.

Guiliani, though, running as a social liberal, is the only one who has a shot in the general, and many republican leaders understand this on one level or another. Also like Dean. The difference between the Republican and Democratic power structures, is that one has been fundamentally bamboozled by the other's guy's narrative, and allows him to set the terms of the debate, and the other guy isn't and doesn't.

It's in Matt's and the left's interests to suggest that Guiliani is a dead duck in the primary, precisely because he's the biggest threat in the general. But Republicans don't take advice from the leftosphere. Someday, Democrats will learn the reverse trick.

Posted by glasnost | May 15, 2007 9:35 PM

Once you figure out who the security moms are really afraid of, and who the chest-thumpers really want to nuke, Rudy's campaign strategy -- if he has the balls to go for it -- is simple.

Run on, not away from, Patrick Dorismond, Amidou Diallo, and Abner Louima.

"Guiliani Time", all the time, from coast to coast!

Create two, three, many Outer Boroughs!

Posted by Davis X. Machina | May 15, 2007 9:46 PM

I think it's Rudy, too. The strong man thing--or put it another way, the authoritarian thing. That's what the party's about now: bringing about an authoritarian police state here. That rough beast started slouching toward Bethlehem back in the 40s, and it's had its setbacks along the way, but 9/11 put the spurs to it in a big way and Rudy more than any of the others radiates the sense that he'd like to seize those reins and flog the thing at a dead gallop all the way to the proverbial Bethlehem. That's what they like about him, and that's why they'll find any excuse they need to convince themselves that the abortion thing isn't really that important after all.

It's so transparent it would be funny if it wasn't so goddamn terrifying.

Posted by DrBB | May 15, 2007 11:21 PM

I agree that what the right has always wanted in a police state, and therefore abortion and gay rights will not hurt Giuliani. What *may* hurt him, though, is gun control. A sizable portion of the Republican base is perfectly sincere on that one, and it's an important one since it's the one the Party is counting one for muscle in true extremis (if I said I was kidding; I would be kidding). For that reason, I think we should try to drive a wedge between Rudy and the NRA. Rudy wants to register your guns is a hard pill for the NRA to swallow. I also would be willing to actively support any Republican in the race but Rudy, as I think he is both the only likely winner and the worst President if elected.

Posted by Martin Bento | May 16, 2007 2:22 AM

Hey Matt or webgods of this site! This is big time now, professional, prestigious magazine and all that. How about making the "Remember Personal Info?" box work. Regular users have been waiting years, and it seems odd that when the Atlantic hires a blogger they also hire the bugs on his previous site. Is this working for anyone else? I know it didn't used to be, and it's not working for me now. And, Yes, I have cookies on.

Posted by Martin Bento | May 16, 2007 2:25 AM

Precisely because it would be so unusual for a Democratic candidate to come out for overturning Roe or, say, privatizing Social Security, I can afford to make those issues litmus tests even though they aren't my top priorities.

I don't think this really captures the dynamic going on, though. A good analogy would be that, of the three realistic Democratic candidates, one was pro-life, one was Joe Lieberman, and one flirts with supporting privatizing Social Security. Given THAT choice, would Matthew consider the pro-life candidate? I'd bet the answer is yes.

Posted by Al | May 16, 2007 2:42 AM

Matthew Yglesias: "I think "WHY THE GOP'S FUTURE BELONGS TO RUDY" was a pretty irresponsible claim to slap into the deck, though of course that's not really Edsall's fault."

"Irresponsible" is a baffling criticism here, especially since you simultaneously decline to hold Edsall responsible for the overstated headline you cite. Did you have something else in mind? When it comes to an issue like abortion, Edsall clearly tied his thesis to the available data, where your own prognostication, for example, about what "most Republicans really want" requires both disputing the Pew rankings and assuming that the typical pro-lifer is just a mirror image of, well, you -- an equivalence I'd have thought you'd ordinarily be loathe to posit.

In reality, Pew's 7% may quite accurately track the actual numbers of Republicans for whom abortion is always the defining issue regardless of circumstances. Ditto for 1% on gay marriage. What those numbers suggest is the disproportionate influence of social conservatives within the GOP, and in consequence -- as comments here seem to confirm -- a fundamentally flawed public perception of what Republicans as whole "really want." This myopia is reflected in both political and media rhetoric, where "Republican" and "Conservative" have been so thoroughly conflated that they are used almost interchangeably across the board.

If I'd fault Edsall for anything, aside from not linking to the Pew Findings himself (which no one here appears to have consulted), it would be a certain deficit on the historical perspective front. The "ideological lines between conservatism and liberalism," within the GOP are not, in fact, new at all. Edsall doesn't really entertain the possibility that Giuliani's potential constituency might be less cutting edge than silent majority.

Conventional wisdom currently holds that Republicans can't win without their conservative base. Whether Conservatives are learning that they can't win without the Republican base either remains to be seen. What may end up surprising Charlie Cook, along with a lot of other folks, is that there are more Republicans from the Republican wing of the party out there than anyone suspected.

Posted by JM Hanes | May 16, 2007 3:25 AM

"The entire Radical Right, and most Republicans, want a Strong Man above all else."

Nah, or else they'd just nominate Hillary, and coast to victory. They want a "Strong Man" who agrees with them... Who the hell wants a strong man who's going to be attacking THEM, rather than the other guy?

Rudy's getting by on the fact that all the nominal front runners are repulsive to social conservatives for one or more reasons, pretty much taking social issues out of play. Leaving him the beneficiary of a lot of name recognition, and the favor of the police statists in the party. The moment a serious social conservative enters the race, the dynamic will change radically.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | May 16, 2007 8:01 AM

Brett: Isn't Brownback a serious social conservative? Guess it depends on what "serious" means.

Al: A good analogy would be that, of the three realistic Democratic candidates, one was pro-life, one was Joe Lieberman, and one flirts with supporting privatizing Social Security

That would be two "pro-life" candidates wouldn't it? Not to mention at least one pro-lie candidate.

Martin Bento: With you on the "remember personal info," but it's suddenly started happening to me on a number of sites. Maybe a platform issue...?

Posted by DrBB | May 16, 2007 8:21 AM

The reality, and maybe Republicans are starting to realize this, is that "strong man" and "credible social conservative" rarely go together. Any man who cares enough about abortion and gay marriage to make those issues his defining political stance is probably a man who has serious personal issues of his own he's repressing. Real strong men in the Patton - Berlusconi - Jack Bauer mode are rarely pious, look at women as sources of sexual pleasure rather than madonna figures, value "gettin'r done" over ideological purity, and can be counted on to bend the rules if they get in their way. I think after 8 years of complete fakery from Bush the GOP base (and the US media) wants a real dictator, and Giuliani is probably the most credible duce type US politics has produced in a while. The only GOP figure I can think of who could have credibly pulled off the "man's man" + social conservative combo is George Allen, so we do owe TNR a debt of gratitude for helping to remove that threat. I think he would have been the clear favorite in this field.

Posted by Vanya | May 16, 2007 8:23 AM

One problem for Guliani is the general elections is that the paranoia, so strong for several years after 9/11, is receding, otherwise how could Democrats gain in 2006?

Granted, there is still plenty of paranoid folks out there, and they can be over-represented among GOP primary voters, so Guliani has good chances. He will also have oodles of money.

Texan candidates also have a history of being well loaded with money, but it is more difficult to get good financing if you start from Arkansas or Kansas.

So my question is: are there many GOP millionaires who are ready to open their purses "big time" for a viable contender against Guliani? Alternatively, can a viable opponent raise a lot on internet or from religious right mailing lists? Why not. They just need to pick a man (no woman on the horizon).

Clearly, the situation in Democratic primary that there are only three well-financed contenders and each is unpalatable to the "base" for some reason could not last.

On the other hand, perhaps "serious people" in GOP, sitting governors and senators, do not want to risk their seats for a doomed cause, and the prospective donors have similar misgivings.

Posted by piotr | May 16, 2007 10:42 AM

Woah, first you must cure your temper
Then you find a job in a paper
You need someone for a saviour
Then Rudie can't fail, oh no

Posted by sean | May 16, 2007 10:55 AM

"Giuliani currently pretends he is, and can easily become, a Strong Man."

Who looks fabulous in a pink dress. I still maintain that Rudy will not survive the wide circulation of the Drag/Trump video. He is too obviously into the moment. While portions of the Republican base may intellectually understand that dressing in drag doesn't prove you are gay, it is also behavior they don't find acceptable. Hell lots of these people don't even believe in dancing.

Also there is the Catholic question. The Church came out pretty strong against Kerry and openly suggested that it would be a sin for Catholics to vote for a pro-choice candidate. Which puts them in an awkward position this time around. Do they stay silent and prove themselves collectively to be huge hyprocrites or do they stand their ground and condemn Giuliani in the same ways and at the same volume they did Kerry? That will be interesting to watch.

Posted by Bruce Webb | May 16, 2007 11:14 AM

bulsfxjhn twscjf dpyob ktzayg bipdajgm tsfnyl vaug

Posted by hdrpiayjf ubkasl | June 11, 2007 5:25 PM

bulsfxjhn twscjf dpyob ktzayg bipdajgm tsfnyl vaug

Posted by hdrpiayjf ubkasl | June 11, 2007 5:26 PM