« A Good Question | Main | SCIRI Dumps Khameini » Things I Don't Believe13 May 2007 09:44 am Sometimes when your theory doesn't fit the data, you change the theory. Other times, you need to reject the data. For example, I simply don't believe that John Edwards would beat Rudy Giuliani in Kentucky or that Giuliani would beat Barack Obama in Massachusetts. UPDATE: It should be said, though, that one can't dismiss out of hand the possibility that Giuliani would win Democratic strongholds like New York and New Jersey. Comments (26)
The data is not very meaningful at this point in the election where only us political junkies really know much about the candidates and none of them have really been exposed to the kind of criticism and attack ads that will come in the general election. 
This kind of head-in-the-sandism is the only thing that really scares me about Giuliani. I think he's unlikely to win the nomination, and a tough call to win the general if he does. But to assume that he can't win anything in particular in spring 2007 is just stupid -- the campaign hasn't really started and most people don't know his negatives, plus I bet he's got better name recognition than Obama.
This is also why the Romney issue is not yet one; all these polls reflect is just name recognition and very vague impressions.
I also can't believe that Iowa would go for Obama over Guiliani while Minnesota wouldn't.
I, on the other hand, have no difficulty believing that Giuliani would take Massachusetts over Obama. It would be close, but it's entirely possible. From the Berkshires to the Cape, MA is essentially one big Outer Borough, with a few liberal enclaves, and a few pockets of goo-goo Republican holdouts. It's possible that the people you know from Massachusetts aren't the people I know from Massachusetts. Their views on Giuliani are based on his record in NYC of taking the streets back for Whitey, and he's an NE ethnic. What's not to like?
Things I Don't Want to Believe, But May Have To: - that after 6 years of Bush/Cheney, any of the top Republican candidates can be elected - that after 30 years of conservative relative dominance (dragging the Dems rightward in the process), that the country hasn't seen through the conservative sham. - that the current three top Republican candidates (Guliani, McCain, Romney), whose previous or current positions differ so much from the evangelical base - and lack actual substantative redeeming qualities to boot, are going to be selected to be the Republican candidate.
Um, and your point is? I see this as an argument for why Giuliani is doing suprisingly well in these polls at the moment, but they don't suggest that he would do anywhere near this well in an actual election. Basically the two things most people think about Giuliani is that he was a good mayor and that he responded well to 9/11. Thats really the only two pluses and after that, it all goes downhill. For the record, I think a Romney canidancy would be great for the dems. McCain might be the toughest. I think Giulani is a paper tiger. He won't win the nomination at any rate so I don't know why we are wasting time with this nonsense. Even if he did, I think all the skeletons in his closet would make him vulnerable on all sorts of fronts. I'm also not sure why Jim is so convinced that one of the top 3 canidates is going to win the nomination. They all look very vulnerable and I wouldn't discount the possibility of someone else picking up steam. I also don't think as several people here seem to, that any of the three would be terribly strong. I think it is a very weak gop field and all 3 would be pretty terrible candidates. The fact that people can't see that is testament to defeatism and some sense that the republicans always know what they are doing. I guess I could be wrong but this election looks like a disaster for them to me.
I still think the Republican nominee will be a last minute mystery candidate backed (maybe not publically) by the White House. If I had to pick a name, it woudl be Henry Paulson. The current batch all have glaring weakness, and at any rate in this century, the outgoing President has always selected the nominee of his party. I really don't see why things would be different this year.
Kentucky is as Republican-wary right now as it's ever been, after the Fletcher administration has made its predecessor Patton administration almost look ethical. And never underestimate the ability of outright xenophobic populism to compete with religious conservatism in the border states: that gives Edwards a likely win over Giuliani, and the predicted drubbing of Obama by Giuliani.
As a New York resident,. I dismiss out of hand the idea that Rudy Giuliani could carry this state in 2008.
"It should be said, though, that one can't dismiss out of hand the possibility that Giuliani would win Democratic strongholds like New York and New Jersey." And neither can one dismiss out of hand that Edwards would win weak Republican strongholds in the South and border states like Kentucky, Virginia, and Missouri. ----- If you peer into those SUSA numbers, the advantage Edwards has over Clinton and Obama outside of the Kerry blue states is the best illustration to date of the electability reasons for nominating Edwards.
"For example, I simply don't believe that John Edwards would beat Rudy Giuliani in Kentucky" I don't see Giuliani as a serious possibility to get the nomination, so we're dealing with a moot question here. But if you don't think Edwards would be likely to defeat Giuliani in Kentucky, you're really not paying close enough attention to the politics involved.
Matt might take a second look at my state of Kentucky. I think Bush won KY by 18 in 2004. So I understand that there's reason to be surprised by Edwards beating Giuliani head to head here. Still, Giuliani doesn't seem to play that well with Kentucky Republicans. KY conservatives care about three things in this order: 1. abortion; 2. gays; and 3. the war. As a result of Giuliani being pro-choice and seemingly favorable to gays, a couple of the Republican activists among my students have indicated that they wouldn't vote for him under any conditions. I don't think that having been mayor of NY helps Giuliani here either. It just adds to his "liberal" aura (and gives him a grating accent).
I think Hillary would crush Rudy(!) in NY, beyond that I'm not as confident as I'd like to be. Also, if a commenter asks why the Remember Personal Info box doesn't work, and nobody responds, did he really leave a comment?
For example, I simply don't believe that John Edwards would beat Rudy Giuliani in Kentucky What an oddly uninsightful comment.
Mondale will beat Reagan, 47-41, and Carter will beat Reagan 42-38. Dole will beat Clinton, 51-45. The popular vote in 2000 won't even be close: Bush will beat Gore, 56-41. These are all real poll results, and from respectable polls, too. They illustrate not the inaccuracy of polls but the absurdity of taking them as predictions of an election that is many months away.
Matt's willingness to throw out the data he mentions should be heavily filtered through the knowledge that he was still watching Thundercats in 1996, when Bill Clinton carried Kentucky, Louisiana, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Missouri. He was also probably still in diapers when Reagan carried Massachusetts. David T is right to point out the infamous inaccuracy of early polls, but there is no good reason to assume those particular results are wrong unless one has a very short memory. Giuliani represents a type of candidate the Republicans haven't run for President in living memory-- a culturally moderate New Yorker. A twice-divorced Italian Catholic and admitted adulterer, to boot. He would radically shake up the electoral map. I would not be at all surprised to see him win some very "Blue" states in the northeast and lose some traditionally "Red" states.
I lived in NYC when Giuliani became mayor. No Democrat in NYC that lived there under his brutal regime will ever vote for him. Die-hard Republicans the like Bush certainly would, he is their kind of guy: A megamaniacal dictator-wannabe. The first thing he did was have his name put onto all the city's contruction projects, which traditionally retained the name of the mayor that initiated the project. Just how much money did he waste simply so he could see his name everywhere he looked? He ordered the police to arrest every side-walk artist in town (at the demand of the Soho art galleries). All those artists were jailed, and their artwork was stolen by police and destroyed. He tried to get a joke about him removed from the side of city busses decreeing that the First Amendment does not apply in NYC. And then verbally abused the judges that reminded him that the Law still does apply to him, too. He walled off City Hall so that constituents could no longer meet with their City Council representatives. He ordered the police to 'stop and frisk' every black person in town without cause, just to try to find something to arrest them on. He ran like a little girl from the World Trade Center and then concocted this fantasy that he was some kind of hero. If he is made President he will fulfill every Neo-Con's dream of a Unitary Executive, one where he is the Decider and there is no congress, there is no judiciary. Where he and he alone decides whether we live or die. He was made mayor of NYC to transform the most liberal city in the entire union into fascist police-state. And he succeeded: There didn't used to be machine-gun toting cops in Times Square. Let me point out an excellent book for anyone that wants to know more about the oppressive regime of Adolph .. uh, I mean Rudolph Giuliani as mayor of New York and the disdain for the Rule of Law and the US Constitution that he has and what he would be like as Supreme Dictator of the World: 'Sayings of Generalissimo Giuliani'
How long before Sullyman declares that kewl mayor type the first homosextual presidential candidate in all of American history? (I was waiting for the pitch at the end of that post for Sullyman's book the Conservative Bosom: a Conservatism of Scruple Yet Mirth for the Benefit of All Mankind [available in the form of a scroll at fine booksellers everywhere].)
(Don't get me wrong. I like Andy M Sullivan. He writes books and stuff. I read one once. Maybe when Matty finally invites me to his pizza party I'll get to meet him.)
"From the Berkshires to the Cape, MA is essentially one big Outer Borough, with a few liberal enclaves, and a few pockets of goo-goo Republican holdouts." This is just absurd from a descriptive and geographical. Have you ever been to Savoy, Mass., or Truro, or Hardwick? New Bedford or Pittsfield or Gloucester? Maybe on voting matters, there is a certain conservatism -- even hillybilly quality -- to the rural farm hamlets and the hardluck mill towns. But Queens they ain't. They even have bears and seals.
correction: absurd from a descriptive and geographical perspective.
Thundercats in 1996? Not likely - the original series stopped in 1990 and it didn't show up on Toonami until 1997.
You see what I mean? Anyone who actually knows when Thundercats went off the air, rather than using the show as an ironic throwaway cultural reference, is clearly too young to have any historical perspective!
Or knows how to use wikipedia...
Comments closed May 27, 2007. |
Search
Subscribe to this blog by Email Books by Matthew Yglesias
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
Weekly Archives
Categories
|
Copyright © 2007 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Why couldn't Edwards beat Giuiliani in KY? Clinton took Kentucky in 1992 and 1996. It's not inconceivable that a Southerner who actually bothered to campaign there might win the state. I don't believe that Barack Obama would lose to Giuliani in Massachusetts, either, unless Giuliani ran a terrific campaign, and maybe if Deval Patrick was really screwing up as governor.
Posted by Clark | May 13, 2007 10:26 AM