« Point of Information | Main | Defending Gonzalez » 21st Century Campaigning31 Jul 2007 11:18 am
My colleague Marc Ambinder and his partner in crime Chuck Todd rate Rudy Giuliani most likely to win the Republican nomination. I don't really see it. There's the whole abortion thing. And also his record on immigration, which he won't be able to keep weaseling away from forever. But what's more, the dude's campaign doesn't even own RudyGiuliani.com -- it's like he's not even trying. Comments (23)
"My colleague Marc Ambinder and his partner in crime Chuck Todd rate Rudy Giuliani most likely to win the Republican nomination. I don't really see it." I don't see it either, but the longer that all the other candidates seem non-viable, the more possible it gets to imagine Giuliani winning. I still think McCain or Thompson is the most likely scenario, but if both of those guys implode, I certainly think Giuliani can beat Romney. 
it'll be Rudy. and my money says he wins it all. we're just that dumb.
Using a .tiff file for an image? You know, most people can't see that without special jonx on their computer. Better to stick with .jpg or .png...
Look for a major "try" (read: infusion of cash) into Iowa from Rudy over the next six months. That's one place he needs to gain some ground on the Romneybot.
"I still think McCain or Thompson is the most likely scenario, but if both of those guys implode..." "Both"? McCain already has. He has about as much cash on hand as Ron fucking Paul. His candidacy is dead in the water and has been for quite some time. I see Rudy as most viable right now, but I'm quietly placing a bet on Newt to throw his hat in once Thompson's made his announcement.
I suppose that they're going to have to nominate somebody even though we've yet to see a plausible Republican candidate.
There's the whole abortion thing. And also his record on immigration, which he won't be able to keep weaseling away from forever. He could be performing abortions while providing a Spanish commentary on national television and still get the nom, as long as he talks like a fascist strongman and makes the appropriate dog-whistles down in the south. If Kermit Gingrich does chuck his hat in, though, it gets very amusing. I'm waiting for the 'Draft Cheney' movement to kick off.
What's "plausible" mean exactly? You see a lot of guffawing on the left about how conservatives don't like their candidates and are searching for "another Reagan." Just because GOP activists aren't thrilled with their choices doesn't mean the country as a whole will follow suit. THe fact is Guiliani beats or ties the top tier Democratic candidates and Romney and McCain run pretty well too despite the latters recent problems. Remember, we're in a political climate that is supposedly hostile to the GOP brand - yet their frontrunner has a decent chance of beating anyone the Democrats put up. Sounds pretty "plausible" to me?
This must be what is standing between both Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo and the nomination.
it'll be Rudy. and my money says he wins it all. I'll take the other side of that bet. If it's Rudy a lot of the Rovian base stays home. I say it's enough to erase the slight edge over Hillary. And that's assuming Hillary beats out Obama which is far from clear yet.
It's been obvious to these guys for a long time that the Democrat's would have to do something incredibly stupid to lose the election next year. People have soured on the Republican party too strongly, anything short of a Democratic nominee who declares that they will not remove troops from Iraq will result in a near automatic win for the party. It may still be a close election, but that's mostly due to the tremendous amount of structural corruption in our political system.
I can't see Rudy winning. I can't really see any of them winning. This has to be the weakest field I have ever seen - and not just on the Republican's side but also the Democrats. In a half decent year Obama would not be in with a chance, but at the moment even I might vote for him. Hillary Clinton has cash and name recognition, but she is the one thing that Rove must be praying for as she will bring out the Republican vote. Against a real candidate she ought to be dust already. As for the rest of the Republicans, Fred Thompson? I loved him in "Law and Order" but I'd rather vote for Elisabeth Rohm. In fact if you went down the list of cast members, Sam Waterston? I'd rather vote for him. Benjamin Bratt? Yep. A pity Jill Hennessy can't run. If only Jerry Orbach weren't quite so dead. I'd still vote for his corpse before Thompson. I have to say I am coming around to Ron Paul.
Likelihood of winning the GOP nomination:
It's easy to look at any of the top GOP candidates and make the case against them, but of course someone has to win the nomination, and right now it looks like Rudy. My money says Thompson never gets in.
What's "plausible" mean exactly? Oh, I don't know--somebody who accepts the party's platform, can raise enough money to fund a campaign, and isn't tied to animal cruelty, maybe?
Republicans dislike Newt. That is, they respect him as a strategist, but he's a nerd (a former history professor who writes bad scifi novels). Republicans prefer manly men (however fake that image is) as president.
IMO Guiliani is the least likely of the top 5 GOP candidates to win the nomination. Most people have no idea who Guiliani is except Time Magazine's glowing cover as "Man of the Year", "9/11 hero", "America's Mayor". The media has presented him as a Churchillian figure. That level of propaganda cannot be sustained. Sooner or later his opponents will expose the real Guiliani. When that happens the other GOP candidates will all look better, including McCain.
"THe fact is Guiliani beats or ties the top tier Democratic candidates" Not really. Check out yesterday's Daily Howler. Hillary wins 10 out of 12 matchups against Guiliani. Remember Hillary has been under intense scrutiny/attacks for 15 years. Every dirt about her has been aired. Guiliani is still a mythical figure for much of the country. How many people know he left office with a huge deficit? His corrupt dealings? This is why I am not writing off McCain. He has also been scrutinized. Dirty laundry aired. As Guiliani gets more scrutiny McCain will start looking good.
If it's Rudy a lot of the Rovian base stays home. I dunno about that... Al Franken's The Truth wasn't that great overall, I thought, but it made at least one good point I remember: the famous poll showing that so-called "moral values" decided the election was spun pretty heavily. People who cited moral values as their main reason for choosing a candidate made up like 24 percent of the electorate (a plurality, with half a dozen options to choose from) and went for Bush by something like 80 percent. However, people who cited terrorism as their main issue was the second-largest group, with like 21 percent, and went for Bush by the largest margin of all, something like 84 percent. (I'm too lazy to look these numbers up, at least while at work, but CNN made most election numbers available if someone wants to do my work for me...) Franken implied (or at least, I gathered) that Rove or someone like him must have been fast on the spin to make it look like the election was a referendum on reactionary social conservatism, which pretty much indisputably belongs to the right wing and the Republicans, rather than on terrorism, fear and belligerence. And Guiliani does have pretty relation with people who think like that.
"If it's Rudy a lot of the Rovian base stays home." I disagree. The GOP based always votes. It doesn't matter who the Dems or the GOP nominates they will vote for their nominee. I also disagree that a Hillary candidacy will energize the GOP base. These people are always energized. It won't matter who the Dems nominate. They will show up to vote.
"My colleague Marc Ambinder and his partner in crime Chuck Todd rate Rudy Giuliani most likely to win the Republican nomination." I agree with those two.
You hear all this stuff about Giuliani in the abstract--9/11 hero, reactionary, popular with certain Republicans, unpopular with others. You hear the debate about whether he can win the nomination or the general election because of his support of abortion and all of his divorces. But I think all of this misses a key point. Just take a look at the guy. Will America really elect a president who looks like this? A hunched, short, greasy bald guy with a perpetual sour look on his face? Really? Is that even remotely possible? He might get the nomination, but once voters actually get a good look at him in the general campaign, I think no on will take him seriously. Instead of an abstract hero, he'll be that annoying guy running for president. Maybe he'll get Bush's 27% dead enders. But beyond that, forget it. (And, yeah, I get the the Dem front runners aren't traditional candidates either--the black man and the woman. Still, both are just far more commanding and attractive physical presences than Giuliani.)
Comments closed August 14, 2007. |
Search
Subscribe to this blog by Email Books by Matthew Yglesias
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
Weekly Archives
Categories
|
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Heads in the Sand
My hopes that the RNC will stick to the base's core principles aren't high. Rudy outpolls Hillary, yet again proving that the American electorate is largely oblivious to what's in front of their noses.
Posted by Bill | July 31, 2007 11:26 AM