Worst Case Scenario

Like a lot of people, I've looked at the polls and been a bit distressed at the prospect of a matchup between Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton. He is, I think, probably the Republicans' strongest candidate and she the Democrats' weakest. Giuliani's also the one I would least like to see be president. Chris Bowers compiled the most recent state-by-state polls, however, and came up with a map that underscores the fundamental political weakness of the GOP.

In short, not only does Clinton project to absolutely wallop Mitt Romney (it's a 430 electoral vote landslide that has Democrats picking up Texas, Florida, Virginia, Missouri, etc., but she even projects to score the solid win against Giuliani that you see pictured above. Obviously, one shouldn't draw any particularly strong conclusions from this sort of early polling (the campaign does, after all, matter) but both Giuliani and Clinton are widely recognized figures and one's sense is that additional exposure to the Real Rudy is unlikely to boost his popularity in noteworthy ways.

Comments

Welcome to the Union! I'm not sure this is right, though: additional exposure to the Real Rudy is unlikely to boost his popularity in noteworthy ways. I don't remember anyone worthwhile argue in favor of Kerry, but we all came around once he gained the nomination. (I seem to recall genuinely believing that there were positive things about him to like.) Some of the people trending Blue will find that they just can't pull the trigger for a Democrat, and Rudy seems like the easiest one to come around on.

I'm a bit curious about the extent to which a Rudy run would look a bit like a Nixon '68 run. Nixon, after all, was also pretty widely disliked, and I think he had a rhetorical connection to the Fuck Yeahs, but wasn't actually of them (I think I'm recalling that from something in Haldeman's diaries). (Presumably, the Democrats--maybe esp. if HRC is the nominee--are in a better position today than they were in '68. So maybe it doesn't matter.)

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | August 23, 2007 10:41 AM

What happens if/when the Repubs win their CA initiative and split CA's electoral votes?

Posted by Anderson | August 23, 2007 10:54 AM

Re: "...one's sense is that additional exposure to the Real Rudy is unlikely to boost his popularity in noteworthy ways."

This is why Romney might be the stronger candidate for a long national campaign.

Posted by Jim W | August 23, 2007 11:00 AM

Regardless of polling, I have a hard time believing that Hillary could win Texas.

Posted by Traven | August 23, 2007 11:02 AM

Yeah, SomeCallMeTim, the electoral environments are simply wildly different. In '68, the country desperately wanted change, and only general loathing for Nixon (along with the truly coalition-shaking candidacy of Wallace) put the Democrats in any position to finish ahead -- yet they still couldn't pull it off. The '08 outlook is even worse for the GOP than '68 was for Dems (Johnson, at his nadir, had numbers around or north of 40%; Bush's can barely top 30), and it'd take some sort of plenary indulgence candidate to persuade people to stick with the Pubs. Giuiliani with absolutely no scrutiny -- running as America's Mayor, with the press cheering him on -- is the closest they'll come to that, but, as I believe Matt implies, that's going to be hard to pull off, with much less-adoring coverage already starting to appear. And even with it, polls show him fighting an uphill battle. (Worth noting: Dems, in "losing" the last two elections, recorded two of the highest Electoral Vote count for non-elected candiadtes -- so the GOP base is beyond weak to start)

For the record, I think even Giuliani with the press behind him would find it hard to beat the weakest Dem candidate (Hillary), let alone Edwards or Obama. In the long run, the electorate votes up or down on the incumbent administration -- despite the press' obsessive promotion of the race as jump-ball decided on candidate personality. For the GOP to hold the White House next year, whoever the candidates are, would be in defiance of all electoral history since the two party system took hold.

Posted by demtom | August 23, 2007 11:02 AM

I want to see the GOP nominate Rudy.

He is extremely vulnerable on everything. On 9/11, on terrorism, on his personal background.

Look, almost no one is paying attention to the race just yet. These polls will change wildly. Hillary's negatives will decrease, because she's not the fire-breathing demon the right has conjured up, and the more people learn about Giuliani, the less they'll like him.

I think that Giuliani would get walloped, and it would be a stake through the heart of his brand of ignorant beligerence.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | August 23, 2007 11:03 AM

I could probably quibble with a few states in your map -- notably, Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio, Kansas, Nevada and New Mexico -- but the resulting electoral totals would likely be a wash (or close). I think your overall analysis is spot on. Giuliani today enjoys the luminous glow of his "stewardship" of NYC on 9/11 in a way that cannot last into a general election (or even deep into the primaries). On the other hand, everyone knows Hillary -- her negatives are what they are and really can't go up. Yes, Tim is right that there may be some "can't pull the lever for a Dem, esp. HRC" sentiment on election day, but I don't see that overwhelming the GOP's fundamental unpopularity with the electorate.

Giuliani is the candidate we fear the most, but he is beatable. And he probably won't even get the nomination -- Romney has the money, the organization, the early state lead, and isn't a moderate on social issues. With Thompson looking wobbly out of the gate and Giuliani's weaknesses, it looks like Romney's race to lose on the GOP side. Then we're on to November.

Posted by NCProsecutor | August 23, 2007 11:03 AM

Clinton beats Romney in Texas and Virginia?

Are you sure?

Posted by SoCalJustice | August 23, 2007 11:04 AM

I think people are being far too sanguine about Giuliani. The press is NOT going to play up his insanity, his viciousness, his lack of knowledge or curiosity, or even his cross-dressing. They ARE going to play up his American's Mayor/9-11 leadership gags. We (on the left) may know that he's borderline committable, but the main stream media is Corporate Interests First-Last-Always.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | August 23, 2007 11:07 AM

What is wrong with Connecticut?

Posted by J | August 23, 2007 11:11 AM

There was a recent piece in the New York Observer about Michael Dukakis saying don't count your chickens, and there should be a focus on getting out the vote:

http://www.observer.com/print/57075/full

Posted by JJ | August 23, 2007 11:23 AM

The Republicans have about as much chance of winning the Presidency with somebody who alienates social conservatives, as Democrats would with a pro-life, right to work candidate. The Republican establishment will eventually remember that, and Rudy will lose their support. Or else a Democratic win in 2008 is just a given.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | August 23, 2007 11:26 AM

This is the "worst case" for Giuliani vs. Clinton? You're crazy.

The "worst case" is that Giuliani beats Clinton in NY, NJ, PA, FL, and VA. There is no reason to think that is out of the realm of possibility.

Posted by Al | August 23, 2007 11:27 AM

The press is NOT going to play up his insanity, his viciousness, his lack of knowledge or curiosity, or even his cross-dressing. They ARE going to play up his American's Mayor/9-11 leadership

You can read campaign stuff from 1999, on the GOP side at least, and see the 2000 future. Once The Story Arc gets broad agreement, that's it.

Posted by Davis X. Machina | August 23, 2007 11:30 AM

What happens if/when the Repubs win their CA initiative and split CA's electoral votes?
Posted by Anderson

Well, Bowers predicted a 335-203 margin for Clinton against Giuliani. California has 55 electoral votes. Presumably, the worst case scenario for Democrats if that initiative passes is that those votes get split 50-50. Hell, let's be really pessimistic and say they would get split 70-30, Republican to Democrat. I can't imagine that gerrymandering has been that bad, but you never know.

That means Republicans would get about 39 or so electoral votes that would otherwise go to the Democrats. (Seventy percent of 55.) So the Clinton-Giuliani electoral vote split would become 296-242.

All the obvious disclaimers apply in triplicate, of course (don't rely on polling this far out, maybe this isn't really the worst-case scenario...) But it looks like the California initiative, even if successful, will have no impact on the 2008 presidential election.

Posted by Cyrus | August 23, 2007 11:32 AM

I think people are being far too sanguine about Giuliani. The press is NOT going to play up his insanity, his viciousness, his lack of knowledge or curiosity, or even his cross-dressing. They ARE going to play up his American's Mayor/9-11 leadership gags.

It's up to the Democrats to make the case. This is why I don't believe Clinton is the weakest candidate (even though, at this minute, I wouldn't vote for her in the primary.) The Clintons full well realize rightwing campaign methodology. I believe that Hillary Clinton would've handled the Swift Boats much differently than Kerry.

As for Guiliani, lets make Bernard Kerik his Willy Horton. How does the "President of 9/11" put national security in that guy's hands? Lets use his latest article in "Foriegn Affairs" to say that Rudy Giuliani wants to start WW3 against Arabia. Lets Swift Boat him with the firemen. Plenty of fodder to drive up his negatives.

Also, I think the rise of the left blogosphere can make a difference in media coverage. Many of the media were mau mau'd quite successfully from the right in 2000. And, despite what one thinks of Gore's candidacy, the media narrative of that campaign was damaging. Lefty blogs have gotten reporters' and columnists' attention (Matt Bai, Joe Klein, etc). Hopefully this cn be used to avert a repeat of 2000 canards such as Love Canal, Love Story, Buddhist Temples, James Lee Witt and, of course, Gore's "invention" of the internet.

Posted by Mark | August 23, 2007 11:37 AM

This is the "worst case" for Giuliani vs. Clinton? You're crazy.
The "worst case" is that Giuliani beats Clinton in NY, NJ, PA, FL, and VA. There is no reason to think that is out of the realm of possibility.
Posted by Al

You misread the post, Al. Yglesias (Bowers, I guess) isn't saying that this map is as bad as Clinton could do against Giuliani. Bowers is saying that Clinton is considered the Democrats' weakest candidate for president, and Giuliani is the Republicans' strongest. Therefore, this would be the worst election scenario for Democrats. The map is based on state-by-state polling.

Posted by Cyrus | August 23, 2007 11:38 AM

What is wrong with Connecticut?

It's filled with the kind of people who live in Connecticut.

Posted by Christmas | August 23, 2007 11:39 AM

I think many of the attacks that Mark mentions might be made during the GOP primary. If Rudy loses Iowa and New Hampshire, South Carolina is going to get nasty in a hurry. He'll sling mud at Romney and Thompson, and he'll get a bunch in return. He's probably going to get a lot body blows before Democrats even picture into the equation, and that might be why his candidacy sinks.

Posted by Unreal Veal | August 23, 2007 11:43 AM

I would be very, very surprised for CT to go for Giuliani. That's about as likely as, well, Texas going to Hillary.

Posted by M | August 23, 2007 11:46 AM

Would Lieberman conceivably campaign for someone like Rudy?

Posted by Unreal Veal | August 23, 2007 11:48 AM

Would Lieberman conceivably campaign for someone like Rudy?

Hell, yeah. Their visions for the Middle East coincide.

Posted by Davis X. Machina | August 23, 2007 11:50 AM

I just don't see Giuliani and his lisp and his New York pedigree and his multiple marriages resonating with the red staters in a positive way. And the notion that any candidate will win because he or she talks tough or seems more serious about security than someone else just isn't going to work this time. Giuliani posing as Dubya 2.0 is crazy. Here's the anti-Rudy ad: Show video of Bush reading "My Pet Goat" and looking petrified while reporting that Guiliani turned to a rescue worker (or whomever) on 9/11 and actually said "Thank God George Bush is President."

Running on a campaign of "I looked good on TV on 9/11" is not going to work.

Posted by tinisoli | August 23, 2007 11:51 AM

You misread the post, Al. Yglesias (Bowers, I guess) isn't saying that this map is as bad as Clinton could do against Giuliani. Bowers is saying that Clinton is considered the Democrats' weakest candidate for president, and Giuliani is the Republicans' strongest. Therefore, this would be the worst election scenario for Democrats. The map is based on state-by-state polling.

I don't know that I agree that Giuliani is the GOP's strongest candidate, but state-by-state polling in August of 2007 is no way to predict how this scenario would shake out in a general election a year and a half from now. The primaries haven't even started yet, and there's going to be a general election campaign, after all, and yes, those actually matter. Giuliani isn't the only candidate voters are going to get to know better - and come to like less - over the course of a general campaign. Keep in mind that the average Democratic voter is largely unaware that all three top-tier Dem candidates endorse a "residual forces" war that could last for years; do you think that won't be used in the general, in the same way that Kerry's record on Iraq was used against him in '04?

I also don't think Al's scenario is remotely implausible, especially if, say, another terrorist attack comes along, or if Bush launches a war with Iran (and Clinton responds as timidly to a new war as she has to everything else).

Posted by Christmas | August 23, 2007 11:52 AM

Clinton beats Romney in Texas and Virginia?
Are you sure?
Posted by SoCalJustice

Right now, it's all "name recognition factor".

Polls in 1980 had Teddy Kennedy crushing Reagan.

Obama, as "The Magic Articulate Negro" has gotten 3 years of intense fawning media coverage. Giuliani became America's greatest Victim-Hero from his city being targeted by Muslim combatants. America has had 16 years of Hillary exposure. Edwards had the whole last Presidential election cycle.

Romney is a governor. He doesn't get the national press like "Great Senators Do". People will know him well in time for the primaries. Same with every governor emerging from obscurity to get the nomination - Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Dubya.

Another very good one is Huckabee.

I predict Giuliani will sag as his many skeletons come out and his liberal notions stick in the mind of primary voters. And Thompson is too lazy to run. All the national buzz about what a great man he is just added a few million extra on his Law&Order contract.

Romney and Hillary. IMO.

And all the Religious Right doofuses who say they hate Romney for being Mormon and not a lifelong anti-abortion zealot? They are the same people that believe Hillary is the Devil Incarnate. More chance of Nutroots people abandoning Hillary for "lying about the Iraq war".

At this time in 1991, I imagine 1 in 20 voters knew who Bill Clinton was. Plenty of time left for Romney or Huckabee to get known, even for Obama to stop making so many blunders from inexperience and maybe stabilize his candidacy.

Posted by Chris Ford | August 23, 2007 11:53 AM

MY, this poll is meaningless. It is highly unlikely Rudy will get the GOP nomination. He would also be the weakest GOP candidate in a general election. Rudy is like a highly inflated stock. His negatives keep going up as people become familiar with his record and personal issues.

I am also not buying the argument that Romney would be the weakest GOP candidate and Hillary the weakest Dem candidate. I suspect the opposite is true. If Romney can overcome the Mormon issue he would be a strong candidate. Plus all that money. Hillary has been demonized by the Right Wing Noise Machine and in a strange way it is helping her. When people get to know her they are pleasantly surprised that she is not the Devil the GOP has claimed she was. She beats the expectations game.

Posted by DonB | August 23, 2007 11:57 AM

I would be very, very surprised for CT to go for Giuliani. That's about as likely as, well, Texas going to Hillary.

Have you ever been to Connecticut? The kind of "liberals" in much of CT are not the kind you have in, say, Massachusetts. A lot of the Dem votes in CT are coming from what used to be Rockefeller Republicans: socially liberal, economically conservative rich people who are very vulnerable to Giuliani-style appeals to fear and security. I imagine a well-managed Giuliani campaign could put the state in play, at least.

Posted by Christmas | August 23, 2007 12:00 PM

Some of the electoral results might change depending on who the VP choices are on both sides and how they complement the primary candidate. For example, Romney might pick a reliable evangelical (like Huckabee) in order to make sure the religious right doesn't stay at home. By the way, the Romney-Hillart map had Hillary winning Alabama and Mississippi. That wouldn't happen even if she ran with Strom Thurmond.

Posted by Unreal Veal | August 23, 2007 12:00 PM

Something this analysis doesn't take into account: If Giuliani wins the GOP nod, I expect to see some sort of third-party challenge from the fundy/pro-life right. I just can't believe the GOP can get away with running away from the people who made the Reagan, Gingrich and Bush victories possible. They are THE core constituency of the Republican Party. Even if the level of support is only Naderesque, it could be disastrous for Giuliani in places like CT, OH, WV, etc.

All that aside, the key feature on the above map is Virginia being blue. It's part of the generally accepted wisdom that the explosive growth of the DC metro suburbs in NoVa are purpling the state, which has led to two straight Dem governors and now a Dem Senator, but I don't think a big enough deal is made of this in terms of Presidential politics. If Virginia comes up blue, we can all go to bed early on election night. It's as simple as that.

Posted by Jake H. | August 23, 2007 12:01 PM

That said, I can't imagine Giuliani actually winning the nomination, so this discussion is fairly pointless anyway.

Posted by Christmas | August 23, 2007 12:02 PM

Much as I hate to admit it, I think that Romney would be a stronger general election candidate than Rudy. In the final analysis, Romney just has better sales skills for what the GOP is selling.

A disagreement with the map, I don't see Rudy winning my state of Kentucky at all. My right-wing students are repulsed by Rudy on abortion and I doubt he's be able to attract the "blue dog" democratic voters that any Republican would need to win here.

I'm not saying that a Republican couldn't win Kentucky. Both Romney and Thompson would be tough here. It's just that Rudy couldn't carry Kentucky.

Posted by Ric Caric | August 23, 2007 12:07 PM

One thing that you really have to look at, if the GOP really does nominate Rudy, is how many of the evangelicals, hard-line pro-lifers and other social conservative voters will just stay home on November 4th, 2008.

Dobson, for one, has threatened this more than once to encourage his ten million or so followers to sit out an election with candidates far less moderate than Rudy. Hard core pro-lifers generally won't vote for a dog catcher who's pro-choice.

The GOP analysts are counting on the base being so traumatized by the prospect of HRC in the White House. They feel that they can just go "booga-booga Hillary" and those social conservatives will be frightened into coming out to the polls. I don't see it. I'm not fan of these people but there's no way they're that stupid.

Bottom line, I think a Giuliani candidacy would mean an electoral bloodbath for the GOP in 2008 as they lose ,not just the White House, even more House and Senate seats.

Posted by Chuchundra | August 23, 2007 12:07 PM

Oops! I totally mis-read the color scheme. Never mind.

Posted by Ric Caric | August 23, 2007 12:09 PM

"Giuiliani with absolutely no scrutiny -- running as America's Mayor, with the press cheering him on -- is the closest they'll come to that, but, as I believe Matt implies, that's going to be hard to pull off, with much less-adoring coverage already starting to appear."

Guiliani's numbers can only go down as people get to know him. He has been sold to the public as "9/11 Hero". That will end as unsavory details of his record gets aired. Which is why Romney will start looking good to GOP voters.

Hillary has the opposite dynamic at work. She has been demonized for 15 years by the Right Wing Noise Machine. She has been scrutinized, investigated by partisan congressional committees and prosecutors. The accusations against her have been aired for 15 years. This gives her some immunity against GOP smears. She has been accused of everything under the sun. There is an "old news" quality to the accusations.

Posted by DonB | August 23, 2007 12:11 PM

"Obama, as "The Magic Articulate Negro" has gotten 3 years of intense fawning media coverage. Giuliani became America's greatest Victim-Hero from his city being targeted by Muslim combatants."

This is why I have strong doubts about Obama and Rudy.

Obama has never been tested. He has never had a baptism by fire. He has never been the target of sustained bad press. Like Gore was in 2000. Like the Clintons have been. I am not sure he can survive a blitzkrieg of bad press and swiftboating.

Rudy likewise has had fawning national press coverage. It is different in NY where the press reports on the Real Rudy which is why Hillary beats him easily in NY State.

I say keep your eyes on Romney. When all is said and done he will have the least baggage and the most money. Except for the Mormon issue.

Posted by DonB | August 23, 2007 12:32 PM

Re: The "worst case" is that Giuliani beats Clinton in NY, NJ, PA, FL, and VA.

Florida and Virginia I will give you. But New Jersey and Pennsylvania: no way. Both states have been trending strongly Democrat in national politics (and even at the state level) and no GOP candidate is going to play well in either next state, unless he runs by trashing George Bush in every speech more firmly than any Democrat-- but he won't because that would alienate the 25% or so of the electorate that still thinks George Bush is the Lord's Anointed.

Re: If Giuliani wins the GOP nod, I expect to see some sort of third-party challenge from the fundy/pro-life right.

Giuliani could play the States Rights card (repeal Roe vs Wade and return abortion to the states). That would satisfy a lot of pro-Lifers, and play well in the South where States Rights still evokes automatic knee jerking.

Posted by JonF | August 23, 2007 12:40 PM

Am I the only one still holding out for Brownback-Kucinich? I think they'd call the election off and hold a national Crumping/Line-Dance marathon.

Posted by Gregorio | August 23, 2007 12:44 PM

"Giuliani could play the States Rights card (repeal Roe vs Wade and return abortion to the states)."

He could but he would have to say goodbye to Connecticut and the rest of Northeast.

He would still have the gun control and gay marriage issues to deal with in red states.

I just don't see Rudy winning the GOP nomination. Sooner or later his rivals will air all that dirty laundry. There was a poll recently showing most GOP voters don't even know he is pro choice. That will change.

Posted by DonB | August 23, 2007 12:54 PM

Al, there is no way Rudy wins NY. That's just crazy.

Posted by Anderson | August 23, 2007 12:55 PM

"The press is NOT going to play up his insanity, his viciousness, his lack of knowledge or curiosity, or even his cross-dressing."

What about his GOP rivals? Are they going to treat him with kid gloves and not air all that dirty laundry?

Posted by DonB | August 23, 2007 1:03 PM

Rudy would never take NY, certainly not over Clinton. I think every poll of NY they've done has Rudy losing NY to Hillary. I don't buy PA going for Hillary over Rudy though but what do I know? I do agree as most have said that Hillary's negatives will probably go down and Rudy's go up.

Good riddance to CT. It would be nice to surround them for a couple cycles with Dem states until they realize what a mistake they made.

Posted by tom.a | August 23, 2007 1:19 PM

Before we dwell too much on the projected landslide maps for an election 14 months from today, with candidates who have yet to win their respective nominations.

Could we have a look at the same projections from this time in 2003?

I'm particularly interested if they projected victory for then Democratic frontrunner Joe Lieberman or if we should have lobbied behind Dick Gephardt instead.

Posted by Jinchi | August 23, 2007 1:31 PM

Here's MY worst case scenario: Rudy campaigns on a secret plan to win the war in Iraq and bring "peace with honor" to the ME.

I can't even type those words without laughing but it worked for Nixon in 1968. People forget he was the "peace" candidate and he had a plan, a secret plan. If he told us what it was the enemy would find out and it wouldn't work.

After 4 years and no progress...he tried it again and it worked again. (You want nightmares? Think of Norm Podhoretz playing Kissenger to Rudy's Nixon.)

So don't be thinking that the electorate will be turned off by Rudy saying he won't bring the troops home. They're (we're?) gonna fall for the "peace with honor" BS again.

Posted by spixton | August 23, 2007 1:35 PM

Since I live in Northern Virginia, I'll go with Jake H. VA will be a bellweather. But I don't think VA will be known soon enough for either party to sleep well election night. It'll come down to the wire like Allen/Webb '06.

Also, if John Warner retires and you get a Tom Davis/Mark Warner Senate race, all bets are off. Tom Davis is a popular guy up in NoVa. Unlike Gov. Kaine, Mark Warner did very well in Southside during his gubernatorial victory. They might cancel out the prevailing trends. Who knows how or if that would affect the top of the ticket?

Posted by Lynn | August 23, 2007 1:36 PM

Could we have a look at the same projections from this time in 2003?

According to Quinnipac in September 2003 Bush:

Bush - Clinton : 52 - 42
Bush - Lieberman : 52 - 41
Bush - Gephardt : 51 - 39
Bush - Kerry : 53 - 38
Bush - Dean : 53 - 38

Note the 15 point blowout over John Kerry. That dropped to a 6 point projected lead one month later.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=396

Posted by Jinchi | August 23, 2007 1:44 PM

Matt, people lie to polls about voting for a woman. Check the Northern Illinois University study, January 2007. As if a study was needed. It is a shame that if she wins -- doubtful -- we're in for four years of centrist noodling, press lunacy and a war within ten minutes of any terrorist attack, as she proves her man-like 'toughness.' Then Jeb takes over in 2012. Jeezus.

Posted by Nick | August 23, 2007 2:13 PM

"I just don't see Giuliani and his lisp and his New York pedigree and his multiple marriages resonating with the red staters in a positive way. And the notion that any candidate will win because he or she talks tough or seems more serious about security than someone else just isn't going to work this time. Giuliani posing as Dubya 2.0 is crazy."

Vitter is still popular in Louisiana.

"Have you ever been to Connecticut? The kind of "liberals" in much of CT are not the kind you have in, say, Massachusetts."

Speaking as a Masshole liberal, fuck Connecticut.

Posted by Reality Man | August 23, 2007 2:19 PM

"it worked for Nixon in 1968."

You are overlooking one big difference; Vietnam was a Dem war. LBJ was the incumbent Dem president.

Iraq is a GOP war. A republican president launched the war and botched it.

Posted by DonB | August 23, 2007 2:20 PM

"Vitter is still popular in Louisiana."

Vitter is a Dobsonite with a far right record on guns, gays, abortion.

Posted by DonB | August 23, 2007 2:26 PM

I do agree as most have said that Hillary's negatives will probably go down

This belief terrifies me. If she's the nominee, I hope we're at a place where the larger national mood means that it won't matter. But I think it's going to be closer than people think with Clinton on board.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | August 23, 2007 2:32 PM

If Chris Ford thinks Reagan was an obscure ex-governor in 1980, that says more about him than reality. Reagan was about as known a quantity as a non-incumbent can get--he'd been a national figure for decades.

Posted by jlw | August 23, 2007 2:46 PM

Vitter is a Dobsonite with a far right record on guns, gays, abortion.

And a *proven* heterosexual, no less. Louisianans like that in a politician.

Posted by Anderson | August 23, 2007 2:48 PM

I often wonder if there's a type of Bradley effect (but for women instead of Blacks) going on with Hillary, but it's possible the reverse is true--that a lot of conservatives hate Iraq and aren't comfortable voting for a third Bush term with Giuliani, so they might vote for Hillary but don't want to admit that, even to themselves. They might be holding out hope for Romney and insist they will vote for the Republican, but find themselves unable to pull the lever for Rudy. I have no data to support this--really, the only data would be to compare polls to election results on November 5, 2008.

I don't think Romney will emerge as the GOP nominee and here's why: he has a lot of money and a lot of support in the early states, but I don't think that will matter. Romney is simply not too popular with the grassroots Republicans, who see him as a closeted liberal, flip-flopper, panderer and, most importantly, a Massachussetts Mormon. Most of the hard-core conservatives I know dismiss him out of hand for his religion, which they consider to be a cult. His standing in SC is abysmal right now, and if he can't win in the South, he has no chance to be President if he's running as a Republican. Unless the GOP base accepts him, he won't win, regardless of what those easily-influenced Iowans and quirky New Hampshirites have to say about the matter.

Posted by Lev | August 23, 2007 2:51 PM

"I don't think Romney will emerge as the GOP nominee and here's why: he has a lot of money and a lot of support in the early states, but I don't think that will matter. Romney is simply not too popular with the grassroots Republicans,"

Romney may win by default, by being the least objectionable.

Rudy - Serial adulterer on his third marriage, pro gun control, pro choice, pro gays.

McCain - The GOP base is not into him.

Thompson - Too old. Trophy wife adds an ick factor.

Posted by DonB | August 23, 2007 3:25 PM

Re: Then Jeb takes over in 2012. Jeezus.

Jeb Bush is increasingly looking like a failure as governor of Florida, given that he left the state in a big old mess in multiple ways, which his successor, Charlie Crist, is having to fix by means of some very un-Republican-like policies (and even less GOP-sounding rhetoric). Jeb Bush will be no more popular in memory than his brother George in a couple more years-- well-thought of by nostalgists on the right perhaps, but a very big has-been otherwise.

Posted by JonF | August 23, 2007 8:16 PM

Guiliani has so many scandals surrounding him that I think his campaign will likely meltdown sometime next year. There was a reason why he wasn't nominated to the Homeland Security post after 9-11 (its not like Tom Ridge was that great). If I'm mistaken and he does get elected, it will probably be through massive vote fraud.

I agree that the weakest general election candidate for the Democrats, weaker than even Biden or Gravel, is probably Hilary Clinton. The strongest Republican candidate is Fred Thompson. Yes, he has a repuation for being lazy and something of a lightweight. But his record in government is really not weaker than any of the other leading candidates. Eight years in the Senate with little of substance passed, and no other elected office, puts him even with Hilary, Obama, and Edwards; Romney and Guiliani never held federal office and Romney didn't accomplish all that much in Massachussets, in fact the candidates this round with the strongest experience are probably the fringe candidates in both parties. Thompson can rally the GOP base without seeming too threatening to moderates, and his personality wears well.

Going back one hundred years, the popular vote margin of the presidential party has always shrunk when it has tried to hold on to the White House the third time in a row, and there are hard reasons for that that should pertain next cycle. The Republicans don't have a big margin to work with. Really there only hope is to get Thompson to run the table on the red states, or somehow pull off victories in Oregon and Maine to offset the loss of Ohio while holding on everywhere else.

Posted by Ed | August 23, 2007 10:27 PM

Seeing how Ohio is turning dark dark blue, I don`t see a Guiliani win there.

Posted by profbacon | August 24, 2007 12:55 AM