Rudy's Relative Unpopularity

It occurs to me that a lot of the semi-baffled discussion of how Rudy Giuliani's been able to maintain his lead in national GOP primary polls has a tendency to implicitly overstate Rudy's actual level of support. His lead is real, and since the McCain Collapse has been consistently pretty large, but in absolute terms he's not a very popular choice for Republicans — only able to gain support from more than a third of Republicans for a brief and transient moment. Even though Giuliani's strong showing has surprised a lot of people, I don't think anyone would have been especially shocked two or seven years ago by the contention that 25 percent or so of Republicans aren't especially committed to the abortion issue. Rudy's lead is perfectly consistent with only a tiny number of actual "values voters" actually deciding that perpetual war is more important to them than banning abortion of persecuting gays and lesbians.

Meanwhile, the same considerations highlight the continued underlying weakness of Giuliani's candidacy. The graph seems to suggest that there's a reasonably firm ceiling on Giuliani's potential level of support. Ordinarily, what you'd expect to see happen is for various other contenders to drop out of the race as the primary season continues eventually leading to the emergence of an Anti-Rudy who picks up something like the combined McCain-Romney-Thompson-Huckabee vote in the current national polls (Ron Paul's clearly running a protest campaign and can be expected to stay in 'till the end) and wins the race. There's a question as to whether quirks of the process this year and the compressed schedule can prevent that from happening, but the basic reality is still that Giuliani's lead has more to do with the large number of flawed rivals in the field than with any overwhelming strength on his part.

Comments

I agree, but I still think that once he gives them right-wing activist judges like Scalia and Thomas, Alito and Roberts, what else is there?

Posted by bob | October 29, 2007 4:40 PM

Just think if abortion were banned and homosexuals were somehow thoroughly marginalized, stripped of all rights and driven permanently underground. A Republican could skip all the pandering and fast talking and go straight to running on an "All war, all the time" platform and likely be elected president.

Posted by steve duncan | October 29, 2007 4:41 PM

Ordinarily, what you'd expect to see happen is for various other contenders to drop out of the race as the primary season continues eventually leading to the emergence of an Anti-Rudy who picks up something like the combined McCain-Romney-Thompson-Huckabee vote in the current national polls

This assumes that the McCain-Romney-Thompson-Huckabee voters would go to an anti-Rudy candidate when their candidate drops out, rather than to Rudy. What makes you think that? Last I saw, Rudy was the second place choice of voters for all those candidates.

Posted by Al | October 29, 2007 4:42 PM

"The graph seems to suggest that there's a reasonably firm ceiling on Giuliani's potential level of support."

The question becomes one of whether or not the delegate selection methods permit a plurality candidate to win the nomination.

Or put another way, how many winner-take-all primaries contribute to the delegate selection.

If all the primaries are winner-take-all, a plurality candidate is just fine. If none of the primaries are winner-take-all, as things are on the Democratic side, a plurality candidate can be stopped.

I haven't read anyone crunching the numbers on the GOP delegate selection process yet.

-----

FWIW, I think the prediction markets are way off on the GOP side. I'd be selling Romeny-Giuliani and buying Thompson-McCain-Huckabee at current prices.

Posted by Petey | October 29, 2007 4:53 PM

Matt, I think you are basically right about this. But Rudy is very strong on one of the "values voters" issues: Islamofascism. The issue is nonsense, of course, but the "values voters" take it very seriously. In the 2008 election, I think it will be the primary issue for the "values voters." After all, these people seriously believe that a few thousand militants are capable of defeating every military in the world and will seize control of the entire world and outlaw Christianity. For them, it is an existential threat. Rudy doesn't gain much traction with Islamofascism now because his opponents are mostly as crazy as he is. But when it comes down to a Rudy-Hillary contest, the "values voters" will line up behind Rudy because he talks their language.

Posted by fostert | October 29, 2007 4:53 PM

"This assumes that the McCain-Romney-Thompson-Huckabee voters would go to an anti-Rudy candidate when their candidate drops out, rather than to Rudy. What makes you think that?"

The concept is that some of Giuliani's weak spots are going to be probed during the next 3 months.

And that low information Republican voters are consequently going to know some things about him that they currently don't know.

I think Rudy '08 has a lot of parallels to Dean '04. The only question for me is whether or not the delegate selection process will allow him to become a plurality nominee if he doesn't implode.

I don't think he has a particularly good chance of being a majority candidate, although it's not utterly out of the question.

Posted by Petey | October 29, 2007 4:57 PM

It's odd. I completely know his name is "Romney", but I can't get my fingers to stop spelling "Romeny".

Posted by Petey | October 29, 2007 5:06 PM

Petey,

I think you are right here. I think his support is probably quite shallow. He is really a one issue candidate whose lead is based on a sort of vaguely positive patina of national coverage - call it the "Time Magazine cover story" campaign effect. Dean flamed out ultimately because he didn't really seem to care about many issues beyond opposing the "Beltway Dems"/Iraq War. Giuliani's problem is similar: he does not really offer much conviction on anything except that he hates terrorists. I also sense that candidates like Romney and also Huckabee are (quietly) running much more effective campaigns - both on a persoanl "retail politics" level and on organizational level. After all, the WSJ journal editorial board is not the average GOP voter in many primary states and does not have any ability to organize a caucus or a GOTV drive.

AND he is currently losing in NH and Iowa to Romney. Michigan and Nevada are neck and neck - with Romney - which isn't good as I'd have to say Romney has stronger structural advantages in both states. I also think the voting population of rank-and-file MI Republicans is not a good profile for Giuliani. The Mormonism in Nevada is a huge advantage for Romney, ESPECIALLY considering it is a caucus not a primary.

I'm not saying Romney is a slam dunk candidate either - not by any means. But I would say he is at least as likely as Giuliani as winning the nomination. One could make good money betting on Mitt right now.

Posted by Ben P | October 29, 2007 5:15 PM

Petey,

I do, however, disagree with you on Fred Thompson. He reminds me of Wes Clark on the Democratic side in '04. His is a candidacy that looks great on paper but is ultimately untenable in real life.

Posted by Ben P | October 29, 2007 5:17 PM

As to McCain, his problem is money combined with the nature of the primary schedule.

He HAS to win an early primary/caucus to breathe life into his campaign, thus enabling him to look a plausible winner, thus to generate funds to continue - and so on goes the virtuous circle. However, McCain is currently trapped in a different vicious circle currently.

His only hope, IMO, is New Hampshire. If he doesn't at least post a strong second in NH, his campaign is over - literally I believe.

Posted by Ben P | October 29, 2007 5:21 PM

"I do, however, disagree with you on Fred Thompson. He reminds me of Wes Clark on the Democratic side in '04. His is a candidacy that looks great on paper but is ultimately untenable in real life."

All three of the Thompson-McCain-Huckabee troika have significant weaknesses. But I do think one of them will emerge as The Southern Candidate and eventually challenge the Romney-Giuliani bracket winner for the nomination.

I've got no clue of which one of the troika it'll be, but I'm not writing off Thompson off quite yet. Unlike Clark, he's run a race before. He could eventually find his groove.

(Though, of course, if one of the Northern candidates can steal South Carolina in impressive fashion, all bets are off.)

Posted by Petey | October 29, 2007 5:24 PM

McCain as "southern candidate"?

Posted by Ben P | October 29, 2007 5:27 PM

"McCain as "southern candidate?"

Yup. Nixon and Reagan were both The Southern Candidate too.

Posted by Petey | October 29, 2007 5:29 PM

I don't think you can read that poll as showing a ceiling of support for Giuliani. There over a half dozen Republican candidates right now and he's getting a consistent ~30% of the vote in polls.

Is Hillary Clinton's ceiling 50%? Is Obama's 25%?

The question you need to ask is would you ever vote for Giuliani, not is Giuliani your favorite candidate now.

Posted by Jinchi | October 29, 2007 5:33 PM

In this regard, I think McCain can't fulfill this role as he goes against this element of the primary electorate on a fundamental issue - immigration.

I think McCain's religion quotient is decent, but then again, not as good as Huckabee's.

BTW, I think Giuliani's "religion quotient" IS a serious impediment to his candidacy - If not in the primary, than in the GE. He makes John Kerry look like the Pope. That's going to be a problem that I think a very skilled political outfit like HRC's is going to exploit effectively.

Giuliani will make some Northeastern states closer, but he does the same with a much larger swath of heartland Bush states. The early polling suggests this - check out GE numbers from Virginia, NC, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri in particular. AND - at the end of the day - he doesn't give the GOP hope of winning the big cornerstones of the Dem coalition - California or NY.

Posted by Ben P | October 29, 2007 5:34 PM

"In this regard, I think McCain can't fulfill this role as he goes against this element of the primary electorate on a fundamental issue - immigration."

As stated, I think all three of the Thompson-McCain-Huckabee troika have significant weaknesses.

We haven't mentioned Huckabee, but the economic conservatives detest him, and he can't raise big money.

But I still think one of the troika will eventually emerge to be one the Final Two Standing.

Posted by Petey | October 29, 2007 5:39 PM

There is an interesting artlicle in New York Times Magazine about evangelican Christians leaving GOP or at least modifying their political positions. Disenchantment with war, the issue of medical insurance or the lack of it, threats to Social Security

Whatever the reasons, it seems that the value voters either

move to Independents and will not participate in GOP primaries

still support the war, stay with GOP, and seek a leader that is a real piece of work, a mad junkyard dog, and among serious candidates, only Guliani fits that description.

Which leads to the following question: what is the hierarchy of values of value voters? Did they bash gays because they are declared abomination in Leviticus (is it Leviticus), or because it expresses their need to find culprits for their insecurities?

If you want to righteusly pile up on some folks, and you are not too choosy, Guliani is your guy. When he goes against drunk drivers, he confiscates cars without due process. When he goes against ferrets, fur is flying. So it can be believed to attack the problem of Islamofascist with the same dedication and zeal as he applied to squegee men, drunken drivers, or, less successfully, jaywalkers.

The particulars are perhaps different from your average value voter (jaywalkers? jay---what? are some people still walking?), but the attitude is a perfect match. Huckabee tries to be a leaders for value voters with more mellow personality. The results are underwhelming.

Posted by piotr | October 29, 2007 6:30 PM

I like to speculate about Rudy's chances myself, but I think it's important to remember that we, as liberals/progressives/whatevers, probably have very little insight into what motivates Republican voters, especially the Values crowd.

Posted by Jason C. | October 29, 2007 6:45 PM

"I think it's important to remember that we, as liberals/progressives/whatevers, probably have very little insight into what motivates Republican voters, especially the Values crowd."

What do you mean "we", Kemosabe? Politics is politics. Coalitions are coalitions. Delegate counts are delegate counts.

I may not be a Values Voter, but I can see where the troops are lined up on their side of the aisle.

Posted by Petey | October 29, 2007 6:58 PM

It's odd. I completely know his name is "Romney", but I can't get my fingers to stop spelling "Romeny".

It's probably because he has the same sort of attitude towards fixed, permanent positions on issues that the Roma have towards fixed, permanent domiciles. He's the Gypsy-Candidate.

Posted by ANM | October 29, 2007 8:12 PM

We haven't mentioned Huckabee, but the economic conservatives detest him, and he can't raise big money.

As long as you're talking negatives for the Huckster, don't forget that the nativists don't like him much either. He's spoken out before in favor of letting illegal immigrants with jobs and without criminal records start down the path of US citizenship (what opponents call "amnesty") - that doesn't endear him to the nativist crowd at all. They seem to hate him almost, but not quite, as much as the Club for Growth (and I think they're the reason that the religious right hasn't gelled around Huckabee as a candidate - too much overlap between the nativist and religious right voter base).

I don't think any of McCain/Huckabee/Thompson have a snowball's chance of making it into the final two - my money's still on Romney vs. Giulianni for that matchup. But I'm notoriously bad at reading these things - I was fairly certain that McCain was going to be the candidate in 2000.

Posted by NonyNony | October 29, 2007 9:38 PM

NonyNony is correct. If Huckabee or McCain have an iota of a chance to get the nomination, then why didn't the full amnesty or the Dream Act mini amnesty get passed any of those times?

Posted by pjgoober | October 29, 2007 10:34 PM

I think that people that underestimate Giuliani underestimate how strong national security paranoia is and even more so how much of a grasp on their psyche Rudy has thanks to Sept. 11.

My bet right now is that social conservatives won't unite, because Romney and Huckabee are going to emerge as the competing alternatives. I think Huckabee can run for a long time even though he's only going to be a spoiler. His positioning right now makes a perfect complement to Giuliani inthe VP spot.

PS. I wouldn't classify McCain as a southern candidate. I would classify him as Giuliani light. The difference again is that when voters think of McCain they think a tough policy on Iraq, but when they think Giuliani they think a tough policy on terrorism; and viewing this whole fubar situation we are in as an actual war on terror is the mistaken worldview that unites Republicans.

Posted by Nick Kaufman | October 30, 2007 12:54 AM

BenP - He is really a one issue candidate whose lead is based on a sort of vaguely positive patina of national coverage - call it the "Time Magazine cover story" campaign effect. Dean flamed out ultimately because he didn't really seem to care about many issues beyond opposing the "Beltway Dems"/Iraq War. Giuliani's problem is similar: he does not really offer much conviction on anything except that he hates terrorists. I also sense that candidates like Romney and also Huckabee are (quietly) running much more effective campaigns - both on a persoanl "retail politics" level and on organizational level.

Excellent analysis.

Rudy, Romney, and Huckabee are the candidates with executive experience. Both Huckabee and Romney - if you look at one thing that graph shows well, have steady, growing strength as possibilities.

Rudy - if you look at his past - had inspiring successes as US Attorney, and as Mayor - but also some major crash&burns. And a messy personal life. I think his campaign shows it. Much of his dominance has to do with his high media recognition factor mainly on his - accidental ascent and MSM glorification for two solid years as Mr. 9/11, Our Evildoer-fighting Hero, and Greatest Mayor.

Republicans like Huckabee's naturalness and likeability. But the guy raided taxes 43% and is supportive of 3rd world mass invasion and sanctuary in the US as McCain and Giuliani.

Romney is in trouble with certain voters on religion and authenticity - but looks to be making progress squaring things on God, guns, and abortion with the Religious Right. They can't bitch that he doesn't have clean personal life. Even more than Giuliani, he has a reputation for getting things that he finds broke down - turned around and made to work well.

And America, IMO, is broke down in some areas, breaking down in others....and I want someone that can fix things able to match up against Hillary and give voters a real choice on how America gets repaired in the next 4-8 years. And unfortunately, Rudy just promises to be BushII Plus. More wars, more doing what Israel & Wall Street wants, more law enforcement.

Romney, when he can get away from his obligatory butt-schmooching of Evangelicals, value voters, and "More military action! jingoists", actually has a large number of proposals and programs I'd like to see aired out, picked over in the general election against what Hillary has to offer, by people like Gingrich and Russert. Starting with his proposal for a Strategic Audit of the entire Federal Government to see what waste, fraud, and duplication of services can be weeded out...and his alternate health care proposal to Hillary's.

I want real choices. Not some Republican wanting to go back to 1980 to address 2008 problems. Not Obama's empty suit "inspirational aphorisms"...and not Hillary! getting away with "Trust me, I'm a seasoned executive by proxy and all you need to know about my programs is they will all work fine, and I'm a woman and I'm ready."

Posted by Chris Ford | October 30, 2007 3:54 AM

Kaufman - I think Huckabee can run for a long time even though he's only going to be a spoiler. His positioning right now makes a perfect complement to Giuliani inthe VP spot.

He would add to a Romney ticket too, but not as much so as the "Omni Domni, away with your past sins!" blessing Huckabee would be for strayed from the flock Rudy.

Other interesting people await as options.

McCain is too old, IMO, but others see him as a VP that would compliment Rudy and Romney's lack of military and foreign affairs background.

The best ex-Governor, well-respected by most, great in a half dozen major disasters, and from a Southern swing state - unfortunately has the last name "Bush". It would take real balls to pick him up, but after the Nutroots people were scraped off the ceiling - maybe he would be a better pick than those who call him radioactive for the sins of his brother, know.

A few people in the Romney camp have talked of Hailey Barbour of Mississippi, who did a great job in Katrina, and is well-respected as former GOP national head as well as Gov.

There have also been some discussions by Romney, and McCain (before he melted down on immigration and Reps being fed up with his regular press conferences with Teddy, Schumer, and 2-3 RINOs of his latest backroom compromise) of a Centrist Democrat being offered Republican VP as a symbol of Republicans hope to return to bipartisanship - with Ken Salazar's name the most intriguing.

Posted by Chris Ford | October 30, 2007 4:33 AM

Re: The best ex-Governor, well-respected by most, great in a half dozen major disasters, and from a Southern swing state - unfortunately has the last name "Bush".

You've got to be kidding! I lieve in Florida and from what I can see Jeb Bush's "success" was based mainly on coasting on previous good times while he did his best to sweep slowly festering problems under the rug. His successor, Charlie Crist, has been left to clean up the mess, and quite a mess it is. Add to that Bush's incompetence at dealing with the state legislature which, though dominated by his party, set new records for dysfunction and bizarre behavior during his terms. And of course his ceaseless pandering to the religious right (can you say Terri Schiavo)? Jeb looks good compared to his brother, but that's a test almost anyone could pass. But here in Florida the Bush bill has come due and it's shocker.

Posted by JonF | October 30, 2007 1:50 PM