Life and Electability

Marc Ambinder notes the head of the Iowa Christian Alliance bashing Rudy Giuliani: "We’re not going to beat Hillary Clinton with someone who has a record of agreement with her on abortion, gay marriage, illegal immigration and many other issues important to Iowa conservatives." And Garance Franke-Ruta has the head of Iowa Right-to-Life bashing Rudy Giuliani: "We certainly would not like Giuliani to win because he’s anti-life and he’s a sure loser for the Republican Party."

It's interesting to see the non-Robertson (less crazy?) elements of the religious right trying to take this electability argument by the horns. Almost all the Democrats I know think these people are wrong and Giuliani would be the strongest GOP nominee. It still seems to me, though, that Giuliani is pretty likely to prompt a spoiler candidacy, especially if he somehow manages to win with the 30-35 percent he's currently pulling in the polls.

Comments

I still haven't seen anyone break down the delegate allocation methods for the GOP primaries, but I'll still note without that crucial info that I think it'd be next to impossible for Giuliani to get 51% of the delegates with 30% of the primary votes.

AFAIK, most GOP primaries are not winner-take-all.

Posted by Petey | November 9, 2007 7:50 AM

"Almost all the Democrats I know think these people are wrong and Giuliani would be the strongest GOP nominee."

If Giuliani can survive the obvious general election attacks on his character, then he'd be a strong nominee. But I think there's a decent chance he'd be destroyable, in which case, he wouldn't be a strong general election candidate at all.

Much as the GOP attacked Kerry on his strong suit - Vietnam - a smart Democratic Party could successfully attack Giuliani on 9/11.

And assuming the Dems don't nominate Clinton, Giuliani would also have severe weaknesses on character grounds.

McCain seems easily the strongest general election candidate they have. If Thompson ever gets his act together enough to win the nomination, he also seems a more difficult candidate to run against than Giuliani. And while I don't think Huckabee is nominatable, he'd also be more difficult to run against.

-----

And more broadly, why do folks have so much trouble wrapping their minds around the fact that Northern candidates run at a severe disadvantage in Presidential general elections? It's the single strongest and most immutable law predicting success over the past several generations.

You'd think folks who follow politics might start noticing it at some point.

Posted by Petey | November 9, 2007 8:06 AM

especially if he somehow manages to win with the 30-35 percent he's currently pulling in the polls

I still don't see why Matthew thinks this may be the case. Either Mathew believes that none of the other candidates will drop out, or he believes that all of the supporters of the non-Rudy candidates will vote for another non-Rudy candidate when their preferred choice drops out. As I recall, Matthew said he believes the latter. But I have no idea why Matthew believes that. The pollong I've seen shows that Rudy is the second choice of voters of each and every one of the other top tier candidates. When Fred drops out, a plurality (maybe even a majority) of the current Fred voters will be going to Rudy, not to Romney or McCain. So of course Rudy is not getting a majority of the voters when there is a 4 or 5 person race. But as candidates drop out, Rudy's percentage will inevitably go up.

Posted by Al | November 9, 2007 8:21 AM

I agree with Petey. I think Giuliani is vulnerable on 9/11, vulnerable on crime-fighting (check today's papers to see why), and has a massive "weirdness factor." Plus his views on foreign policy, particularly on Iraq and Iran, are way, way outside the mainstream. I think the Democrats would beat Giuliani like a drum. I hope the GOP nominates him.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | November 9, 2007 8:22 AM

Giuliani will be formidable candidate, especially if he is up against Hilary, because he might put some northern blue states in play without losing any of the solid republican states. Don’t know what happens in Ohio and Florida though. In any case, no democrat could destroy him on his social positions because dems by in large them. As MY pointed the only silver lining is that Giuliani might prompt a spoiler candidacy by a 'real' conservative, in which case he is toast.

Posted by 2cynicalbyhalf | November 9, 2007 8:23 AM

Isn't the (weak) case for Giuliani's formidabiity premised entirely on the assumption that Hillary will be nominated.

Even discounting the character issues, it isn't obvious to me why he would match up well at all against Edwards or Obama. My guess is that the divisiveness of his approach to the issues would easily overwhelm the positives of his experience.

Posted by southpaw | November 9, 2007 8:31 AM

pardon the mispunctuation

Posted by southpaw | November 9, 2007 8:32 AM

"In any case, no democrat could destroy him on his social positions because dems by in large them."

Since "strong" Rudy has come right out and promised to abandon his principles when it comes to things he believes, I think that Democrats could use those issues against him. He has said he will appoint judges who disagree with him on abortion and gay rights. Not only can they run against him on the issues, they can exploit his manifestly weak character.

Rudy's "I believe in abortion rights and I believe that I am wrong." stance is even more ripe for mockery than Kerry's $87 million dollar stance.

Posted by Njorl | November 9, 2007 8:43 AM

Guiliani wants to appoint more Scalias to the Supreme Court. What more could the anti-abortion crowd want from a President? If they want to destroy Guiliani's slim chance to win by running a 3rd party candidate, that would be the best thing that the Democratic nominee could ever hope for.

Posted by Ron | November 9, 2007 9:22 AM

Matthew: Almost all the Democrats I know think these people are wrong and Giuliani would be the strongest GOP nominee.
And then: Giuliani will be formidable candidate, especially if he is up against Hilary, because he might put some northern blue states in play without losing any of the solid republican states.

What northern states is he going to put into play? New York? He's not gonna win New York, or any of the Northeastern states.

There's a strange sense I have that D's are wanting and hoping for a Guilani candidacy on the theory that that will eliminate social issues from the election or cause the nation to embrace the nation; and they're willing to risk the man becoming President if that's what it takes. (You can see how well that worked with 'compassionate conservatism'.)

That's a fatal misunderstanding of the nation; the nation may be trending left in social issue terms, but they're still far more socially conservative than NYC or DC. There's gonna will be four main issues: the war, the economy, immigration and everything else.

Whomever gets to the left on the war, the middle on the economy and the right on immigration and splits even on everything else wins. Because they can move that middle 15% to their column.

The end.

max
['Guilani is the Unity '08 candidate.']

Posted by max | November 9, 2007 9:42 AM

"What northern states is he going to put into play? New York? He's not gonna win New York, or any of the Northeastern states."

His best bet would probably be Connecticut. They went for Liieberman, and the commuters probably liked Rudy's tactics. That's still a long shot, and not a big state.

Posted by Njorl | November 9, 2007 9:52 AM

What northern states is he going to put into play?

Besides CT, I was thinking NJ. Maybe PA.

Posted by 2cynicalbyhalf | November 9, 2007 9:59 AM

Rudy will deal with a spoiler candidacy by pre-empting and letting faux-spoilers get on the ballot early then drop out.

This is a tried and true method.

Posted by Comment | November 9, 2007 10:30 AM

Rudy scares me as not only is he himself crazy but he's a good candidate: he handles interviews well, gave a well recieved speech in the RNC convention, and has done well in the debates. If a third party candidacy doesn't pop his centrist social positions may become a positive for him in the general election. Combine that with his known willingness to use dirt and get in bed with some sinister folks, he could be tough to beat if he's surrounded by that delusional 9/11 aura around him.

Posted by Pioneer10 | November 9, 2007 10:34 AM

"Almost all the Democrats I know think these people are wrong and Giuliani would be the strongest GOP nominee."

As M.Y. says, at this point there's really no way to tell how strong Rudy will be. I could see him being a very strong candidate, capable of winning where no Republican has in a long time. I could also see him being a fairly weak candidate, losing the anti-choice vote and getting swift-boated on his 9/11 fuckups.

What scares me about Giuliani is that he makes things unpredictable. We simply don't know how a Northern, pro-choice Republican nominee will affect the electoral dynamics. It could be a huge boon to the GOP, or it could be the stupidest thing they ever did.

Compare, e.g., Hillary vs. Fred Thompson. The dynamics in this race would be broadly similar to those of 2004. This might sound like a bad thing, but remember (a) the political landscape is much more favorable now (no incumbent, people have turned on the war, etc.) and (b) Hillary is probably a smarter candidate than Kerry, and Thompson is probably a worse candidate than Bush. If this is the basic framework, I like our chances.

Giuliani launches us into undiscovered territory.

Posted by Jason C. | November 9, 2007 10:43 AM

We simply don't know how a Northern, pro-choice Republican nominee will affect the electoral dynamics

And that's why Giuliani is not running as a Northern, pro-choice Republican.

He's running as a Southerner. (Barely) dog-whistle racism, authoritarianism, foreign adventurism, and three more Scalias on the bench.

I expect to see Amadou Diallo on Giuliani's own ads long before he appears on a Democratic ad.

Posted by Davis X. Machina | November 9, 2007 11:28 AM

My two problems with the Hillary/Rudy head-to-head come down to what people really know about Rudy and how he's filling in his own story now. He's the ultimate example of someone who looks worse the more people get to know him. His closet is so full of skeletons both personal and political, that there's actually a risk of there being too much dirt to throw at him, possibly overwhelming the electorate and causing a sympathy backlash. Second, he's running so far to the right to get the nomination that the view the average person has of him as a moderate Republican is as outdated as McCain as maverick. All the Rep.s have tacked so far to the right in the primaries they'll make it awfully hard to convince the general electorate their not raving loonies. My hope is that this is the cycle where the Republican nominee is the one being constantly knocked back by allegations. Don't we know all the dirt on Hillary already? Heck the fact she's a lesbian is old hat. At least she's showing good taste in her choice for an affair.

Posted by JZ | November 9, 2007 11:32 AM

My two problems with the Hillary/Rudy head-to-head come down to what people really know about Rudy and how he's filling in his own story now. He's the ultimate example of someone who looks worse the more people get to know him. His closet is so full of skeletons both personal and political, that there's actually a risk of there being too much dirt to throw at him, possibly overwhelming the electorate and causing a sympathy backlash. Second, he's running so far to the right to get the nomination that the view the average person has of him as a moderate Republican is as outdated as McCain as maverick. All the Rep.s have tacked so far to the right in the primaries they'll make it awfully hard to convince the general electorate their not raving loonies. My hope is that this is the cycle where the Republican nominee is the one being constantly knocked back by allegations. Don't we know all the dirt on Hillary already? Heck the fact she's a lesbian is old hat. At least she's showing good taste in her choice for an affair. More than we can say for her rivals or husband.

Posted by JZ | November 9, 2007 11:32 AM

Rudy would be the strongest general election candidate for the GOP, by far.

The general public knows two things about him: he made New York livable, and he's the hero of 9/11. Democrat attacks on these issues won't be believed, because "everyone knows" these two things are true.

Even more important, the media environment is very favorable toward Rudy right now and extremely negative toward Hillary. Rudy has Fox News locked up, Chris Matthews has a man-crush on him, and he is generally portrayed as "honest" despite his frequent lies. When calculating Hillary is pitted against honest Rudy (you may not agree, but at least you know where he stands!)-- I fear the outcome.

Posted by Algernon | November 11, 2007 2:36 PM