Hillary Candidacy Gains Support
The latest poll from Rasmussen Reports shows that Hillary remains a serious contender for 2008; 31% of those polled said they would definitely vote for Hillary if she ran (balanced, however, against 38% who would definitely vote against), and 42% say she is liberal, a figure that, while high, is the lowest recorded by the Rasmussen survey. I’ve said it so much I’m a broken record on this subject, but we (and Democratic challengers, as well) ignore Hillary at our own peril…
Can anyone honestly tell me that they believe Billary would defeat either Rudy Giuliani or John McCain the in general election?
If I were allowed to chose our DemocRATic opponent in 2008, I would chose her. I can list 31 states she has no chance of winning off the top of my head- and if Rudy’s the nominee, there goes New York.
There are DemocRATic canidates to fear. But Billary is not one of them.
Bij – The only problem with that analysis is that it is certainly no forgone conclusion that McCain or Giuliani will be the Republican nominee. You saw what happened to McCain against Bush in South Carolina – a socially moderate Republican (and Giuliani’s a social LIBERAL) can get seriously smeared in the South. And with folks like George Allen or Sam Brownback likely to run, there’s a real chance the GOP will be profoundly stupid come 2008. And if that’s the case, I see no way that a cookie-cutter, Red state party hack could possibly beat Hillary. On the issue where the GOP has a real advantage (national defense), Hillary just plain won’t be that weak.
I’ll reiterate that it’s way to soon to make any hard and fast predictions, but the nature of the primary schedule makes it awfully likely that by late 2007 we’ll have a very short list of Democratic and Republican frontrunners that will include the eventual nominees for both parties. If a candidate hasn’t lined up a hefty bloc of support by then, s/he won’t have time to do so during the primary season itself.
Hillary seems to be far ahead of any other Democrats, but I don’t think her nomination is a done deal. Democrats have a history of rejecting “inevitable” candidates, although frontloading will definitely work in her favor. In some ways she’s the Democrats’ version of McCain: a fair amount of appeal to independents, but deeply disliked by a large portion of the base.
No disrespect to Ryan, but I think HRC is quite vulnerable on the security issue (among others) in the general election. Somebody, I can’t remember who, noted that while Bill was the instigator of all that sexual scandals that tarnished his presidency, Hillary’s fingerprints were on most of the financial scandals. That certainly includes selling military hi-tech to the Chinese. When a staffer raised the issue of compromising national security, Hillary proclaimed that national security was an “outdated concern.” (I know that Rich Lowry gives the source for that quote in Legacy.) Possibly Giuliani can overcome the baggage of his less than sterling personal life, but Hillary has a ton of baggage with real political significance, and I doubt that she’s going to be able to leave it behind.
I have to agree with Ryan.
If Bush’s approval rating at the time of the 2008 are in the 40% range or lower, he will pose a serious drag to the Republican ticket. And our economy is currently being propped up by the housing bubble, which probably will burst by 2008 (do you really think home prices will double AGAIN in the next 4 years), which could lead to rescession. In that environment, a candidate like George Allen (a yes man to Bush in the Senate) will get saddled with Bush’s negatives and will not be able to beat Hillary.
On the other hand, Rudy can campaign on his own record of turning around New York City, which would minimize the problems the Republican ticket will face in 2008 if we are in an economic downturn. Plus, Rudy is a charismatic and likeable guy (I’ve never heard him speak, but others on this website who have weren’t too impressed, if I’m not mistaken).
I think Sean is right on the point of Rudy running as his own man. Hillary’s most dramatic asset is the fact that by 2008, she’ll have been in the public eye for 16 years. Normally I’d say a candidate who had 38 percent of the voters definitely voting against her this early in the game has no chance, but Hillary’s a known quantity, so it’s unlikely her negatives will climb much higher.
So if you put her up against a comparatively unknown Republican who is running as Dubya 2.0, the race becomes all about her; she gets fervent support to go with the fervent opposition. And the GOP nominee becomes a cardboard cutout who can get hit with Bush fatigue. That’s not the case if the Republicans nominate a well-known star of their own, particularly one who can point to something voters like, such as cleaning up New York, as opposed to something reporters like, such as being a ready source of “maverick” quotes.
Thanks for your reply Ryan. Great points.
One of the biggest problems that I have with this early speculation is that most people do not factor in fundraising into the equation when talking about the eventual nominee. The race for the Republican nomination is really the race to $150,000,000. Whoever is leading the money race will win.
Dubya is the all-time king of fundraising (God love him)! But Rudy Giuliani has a chance to take his crown in 2008. Can you think of anyone who will be able to raise more money than Rudy? I can’t. Combine that with the sneakin’ suspicion that we will meet an all-new Rudy on social issues in 2007, and you get your next Republican nominee.
I was at the Polk County Republican get together last weekend (the one where Huckabee made the speech that is teeing off the libral blogs right now) and I spoke with some higher ups in the IA Republican party. They LOVE Rudy. And I mean LOVE him. All he has to do is say he’s had a change of heart and the nomination is his. Republican WANT to believe Rudy.
The case for McCain is a little murkier. He will have no problems raising money either. But how can he mend fences with his base? This is how I think McCain wins the nomination: He is able to appeal to voters for which Rudy is too liberal, and those who do not want to bet on a losing horse like Allen or Brownback. Remember that no Republican has won the nomination without winning the SC primary. Who are two of McCain’s two closest politcal allies? Lindsay Graham and Mark Sanford. If McCain wins SC the nomnation is his.
What do you think of all of this Mark?
Step one for HRC:
No audio for debates, make Marlee Matlin your spokesperson.
given the red meat the Clinton name produced in 94, leading to a complete overthrow of the house of reps…
Bring it on.
Is she won, she would only drive the party further into oblivion. Her commitment is not to the dems, it is to herself.
The Bij, I totally agree that if you want to determine the nominee, you follow the money…and Rudy G. and McCain will both, as you say, be quite formidable in their fundraising…here’s a little wildcard to throw into the mix…what happens if Hillary stumbles, and, say, a Mark Warner jumps into the lead? Does it hurt Rudy or McCain more? I’m inclined to say McCain is better off with HRC as the candidate…(1) because she’d make it NY versus NY against Rudy G., and some may balk at that, and (2) because Warner would make it much more competitive in the South, meaning Republicans might turn to Rudy G. to be more competitive in the Northeast…
I have never understood why Hillary should run for the Senate in 2006.
After all, there is always the chance she’ll lose or win by a hair. Plus, it will cost her a fortune in time and money. And even if she does win she’ll just become an absentee Senator while running in 2008. Also the extra 2 years on her resume wouldn’t change anyone’s mind as she’s already been in the public eye for decades. So where’s the upside? After all, many candidates have quit the Senate to run for president, so why take chances with an unnecessary election?
Thanks for your reply to my comment Mark. Gosh I love your site!
I agree that the worst case scenario for us is for HRC not to gain the Dem nomination. It’s funny because when I would state that opinion to my fellow Republicans when the topic would come up last weekend, they would look at me like I am from Mars.
Warner would make things more interesting. But If Rudy runs, He wins NY and PA. Game. Set. Match.
8 more years of Republican leadership!
If Billary are cast aside for another canidate, my bets are that it would be the lunatic left causing an insurrection for someone like Feingold. I don’t think HRC gets outflanked to the right. This is most likely to happen in 2012 after the Dems lose again.
I think you guys are all wrong about Rudy. I believe that his liberal positions on social issues, combined with a very messy, in-your-face divorce from his wife (she learned he was leaving by watching his press conference on TV), will be too much for social conservatives to abide by. I have trouble imagining the Focus on Family crowd approving a mayor who left Gracie Mansion to his wife and child so he could live with two gay men while he dated the woman who broke up his marriage. Moreover, Rudy has a very abrasive personality and was a divisive figure, even by New York City mayoral standards (he made Ed Koch look like Saint Augustine). I have a lot of respect for his managerial abilities – as John Lindsay used to say, being mayor of New York is “the second toughest job in America” – but he attacks problems (and people) like a prosecutor, not a politician. He was first elected when he replaced the notably inept David Dinkins. His popularity steadily declined until, as a lame duck, he masterminded the response to 9/11. It is uncertain whether he would have been re-elected if he chose to run again. He was (justifiably) canonized for his role in 9/11, but in the heat of a Presidential race the opposition will have plenty of ammunition to use.
Personally, I might vote for Rudy if he wins – however, since the criterion for too many voters seems to be “would you go for beers with this guy,” I think Rudy would lose on the likeability test.
I’m going to have to respectfully diagree with you Peter.
Republicans already know all about Rudy’s sordid past. Yet he tops every 2008 poll except for one Patrick Ruffini internet poll from like 4 months ago. Interstingly, Rudy came back to win the next Ruffinin poll a couple of weeks ago.
Some SoCons will have a problem with Rudy. The vast majority will not. I know, for I myself am one, and am related to and friends with many, many others. Rudy will know what to say to win over voters like me. Don’t believe it? Pat Robertson endorsed Rudy- see here: http://rudygiuliani.blogspot.com/
Rudy was relected in a landslide in 1996 in a town where 80% of registered voters are democrats. Of course we will never know what would have happened in 2000 had he not been term limited. But what we do know is the the beneficiary of his legacy, Michael Bloomberg, was elected soundly, and is about to destroy his competition again this Fall. I think Rudy has some pretty decent coattails myself.
I really have to disagree with you about Rudy’s likeability. I think he is the most likeable politician since Ronald Reagan. He just seems like the kind of guy you’d like to watch football with, or have a beer with. Did you see his speech at the RNC this summer? He had everyone eating out of the palm of his hand.
I think everyone will be shocked when 2008 comes around. No one will stop Rudy with the amount of a head start he will have in this race.
Well, I hope that I’m proven wrong. He is a man of prodigious talents and he is relentless in pursuit of a goal. I think he would be a great candidate and I hope he gets nominated. Having lived in Manhattan for sixteen years (under Mayors Beame, Kock, Dinkins, and Giuliani), I give Rudy a lot of credit for reducing crime and for fighting earnestly with the many interest groups in New York (especially the unions).
I was raised to believe that voting Republican is a crime against nature, but I would seriously consider voting for him. May the best man win!
Sorry, Koch.
to the bij,
one item that i have seen in the past, and your link contained it.
when ny voters were asked about a senatorial favorite, hillary outpolled rudy by ten points. when the same poll asked about potus preference the numbers reversed. something is afoot.
louielouie: I can see the logic in that.
I can’t speak for everyone, but I never throught Rudy would make a particularly good Senator. Senators pass riders, form coalitions, attend comittee hearings, vote for laws before they vote against them, and talk, talk, talk. Rudy is a man of action and would have been ill suited for the wonkish role the Senate plays in our government. However, as an executive he has been enormously successful, and will be again, if he gets the nod.
Now, personally I would have voted for Rudy in 2000 had he gone the distance against Hillary (and if I lived in NY, not CA), but I can see why other voters would have made the decision based on the type of job the two were running for.
Thanks Peter and louielouie for your responses. Everytime that I am rewarded with great politcal discussion like the one we’re having here, I am reminded why I am a Republican. The great minds are on this side of the fence these days.
The point that you brougth up abut New Yorkers preferring Hillary in the Senate and Rudy in a more executive leadership position rings true to me. It too makes me wonder why Billlary is even running for the Senate again in 2006. Nothing good can come of it. Seems to me that New Yorkers will punish her for it if Rudy gets the nomination. For those that think it can’t happen: Pataki is the reigning 3 term governor of NY, Rudy won, Bloomberg will win again in a landslide, and D’Amato was a 3 term Sentaor as well. New York can drop for the right Republican. Rudy is that kind of candidate.
You know he’s running when polls show he is the only one who would defeat Spitzer for governor and he still won’t jump in that race. Rudy has his eyes on the prize. A very high ranking Republican in IA told me last week that he knows personally of Giuliani 2008 strategy sessions that began as soon as the 2004 race was over. The ball has been rolling since 12-2004 for Rudy. Does anyone want to bet against a man like him with that kind of head start?
Of course, Nelson Rockefeller was also a Republican governor of New York for many years. Since New York State is split between a heavily Democratic NYC and a GOP-leaning upstate, it has always been congenial to moderate Republicans. However, I think that today’s Republican party is so dominated by the religious right and the hard right that it will never nominate a moderate Republican again for years to come.
And I’m not so sure about the great minds being on the Republican side — and I’ll do my best to avoid cheap shots, like if you guys are so bright how come your leader is so (at this point I refrain myself) –
I have similar worries, Peter, although I’m not sure yours are “worries”. The GOP is dangerously close to selling out to its own moonbat elements, and I fear that solid winners like McCain and Giuliani will be overshadowed (or smeared out of existence) by kowtowing party line nincompoops like George Allen. In fact, not since Dukakis have I found a possible presidential candidate such an extreme bore… and I know I’m not alone. The 2008 primaries will tell us all we need to know about how sane the GOP is.
Well, I can’t say that I stay up nights worrying about who the GOP will nominate, but I do hope that they pick someone who is intelligent, far-sighted, and independent minded — after all, who knows, they may win again –
Normally I would agree that a moderate Republican does not have shot. But in todays presidential races money is the bottom line. Allen, Brownback, Huckabee, etc… will be out of the race by the NH primary. The frenetic pace of the 2008 primary season will leave no room for insurgencies. Giuliani and McCain will be setting pretty with massive war chests. Giuliani may break the fundraising record by a long shot. McCain will have his political allies (Graham and Sandford) campaigning hard for him in SC. People can speculate all they want, but the cold hard fact is that the money and connections will do all of the talking, as money and connections usually do.
Add to the fact that the Republican opponent will probably be the most galvinizing opponent that could possible be unless FDR were to rise from the dead to run for a fifth term.
I would vote for zombie FDR. He would never veto “Brrrrraaaaaaaiiiinnnnnsssss.”
**The Bij spits out his Cheerio’s all over the keyboard in laughter**