Ru-dy! Ru-Dy! Ru-Dy!
Note: I have been asked in the past if I was interested in sharing the site with other bloggers on a full-time basis. Though flattered and tempted, I have decided against it at this time, for personal and creative reasons. However, I am more than willing to share the stage ocassionally in the form of ‘guest blogs’, and when Gulf Coast Bandit asked if I would be interested in sharing his thoughts on the prospect of a Rudy G. candidacy, I was more than happy to oblige. Please share your comments with him, whether pro or con, left or right, as I know he put a lot of work and thought into this.
The topic of the Republican nominee for President has reached a divide between the conservative, right-wing elements of the party and the centrist, moderate wing of the party. The favorite sons of the conservatives seem to be Newt Gingrich and George Allen, while the moderates would like to nominate John McCain or Rudy Giuliani. Of course, no offense is intended to the Huckabee people who frequent here. This posting is not intended to assess the chances of Gingrich or Allen winning. It is simply supposed to illustrate, from the standpoint of the Electoral College, why Rudy Giuliani will win the election.
By my calculations, there are 208 “hardcore” Republican votes in the Electoral College. These states are Virginia, the Carolinas, Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, the Dakotas, Nebraska, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Utah, Arizona, and Alaska. There are 31 more votes that will, I believe, generally fall into the Republican camp, those of Florida and West Virginia. With the addition of those two states, we reach 239. Bearing in mind that we’re trying to reach 270, the state of New York will elect a Republican if he or she is the right Republican. It seems to be obvious to me that Rudy Giuliani would carry the state of New York and its 31 electoral votes. 239 + 31 = 270, our magic number. I am tempted to stop here; however, I would like to analyze the effect that Rudy would have on the purple and blue states.
I identified 5 purple states. These states are New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, New Hampshire, and Ohio. Bush won New Mexico in 2004 after narrowly losing it in 2000. Giuliani will overcome any negative tide and keep New Mexico in the red column. Nevada and Colorado, even though Bush won them both elections, are, I am told, trending blue. Giuliani’s popular appeal can stem that tide. New Hampshire is the opposite of New Mexico. Bush won it in 2000, but Kerry won it in 2004. Giuliani’s northeastern persona should resonate with the voters of the Granite State and swing this one back to his column. That leaves Ohio. Nobody really knows what’s going on with Ohio, but if Bush can win it, Rudy can. If you add these 5 states to the 270 votes already in the red column, you get 313.
Rudy’s centrist candidacy opens up a new set of purple states. While predicting which blue states will turn purple is an inexact science, I identified a few that may shift shades. These are Minnesota, New Jersey, Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin, Delaware and Pennsylvania. Bush was aiming for the Midwestern states, hoping to at least pick up one in 2004. Although he failed in that task, he did prove that it was a possibility for the right candidate. Rudy’s best chances for pick-ups among these Midwestern states are probably Iowa and Minnesota, but Wisconsin is also a distinct possibility. Michigan, although possible, was the state that went heaviest for Kerry in 2004, and thus least likely to shift for Rudy. Pennsylvania, although blue for several cycles now, has actually been trending red despite the amazing turnout in Philly that always occurs. A centrist candidacy could probably pull this state into the red column. New Jersey is always a bit of an enigma. It always seems to turn left at the end, but I put it in this analysis because Rudy is from the Northeast, and I think he might be able to connect with New Jersey voters. New Jersey, along with Michigan, only stays on this list if a Republican is elected to statewide office in 2006, however. That leaves me with Delaware. Delaware is on this list probably for the same reason Jersey is, but mainly because it had an odd number of electoral votes (3), which makes the total number of electoral votes in the second-tier purple states 84. So I can divide these votes evenly between the two sides (after all, Rudy isn’t Superman here), giving 42 to each side and giving the Republican Party 355 electoral votes.
The whole point of this exercise is to say that the Republican Party should nominate Rudy Giuliani for President because he is viewed as a centrist uniter and will pick up moderate votes. If there’s popular demand, I’ll write a Part 2, which I guess will address concerns and questions in the comments. Finally, I’d like to thank Mark, who has graciously allowed this posting to be here and not on my blog that hasn’t been updated in months. Incidentally, I was a member (I guess I still am) of Mark’s Coalition of the Chillin’, and I credit that posting with bringing me out of the throes of wingnut-land and into the reasoned realm of rationality.
I’d say Rudy would be more likely to flip New Jersey than New York. First of all, Kerry won NJ by only 6.7 percent, as opposed to almost 19% for NY, so there is less of a hurdle. Also, upstate NJ includes a very large number of commuters to NYC, and those commuters know firsthand the effect Rudy’s leadership had on the city.
I’m skeptical.
Can rudy beat Hillary in NY? I’d like to say the first time was a draw, but that would be a disservice to hrc.
Indiana is 20(?) votes in the bag for any gop, except if evan bayh runs on the democratic ticket.
The truest test of Rudy is-can he bring in additional states without losing those in the bank. To your list of states that rudy would do well in-I think Pa. Bush lost by 3% in 04, and a more regional candidate could pull it off. NJ is a legit shot for rudy, but I don’t see how his northeastern link helps him in the far west, and McCain would be a stronger candidate there. Nevada and Colorado are trending blue, but by last election remain red states. Not anxious to write them off to fortgive rudy if he loses them.
Rudy’s pick for veep is key, more so for him than any other candidate. It would help to have a conservative with credentials on the ticket, but the pick won’t be made until after the primaries. I still don’t see him doing that well in the southern states.
Seems a heavy bet on rudy winning NY. I’m not betting an election on how I think ny’ers will vote. Never had them before, don’t expect them now.
Your golden number of 313 looks good-have to look closer at
lose NY and Ohio and you go back to 262. Believe me on this, the dems have forgotten florida altogether and are targeting Ohio.
If rudy is the nominee I’ll vote for him.
He has been the more supportive of the Bush administration than any sitting Senator-(I’m not a fan of running senators for the WH, much prefer governors)-and an articulate supporter to boot. My sense is that his positions will be discordant with primary voters. He probably will argue that the immigration plan needs to be comprehensive, and not just focus on borders-which is not going to play well with the base.
(My suggestion for his veep? Charles Grassley)
First, I don’t think Rudy’s candidacy can accurately be described as “centrist.” Rudy’s support is very, very strong amongst conservatives and Republicans. In fact, he is one of only three candidates garnering significant support in the GOP activist polls, the other two being Allen and Romney. Unlike McCain, Rudy’s support comes not from right-leaning indepenents in open primaries, but from voters who already vote Republican.
A better descriptor of Rudy is probably “center-right.” He’s conservative on taxes, conservative on terror, reformist-conservative on domestic issues in a Newt/Perot sort of way, and yes, liberal on culture. My guess is he’ll tout federalism on cultural issues and come out as the center-right leader of a center-right coalition, not changing, but building on the Bush 2004 coalition.
I think the country is too polarized right now for a state like New York to change hands, even with Rudy leading the ticket. Rudy will be emphasizing his conservative positions on taxes and terror and backing away from his past support for social liberalism, and NYers, who have a native liberal alternative in Hillary, will likely remain blue. I see Rudy easily capturing all 31 red states and taking MI, PA, MN, and WI for a sweep of the northern midwest. All of these states went for Kerry by 3 pts or less last time, and an ethnic Catholic like Rudy will pull in the needed 3 percent across this ethnic Catholic region based on identity politics alone, not to mention his ability to articulate the conservative message more effectively than Bush. Trust me, the Rust Belt ain’t votin’ for Hillary when an Italian Catholic tough-guy is leading the other ticket.
New Hampshire is sort of the West Berlin of the northeast; I suspect it would flip too. So the reds plus the midwest four plus the Granite State equals 36 states and 348 electoral votes. At that point, watch out for a few other states to see what they do.
Oregon: it went for Kerry by less than five points, and while Rudy has no particular demographic appeal in this state that Bush didn’t have, a Giuliani win of 53-46 or so nationally may be enough to tip this light blue state.
New Jersey: folks there like Rudy, identify with him demographically, and are moderate-blue but not dark-blue. Only question is whether Rudy’s inevitable support for conservative judges will turn off the rabidly pro-abortion New Jersey population.
Illinois: it’s a blue island in the middle of red and purple territory, another state filled with ethnics who will like Rudy, but identity politics may not be enough to tip this vote-by-rote Democratic stronghold.
Delaware: another moderately-blue state in 2004 that was less blue than expected; if Rudy takes Jersey, Delaware will probably fall too.
If Rudy takes 2 of those 4 states, he ends up with about 38 states under his belt and in the 360-370ish electoral vote range. That’s consistent with, say, a 54-45 or 53-46 win nationally and would look a lot like Clinton/Dole in reverse. Basically all that’s happening is Rudy’s flipping back the Reagan Democrats in the Rust Belt who voted for Clinton, Gore, and Kerry, and doing it without sacrificing any currently red territory. The fact that a 4-6 pt swing in the electorate can change the electoral college so much shows that it is highly possible for Republicans to build a majority that doesn’t end at 286 electoral votes. Rudy can be the candidate to prove that.
Gulf Coast Bandit said:
Incidentally, I was a member (I guess I still am) of Mark’s Coalition of the Chillin’, and I credit that posting with bringing me out of the throes of wingnut-land and into the reasoned realm of rationality.
Really?
This is Mark’s house, so I’ll bite my tongue. Except to say that insulting your audience is probably not the best way to convince them of the righteousness of your beliefs and arguments.
As for Giuliani’s chances of winning the presidential general election, he first has to win the nomination. And in order to do that he has to
a) win the Iowa caucuses. Convincingly. Which won’t be easy, since he, McCain and Romney are all trying to appeal to the Rockefeller wing of the GOP, aka the RINOs (sorry, Mark).
b) win New Hampshire. Convincingly. This, and to a certain extent Iowa, could hinge on how well Romney does at cleaning up the scandal-plagued Big Dig project in Boston (the Massachusetts legislature just handed him total control over it, after a woman was killed by a falling, three ton block of concrete). If Romney straightens it out, or at least puts reforms in place that will lead to cleaning up the mess, he’ll be tough to beat.
c) convince voters in the southern primaries that a Giuliani presidency wouldn’t just be Hillary-lite. That’s not going to be easy. If you go here
http://decision08.net/2006/07/08/run-rudy-run/
and scroll down through the comments, you’ll see why I think that.
One caveat: Giuliani’s position on homosexual rights is a non-issue with me, though not with a lot of other social conservatives, obviously. On the other hand his positions on gun control and abortion are issues with me.
I have lived in Milwaukee for over twenty years. Its not likely Wisconsin is going Republican anytime soon. Although I am a moderate republican and not as politically savvy as most on this board I would be shocked if WI turned red for these reasons:
New booths at several farmers markets that carry only anti republican anti Bush t shirts, buttons etc.
I mentioned how much I love Texas at a coffee shop and was told “Shhh dont say that too loud around here!”
The sidewalk is littered with pictures of Bush made to look like Hitler.
Conspiracy theories are openly acknowleged as fact in any political conversation Ive had.
Despite the high taxes, high crime and high absurdity I love this town. Its not going red.
fatman, we would never insult you! You know, just a quick word on the Coalition and wingnuts – I would never describe myself as moderate, if the truth be told, in my views. They are solidly conservative (though probably not as much as yours, my friend).
However, I definitely aspire to be moderate in my manner and presentation, and that’s what the Coalition was all about…
However, I do feel the hardcore conservatives are, for reasons that are understandable, looking at the two most likely Republican nominees and holding their noises. I don’t share their distaste. I would happily cast my ballot for McCain or Giuliani.
No offense given, fatman: Wingnuts are knee-jerk, reactionary, crazy people, not conservatives. I still count myself conservative, just a rational one. And as far as winning the nomination goes, yeah, that’ll be a challenge…
I don’t think that Rudy is necessarily centrist, only that he could be viewed that way.
I will respond further later, as I have to go to class now.
Sam
Comrades,
Rudy is someone I could seriously consider supporting, especially if it kept McCain from the nomination. I’m still hoping to see Condi get into the race, but she might well make an excellent VP choice for Rudy instead.
Having said all that, I agree that although he posseses many fine Republican values, he worries me greatly on 2nd Ammendment issues. My worry is that his liberal views on firearms might well allow him to further erode our rights by bargaining them away to the left in order to get other legislation passed.
I won’t vote for Bishop Romney. I’ve suffered too much bigotry at the hands of members of his faith to ever vote for one for the Presidency, especially one that also holds a church leadership position. To my own mind, it would be akin to supporting the Taliban for office. But that’s just me…..
I like Allen more and more, but I still don’t have enough knowleadge of him and his position to cast my full support for him, though I’m working on learning more about him.
It might well be that Rudy would be the better wartime president than any other choice. Rudy has demonstrable leadership skills. He knows how to take in the facts and make a decision based upon what is NEEDED and what is RIGHT, not what looks best in the polls. I suspect that many Americans would agree with that assesment. He may not be all we would like him to be as a President, but he’s trustworthy decision-wise. I can trust him to lead from the front.
He also has one quality that will serve him well, and that he is articulate and candid when he speaks. I like that, and most Americans do as well. Give me the facts, plain and simple, and tell me what you propose to do about them. Be visible, at least APPEAR to be in charge, and know what to say and when to say it.
Respects,
Gwedd
“Despite the high taxes, high crime and high absurdity I love this town. Its not going red…”
Well, I wouldn’t think so – everyone in the Midwest knows that Milwaukee and Madison are far – left outposts in a moderately centrist state, so the rest of the population that doesn’t live in these cities may well tip the balance of the state into the Red zone. You can see the same dynamic at work in Iowa (Iowa City is akin to Madison) and Michigan (Detroit is akin to Milwaukee).
I saw Rich lowery drop the plug for Newt today-something like- most influential conservative. Then I saw him on Cavuto.
In a span of five minutes he showed his hawkishness and his fiscal conservatism, better than Bush has done in six years. He is the closest thing to Reagan out there and his credentials are strong.
Not the charisma of Rudy, nor the record of service of McCain-but he is the first guy in a loong time that has shown the abiltity to carry conservative ideas and make them understood. His debate skill will make or break him, but I have a feeling they will make him.
Sorry about getting cranky there, folks. I really should stay away from the keyboard until the meds kick in.
As for what I meant about Giuliani needing to win Iowa and New Hampshire convincingly, I think he needs to build up enough momentum to make his candidacy seem the strongest bet, if not inevitable. That would make things a little easier in the South.
What would really make things easier in the South would be something he almost certainly won’t do; name his running mate in advance of the primaries. Someone like Mike Huckabee or George Allen, if he can convince either of them to settle for #2. Or perhaps Mark Sanford, Lindsay Graham (though they’re both McCain men), Sam Brownback or John Cornyn. A Southerner with an impeccable pedigree as a social conservative.
As for the general election, he could definitely take Pennsylvania. We have a long history of electing Rockefeller Republicans to statewide offices; Santorum is really an anomaly. And I recall seeing (though I can’t remember where – sorry) a poll that showed the Hilde-beast beating Giuliani convincingly for a Senate seat from New York, but the same poll showed a virtual dead heat for the Presidency. So he just might be able to pull it off.
Which is why I’ve got gas. Again.
A couple of things…
1) “Fatman”…There is no such thing as a “RINO”. Look up RWR’s 13th Commandment and learn the history and the original principals of the political party you desire to extol.
2) Per the person who spent all of his time figuring out how Rudy could be elected, good job, that was very interesting. While I think you’re wrong and that RG would be lucky to get out of the goomba basement, I appreciate your moxey.
3) The Republican Party, in its original form, was created by people who believed in the freedom of the individual to set his or her own path.
The Republican Party, in its original form, grew rather quickly upon its inception into the most successful political party in America’s history relative to elected officials across the board. Regardless of the Dan Rather’s, Larry King’s, Walter Cronkite’s and Barbra Streistand’s…this rapid growth the Republican Party took and the successes it has achieved was not by mistake.
The Republican Party, in its original form, dictates that the individual is responsible for him or herself. It stands for self-reliance, freedom, doing what one deems is right for them personally within the boundaries of sensible, logical laws for the masses. Senator Barry Goldwater put it best when he said…”keep the government out of your pocketbook, out of your bedroom and off your back”.
The Republican Party, in its original form, doesn’t care if two consenting adults of the same gender want to get married…doesn’t the government have better things to do than worry about what two homosexuals in Topeka want to do in their bed? Who cares?
The Republican Party, in its original form, doesn’t want the government to support through American citizen’s tax dollars a person who’d rather belly up to the bar than work. The Republican Party, in its original form, doesn’t believe the United States should be the planets police chief. For some reason however, the Republican Party was hijacked in the 1980’s by deep pocket moralists; i.e., the Religious Right (see Falwell, Robertson, Dobson).
The American electorate has made a transformation over the past few years. They like a little of this, and a little of that…that’s why a centrist by the name of Senator John McCain is the most popular politician in America. The Republican Party better get it’s head out of the sand and get back to its roots supporting people like John McCain for President in 2008, a man in the vain of Jefferson, Lincoln, TR, Robert Taft, Ike, Bob Michel’s, Jerry Ford. Can you name a NATIONALLY recognizable and continuously successful Republican in American history, besides President Reagan, who wasn’t a Centrist? You give up? You wonder why you can’t??? Cause there aren’t any. The electorate no longer cares for other people preaching to them about how they should live their lives. They care about their jobs, their mortgage, their gas tank, their kid’s education, and their retirement savings. They’ve had a belly full of multimillionaire Preachers, lawyers and politicians telling them what’s best for them while the electorate is living paycheck to paycheck.
Well, that’s all I have, what say you?
I am a rock-ribbed Conservative Reagan Democrat turned Republican from Arizona.
And I support Rudy Guiliani for president even though oi disagree with him on most issues. Why?
Because he is a demonstrated and proven Leader.
He used the office of Mayor of NYC to demonstrate that the cesspool of New York City was indeed governable. He also led the city when the massive terrorism happenedand demonstrated command.
Compare that to the idiocy of Mayor Nagin to the inevitable damage of a Hurricane going inland near New Orleans.
I personally would like a Guiliani-McCain ticket. Easterner and Westerner. Moderate Liberal and Maverick Conservative. And especially if SCOTUS #5 is seated before Dubya leaves office.
Plus I beleive that until the Democrats right themselves and become both an American and Loyal opposition again, which they no longer are, it is imperative that the Republicans rule.
Best of all, the purpose of a political party is to win and govern; we need a Republican landslide and Rudy can deliver that more likely than any one else on the Republican horizon.