New ’08 Poll – Rudy Puts Connecticut In Play
One of the huge advantages of a Rudy Giuliani candidacy is that he gives Republicans a decent shot (not a lock, but a shot) at Northeastern states that are otherwise out of play. Consider the margins between Hillary/Rudy and Hillary/McCain in this 2008 poll from Connecticut:
Clinton 46 – Giuliani 44
Clinton 48 – McCain 40
Clinton 55 – Romney 27
(And let’s not even mention Romney here – 28 points down? Oh, my). Continuing a trend seen elsewhere, Giuliani also leads the field of both sides in favorability:
Favorable/Unfavorable Ratings
Giuliani 61/22 (+39)
Obama 48/10 (+38)
McCain 52/22 (+30)
Dodd 49/30 (+19)
Clinton 53/36 (+17)
Edwards 39/28 (+11)
Gore 44/49 (-5)
Romney 13/19 (-6)
Look at that unfavorable for Obama, though – only 10 percent! That’s a luxury Hillary will never have…
It’s Gore’s unfavorability rating that’s really breathtaking, though. 49?!?! I thought he was some kind of folk hero to the Left; what on earth explains this radioactivity?
That really strikes me, too. I can still remember reading a favorable/unfavorable poll from about a year ago and being shocked too find Gore’s unfavorable numbers were rather high, even among Democrats. This seems to indicate that hasn’t changed much, despite the occasional talk about him making a political comeback. It may be that he’s more popular among elites who dominate punditry than he is among ordinary voters.
The other possibility is there’s some complex calculations going on when people who would presumably support him are asked if they have a favorable opinion of him. The idea that he was robbed in 2000 makes him a bit of a folk hero, but the fact that, despite all the advantages he had going in, he managed to fall into a position where he could be “robbed” might lead to some bitterness on the part of those supporters.
Look, I like Rudy and think he’d be a fine president.
But let’s not kid ourselves . . . putting Connecticut, New Jersey, etc., “in play” is not the objective. The objective is to win the election, by whatever electoral path it takes.
What might concern me about Rudy is the possibility that his “moderate” views on some issues might put otherwise solid Republican states in play for Hillary . . .
That’s the $64,000 question, I guess. I imagine if Giuliani is the nominee, some conservatives will stay home on Election Day. I don’t see enough staying home to make the more solidly red states turn blue, or to counter the support of independents who like certain law-and-order Republican values but are turned off by the notion that the GOP is controlled by religious conservatives. But obviously, I could be wrong, and I’m biased because I’m not a social conservative.
If I’m guessing right, than “putting states in play” is a legitimate electoral strategy. This red state/blue state meme is only two election cycles old, and there’s no reason to think it’ll last forever, anymore than Reagan’s or Clinton’s victory maps did. My suspicion is despite all the energy put into trying to divine deep structural meaning into electoral college results, the victories depend mostly on circumstances peculiar to the particular year and the candidates involved. I like President Bush, but he definitely fits the stereotype of a provincial Southern Republican. A Giuliani candidacy would upend that stereotype, and suddenly you’re talking about places like New Jersey, Pennsylvania and the above-mentioned Connecticut looking like possible Republican flips. My guess is New York will stick with its adopted daughter over its native son, but if he has a chance there, then it’s game over for the Democrats. Every minute Hillary Clinton or whoever is the Democratic nominee spends defending the base states is a minute she or he can’t spend trying to flip places like Iowa and Ohio.
Of course, if I’m guessing wrong, and stay-home social-conservative voters lead to the Democratic nominee squeaking out victories in places like Iowa or Ohio without even trying (the latter I think is quite possible), then admittedly the electoral map is even more topsy-turvy in the end. But a little topsy-turviness can be a good thing, at least to remind people that nothing in politics lasts forever.
Dennis:
I think your on-target with your analysis, but I would add that the problem of Republican base voters staying home or voting Democrat is not unique to Giuliani. McCain has an even bigger problem than Rudy (McCain is unpopular with almost every faction of the base, while Rudy’s problem is more localized with the so-cons). Plus, McCain doesn’t have as much of a geographical advantage to offset the problem with the base (the Southwest already leans Republican, even if not overwhelmingly so). And after eight years of runaway spending under Bush, there is no way the fi-cons will tolerate another big government so-con like Huckabee or Brownback. If they get the nod the ficons will bolt, worse yet, might actually vote Democrat, whereas the so-cons are more likely to just stay home or throw their vote to a protest third party.
As for Romney, Republicans are taking a big risk that southerners and other so-cons will be persuaded that the former governor of Gomorrah (ie: Massachussettes) is really one of them, despite his 1994 and 2002 campaign statements to the country. Republicans will also have to gamble that fi-cons will overlook the tax increases and “Romneycare” and that the rest of the Republican party will overlook his thin resume, lack of foreign policy experience and strong Clintonian “pander bear” vibe he gives off.
In short, every candidate the Republicans have is going to upset the red state/ blue state template, so the Republicans might as well just go with the candidate who has the potential to pick up new voters to make up for the ones that will inevitably be lost.
Forget New Jersey and Connecticut (though I’d gladly take them). Bush only lost California to Kerry by about 9-11%. Rudy would put that state in play and without it, the Democrats are in serious trouble.
The press absolutely hates Gore. And by “the press” I mean the people that are on the political beat. For an argument ad nauseum see the daily howler. I think it’s fair to say that some portion of the populace believes at least some of the tall tales that were made up about Gore by a variety of vacuous pundits. I would argue that some of this unfavorability is due to that fact (for instance, did you know that Al Gore ran a terrible campaign and that’s why he lost? Or that he said he invented the internet? Or that he’s a phony? That he lived in the Ritz Carlton and not on a farm? That pet drugs being less expensive than people drugs was a stupid thing for him to say? etc. etc. etc.)
Yeah, but this 49% disapproval – that’s jawdropping. I wonder if such a result has been echoed in other polls? If I find anything, I’ll update…
In my point of view rudy puts connecticut in play. They know Rudy is a Republican who can beat the democrats. Rudy giuliani had a bit of a media blackout speaking. Thank you.
===============================
xanthe
Addiction Recovery Connecticut