Wishful thinking by another of Rudy's fans
Here's a particularly silly piece of wishful thinking concerning the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination by an admirer of Rudy Giuliani, author Ryan Sager- a man who, oddly for a political writer, until the last few days did not know what a push-poll is.
We in Iowa know all about push polls. Iowa Democrats have been known to use them to great effect. In fact, if it hadn't been for a push-poll , Sen. Harkin would likely have lost his seat to Jim Ross Lightfoot back in 1996.
Sager's article made me think of Romney. Not Mitt. George, his dad. The guy who the polls all said was the front-runner for the 1968 Republican nomination at this point. All the polls said he was easily the most popular potential Republican candidate, and by far the strongest potential nominee in November. His candidacy, you may recall, didn't survive New Hampshire- and Richard Nixon won both the nomination and the election that year.
Whatever the polls say, the notion that Rudy Giuliani is a viable candidate for the 2008 nomination- much less the front-runner in any but the most ephemeral, illusory sense- is totally out of touch with reality. To take that proposition seriously is to ignore the two most relevant data: the ignorance of the Republican rank-and-file as to Giuliani's positions on deal-breaking social issues at this point in the race, and their lack of familiarity with most of the alternative candidates.
John McCain- who is as widely disliked as he is admired by Republicans generally- is hardly a fair test. McCain won't be the nominee either. Sager uses him essentially as a straw man; there are in fact Republicans far better positioned than either McCain or Giuliani to win the nomination, simply because the have the potential to appeal on a more solid basis than either to the people who will be voting in the primaries and caucuses, while carrying less baggage than either. Their failure to do better in the polls right now is purely a function of the lack of familarity with them on the part of most voters. Once the candidates receive their customary up-close-and-personal inspection by the informed, discerning, and very ideological voters (especially on social issues) here in Iowa, that will change. My hunch is that the pattern of past years will assert itself, and that the day after the Iowa Caucuses all of a sudden somebody is more acceptable to the Republican rank-and-file than either McCain or Giuliani going to be a great deal better known.
With all the good things which can be said about Giuliani's reputation among Republicans and among Americans generally, his positions on social issues are deal-breakers when it comes to the people who participate in the caucuses and primaries. I agree that he will likely run. But he will finish far back in the pack in Iowa. He might do somewhat better in New Hampshire, but his candidacy has literally no chance of surviving the Southern primaries once both his positions and his opponents become better known.
Allen is the front-runner at this point. Romney may be the best- positioned. Huckabee could break out- or could go nowhere. But any of the three is more likely to win the nomination than Rudy Giuliani, whatever the polls say right now, and any suggestion to the contrary is the triumph of wishful thinking over reality on the part of those who- quite deservedly- admire the man.
ADDENDUM: Another of those poor, deluded Rudy backers has pointed out- correctly- that I did not read Sanger's remarks carefully enough, and that he was being sarcastic about not knowing what a push-poll is. His own addendum pointing out that he was being sarcastic certainly makes the point somewhat clearer.
In any event, the idea that Rudy Giuliani has any more chance of being the Republican nominee in 2008 than I do remains utterly, completely, and absolutely nuts.
And for the record, if- by some miracle- he should win the nomination, I personally would not vote for him- his positions on those issues most important to me being indistinguishable from those of Hillary Clinton or any of the other potential Democratic candidates. And since that would probably also be the case for a great many members of the Republican base, the silly notion that Giuliani would ultimately be a particlarly strong candidate in November is also an illusion. He would lose the votes of at least as many Republicans as he would gain from independents and others of his fellow social liberals.
HT: Real Clear Politics
We in Iowa know all about push polls. Iowa Democrats have been known to use them to great effect. In fact, if it hadn't been for a push-poll , Sen. Harkin would likely have lost his seat to Jim Ross Lightfoot back in 1996.
Sager's article made me think of Romney. Not Mitt. George, his dad. The guy who the polls all said was the front-runner for the 1968 Republican nomination at this point. All the polls said he was easily the most popular potential Republican candidate, and by far the strongest potential nominee in November. His candidacy, you may recall, didn't survive New Hampshire- and Richard Nixon won both the nomination and the election that year.
Whatever the polls say, the notion that Rudy Giuliani is a viable candidate for the 2008 nomination- much less the front-runner in any but the most ephemeral, illusory sense- is totally out of touch with reality. To take that proposition seriously is to ignore the two most relevant data: the ignorance of the Republican rank-and-file as to Giuliani's positions on deal-breaking social issues at this point in the race, and their lack of familiarity with most of the alternative candidates.
John McCain- who is as widely disliked as he is admired by Republicans generally- is hardly a fair test. McCain won't be the nominee either. Sager uses him essentially as a straw man; there are in fact Republicans far better positioned than either McCain or Giuliani to win the nomination, simply because the have the potential to appeal on a more solid basis than either to the people who will be voting in the primaries and caucuses, while carrying less baggage than either. Their failure to do better in the polls right now is purely a function of the lack of familarity with them on the part of most voters. Once the candidates receive their customary up-close-and-personal inspection by the informed, discerning, and very ideological voters (especially on social issues) here in Iowa, that will change. My hunch is that the pattern of past years will assert itself, and that the day after the Iowa Caucuses all of a sudden somebody is more acceptable to the Republican rank-and-file than either McCain or Giuliani going to be a great deal better known.
With all the good things which can be said about Giuliani's reputation among Republicans and among Americans generally, his positions on social issues are deal-breakers when it comes to the people who participate in the caucuses and primaries. I agree that he will likely run. But he will finish far back in the pack in Iowa. He might do somewhat better in New Hampshire, but his candidacy has literally no chance of surviving the Southern primaries once both his positions and his opponents become better known.
Allen is the front-runner at this point. Romney may be the best- positioned. Huckabee could break out- or could go nowhere. But any of the three is more likely to win the nomination than Rudy Giuliani, whatever the polls say right now, and any suggestion to the contrary is the triumph of wishful thinking over reality on the part of those who- quite deservedly- admire the man.
ADDENDUM: Another of those poor, deluded Rudy backers has pointed out- correctly- that I did not read Sanger's remarks carefully enough, and that he was being sarcastic about not knowing what a push-poll is. His own addendum pointing out that he was being sarcastic certainly makes the point somewhat clearer.
In any event, the idea that Rudy Giuliani has any more chance of being the Republican nominee in 2008 than I do remains utterly, completely, and absolutely nuts.
And for the record, if- by some miracle- he should win the nomination, I personally would not vote for him- his positions on those issues most important to me being indistinguishable from those of Hillary Clinton or any of the other potential Democratic candidates. And since that would probably also be the case for a great many members of the Republican base, the silly notion that Giuliani would ultimately be a particlarly strong candidate in November is also an illusion. He would lose the votes of at least as many Republicans as he would gain from independents and others of his fellow social liberals.
HT: Real Clear Politics
Comments
Clearly many people have poor reading comprehension -- but luckily not everyone has trouble with their reading skills! But enough that Sager updated RCP, which is a sad commentary on the political junkies.
http://giulianiblog.blogspot.com/2006/07/rudy-frontrunner.html
“So, how does The Note respond to this thoroughly reported and sourced work? By belittling Sager: "In his New York Post column, Ryan Sager declares Giuliani the front-runner for the 2008 Republican nomination. But Sager also seems to not know what a push poll is, so factor that in."
*Read the quote again. It was Johnson, the professional pollster, who used the term "push poll." Sager uses the term in quotation marks.* The Note's snarky pronunciation is of a piece with the Hotline headline today: "I'm Telling You, He's The Frontrunner!"
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/blog/
[Also, thanks to The Note for enlightening me as to what a push poll is. The phrase is in quotes, though, because those are the precise words the CEO of Strategic Vision used to describe the poll in question ... though, it's obviously not an actual push poll.
UPDATE: Good Lord, does no one understand sarcasm. I know what a push poll is. The CEO of the polling firm used the term tongue-in-cheek (because his poll pushed Rudy's and McCain's negatives so hard). I quoted him. That's it.]
You, however, remain stuck with a candidate who has no more chance of winning the nomination than I do. RINO Rudy has the distinction of being the only candidate being talked up for the nomination- with the possible exception of George Pataki- for whom most Republicans probably would not vote in November.
The Gipper
As to being "swift boated to death" (and some candidates will try), I've never liked that Democrat-promoted phrase, which implies that what was done to John Kerry in 2004 was anything more than the exposure of a phony. The implication is that it was merely the use of past information in a presumably illicit and dishonest way in order to discredit him- sort of like the Democrats did for years with President Bush's National Guard record after the charges that he was "AWOL" were utterly discredited. Maybe "National Guarding him" would be a more descriptive term. Whether the tactic will work will depend on the seriousness and rationality of the Republicans who participate in the primaries and caucuses.
Anyway, there is no doubt that it will be a problem to some degree, especially among the more extreme and less politically sophisticated purists in the Republican Party who value long term committment over results. The fact remains that Romney is potentially the strongest pro-life candidate the party has, and has the best track record as a manager. If we're interviewing either a potential nominee or a potential president, his resume stacks up pretty well against his opponents. How rational it would be to wax cynical over his conversion on abortion without making a serious assessment of the man's character and the likelihood of insincerity is a judgment each individual must make for himself. There are plenty in the party whose cynicism and penchant for ideological rigidity exclude any rationality at all. I guess where we differ is that I don't think even the most conservative Republicans are necessarily as rigidly irrational about this sort of thing as you seem to.
I don't think his past will hurt him nearly as much as McCain's will. Giuliani's problem isn't his past, of course, but his present.