A first(?) thread on 2008: McCain,Giuliani & the Republicans

nimh wrote:

This poll seems to underlines my point about where the mainstream of the vote currently is:

Code:USA Today/Gallup Poll. April 28-30, 2006. "Do you think George W. Bush's political views are too conservative, about right, or too liberal?" Too About Too Conservative Right Liberal Unsure % % % % 4/28-30/06 45 28 19 8 3/26-28/04 38 40 15 7

It's that 'too liberal' group he has to worry about. The 'too conservative' group will be mostly Democrats who would think anybody right of Ted Kennedy is too conservative. Watching Rasmussen over the last several years, the group that 'strongly disapprove' of President Bush has been rock solid and in about that range. I think these are the hard core Democrats who aren't going to vote for a Republican no matter who the Republican is.

The 'somewhat disapprove' group is a mix of honest moderate Democrats and Republicans--yes there are some honest Democrats--and conservatives, including people like me, and are likely those who disapprove of the President's liberal tendencies. It would be dangerous to translate this to any expectation that the conservatives would vote for a Democrat who was even more liberal and the others will have to be persuaded that the Democrat is the better candidate.

Of course it is way too early to put any faith in polls whatsoever, but the speculation is interesting. I don't think Jeb Bush has a prayer to win the nomination, but he is definitely a charismatic and likable person, and if George turns thngs around in his favor in the next year, who knows what might happen? Jeb's main advantage is being under the radar as a serous candidate so he is escaping most of the politics of personal destruction at present. His main disadvantage is being the brother of a currently unpopular president.

(Tony Snow is already making a difference because he has the smarts and the ability to call the media on its own sometimes dishonest or irresponsible agenda and to devise a reasonable response to the misinformation being put out there.)

0 Replies

Condalistas Unite!!!! Condi for Presidentress.

0 Replies

Rudy! Rudy!! Rudy!!

0 Replies

bm

0 Replies

Hmm.. hadnt seen this post.

Foxfyre wrote:

nimh wrote:
This poll seems to underlines my point about where the mainstream of the vote currently is:

Code:USA Today/Gallup Poll. April 28-30, 2006. "Do you think George W. Bush's political views are too conservative, about right, or too liberal?" Too About Too Conservative Right Liberal Unsure % % % % 4/28-30/06 45 28 19 8 3/26-28/04 38 40 15 7

It's that 'too liberal' group he has to worry about. The 'too conservative' group will be mostly Democrats who would think anybody right of Ted Kennedy is too conservative.

45% of Americans? You think 45% of Americans "would think anybody right of Ted Kennedy is too conservative"?

45% is an awfully large share of the electorate to blow off. You can only afford that if you're sure you pretty much get every single other voter in town.

Bit of history here. In all of the past century of US politics, whenever one's opponent got over 48% of the vote, one's chances at the presidency were shot. The only exceptions are JFK's fraud-tainted victory in 1960, and the nailbiting Bush/Gore saga. Basically, when your opponent polls over 48%, you're in big trouble.

Already, 45% of Americans thought Bush was too conservative - 3 points short of that looming 48% mark - and you're counselling Bush to worry only about his right flank?

Foxfyre wrote:

Watching Rasmussen over the last several years, the group that 'strongly disapprove' of President Bush has been rock solid and in about that range. I think these are the hard core Democrats who aren't going to vote for a Republican no matter who the Republican is.

You think 45% of Americans "are hard core Democrats who aren't going to vote for a Republican no matter who the Republican is"?

Makes you wonder how Reagan ever got his landslide victory.

You're right about it being in the same ballpark as the "strongly disapprove" rating of Bush though. In Rasmussen's latest, no less than 40% of respondents "strongly disapprove" of Bush.

Are 40% of Americans "hard core Democrats who aren't going to vote for a Republican no matter who the Republican is"?

I wish I was anywhere near that confident...

0 Replies

You're forgetting, Nimh, that an "unnamed Democrat" polled higher than John Kerry ever did. Give them time. They'll find the right person to swing the momentum back to the Republicans. :wink:

0 Replies

Newt Gingrich for President?

There's a lengthy, intrigueing portrait of the man and his aspirations on TNR:

COGITO ERGO SUM NEWT - The Thinker

He comes across as a surprisingly lovable, but also somewhat off-kilter, grandiose candidate.

0 Replies

You mean "Joementum" don't you Bill?

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

The only exceptions are JFK's fraud-tainted victory in 1960, and the nailbiting Bush/Gore saga.

It is a conservative shibboleth that Kennedy "stole" the election of 1960, due to Mayor Daley of Chicago's (Illinois) rather....ummm....peculiar dealings with vote counts in that city.

The facts: Daley probably DID rig the vote counts. But it made no difference as to who became President.

In 1960, Kennedy won the Electoral College, 303 votes to 219 to Richard Nixon.

Illinois had 27 Electoral votes.

If Daley had not "fixed" Illinois and it went to Richard Nixon instead, the Electoral College vote is:

Kennedy: 276
Nixon: 246

Kennedy wins anyway.

0 Replies

As far as the 45% goes, that is awful high. But in the three largest landslides in my lifetime-Johnson over goldwater in 1964, Nixon over McGovbern in 1972,and Reagan over Mondale in 1984-the loser got about 40% of the popular vote.

So it is safe to assume that no mater who the candidates are, each starts off with 40% of the vote and the contest is for the 20% in the middle.

This is for President. State and local elections are different-and more volatile.

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

As far as the 45% goes, that is awful high. But in the three largest landslides in my lifetime-Johnson over goldwater in 1964, Nixon over McGovbern in 1972,and Reagan over Mondale in 1984-the loser got about 40% of the popular vote. So it is safe to assume that no mater who the candidates are, each starts off with 40% of the vote

Goldwater got 39%, McGovern 38%. Alf Landon, in 1936, got 37% for the Republicans; James Cox, in 1920, just 34% for the Democrats.

More recently, Ross Perot's role pushed George Bush Sr. down to 37% of the vote in 1992, just like, a few generations earlier in 1924, LaFollette pushed John Davis of the Democrats down to a mere 29%.

So 6 of the 22 last elections, the losing candidate got less than 40%, actually. But yes, agreed that the chance of that happening in 2008 is small.

There's a world of difference, however, in a two-party system, between 40% and 45%. 45% is just three-comma-some points from a near-insurmountable opponent.

Not saying that the 45% who considered GWB too conservative all necessarily would vote Democrat - though that is exactly what Foxfyre says. But to recommend, in face of such a near-fatal block of voters already thinking you're too conservative, watching your right flank, doesnt make much sense either way.

Definitely agreed that most all elections are decided over the 20% in the middle. In that sense I certainly hope the Republicans will take Fox's advice, and spend their resources worrying about the rightmost 20% of Americans who think Bush is too liberal, instead.

That certainly would spare us a Schwarzenegger / Giuliani type defeat.

0 Replies

More urban, less cowboy
(Chris Matthews)

I have a theory, and it goes like this: When it comes to picking presidents, Americans have had it with ranches. They're done. No more moving brush; no more chasing armadillos. It's over.

When crisis hits, Americans want a president who's on the scene, someone who runs to the fire, tells us what he sees and what we need to do about it. We don't want a president who needs to be briefed on the basics from some remote locale. Bottom line: The cowboy is out; the sheriff is in.

Enter Rudy Giuliani. Conventional wisdom says he's out of step on gay rights, on abortion, on his own marital propriety. Conventional wisdom says that he doesn't fit the mold of a Republican nominee for president of the United States.

But I hate conventional wisdom. I hate it because it's usually wrong.

As we gear up for the 2008 presidential campaign, we'll relive raw images that have shaped all of our lives during the past eight years: crying 9/11 widows; helpless, desperate African-Americans stranded in New Orleans; blood-soaked troops; and flag-draped coffins.

These are not Republican images, and they're not Democratic images. They're American images, and they remind us what we value in our American leaders: honesty, truth, wisdom, a sense of history and a hands-on, boots-on-the-ground approach to the problems we face.

A new Gallup poll shows that 73 percent of Republicans deem him an acceptable 2008 nominee; just 25 percent say that he's unacceptable. That makes him the most acceptable and the least unacceptable of all the possible Republican nominees, including John McCain, George Allen, Mitt Romney, Bill Frist and the rest.

He's not perfect on every issue. But when the going got tough, he was there. Don't discount him. You heard it here first.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Um. No, you heard it HERE first!

Very Happy

0 Replies

Well I do have problems with the above. Using R Reagan and George Bush as "cowboys" is an insult. Cowboys are well known to be "straight shooters" ethical hardworking and honest as the day is long. Reagan, a hollywood "cowboy" and Bush a Connecticut elistist turned "cowboy" wore the garb of some sidewalk rhinestone cowboys but that does not paint an accurate picture. Mr Mathews is dead wrong on this one. I would say that Barry Goldwater was a truer "cowboy" but what the hell do Iknow?

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

kelticwizard wrote:
As far as the 45% goes, that is awful high. But in the three largest landslides in my lifetime-Johnson over goldwater in 1964, Nixon over McGovbern in 1972,and Reagan over Mondale in 1984-the loser got about 40% of the popular vote. So it is safe to assume that no mater who the candidates are, each starts off with 40% of the vote

Goldwater got 39%, McGovern 38%. Alf Landon, in 1936, got 37% for the Republicans; James Cox, in 1920, just 34% for the Democrats.

More recently, Ross Perot's role pushed George Bush Sr. down to 37% of the vote in 1992, just like, a few generations earlier in 1924, LaFollette pushed John Davis of the Democrats down to a mere 29%.

So 6 of the 22 last elections, the losing candidate got less than 40%, actually. But yes, agreed that the chance of that happening in 2008 is small.

There's a world of difference, however, in a two-party system, between 40% and 45%. 45% is just three-comma-some points from a near-insurmountable opponent.

Not saying that the 45% who considered GWB too conservative all necessarily would vote Democrat - though that is exactly what Foxfyre says. But to recommend, in face of such a near-fatal block of voters already thinking you're too conservative, watching your right flank, doesnt make much sense either way.

Definitely agreed that most all elections are decided over the 20% in the middle. In that sense I certainly hope the Republicans will take Fox's advice, and spend their resources worrying about the rightmost 20% of Americans who think Bush is too liberal, instead.

That certainly would spare us a Schwarzenegger / Giuliani type defeat.

Worrying about a substantial percentage of the 'disgruntled' from whatever wing of one's base and translating that into votes are different thngs. I can't imagine any conservative, for instance, voting for a John Kerry or a John Edwards or even a Hillary Clinton. But I can imagine them finding a Republican candidate so unpalatable that they vote with their feet and just don't vote. That would have the net effect, of course, of boosting the Democrat candidate. It remains to be seen if a Guliani or a McCain can polish up enough conservative credentials to be truly viable.

The Republican base wants a Reagan-style conservative and the candidate that can most closely emulate that will get most of the votes from that base. Right now one contender with the credentials is Gingrich, and I think he simple lacks the likeability factor necessary to get the nomination or to make the best leader for this country. George Allen may be another, but he is apparently perceived as a sufficient threat that the character assassination is already underway.

Meanwhile Hillary is trying desperately to poof up her conservative credentials, since her base seems to forgive her for them, but there is her voting record plus so very many sound bites out there that can be used against her. Apparently a pretty good sized segment of the Democrat base is wary of her and I can't see her pulling much from the Republican base.

If she should win the nomination, however, the Republicans better have a darn good candidate to run against her.

0 Replies

Ooof! Dys. Not fair. Reagan had the outfit and everything!

Fox--

I think I know what you mean by Conservative credentials--but don't Law and Order, cutting through bullshit bureaucracy, making the tough call and standing behind it mean conservative? I hope conservative doesn't boil down to social issues.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

Ooof! Dys. Not fair. Reagan had the outfit and everything!

Fox--

I think I know what you mean by Conservative credentials--but don't Law and Order, cutting through bullshit bureaucracy, making the tough call and standing behind it mean conservative? I hope conservative doesn't boil down to social issues.

Oh no. I don't limit conservatism to just social issues. To me 'conservative' embraces convictions re the Constitution, national defense, national sovereignty, social values, law and order, economic principles, individual liberties, individual responsibility, accountablilty, and social issues.

In my lifetime Reagan had more of the qualities I value in a President than any other, but he didn't have all of them. Nobody ever will because every human being has strengths, weaknesses, and occasionally feet of clay. Our current President certainly has good conservative credentials in some areas, and certainly does not in others.

So far as cutting through the bullshit, nobody could do that better than Reagan while at the same time he was a heck of a diplomat. I still remember both Maggie Thatcher and Gorbachev attending his funeral, and both had tears in their eyes. That is major respect.

What we don't need is a RINO for our next President as I think the Republican Party will never recover from it if that is what we get.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

What we don't need is a RINO for our next President as I think the Republican Party will never recover from it if that is what we get.

But Giuliani does the Law and Order, cutting through bullshit bureaucracy, making the tough call and standing behind it stuff ... and he does the conservative economic principles and national defense thing too. And yet I get the impression that you categorize him as one of the "RINOs" in the race - or am I wrong?

Is that then based purely on the social issues Lash mentions, gay marriage, abortion and the like?

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
What we don't need is a RINO for our next President as I think the Republican Party will never recover from it if that is what we get.

But Giuliani does the Law and Order, cutting through bullshit bureaucracy, making the tough call and standing behind it stuff ... and he does the conservative economic principles and national defense thing too. And yet I get the impression that you categorize him as one of the "RINOs" in the race - or am I wrong?

Is that then based purely on the social issues Lash mentions, gay marriage, abortion and the like?

I honestly don't know where Guiliani stands on many of the issues because I haven't paid close attention there. I do know that many Republicans consider him to be an old JFK type Democrat instead of a conservative Reublican, and that wouldn't be all that bad actually. I was one of those myself and I haven't changed much of my political ideology since then. If Guliani can shake the RINO image, however, he could very well have a shot.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
What we don't need is a RINO for our next President as I think the Republican Party will never recover from it if that is what we get.

But Giuliani does the Law and Order, cutting through bullshit bureaucracy, making the tough call and standing behind it stuff ... and he does the conservative economic principles and national defense thing too. And yet I get the impression that you categorize him as one of the "RINOs" in the race - or am I wrong?

Is that then based purely on the social issues Lash mentions, gay marriage, abortion and the like?

Giuliani is indeed the Law and Order type. Anyone who visited 42nd street before and after can tell you that. What used to be a cesspool of sex shops, drugs and derelicts is now Disney. I suspect this could play surprisingly well in the oppressed cities where Democrats traditionally have a death grip.

0 Replies

Fox--

I mostly agree about Reagan. I did like many of his calls, and he did embody the main principles that I consider conservative.

The thing is Guiliani does, too, all except the social issues. He cleaned up NY, respects law enforcement with action and money, is tough on issues most conservatives, and is all about national security.

I'm just sorry to see him characterized as a RINO, when I believe his views about social issues are taken straight from the Constitution, making him more of a Conservative than those who seek to control other people's personal lives.

I just wanted to understand what you thought about Guiliani, and I do.

0 Replies

A first(?) thread on 2008: McCain,Giuliani & the Republicans

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know