November 14, 2007
A Different Party
According to Marc Ambinder, new polls show that Republicans in Iowa think Rudy Giuliani is the most electable candidate, yet they're still not voting for him. I have trouble imagining that same finding on the Democratic side. I can't figure out if that's because the party out of power is simply more desperate to reenter it or because Republicans are genuinely more ideologically oriented than Democrats, but it's a fascinating finding. Meanwhile, Dick Morris argues that though Rudy's national numbers are good, his numbers in the relevant primaries are very bad. It's a convincing case, and I'm thrilled to hear it. Mitt Romney not only seems less likely to win the general election, but also less likely to explode the earth.
Mitt Romney not only seems less likely to win the general election, but also less likely to explode the earth.
Couldn't agree more. I think any Republican's a real long shot in '08, unless somehow we're miraculously extricated from Iraq before then, but, in the unlikely event than a nominee Mitt Romney were to prevail a year from now, I personally think he would revert to his decent, non-insane, corporate boardroom/rich suburb of Boston persona.
Posted by: Jasper | Nov 14, 2007 9:08:18 AM
Dick Morris does make a good case, but he usually wrong with his predictions. Uh oh.
Posted by: Jim E. | Nov 14, 2007 9:18:32 AM
I have trouble imagining that same finding on the Democratic side.
I'm not really a poll maven so please correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression is that HRC does worse in head to head polls with the republican candidates than does Obama or Edwards. Granted, that's different from not voting for your most electable candidate, but I'm not sure that voting for your least electable candidate is a better strategy.
Posted by: DMonteith | Nov 14, 2007 9:47:48 AM
Also less likely than Giuliani to explode the earth:
* Everyone else running for President
* Everyone else eligible to run for President
* Everyone else not eligible to run for President
* A 4,000-ton stockpile of small nuclear warheads randomly distributed in populated areas of the earth and disguised as candybars that begin to decay the moment someone bites into them.
Most of that list anyway. The prospect of a Giuliani Presidency is extraordinarily frightening.
Posted by: jhupp | Nov 14, 2007 9:50:56 AM
Eh. This "Giuliani is a nut job rready to fire at will" thing... sounds a lot like the "crazy Reagan and the nukes" thing of the eighties - kind of true, but mostly not. Giuliani's a lot of talk... but I don't see it making it's way to a lot of action. More to the point, though, I think it's still absurd to talk about Rudy winning a national election. I think a lot of Republicnas, post Pat Robertson(!), are trying to talk themselves into believing that Rudy's flaws aren't flaws, that they can accept half a loaf (or no loaf) on social issues in favor of tough talk on terror. I don't buy it - he's still deeply flawed (two words - Bernie Kerik), still not exactly the conservative that will appeal to conservatives, and still hard to see really putting some siginificant states in play (including, I remind you, his own, usually considered the key barometer of potential success). I think Romney's "rug saleman" appeal can't be discounted as Morris notes, though I second the opinion that Morris is perhaps the world's worst prognosticator. I think the key thing to all of this has been and remains that no one on the Republican side seems to be getting the job done; the lukewarm responses, the easily identified flawes... do not bode well. I think if Giuliani gets the nomination - and he really could, I have to admit - I think Democrats should be pleased, not fearful. In many ways, he's really a textbook example of a weak choice in a bad year.
Posted by: weboy | Nov 14, 2007 10:43:21 AM
I don't think Romney's less likely than Rudy to win the general. I think he has proved himself able to have crossover appeal. The hard right wingers won't go for a Mormon, but the general public doesn't have any real problem with Mormons. Romney, like many Mormons (e.g., the Osmonds,) exudes a wholesome, Middle-America, whitebread image that will be seductive to many -- especially if our candidate is painted successfully as stridently leftwing. I think Romney is a very dangerous candidate who will be more attractive to independents than Rudy. Plus the right will probably have nowhere else to go -- though some will, no doubt, sit it out. But those who are inclined to sit it out due to Romney's Mormonism may well also sit it out because of Rudy's pro-choice position. I don't think Rudy's "New Yorkie-ness" will play as well as Romney's "golly-gee-whizzie-ness."
Posted by: mb | Nov 14, 2007 1:23:21 PM
I think some Democrats and Dem-leaners believe that the worst Democrat in the field is better than the best Republican in the field, so (a) we might as well start focusing on the general now because it's the one that matters, and (b) to the extent the primary matters at all, "able to beat the Republican" heads the list of desired qualifications.
At least, I know *one* Democrat who thinks that way...
Posted by: Chris | Nov 14, 2007 9:41:51 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.