What about Rudy for the Republican nomination?
December 28th, 2006
Will his 9/11 families strategy rebound?
If you look at the betting on who will get the Republican nomination for the 2008 White House race there is only one person in it - the Vietnam veteran and Senator from Arizona, John McCain. His price is now at 1.36/1 and is way ahead of the second favourite, the ex-Mayor of New York, Rudy Giuliani.
Yet if you check the latest polls a different picture emerges - Giuliani has significant leads over McCain.
So why are punters not following the pollsters and is there value to be had on the man who made his name in the immediate aftermath of 9/11?
Some of the doubts might be being fuelled by stories like the one above in the New York Post this week. Yes - Rudy’s great period was in those harrowing days after 9/11 when his calm leadership in New York won him plaudits at home and abroad.
But being seen to exploit the families for his nomination bid has to be handled with extreme care and this story has sent reverberations across the nation. Will this rebound on him?
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Interesting article Mike. From what I know of the two peoples politics I prefer McCain.
I also think trying to get the 9/11 families on board like this is a mistake. He will look ghoulish.
Giuliani was just in the right place at the right time to get massive publicity back in 2001. He is over-rated.
I’ve heard good things about Giuliani from various sources, McCain seems awfully dull but Americans might want that after Bush. I’m tempted to back Giuliani for the nomination but, if the wacko tendency are still out in force, he won’t get it.
Can’t see it. Even if by some miracle he got the nomination his social views would be very likely to trigger an independent run from the Christian right. While kamikaze like, it would easily split the Republican base ensuring a walkover for the Democratic nominee whoever it is expect maybe Kucinich. Republicans will surely see that. Maybe he’s really running for VP nomination.
I think the dream ticket is McCain-Guiliani. That beats any Democratic combo. If he takes New York, and he’s obviously the only R who can do it, victory is assured.
That should be “except” Kucinich.
If Andrea catches up with this thread, thanks for the links on the previous one. I have now of course blogged the Hazel “Chipmunk” Blears story!
This is slightly/largely O/T - but do the nationality restrictions preventing Arnie standing for President preclude him standing for VP as well? Or becoming Speaker of the House of Representatives for that matter…
8 - He can’t be VP but he could be Speaker of the House.
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.
(Article II, Section 1)
But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
(Amendment XII)
No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.
(Article I, section 2)
5. If the Republicans took New York, it would not just be assured but likely a landslide of FDR-Nixon-Reaganesque proportions.
I doubt it will be either of them - probably be some obscure figure we haven’t even heard of yet.
Doesn’t the GOP regard McCain as a RINO [Republican In Name Only]?
Similarly, Guiliana might appeal to the liberal wing but could he carry the Christian right with him?
I think the Party has the classic dilemma that the man it would most like [Mitt Romney?] would galvanise the Democrats and lose the middle ground.
On the other side of the divide, I would have thought Hillary was a gift to the GOP. Edwards is a safe if uninspiring choice. Maybe Obama gets them off the hook, if he runs.
re 12. PtP. Edwards was my “Barack Obama” long-shot of 2004 and I always thought he should have got it over Kerry. Somehow having been on a ticket that flopped makes it harder for people to take you seriously next time. He also has a problem that he made his fortune as a tort lawyer which provided his opponents with a lot of material to attack him with. This was the guy who helps keep insurance premiums high etc..
Barack is the man and I get more confident by the day.
12. McCain is still largely socially conservative. The only things that stand him out as a RINO is that he desires action against global warming and opposes torture.
I never understood how Edwards wasn’t nominated over Kerry, Americans like a pretty face in their leaders and he was clearly a much stronger candidate and I think would have beaten Bush. He would win this time if the Dems are wise enough to pick him.
If the Democrats pick Clinton or Obama they will not win the presidential election - I don’t think America is ready for a woman or a black president. Do you think Obama will play in Alabama? This is the country that elected George W Bush remember.
15. I too think Edwards has a good chance - lightweight, boyish, charming and a southerner - he has the right credentials.
Re. 13, it isn’t just his having been on a losing ticket, but also his nervous performance in the VP debate.
17. Just becuase he’s attractive doesn’t make him a lightweight.
13 I hope you are right, Mike. Even after lay-offs, I would reckon to make £1k.
Not as hot a voucher as Cruddas though! When are Betfair ever going to open a market?!!
10 - Maybe not. Rudi is probably the only Republican who could win NY but it doesn’t follow that other states would fall as if on a uniform swing. NY would be a special case state but would hand the GOP a lot of EC votes making it very hard for the Dems to win. I could see a situation where the Reps gain NY but lose a few other states.
I’m one more for the Edwards consensus (last time around). If he had been a governor and hadn’t been a tort lawyer he might have done it. Someone of that kind sounds a better bet than Clinton or Barack.
Rudi’s private life would count against him with too many Republicans.
re 9. It makes you wonder about the twits putting money on Arnie for the 2008 presidential race. Even if he became Speaker of the House he still wouldn’t become president in case of an inconviently placed bomb or plane crash but would be skipped over to the Secretary of State. Similarly the current Commerce (born in Cuba) and Labor (sic) (born in Taiwan) secretaries could not succeed to the US presidency.
Wait a minute, first he’s in talks with some families. Thats different from him trying to use them. if some want to back him openly and freely, fine. Bear in mind the chances are that somewhere amongst the 9/11 families there were some probably involved with or strong supporters of him anyway before 9/11 came along.
To not remind people of his apparently great performance in the period after 9/11 would be missing political trick and only an idiot would not try to.
McCain is most definitely in the box seat and has, on paper, a very real chance of making it into the White House. I get a gut feeling, however, that there is something very unsteady about his nomination & situation. Can’t put my finger on it but I have a feeling there may be a bit of a substantial wobble coming somewhere or some external curveball thrown into the Republican mix that we have not seen yet.
They talking about pregnant women going into labour on Radio5 Live. For a moment I thought the head shed boffins at Party HQ must think they are a key battleground group, not just getting this generation..but the next as well!
21. Rudi may be the only Republican with a chance to win NY but it would still be a long shot. Especially if he’s running against Hillary.
21. No Republican has won NY City at least since 1924. RG could do that. If he could take that I struggle to see how there are states that would be safe for the Democrats. His problem remains his social views make him complete anathema to the religious right, and a virtual invitation to a Republican split like 1992. For that reason surely even many Republicans who like him and aren’t necessarily on the religious right will pass him over for a more acceptable candidate who the religious right will at least tolerate. Hence McCain as 14 points out he far more socially conservative making him acceptable to the religious right, but being a staunch federalist also makes him acceptable to swing voters who feel at least as a result he is unlikely to impose the social mores of say Alabama on say Pennsylvania.
He wouldnt need to take NY just as a Democrat wouldnt have to take Texas. I wouldnt expect him to take NY whether he came from there or not.
Giuliani would have to win the nomination before he wins New York or any other state, and that simply won’t happen. Most of the Republican Party (and not just the Religious Right) wouldn’t regard a Giuliani Presidency as no better than a Democrat Presidency. Personally, I think he’d be great, but it’s simply not going to happen.
Really take away the hot button issues of gun control etc and Guiiani is a tax cutting, hard as nails on defence Republican 28. But you are absolutely right he no chance of the nomination. If he can put in a credible enough showing though he might convince the ultimate nominee to include him on the ticket, particularly if the nominee is asocial conservative who needs to “balance” the ticket.
27. I would. But it’s all academic as he stands no chance of the nomination anyway surely.
There’s a really flattering photo of Hazel Blears accompanying the Times’ piece. The longer hair suits her: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,17129-2521396,00.html
CR poll
Lab 37
Con 36
LD 14
Green 5
SNP 2
BNP 2
Plaid 1
UKIP 1
Others 3
good night!
32 - I refer you to my earlier comment that a labour lead is barely plausible. 14% is also appalling, frankly, there’s definitely something way off about CR as they haven’t got their methodology sorted yet.
Having said that there is an increasingly strong Green showing across all polls. That they haven’t been scrutinised closely should mean that their support falls away when that happens, the key is to be best placed to get those votes.
Mike Smithson. Glad to hear of your increasing confidence behind Barack. My family’s fortunes are trusting in your good judgment!
31. Conservatives close the gap on Labour since the last CM poll
In line with the recent up-tick in Conservative support.
25 - There have been a number of polls in New York saying that Hillary beats Rudy head to head in 08
The problem for the Republicans is that all the states Kerry won are looking fairly safely Democrat and the Democrats would have to be strongly favoured to win Ohio next time, after their big congressional gains there, Republican scandals etc . Hard to see how any Republican presidential candidate could win the electoral college if they don’t carry Ohio.
13 - Mike. The risk with Obama is that he has never fought a close race. His Senate race in Illinois was a walkover after the Republican had to withdraw following a sex scandal. Alan Keyes came in as a late replacement but the state GOP basically conceded ther ace and Obama got 80%+of the vote.He is a compelling speaker but the question is can he take a punch. Whatever you think of the Clintons, they and their team are very good at election campaigns and will find some oppo research and hit hard with it. I’d be minded to take the gain on Obama before the Iowa caucuses.
Sorry but I don’t understand why anyone would think that Guiliani is a go-er as GOP candidate. I can understand why people think he might win the GE, but he won’t get a chance because he is incapable of winning the nomination.
Look, he is a East Coast Northern “Liberal” Republican who is an anathema to the majority of the GOP Base. McCain will be the nominee. He will even get White House support (if that is still seen as helping) if he wants it, having rescinded his opposition to the torture legislation - almost accused of doing that to help get the nomination. McCain will be the candidate, and he’ll probably win as well - Clinton will galvanise the GOP base, as would Obama. To be honest Edwards or Gore is most likely to make the 08 GE a close call. No-one associated with Bush will run, although I still think Condi may go for Veep. But hey, what do I know. I’m just a rural Councillor from deepest Suffolk!
Ben is absolutely right. No GOP’er has won the nomination without winning South Carolina. How is a twice-divorced Guiliani who kipped on the floor of a gay couple after his first wife left him? He also had an affair. No way the conservative South goes for this guy.
When looking at likely presidential campaigns, it is also worth looking at some other, more subtle, factors. John Edwards leads the polls in Iowa because he has visited often but also has the GOTV infrastructure in the State. We saw how important that was last time around. McCain and Edwards also have a long list of emails that can be tapped for donations quickly. There is also a good chance that Edwards could be the anti-Hillary from both the ideological left (Daily Kos readers) and the ‘Hillary is unelectable’ Centre. Obama, to say the least, muddies the water a little, but it is clearly between Hillary, Obama and Edwards. I do, however, think that Hillary gets more love in the North East and the Washington establishment then the farmers in Iowa might give her.
Rudy benefited from a pretty forgiving media environment all those years in New York. The Post obviously loved him and the other two newspapers (the Times, the Daily News) had owners who had a lot of real estate interests in the city. Obviously, he got bad press towards the end of his run but the day-to-day coverage of him glossed over the fact he was a paranoid, foul-mouthed control freak. When he blows up on that first slow news day in Iowa, that’ll be it.
Ben and Simon are both right… American friends tell me that Rudy is not at all popular in the South.
38 - this has been my impression of Giuliani too (and more or less still is), but he’s done better in the South so far than we would have expected:
http://www.nysun.com/article/38105
Of course, this is still some way from real votes in real primaries.
And movie star Al Gore’s had a good year, hasn’t he?
Where’s the Ben who used to be Labour but defected to the Tories, and was based in the East Midlands? He knows plenty about US politics.
41. Speaking of which, what are the odds of Gore picking up an Oscar this year? After all, they gave one to Michael Moore. His film had a lot of praise and was seen by a lot of people (at least, compared to other docu-films). I don’t know what the competition’s like, but a string of gongs at the start of next year won’t do his chances any harm and will provide plenty of publicity.
On the Republican side, all the front runners have pretty big negatives:
- McCain? Really? If he wasn’t good enough eight years ago, how has he improved since?
- Rudi? Lack of serious experience, 6+ years since 9/11 come crunch time, personal / character issues.
- Romney? Mormon. And can a north-easterner who managed to win such a heavily Democratic state attract the votes in the primaries in the South and Centre?
Hillary, Obama and Gore (to name only three) look better candidates than any one of the above. Does that make them a better bet? Not necessarily. The Democrats have a crowded and talented field and if the battle for that nomination turns bloody a quick win for whoever ends up on the GOP ticket might give enough momentum to get there.