More 9/11 profiteering in 2008?
My dear friend James Lain reminded me that I did not mention the man who has an excellent shot at being the republican front runner in the 2008 primary, Mayor Guliani.
Quite honestly he has always hit me as a marble mouthed New Yorker, the kind of guy who really isn't electable outside of New York. In addition, mayor of a city to President of the US is too big of a jump IMO. He seems more of a VP candidate type---someone who cannot pull a national vote, but can deliver a very attractive chunk of the electorate.
But James made a very compelling arguement. Assuming the cities remain liberal and the country remains conservative---a safe assumption, IMO---most of the country is already set.
Dem states:
WASH, ORE, CAL, MN, WISC, MICH, IL, PA, NY, ME, NH, MA, CT, NJ, DEL, Maryland, DC, HAWAII = 245 electorals
Undecided states I think would tend to lean Dem
NM, OH, VT, RI, = 32 electorals
Undecided states I think would tend to lean Rep
NV, CO, IA, = 21 electorals
Republican states
AZ, UT, ID, MT, WY, ND, SD, NEBRASKA, KS, OK, TX, LA, MS, AL, GA, SC,NC, TN, VA, WV, KY, TN, IN, AR, MO = 233 electorals
Here is my logic. Bush speaks Spanish, has been well known in the SW for the last decade, and without debate has been very good to Mexican Americans. I think he profited from a bump in the SW that most republicans just won't get. New Mexico was still only Republican by a slight margin. which tells me it probably would lean Dem without Bush in the race. Nevada and Colorado are not as heavily Hispanic, so I have left them leaning conservative with the rest of the midwest. Arizona is richer than NM and IMO more religious --- it seems more like Utah (more conservative) than it's neighbors to the east and west. Iowa has a a school in the Big 12 and one in the Big 10. Politically the state is similarly divided. I put it leaning conservative because it does not have as many large cities as some of the other Big 10 states and does not border Canada (not so exposed to foreign and progressive ideas). Indiana I have as conservative as they have gone heavily that way the last two races. Ohio, I would put leaning Dem, but I will freely admit I might be wrong there. My gut feeling is that the Kerry group dropped the ball in Ohio. Vermont and Rhode Island have gone both ways in the last two elections, but they are in areas bombarded by liberal thought from nearby metro areas. Florida has gone to Bush twice by suprisingly narrow margins considering his brother Jeb is the governor. Considering all the disaster relief that a President gives to Florida on a fairly regular basis, I think there would likely be an advantage there for an incumbent. I don't think they get that bounce if a Bush is not running.
So I am saying that in a vacuum, the Dems would win most elections 277 to 254 (until the votes are redistributed next). Sadly they don't happen in a vacuum.
Now supposing Guliani is in the race. The conservative states go conservative, so 233. Guliani pulls NY +31, so 264. The idea that Guliani couldn't steal ONE of the following states: MA, NJ, PA, or Ohio to win the election just seems to be asking too much.
I think Hillary would not win NY vs. Guliani and would get routed nationally in that matchup (although perhaps I am not giving her enough credit as she is by all accounts a very talented lawyer and presumably would fare well in a debate). Could Obama stave off more Guliani Northeastern wins, carry some of the neighboring states, AND overcome the racial hurdle of being the first black American presidential candidate. That’s a lot to ask, even of Illinois’ Superman.
I think you would have to totally rethink your strategy as a Democrat to beat that. You would have to run a classic "Southern Democrat" from Georgia or Florida (or possibly even Texas) to have a chance to beat that. A polished national-class politician with George Bush's religious sensibilities and a liberal political view would be a good choice vs. Guliani.
I don't see that person in Texas; Maybe they exist in Georgia. That kind of candidate could take Georgia, Florida, and maybe a couple other southern states and possibly prevent a Guliani sweep.
Frankly though, Liberals’ best shot is Guliani pulling a Howard Dean in the primaries. I think this would happen. Like Dean and Kerry, Guliani has never run for president and McCain has. Guliani will have weaknesses in the fact that he is just a former city mayor. McCain was a legit presidential contender in 2000 and has not lost any luster. John McCain is very personable, effective, and knowledgeable of Presidential scale politics. If Guliani is just too NY for Southerners and Midwesterners, McCain could very well pull the Republican nomination.
That isn't to say that McCain is not a candidate who could win the overall election just as dominantly. This is all about how he would win and what he would be as a President. Frankly, I might vote for McCain if he were the Republican candidate in 2008. I would vote for him vs. Hillary, and I probably would vote for him vs. Obama (too early to tell). I think McCain is not the kind of candidate a liberal would reject out of hat as being extreme. In some regards, he is like a Reagan or Clinton in that he would pull moderates very well.
I think he is the kind of candidate America needs. A responsible candidate who doesn't run on 9/11 and isn't part of the divisive culture that has Americans at each other's throats.
Classify McCain as "tolerably Republican".
Guliani is just too much of a partisan Republican shill for my tastes. My experiences with him lately include him going way overboard on The Daily Show trying to convince America that Bush dominated the first debate (come on now, how disingenuous can you get?) and this political ad where he is trying to convince Alaskans to vote Republican to "protect America".
By doing this ad and other appearances where he says basically, “I am the guy who was the mayor of NY when it was bombed. You should vote Republican to keep America safe,” he has lost all credibility with me. Agreeing to do this amounts to taking the step from responsible and respected mayor of NY to scummy political profiteer. IMO. Building a national career off of the ashes of 9/11 is in my opinion no different than what McCarthy did in the 1950's building a career off the fear of communist attacks in America.
Quite honestly he has always hit me as a marble mouthed New Yorker, the kind of guy who really isn't electable outside of New York. In addition, mayor of a city to President of the US is too big of a jump IMO. He seems more of a VP candidate type---someone who cannot pull a national vote, but can deliver a very attractive chunk of the electorate.
But James made a very compelling arguement. Assuming the cities remain liberal and the country remains conservative---a safe assumption, IMO---most of the country is already set.
Dem states:
WASH, ORE, CAL, MN, WISC, MICH, IL, PA, NY, ME, NH, MA, CT, NJ, DEL, Maryland, DC, HAWAII = 245 electorals
Undecided states I think would tend to lean Dem
NM, OH, VT, RI, = 32 electorals
Undecided states I think would tend to lean Rep
NV, CO, IA, = 21 electorals
Republican states
AZ, UT, ID, MT, WY, ND, SD, NEBRASKA, KS, OK, TX, LA, MS, AL, GA, SC,NC, TN, VA, WV, KY, TN, IN, AR, MO = 233 electorals
Here is my logic. Bush speaks Spanish, has been well known in the SW for the last decade, and without debate has been very good to Mexican Americans. I think he profited from a bump in the SW that most republicans just won't get. New Mexico was still only Republican by a slight margin. which tells me it probably would lean Dem without Bush in the race. Nevada and Colorado are not as heavily Hispanic, so I have left them leaning conservative with the rest of the midwest. Arizona is richer than NM and IMO more religious --- it seems more like Utah (more conservative) than it's neighbors to the east and west. Iowa has a a school in the Big 12 and one in the Big 10. Politically the state is similarly divided. I put it leaning conservative because it does not have as many large cities as some of the other Big 10 states and does not border Canada (not so exposed to foreign and progressive ideas). Indiana I have as conservative as they have gone heavily that way the last two races. Ohio, I would put leaning Dem, but I will freely admit I might be wrong there. My gut feeling is that the Kerry group dropped the ball in Ohio. Vermont and Rhode Island have gone both ways in the last two elections, but they are in areas bombarded by liberal thought from nearby metro areas. Florida has gone to Bush twice by suprisingly narrow margins considering his brother Jeb is the governor. Considering all the disaster relief that a President gives to Florida on a fairly regular basis, I think there would likely be an advantage there for an incumbent. I don't think they get that bounce if a Bush is not running.
So I am saying that in a vacuum, the Dems would win most elections 277 to 254 (until the votes are redistributed next). Sadly they don't happen in a vacuum.
Now supposing Guliani is in the race. The conservative states go conservative, so 233. Guliani pulls NY +31, so 264. The idea that Guliani couldn't steal ONE of the following states: MA, NJ, PA, or Ohio to win the election just seems to be asking too much.
I think Hillary would not win NY vs. Guliani and would get routed nationally in that matchup (although perhaps I am not giving her enough credit as she is by all accounts a very talented lawyer and presumably would fare well in a debate). Could Obama stave off more Guliani Northeastern wins, carry some of the neighboring states, AND overcome the racial hurdle of being the first black American presidential candidate. That’s a lot to ask, even of Illinois’ Superman.
I think you would have to totally rethink your strategy as a Democrat to beat that. You would have to run a classic "Southern Democrat" from Georgia or Florida (or possibly even Texas) to have a chance to beat that. A polished national-class politician with George Bush's religious sensibilities and a liberal political view would be a good choice vs. Guliani.
I don't see that person in Texas; Maybe they exist in Georgia. That kind of candidate could take Georgia, Florida, and maybe a couple other southern states and possibly prevent a Guliani sweep.
Frankly though, Liberals’ best shot is Guliani pulling a Howard Dean in the primaries. I think this would happen. Like Dean and Kerry, Guliani has never run for president and McCain has. Guliani will have weaknesses in the fact that he is just a former city mayor. McCain was a legit presidential contender in 2000 and has not lost any luster. John McCain is very personable, effective, and knowledgeable of Presidential scale politics. If Guliani is just too NY for Southerners and Midwesterners, McCain could very well pull the Republican nomination.
That isn't to say that McCain is not a candidate who could win the overall election just as dominantly. This is all about how he would win and what he would be as a President. Frankly, I might vote for McCain if he were the Republican candidate in 2008. I would vote for him vs. Hillary, and I probably would vote for him vs. Obama (too early to tell). I think McCain is not the kind of candidate a liberal would reject out of hat as being extreme. In some regards, he is like a Reagan or Clinton in that he would pull moderates very well.
I think he is the kind of candidate America needs. A responsible candidate who doesn't run on 9/11 and isn't part of the divisive culture that has Americans at each other's throats.
Classify McCain as "tolerably Republican".
Guliani is just too much of a partisan Republican shill for my tastes. My experiences with him lately include him going way overboard on The Daily Show trying to convince America that Bush dominated the first debate (come on now, how disingenuous can you get?) and this political ad where he is trying to convince Alaskans to vote Republican to "protect America".
By doing this ad and other appearances where he says basically, “I am the guy who was the mayor of NY when it was bombed. You should vote Republican to keep America safe,” he has lost all credibility with me. Agreeing to do this amounts to taking the step from responsible and respected mayor of NY to scummy political profiteer. IMO. Building a national career off of the ashes of 9/11 is in my opinion no different than what McCarthy did in the 1950's building a career off the fear of communist attacks in America.
posted by The Tobidian at 4:54 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home