Rothenberg: Rudy Can't Win
In his latest column, Stuart Rothenberg argues that while Rudy Giuliani exudes leadership and optimism, enjoys post-Sept. 11 celebrity and appears formidable in a general election, he can't overcome the crippling social liberalism that will prevent him from winning the GOP primary. Rothenberg also envisions a very interesting scenario unfolding if Giuliani somehow were to become the GOP nominee:
Does anyone seriously believe that a Democrat who opposes legal abortion could be nominated for president by his or her party?...And if the Democrats wouldn’t nominate a cultural conservative, why should anyone believe that Republicans would pick a social liberal? It seems to me that you need to suspend all your analytical faculties to believe the GOP will nominate for president a Republican who supports abortion rights, and is pro-gun control and pro-gay rights. It just isn’t going to happen, at least not in my lifetime.
Giuliani’s strong showing in GOP polling reflects his celebrity status and the reputation he earned after the terrorist attacks. But if and when he becomes a candidate, that will change. He will be evaluated on the basis of different things, including his past and current positions and behavior, and he’ll be attacked by critics and opponents. A Giuliani nomination would also generate a conservative third-party candidate in the general election and tear the GOP apart, thereby undercutting Giuliani’s electability argument.
So, the former mayor might make a terrific general election candidate, but I don’t see how he can get there as a Republican.
The idea of Giuliani as the GOP nominee generating a third-party challenge from the right is an intriguing one, and does seem like it would be awfully likely, now that Rothenberg brings it up. Doesn't it?















I could see Tancredo or Brownback hanging in there against Rudy in the general election if by some miracle he won the primaries, or else someeone who thinks they have some crossover/silent majority type appeal like Pat Buchanan getting in the race.
January 18, 2007 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
"earned" is overstating the case.
I agree with what Rothenberg says, and the idea of a third party hadn't occured to me.
What I'm curious about is what happens if Rudi has a sudden conversion, a la Steve Forbes. I don't think the man really believes in anything but his own ambition, and the leaders of the Religious Right would, I think, come around if he signalled something like a Giuliani/Brownback ticket.
January 18, 2007 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rudy is living on borrowed time. McCain or Romney will bring up his 9/11 screwups. His having the Emergency response HQ in the WTC complex even after people told him not to do it, due to the 1993 bombing. It will indeed be a fun season.
January 18, 2007 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
What about the reverse. Rudy goes into the GOP primaries, does not get much traction, is drafted and "reluctantly but for the good of the nation" accepts the nomination on a UNITY08 ticket leaving the GOP with the same situation mentioned above but in this case, Rudy is the spoiler and outside of their control. It is unlikely in his case but the GOP has to be concerned that this type of situation may happen with a prominent GOP candidate/leader in 08. Especially one that is critical of the Iraq policy.
January 18, 2007 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I strongly disagree that Giuliani would make a strong general election candidate. Put aside the fact that his real list of substantive accomplishments is rather meager (the MSM don't care about trivia like that), but just wait until that character obsessed MSM sees the Giuliani that the NYC area knows. You know, the thinskinned control freak whose penchant for governmental secrecy and power rivals even that of Dick Cheney. While I know that the MSM is loath to chanage its preferred script, prickly Rudy would undoubtedly vent at enough members of the MSM to change a lot of minds.
January 18, 2007 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
rudy, mccain, romney none of them stand a chance in the goper sweepstakes. That means barring a stealth wingnut like junior getting into the race a rabid social conservative like brownback will take the prize.
Unless the Dems screw up and nominate a complete stiff (cough Kerry cough) we could see a blowout such as we haven't seen in a long while come 08.
January 18, 2007 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
A Ind(Winger/Religious Fascist)-Guiliani-Dem race would be fascinating because he might be able to siphon candidates from both parties. Shaky Dems that feel the need to have a 'tough guy' in charge, and Reps that think the Winger is too crazy but can't stomach a Dem. Plus the Winger would have an invincible 20% core of support to begin with.
But I think this would hurt Guiliani the most--and if a Presidential election became a race between a Democrat and a Third Party Candidate while the candidate of the major party became well irrelevant...
That might be very interesting to see how the two party system handles THAT. The Democrats have outlasted major parties before.
January 18, 2007 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Rothenberg's theory is fatally flawed in the respect that it assumes that the more pragmatic wing of the GOP NECESSARILY will not see the writing on the wall and flex its muscle, money, and "moderate" appeal to ensure that the party nominates a candidate who can win in the General - because that is what the GOP MUST do in order to be successful in '08; that's just the simple reality of what the Bushies have done to their own party in the last 6 years.
In fact, I think that a more socially liberal / former military candidate would clean up in the GOP primaries, regardless of the whining of the fundamentalists, who, if they are cut off from the GOP (which I think is neccessary at this time in order for them to succeed on a national level), become instantly irrelevant once they are cast out of "the big tent." Surely the brain-trust of the GOP can see this and recognizes that sucking up to the fundies is worthless if it results in LOSING ELECTIONS.
January 18, 2007 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
The GOP primary is wide open. At this point I don't think we should rule anything out.
Giuliani's ability to appear earnest, when he is in fact lying through his teeth, will make him a formidable candidate. We underestimate him at our peril.
I also think Giuliani could win a three way race, with a slim plurality, say, thirty-five to thirty-eight percent of the vote.
If he can make it to the general election, he will be hard to beat. The trick is navigating the minefield that is the GOP primary.
Let the contortions begin.
January 18, 2007 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree.... However, aside from his own political views which the Repugnicon Right will find problems with, there's his little situation with his then-wife & Gracie Mansion, where his wife and girlfriend were both living under the same roof. In any political campaign, that unsavory situation is grist for the mill.
Same with Little Newt Gingrich... His serial mistresses and his despicable treatment of his first wife (served div papers while wife was in the hospital for breast cancer surgery), not to mention his desertion of #2.... When Newtty divorces & marries his latest mistress, he's just creating another opening for a mistress.
Neither of these guys could EVER get elected.... Middle America wouldn't stand for the sexual shenanigans these two have indulged in.
January 18, 2007 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I keep waiting for Guiliani to have a George Herbert Walker Bush-like ideological "conversion."
January 18, 2007 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Never discount the hypocrisy of the right.
Reagan got divorced and rarely darkened the door of a Church, while Jimmy Carter was pious as the dickens. Nevertheless, 'social conservatives' supported him because they thought he was better on abortion and/or church/state stuff.
Also, it's depressing, but don't forget the FOX Ministry of 'Truth' - if the GOP pulled the trigger for Rudy, then they'd either offer deafening silence on Rudy's or Newt's good timin' or offer up a thousand rationales and suddenly adopt a 'glass houses' or there but for the Grace of God posture in service of their GOP patrons.
January 18, 2007 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
The key to winning the GOP primary is having a 50-state operation, like Bush had in 2000. And, they key to having a 50-state operation is having enough money. Unless you are operating everywhere, you have to count entirely on momentum out of NH to propel you to win everywhere else. That's part of what hurt McCain in 2000. Even though he was an attractive candidate due to his appeal to independents, moderates and some dems, he lost the ground game because his financials came up short. Once his momentum from NH was "firewalled" in SC, he didn't have the money in the other states to get out the vote.
January 18, 2007 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that Rudy's nomination would cause a split among Republicans -- and the possiblity that some significant number of those on the religious right would defect to a third party candidate. This kind of split is exactly what happened here in Washington State when the state Republican party started pulling back toward the moderate middle after their thumping, with a far to the religious right candidate, in the Governor's race in '96. They've done very poorly in statewide races ever since. Their dilemma; with a far right candidate they lose moderates (and liberatarians) and can't get more than a third of the vote statewide. But with a moderate candidate, they lose too many voters on the religious right, and therefore still can't get a majority statewide.
I personally would love to see the national Republican Party stuck in the same dynamic.
January 18, 2007 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Democrats are far more likely to come unglued than the GOP in the next 2 years. They got deeply conservative candidates to run under the Dem banner and won over the Iraq issue. So, let's see if the "big tent" holds up or folds. It's difficult to see Dems from very red states towing the Pelosi line for 2 full years.
January 18, 2007 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
While I generally agree with the ideas here, it assumes that the GOP will stay true to their values come caucus time.
But what if the prospect of losing all 3 branches pushes "electability" to the top of the priority list above abortion stance, gay-marriage stance, etc.?
We Dem's know how that worked for us in 2004, but that doesn't mean that the GOP won't pull together and pick someone who is meant to pick up independents.
As far as the threat of 3rd party conservatives goes, I think the lessons of Perot and Nader will be fresh in their minds (evidenced by their recent tactic of funding far-left candidates) and because of their top-down discipline are more likely able to squelch and far-right uprising.
January 18, 2007 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I still don't get this "deeply conservative Democrats" line. The folks they won with are pretty traditional "Party Democrats," kind of along the lines of "your father's Democrats." True, they are not the dreaded "San Fancisco" liberals, but I wouldn't go so far as to call them "conservatives."
I do agree that the activist left and the traditional middle will have to battle it out in the next two years, to an extent, and at times it could get ugly, but I think that the Party will see that middle-left is the way most of its adherents see things. I consider myself a pragmatic liberal, in that I understand that social change often depends on the will of the public to adapt to "liberalism" as defined on the East Coast (in my case). So, personally, I am happy to let the new majority draw us back to the middle. Hopefully the more activist wing of the Party will see this.
January 18, 2007 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
you underestimate the power of Republican hubris.
The 'Thugs will have to be defeated in 2 or 3 straight presidential elections until they realize that they need to dump the fundie base.
If McCain flames out... who does the GOP have who can realistically win a general election? Nobody.
Hillary/Obama 2008!
January 18, 2007 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't understand how Giuliani makes it out of the GOP primaries. He can't move to the right of McCain with the base. I think his only hope is to attract the moderates and let the other candidates split the fundies... but that scenario only works if you have GOP-right candidates who are fairly equal. They're not. There's McCain and then everyone else.
(is Alan Keyes running again???)
January 18, 2007 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, you've got some anti-abortion Democrats now, Legal -- so I'll let you label them. With New York and California in the bag for a Presidential election, Florida is the state Dems will have to lock up solid to insure the White House. Bush needs another Elian Gonzalez to wash up on shore.
January 18, 2007 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rudy is not a serious candidate.
I have been saying this for months now.
He has no chance of winning the GOP nomination or even the VP spot.
His high poll numbers reflect the fawning press coverage he has received since 9/11. There has been no serious coverage of Rudy's record or personal life.
Even if the press continues to give him positive coverage his GOP primary opponents will make sure the voters hear about his liberal social views, his private life, his record as mayor.
Question; where will Rudy's current support in the polls go. To McCain, Romney or someone else.
January 18, 2007 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
What nonsense!!
What you meant to say was that you're terrified that the Republicans will nominate Giuliani because his charisma and social liberalism will win over independents and Democrats by the bucketful!
That's what you meant to say! Now get back out there and say it! Loudly and frequently!
.
.
.
.
.
[Full disclosure: Yeah, I rooted for George W. to win the GOP nomination in 2000, too. Which didn't quite come up roses. Maybe the unifying theme here is the unwisdom of nominating an android from the Clinton White House.]
January 18, 2007 9:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Those of us who live in New York can more easily remember that, directly prior to 9/11, Giuliani's political career was considered by many to be washed up, and for good reason. Most people would credit him with conducting himself with dignity in the immediate aftermath of that crisis, but that doesn't change what went on before. He’s been romanticized beyond recognition and, because he has not held public office since then or been an immediate political threat to anyone, either Democratic or Republican, he has been having a pretty easy ride. The reality is that this guy has a lot of skeletons in his closet, both political and personal, and, as soon as he’s really out there, they’re going to be brought out and it is not going to be pretty. The personal skeletons include extramarital behavior that makes Bill Clinton look like a boy scout. His marriage didn’t just fail. He didn’t just cheat on his wife. He publicly flaunted his infidelity in a way that was impressive even for us hardened New Yorkers. The political stuff is more complicated, but, all in all, it just isn’t going to go down, particularly with Republican primary voters. Personally, I don’t think the Democrats will have to lay a glove on this guy. When it comes down to it, his Republican rivals are going to bring up this stuff and take him out in the first round.
January 19, 2007 12:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your comment deserve a "5" because it states something which needs repeating at every opportunity: Bush and Giulani should not be considered "heroes" of 9/11 just because they happened to hold their respective offices on that day. Giulani should have been castigated for refusal to upgrade the police and fire communications infrastructure pre-9/11, and Bush was cowering on an airstrip in Nebraska after the attacks.
We need to take on this "hero" meme every time it's advanced. "America's Mayor?" Feh.
January 19, 2007 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Question; where will Rudy's current support in the polls go."
You're right in seeing his support as ephemeral. His high numbers are the result of his having two things: name recognition and a vague impression of patriotism, moderation and GOP-seal-of-approval-hood. It's a pretty good way to open an advertising cvampaign, but it won't last. Scrap the superficial name recognition and what you have left are a bunch of underinformed voters looking for the patriotism brand, the moderate/electable brand and/or the GOP Seal of Approval.
McCain is, right now, the most logical place for them to turn, but much of his veneer of moderation/electability has peeled off, and the end is not yet. His patriotic image will remain appealing to pro-war dead-enders, but their numbers are diminishing.
Romney is fleeing from a reputation as a moderate, and won't be able to make the reverse pivot later on and retain any credibility, and doesn't have any particular patriotism (i.e. virile and courageous defiance of America's foes) branding. His only appeal for these folks is the party poohbahs' approval as the True Republican Choice. And this (at least for now) he has to share with McCain.
Huckabee gets the lion's share of the moderation/electability voters. His very conservative track record is no more of a hindrance for him than it was for McCain in 2000. He has a good story, if not a riveting blood-and-glory one, but won't be granted a share of the GOP Seal of Approval until both (maybe just on, but I think both) of the current recipients show signs of tanking pretty hard.
So, basically:
Lockstep GOP hacks --> Romney
"My country right or wrong"ers --> McCain
"Can't we all get along"ers --> Huckabee
January 19, 2007 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you define "liberal" or "conservative" solely by a candidate's position on abortion, then your comments have merit. If you don't so define them, then not so much.
January 19, 2007 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
"McCain is, right now, the most logical place for them to turn, "
I agree.
Much of Rudy's poll strength is based on the mythical hero persona the media has created. That will start to unravel as soon as Rudy's personal/political record is revealed.
The "hero worship" voters will most likely gravitate towards McCain. Especially if the press is still portraying St John McCain as the "straight talking war hero who acts out of principle".
January 19, 2007 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
"McCain is, right now, the most logical place for them to turn,"
I agree.
Rudy's poll strength is based on the mythical hero persona the media has created. That will start to unravel as soon as Rudy's personal/political record is revealed.
The "hero worship" voters will most likely gravitate towards McCain. Especially if the press is still portraying St John McCain as the "straight talking war hero who acts out of principle".
BTW, I am not buying the current "McCain is tanking" meme. IMO he is still the likeliest GOP nominee and a strong general election candidate. Do not underestimate the GOP establishment support plus positive press and fundraising advantage.
January 19, 2007 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you examine Giuliani's past performance as a candidate for office, I don't see why anyone could believe he could win. His first race for Mayor of New York City against David Dinkins was a disaster. He was an undisciplined candidate with a poorly organized and undisciplined campaign. He barely won his second campaign against Dinkins, even though Dinkins' popularity ratings in the polls were very low and Dinkins' handling of the Crown Heights riot was severely criticized by a state-sponsored inquiry released during the campaign. Giuliani won his third campaign handily -- but the Democratic party was unenthusiastic about its candidate and Giuliani was able to outspend his opponent by a huge margin. Then came the now infamous race for Senate against Hillary. While he led in the polls initially, once again he proved to be a highly undisciplined candidate, lashing out at Hillary with personal attacks and never really engaging in a policy debate. And then his personal life disintegrated in front of the cameras...
Since 9/11, Rudy's been a major success on the GOP fund raising circuit. But he hasn't really participated in any of the policy debates going on in the party. Could he raise the money to be a serious contender? No question. Could he win over a majority of the voters in a tight race? Questionable.
January 19, 2007 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink