Guliani V. Warner

[AuH2O]

If you think Guiliani has to go right to get the GOP nomination, imagine what Warner has to do on the left!!! Pure insanity to think Warner locks up Southern conservatives. The polling just doesn't back any of these claims up, and neither does common sense.

If Rudy gets the GOP nod, it's over. Sometimes, you just have to accept the obvious. He's popular and is going to stay popular. He had some scandal issues, but still was pretty popular even before 9/11. After, he was a national hero, rightly or wrongly. His problem is the primary, not the general.

In this particular hypothetical, by the way, Warner's lack of charisma would be badly exposed.

[BushKenya]

I'm a registered Republican, but I would say go Warner on this one.  I like Guiliani, even saw him live in Oklahoma City in June 2006, but he's too liberal for my liking.

You're not implying that Warner is less liberal than Giuliani?

I don't know Warner that well, but he doesn't seem to me as being far-left and not as socially liberal as Guiliani.

[adam]

I'm a registered Republican, but I would say go Warner on this one.  I like Guiliani, even saw him live in Oklahoma City in June 2006, but he's too liberal for my liking.

You're not implying that Warner is less liberal than Giuliani?

I don't know Warner that well, but he doesn't seem to me as being far-left and not as socially liberal as Guiliani.

...I would study up on Warner a tad then. Rudy is only liberal on a few social issues, where as Warner is well...a Democrat.

[BushKenya]

I'm a registered Republican, but I would say go Warner on this one.  I like Guiliani, even saw him live in Oklahoma City in June 2006, but he's too liberal for my liking.

You're not implying that Warner is less liberal than Giuliani?

I don't know Warner that well, but he doesn't seem to me as being far-left and not as socially liberal as Guiliani.

...I would study up on Warner a tad then. Rudy is only liberal on a few social issues, where as Warner is well...a Democrat.

I'll study up on him should he run for President.  I'm not going to dismiss Warner, nor am I going to dismiss Guiliani.

[adam]

I'm a registered Republican, but I would say go Warner on this one.  I like Guiliani, even saw him live in Oklahoma City in June 2006, but he's too liberal for my liking.

You're not implying that Warner is less liberal than Giuliani?

I don't know Warner that well, but he doesn't seem to me as being far-left and not as socially liberal as Guiliani.

...I would study up on Warner a tad then. Rudy is only liberal on a few social issues, where as Warner is well...a Democrat.

I'll study up on him should he run for President.  I'm not going to dismiss Warner, nor am I going to dismiss Guiliani.

That's the mature thing to do . Though I have studied both and find Warner to be another bland Democratic pseduo-moderate.

[Sam Spade]

Folks, if Giuliani gets the Rep nomination, he's pretty much assured of getting the Presidency, even moreso if foreign policy is a key issue in 2008. 

People are simply underestimating his superior debating ability and his strength at giving speeches.  Besides, he's been speaking in front of the correct people in the GOP and making the right connections.  That is, both he and McCain at this moment.

Presidential elections are different beasts than normal elections.  Primary voters tend to gravitate towards candidates who they view as "nominees who can win" more than specific issue-driven candidates; this has been proven time and time again. 

As I mentioned earlier, in the Republican party, it is well-known that there are party big-wigs who pretty much select the candidate they support and give them the added boost which has sufficed this candidate receiving the nomination in every open election since 1964.  The Democratic party does not have a similar mechanism, henceforth their primary results have been much more complicated.

And once you receive the nomination (especially in an open year), you can be guaranteed a minimum of 45% of the vote just by being a major party candidate to add on to (unless you're a total imbecile, Mr. Dukakis) or unless their are 3rd party aspirations (and there hasn't been a major 3rd-party challenge against an open year Republican nominee in, well, forever).  That will already put a certain number of states out of contention as it is.

However, Warner is probably the candidate who can present the greatest problems to him.  Still, it would take a scandal or two in order to create the scenario.  Maybe it's there.

[Smash255]

I'm a registered Republican, but I would say go Warner on this one.  I like Guiliani, even saw him live in Oklahoma City in June 2006, but he's too liberal for my liking.

You're not implying that Warner is less liberal than Giuliani?

I don't know Warner that well, but he doesn't seem to me as being far-left and not as socially liberal as Guiliani.

...I would study up on Warner a tad then. Rudy is only liberal on a few social issues, where as Warner is well...a Democrat.

Pro Choice, against the PBA Ban, Pro Stem Cell reserach, pro Gay Rights, Pro Gay Adoption, Anti FMA,  pro Gun Control, strong Supporter of Seperation of Churh & State.  Its not just a few.  The death penalty is really the only social issue Rudy isn't liberal on.

[Sam Spade]

I'm a registered Republican, but I would say go Warner on this one.  I like Guiliani, even saw him live in Oklahoma City in June 2006, but he's too liberal for my liking.

You're not implying that Warner is less liberal than Giuliani?

I don't know Warner that well, but he doesn't seem to me as being far-left and not as socially liberal as Guiliani.

...I would study up on Warner a tad then. Rudy is only liberal on a few social issues, where as Warner is well...a Democrat.

Pro Choice, against the PBA Ban, Pro Stem Cell reserach, pro Gay Rights, Pro Gay Adoption, Anti FMA,  pro Gun Control, strong Supporter of Seperation of Churh & State.  Its not just a few.  The death penalty is really the only social issue Rudy isn't liberal on.

You're correct on these, except that Rudy flip-flopped on the PBA ban a while ago.

[adam]

I'm a registered Republican, but I would say go Warner on this one.  I like Guiliani, even saw him live in Oklahoma City in June 2006, but he's too liberal for my liking.

You're not implying that Warner is less liberal than Giuliani?

I don't know Warner that well, but he doesn't seem to me as being far-left and not as socially liberal as Guiliani.

...I would study up on Warner a tad then. Rudy is only liberal on a few social issues, where as Warner is well...a Democrat.

Pro Choice, against the PBA Ban, Pro Stem Cell reserach, pro Gay Rights, Pro Gay Adoption, Anti FMA,  pro Gun Control, strong Supporter of Seperation of Churh & State.  Its not just a few.  The death penalty is really the only social issue Rudy isn't liberal on.

Rudy is anti-amnesty, pro-punishment first, like many Republicans he favors civil unions but not gay marriage, his opposed to drug legalization. I also recall Rudy claiming that gun control was a state issue some time back...this could strike a chord with the state's rights people.

[Harry]

Folks, if Giuliani gets the Rep nomination, he's pretty much assured of getting the Presidency 

Crazy wrong.  He has a very small chance of winning, even against Hillary.  The Religious Right will NOT have him.  Trust me, the majority of people I know are Religious Right, and they've said they will NOT vote for him.  Guliani cant win with such a massive undercut of his base.

[Smash255]

I'm a registered Republican, but I would say go Warner on this one.  I like Guiliani, even saw him live in Oklahoma City in June 2006, but he's too liberal for my liking.

You're not implying that Warner is less liberal than Giuliani?

I don't know Warner that well, but he doesn't seem to me as being far-left and not as socially liberal as Guiliani.

...I would study up on Warner a tad then. Rudy is only liberal on a few social issues, where as Warner is well...a Democrat.

Pro Choice, against the PBA Ban, Pro Stem Cell reserach, pro Gay Rights, Pro Gay Adoption, Anti FMA,  pro Gun Control, strong Supporter of Seperation of Churh & State.  Its not just a few.  The death penalty is really the only social issue Rudy isn't liberal on.

Rudy is anti-amnesty, pro-punishment first, like many Republicans he favors civil unions but not gay marriage, his opposed to drug legalization. I also recall Rudy claiming that gun control was a state issue some time back...this could strike a chord with the state's rights people.

When you say amnesty do you mean what it actually is are Carl Hayden's example??  Rudy favors citizenship

[jokerman]

[Tender Branson]

I'm a registered Republican, but I would say go Warner on this one.  I like Guiliani, even saw him live in Oklahoma City in June 2006, but he's too liberal for my liking.

You're not implying that Warner is less liberal than Giuliani?

I don't know Warner that well, but he doesn't seem to me as being far-left and not as socially liberal as Guiliani.

...I would study up on Warner a tad then. Rudy is only liberal on a few social issues, where as Warner is well...a Democrat.

Pro Choice, against the PBA Ban, Pro Stem Cell reserach, pro Gay Rights, Pro Gay Adoption, Anti FMA,  pro Gun Control, strong Supporter of Seperation of Churh & State.  Its not just a few.  The death penalty is really the only social issue Rudy isn't liberal on.

As far as i know Mark Warner is pro choice + favors parental notification, pro stem cell research, anti-gay-rights, strongly pro gun rights, supports a fair death penalty, against affirmative action, opposes earned citizenship for illegal immigrants and strongly against illegal drugs.

[adam]

I'm a registered Republican, but I would say go Warner on this one.  I like Guiliani, even saw him live in Oklahoma City in June 2006, but he's too liberal for my liking.

You're not implying that Warner is less liberal than Giuliani?

I don't know Warner that well, but he doesn't seem to me as being far-left and not as socially liberal as Guiliani.

...I would study up on Warner a tad then. Rudy is only liberal on a few social issues, where as Warner is well...a Democrat.

Pro Choice, against the PBA Ban, Pro Stem Cell reserach, pro Gay Rights, Pro Gay Adoption, Anti FMA,  pro Gun Control, strong Supporter of Seperation of Churh & State.  Its not just a few.  The death penalty is really the only social issue Rudy isn't liberal on.

Rudy is anti-amnesty, pro-punishment first, like many Republicans he favors civil unions but not gay marriage, his opposed to drug legalization. I also recall Rudy claiming that gun control was a state issue some time back...this could strike a chord with the state's rights people.

When you say amnesty do you mean what it actually is are Carl Hayden's example??  Rudy favors citizenship

According to last I heard from Rudy said that if it was up to him, he would
"Do for illegal immigration in the USA what he dic from crime in NYC". I'm not sure you are familiar with what he did for crime in NYC, easily enough he took a staunch hard-line approach to it.

[Smash255]

I'm a registered Republican, but I would say go Warner on this one.  I like Guiliani, even saw him live in Oklahoma City in June 2006, but he's too liberal for my liking.

You're not implying that Warner is less liberal than Giuliani?

I don't know Warner that well, but he doesn't seem to me as being far-left and not as socially liberal as Guiliani.

...I would study up on Warner a tad then. Rudy is only liberal on a few social issues, where as Warner is well...a Democrat.

Pro Choice, against the PBA Ban, Pro Stem Cell reserach, pro Gay Rights, Pro Gay Adoption, Anti FMA,  pro Gun Control, strong Supporter of Seperation of Churh & State.  Its not just a few.  The death penalty is really the only social issue Rudy isn't liberal on.

Rudy is anti-amnesty, pro-punishment first, like many Republicans he favors civil unions but not gay marriage, his opposed to drug legalization. I also recall Rudy claiming that gun control was a state issue some time back...this could strike a chord with the state's rights people.

When you say amnesty do you mean what it actually is are Carl Hayden's example??  Rudy favors citizenship

According to last I heard from Rudy said that if it was up to him, he would
"Do for illegal immigration in the USA what he dic from crime in NYC". I'm not sure you are familiar with what he did for crime in NYC, easily enough he took a staunch hard-line approach to it.

In response to Bush's immigration speech

"[President Bush] understands the issue possibly better than just about anyone given his experience as governor of Texas ... I'm very, very proud of President Bush." (Davidson Goldin, "Giuliani, In Carolina, Full Of Praise For Bush," The New York Sun, 5/16/06)

[Pictor Ignotus]

Warner would clean up and hard core conservatives wouldn't turn out in the numbers they have been.

[Reignman]

I'm with boris78 on this one.

[Nym90]

Folks, if Giuliani gets the Rep nomination, he's pretty much assured of getting the Presidency, even moreso if foreign policy is a key issue in 2008. 

People are simply underestimating his superior debating ability and his strength at giving speeches.  Besides, he's been speaking in front of the correct people in the GOP and making the right connections.  That is, both he and McCain at this moment.

Presidential elections are different beasts than normal elections.  Primary voters tend to gravitate towards candidates who they view as "nominees who can win" more than specific issue-driven candidates; this has been proven time and time again. 

As I mentioned earlier, in the Republican party, it is well-known that there are party big-wigs who pretty much select the candidate they support and give them the added boost which has sufficed this candidate receiving the nomination in every open election since 1964.  The Democratic party does not have a similar mechanism, henceforth their primary results have been much more complicated.

And once you receive the nomination (especially in an open year), you can be guaranteed a minimum of 45% of the vote just by being a major party candidate to add on to (unless you're a total imbecile, Mr. Dukakis) or unless their are 3rd party aspirations (and there hasn't been a major 3rd-party challenge against an open year Republican nominee in, well, forever).  That will already put a certain number of states out of contention as it is.

However, Warner is probably the candidate who can present the greatest problems to him.  Still, it would take a scandal or two in order to create the scenario.  Maybe it's there.

Dukakis got 46 percent of the vote in 1988. You have to go back to Mondale to find the last major party candidate who got less than 45 percent when there wasn't a major third party candidate in the race (Perot).

[Sam Spade]

Folks, if Giuliani gets the Rep nomination, he's pretty much assured of getting the Presidency, even moreso if foreign policy is a key issue in 2008. 

People are simply underestimating his superior debating ability and his strength at giving speeches.  Besides, he's been speaking in front of the correct people in the GOP and making the right connections.  That is, both he and McCain at this moment.

Presidential elections are different beasts than normal elections.  Primary voters tend to gravitate towards candidates who they view as "nominees who can win" more than specific issue-driven candidates; this has been proven time and time again. 

As I mentioned earlier, in the Republican party, it is well-known that there are party big-wigs who pretty much select the candidate they support and give them the added boost which has sufficed this candidate receiving the nomination in every open election since 1964.  The Democratic party does not have a similar mechanism, henceforth their primary results have been much more complicated.

And once you receive the nomination (especially in an open year), you can be guaranteed a minimum of 45% of the vote just by being a major party candidate to add on to (unless you're a total imbecile, Mr. Dukakis) or unless their are 3rd party aspirations (and there hasn't been a major 3rd-party challenge against an open year Republican nominee in, well, forever).  That will already put a certain number of states out of contention as it is.

However, Warner is probably the candidate who can present the greatest problems to him.  Still, it would take a scandal or two in order to create the scenario.  Maybe it's there.

Dukakis got 46 percent of the vote in 1988. You have to go back to Mondale to find the last major party candidate who got less than 45 percent when there wasn't a major third party candidate in the race (Perot).

Sorry.  Anyway, the more important classification is non-incumbent Presidential elections, of which this will be one.

Anyway, as mod, I hope that you'll save this thread 'til 2008, so I can go back and show that I was right on this one. 

[Boris]

Folks, if Giuliani gets the Rep nomination, he's pretty much assured of getting the Presidency 

Crazy wrong.  He has a very small chance of winning, even against Hillary.  The Religious Right will NOT have him.  Trust me, the majority of people I know are Religious Right, and they've said they will NOT vote for him.  Guliani cant win with such a massive undercut of his base.

That's Guiliani's biggest problem: The Religious Right. Undoubtedly, he's going to have to move rightwards in order to win the nomination (and then move back towards the center for the GOP Convention and Presidential Debates, which he probably could do, but he's going to have to balance his platform to appease both sides). Let's assume he does win the nomination. Now, he has to pick a nice conservative VP with a nice conservative record. He picks one. If the religious right can be convinced by Guiliani's charisma and his VP selection, he's got the election in the bag. If they aren't (maybe a third party conservative candidate enters the race), then he's done.

[AuH2O]

Err, some people are too young to have taken real political science classes.

Quiz: what is the #1 predictor of voting behavior?




Answer: Party ID. It's basically a law of political science. There is no debate on this question.

So the fact is, Republicans are likely to vote for Rudy right off the bat, as a result of his party identification. Now, certain segments of the party might be happier than others. A Rudy candidacy would probably increase moderate Republican turnout and decrease "religious right" turnout.

Another thing is that the "religious right" is a very amorphous and inexact concept that, frankly, is overrated in importance. It's more a sliding scale than a voting bloc. What really happened is that people that already attented church and held certain theological views starting to vote more heavily Republican, thus giving birth to the "religious right" notion that is a relatively recent one.

Thing of it is, there is zero chance these people defect to the Democrats, and lower turnout amongst them is not really a problem for Rudy. If you think someone liberal enough to win the DNC nomination can win in, say, the suburbs of Birmingham... you are totally insane.