From a Giuliani “strategy memo” sent out to supporters:
…More importantly, the Mayor puts blue states like Connecticut, New Jersey, Wisconsin, California, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Washington in play. Pat Toomey, President of the Club for Growth, states that “If Giuliani wins the nomination, he would be a fascinating candidate in that he really re-draws the map.” Toomey points out that Giuliani could carry New Jersey, Connecticut and Pennsylvania �”so he changes the political calculus of the Electoral College dramatically.” And Mayor Giuliani may be the only Republican candidate that can now compete and win in Ohio against Hillary Clinton.
These states are critical, not only because Rudy can win them, but if Rudy is the nominee, Democrats will be forced to spend money in California, New Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, New York and Washington — states that they have spent almost no money in over the last few election cycles.
[...]
In addition, if Democrats have to spend money competing in Connecticut and New Jersey, they will have to buy New York City television. One week of New York City television will cost the Democrats $3 million dollars…
[...]
Because of the Mayor’s ability to compete in all of these states and force the Democrats to defend many states they have long considered “safe,” Mayor Giuliani also gives our Republican congressional candidates in swing districts the best chance for winning, giving us our best chance at retaking the House in 2008.
Giuliani has already made significant steps in this direction, recruiting some of Connecticut’s top Republicans for his campaign in state. The argument is persuasive. Rudy could absolutely win here. But will the rest of the country go for it?
28 responses so far ↓
Does Rudi not have to pay to get advertisements on teevee in NYC? Am I missing something from this argument.
Only two states (NH and NM) switched sides between the ‘00 and ‘04 elections. It’s therefore always interesting when you talk about a candidate who can rip away states of the opposite color.
Also, he may have to worry about the rest of the country…
CC – I’m not sure if that was a response to me or not, but I will clarify what I meant anyway – the memo says that the Democrats will have to spend money defending NY and CT. True, but, unless I am missing something, don’t the Republicans also have to spend money that they wouldn’t have otherwise spent in contesting NY and CT?
Gabe: In writing my post I was not referring to yours.
gotcha.
[quote comment="20226"]Does Rudi not have to pay to get advertisements on teevee in NYC? Am I missing something from this argument.[/quote]
A good point–and considering the sad state of Republican finances right now, an important one.
The point is, the Democrats never had to buy NYC television before, because NY, NJ and CT were a virtual lock for the Democrats. Republicans didn’t buy NYC television advertisements either, because such a move would have just been tossing money away.
In the last few elections, there have been a few markets — the battleground states — that got all the TV ads for the Presidential candidates. Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Arizona, New Mexico, Iowa and a few other places is where the majority of ads would have had to have been purchased. States that had a small margin of victory for either candidate.
If Guliani is chosen, would both parties choose to advertise in NYC? Or would just the Democrats (perhaps the Republicans don’t really think any of CT, NJ or NY is really winnable, so they won’t spend their money, but the Democrats will need to spend there just to lock up their “base”).
The problem for the Republicans is if Guliania / Hillary puts any “safe” Republican states into play. Because then Republicans would have to advertise there just to defend their base.
A lot can change in 13 months, but if you look at the EVs in the last two elections, it looks like Ohio is going to be difficult for the Republicans. If the Democrats can keep all the states that Kerry won plus win Ohio, that’s enough for the nomination (presuming no state decides to mess with their EV allocation mechanism). There may be a few other red states in play, such as NM, CO, or VA. Depends on a lot of factors, of course…
So if the Republicans lose Ohio, they’ll have to win somewhere else that Bush lost in 2004…
Close states, like Iowa, Nevada and states in the southwest might fall to Democrats if social conservatives who don’t like Rudy stay home. He could pick up a state or two in the northeast but lose elsewhere.
He’d also have to sink an insane amount of money into Ohio and especially Florida.
Close states, like Iowa, Nevada and states in the southwest might fall to Democrats if social conservatives who don’t like Rudy stay home. He could pick up a state or two in the northeast but lose elsewhere.
He’d also have to sink an insane amount of money into Ohio and especially Florida.
If it were Rudy vs. Obama or Rudy vs. Dodd (ha!) or Rudy vs. Richardson or Rudy vs. Edwards, I’d be inclined to agree with you. But Hillary is a very polarizing candidate. She would likely definitely turn out the Republican base, as well as her own… (Especially if the polls were somewhat close).
Close states, like Iowa, Nevada and states in the southwest might fall to Democrats if social conservatives who don’t like Rudy stay home.
How many social conservatives live in NEVADA? That seems like an odd choice of a state for someone who thinks they’re socially conservative?
Most of the west isn’t that socially conservative: the old south is really where those folks tend to be found, plus in some of the plains states.
GC is right. While CT/NJ/NY may be “in play,” other states may have a lower GOP turnout. (or perhaps more accurately stated… there would be more Presidential “blanks” and fewer votes cast for President, while people still turnout for the Senate and Congressional races.)
GMR… say the vote is significantly influenced by social conservatives in the south, moreso than in Nevada. But guns probably are a concern in the western states… as much as the social conservative vote in the south.
If Rudy is the nominee… blue states could go red, but red states could go blue… and a Bloomberg (or other third party candidacy) could really change the electoral map.
I could easily see another election in which no candidate gets a majority of the popular vote.
Regardless… go Ron Paul!
>>How many social conservatives live in NEVADA?
The whole state save for Las Vegas & Reno; which account for enough liberals to explain certain members of the US Senate.
>>While CT/NJ/NY may be “in play,” other states may have a lower GOP turnout
I’m not a big Rudy fan – however for every voter that would stay home due to his social liberalism; 2 would show up for the 1st time in ages to vote *against* Hillary.
The worst case scenario would be a wash.
Either way; even if Hillary won; Rudy would get out so many more Republican voters here in CT that we could probably rid ourselves of a few problems ….and maybe elect a few new problems instead!
The most interesting thing from my perspective, that of a former and potentially future legislative candidate here in Connecticut, is the effect a Rudy candidacy might have right here at home…
There I’d agree with ACR, there is an excellent chance Rudy would carry (or at least compete in) towns that Bush lost by ten points or more. The absence of any Dodd/Lieberman race (only four contests on the total ballot) would mean that the disasterous 2006 anti-Republican wave might be muted somewhat.
The effect would be most pronounced in the western part of the state, the part that Bush carried, and the part that Rudy would certainly take. There you’d have two hard fought congressional races (Shays/Murphy), a positive impact top down and public financing ensuring financial parity. That COULD be a receipe for reversing recent Republican losses in the STATE house and senate.
Less certain is what would occur in the northern and eastern parts of the state, but hey – could it possibly be worse then 2006?
So how do you think a Gingrich candidacy would play here?
Heh heh heh…!
Rudy G! ‘Cause America can go fascister still!
Guliani: 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11!
Hillary is hated in the conservative circles. Creating a 3rd party candidate hands her the election. I don’t see this happening unless she doesn’t win the primary. It’s the hope however of her supporters.
I’m expecting Rudy to win in a landslide and it’s going to be extremely helpful for Republican candidates in Connecticut … you heard it from me first …
>>unless I am missing something, don’t the Republicans also have to spend money that they wouldn’t have otherwise spent in contesting NY and CT?
We don’t “go for broke” on lost causes; with Rudy OTOH, several states not normally considered `in play’ would be.
As far as fund raising is concerned; should Hillary wind up with the Dem nomination; fund raising for Republican causes will be no problem.
“And it remains a fact that the party — even during two terms of Bill Clinton — has not broken 50 percent of the vote in a presidential election in more than 30 years, and it has done it only twice in the past 60 years. ”
amazing stat
I believe Giuliani would be a formidable candidate but I do have some concerns.
I am surprised nobody has ever talked about Rudy’s status as a chickenhawk. He secured a rather dubious deferment from his draft board after law school because he was a law clerk.
The Rudy Giuliani who fought for gun control is now the guy who learned from 9/11 how important it is for Americans to pack heat. (Coming soon: Rudy explains how 9/11 taught him that homosexuality is wrong.)
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/opinion/04collins.html?em&ex=1191643200&en=e474fd681b3847cd&ei=5087
Toucan,
Howdy from Wyoming..
Just wondering…….. For people like me, who are a bit dense…….What exactly are the qualifications for one to be considered a “chickenhawk” ?
,i>Chickenhawk (also chicken hawk and chicken-hawk) is a political epithet used in the United States to criticize a politician, bureaucrat, or commentator who strongly supports a war or other military action, but has never personally been in a war, especially if that person actively avoided military service when of draft age.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chickenhawk_(politics)
After he got his two student deferment(s), Rudy got another one becasue he was a law clerk – the judge wrote his draft board that his service as one was vital to our national interests.
Toucan,
Thanks, please bear with here me as I probe further………
I assume many members of the Congress have never served in our military……Actually I assume that the vast majority of us Americans have not served in the military as well.
We have not had a draft in this country for what, 30-35 years? So if one does not voluntarily join the service, one has no need to actively avoid that service when of draft age to avoid it. So then by definition does the term chicken hawk only then apply to those members of Congress, or those running for an office like president, of say the Vietnam era and before, when there was a draft?
If a current member of Congress for example never volunteered to actively serve in the military after that service became voluntary, and at some point then votes to support a war, would they become a chicken hawk as well? Are female members of Congress exempt from this label simply because females were not drafted years ago? Or since we no longer have a draft for any of them to be concered about, do they all get passes from this label?
I guess my question is why would someone consider just RG a chicken hawk when it would seem by definition that many others meet the same sort of litmus test for admission into that club??
Seems a bit unfair to me to hold someone who chooses not to serve in the military because they have a choice not to, in any different esteem than someone who obtains a deferment from that same service. In either case were any laws broken?
You must log in to post a comment.