Bill Kristol: Is Rudy really more electable than Fred?
posted at 7:32 pm on October 8, 2007 by Allahpundit
Or, more precisely, is he less unelectable? It’s a simple math problem: Would the net gain in independent votes exceed the net loss in evangelical votes in swing states if Rudy was the nominee? Possible answer: Given the long, long odds we face next year, what exactly is to be gained with a “safe” pick like Fred? He’ll bankably deliver 46-47% just by being his party’s nominee and won’t have to worry about any third-party challenges, but how likely is it that he’ll pull six out of 10 independents in a political climate that’s already leaning heavily Democratic? If you’re counting on Hillary hatred to win you the center, I think you’re underestimating how savvy she’ll be in the general in appealing to those voters. It makes more sense to pick someone who’ll appeal to those voters on your own side and then count on Hillary hatred to keep the Hillary-hatin’ Republican base from wandering off the reservation and over to a third-party. It’s a riskier strategy — if evangelicals decide en masse that they simply can’t in good conscience vote for Rudy then we’re looking at a debacle — but the upside’s a lot bigger too.
How lucky do you feel?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
And that message will be…
The Rebubbakins are so f’n stupid they would rather have a socialist traitorous ice queen married to a porn star in the White House rather than a real Republican that believes in small government, tax cuts, less welfare, less spending, law and order, strict constructionist judges, strong defense — actually strong offense in the terrorists war on us, promotes adoption over abortion, believes in an individual right to bear arms, etc.
That is one hellava message you are sending there genius.
tommylotto on October 9, 2007 at 11:57 AM
It is sad. You are so out of pace with the vibe of our country. YOU ARE IN THE MINORITY. MOST PEOPLE DISAGREE WITH YOU. You need to update your political and social philosophy or relagate yourself to the same political clout of the amish.
tommylotto on October 9, 2007 at 12:02 PM
DOT.
BINGO!
Are you defeastists such as…….
……..: “I’d like to believe we’ll win in 08, but I just don’t.” Esthier on October 4, 2007 at 5:40 PM
…..et al doing your part?
Esthier, how would you like your grandchildren to ask you, “Why didn’t you do more to push back socialism when you had the chance?
Keep up the heat JiangxiDad!
Mcguyver on October 9, 2007 at 12:43 PM
I believe we are united. We all (except for the single issue voters who are going to give the election to Hillary by voting 3rd party) are going to vote for the republican nominee, whoever it is. I believe now is the time to vet each candidate as much as possible before the Clinton’s do it in the general.
I am all about criticizing every candidate equally, and my vitriol toward Fred is, as I have explained before, really a jab at the Fred groupies who are so blindly supportive of Fred that they makes excuses for his lobbying history and his involvement with Libyan terrorists. They only look at these facts from their narrow perspective. The people that are going to get the republican nominee will be elected in the general by regular folks who, when the fact that Fred has even the slightest involvement with Libyan terrorists will provoke such a visceral response from the country that I doubt another fact will have to be mentioned because Fred will be dead in the water.
For goodness sake! Can any of these groupies comprehend the reaction to this?! We are in the middle of a war against terrorists and it comes to light that Fred Dalton Thompson actually gave advice to the attorney for these terrorists! Game over man, game over.
I know this to be a fact because every single person that I have told about Fred’s involvement with this attorney have shown a look on their face of absolute disgust.
So no. I am not going to stop exposing him for what he is. I know that the few of us that have been beating this drum for months have made a difference here on HA. Several people have backed off their support for Fred because they have seen in him exactly for what we have been saying about him since his speech at the Lincoln Club in Orange County.
Fred is not an honest conservative. He is in his heart and soul a fake, a liar, a cheater, and a scumbag lobbyist.
csdeven on October 9, 2007 at 1:05 PM
Fred is equipped to deal with Hillary. Rudy is not. When Hillary starts up her machine, Fred can get away with a Reagan “There you go again” where Rudy can’t.
What we really need to look at is which candidate is likely to make Hillary’s base stay home. Turnout, not the independents, will make this election. Hillary has lot of problems with the Democrat base, and so does Rudy. I think Thompson can do a much better job of smoothing over those problems within than Rudy can.
phelps on October 9, 2007 at 1:31 PM
clarification: Rudy has lots of problems with the Republican base, not the Democrat base. Should have cleaned up the mushy phrasing.
phelps on October 9, 2007 at 1:32 PM
I don’t really see a gigantic difference between saying that conservatism is dead, and saying that conservatism is terminally ill.
The Nazis burned out quickly; the Soviets lasted decades longer. Liberalism is nothing but an even more incremental approach to the exact same goal. What the liberals call being a “moderate” Republican is like trying to win a football game by making a touchback on every play to ensure the other team can’t steal the ball and get a touchdown – sure, you’re not losing quite as fast as physically possible. But you’re still guaranteeing defeat.
Bush gave us trillons of dollars more Socialism in an attempt to apologize for “uncompassionate conservatism.” Right now, only one of the top Republican candidates is talking about what Reagan talked about – REDUCING the scope of the federal government.
And, believe it or not, you’re actually right about one thing: America has changed drastically since Reagan won two landslides. Back then, more voters in America described themselves as liberal than as conservative; today we outnumber them by almost two to one. Of course statistically, the people in the muddle will tend to lean conservative by the same proportion; they just don’t know it.
…And giving them a choice between a candidate who talks like a moderate and a candidate who acts like a moderate will not help them figure it out.
logis on October 9, 2007 at 2:45 PM
No, Rudy would look at Hillary, say she’s nutz, and go one to explain in detail exactly why.
If you prefer the “aww shucks” no substance response, what does that say about you?
tommylotto on October 9, 2007 at 2:57 PM
Not sure what your point was, but if you think the country id two thirds conservative (by your definition) you are mistaken, particularly if you think Rudy is a liberal. He is very conservation on most issues and on those exceptions, he is usually right of center. If that is your definition of liberal you are out of step.
tommylotto on October 9, 2007 at 3:01 PM
Maybe I am missing something after all. For example, I sure as heck don’t remember you being elected Arbiter of America’s Pulse.
As for your most recent Proclamation: Rudy’s “in your face” attitude is very popular – inside a ten square mile area of the United States.
Outside of there, all Guiliani has going for him is a year’s worth of unremittant liberal media coverage saying he is The Only Man Who Can Beat Hillary. And you don’t appear to be “in step” with anything other than that.
logis on October 9, 2007 at 4:03 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2