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: 1 2 Next »
I agree. I feel like a 45 magnum is pointed at my head :/
I think Rudy is the way to go. But I think this thread should have waited until after tomorrow’s debate ;) Fred could be irrelevant really quick.
lorien1973 on October 8, 2007 at 7:34 PM
If I understand the situation correctly, Dobson isn’t willing to vote for Fred either.
Besides she’s the Teflon queen which, as you just posted, has the media on her side.
My own mini-exit question: Rasmussen (the one my fellow Hot Air commentators trust) shows Fred’s number’s declining. Leveling out? Or something else?
amerpundit on October 8, 2007 at 7:38 PM
Dobson’s taking heat for that, though, including from other evangelical leaders.
Allahpundit on October 8, 2007 at 7:40 PM
To soon to tell. Will Fred appeal to independents? How does Federalism not appeal to independents.
-Fred is socially conservative, but punts those issues to the states, via Federalism. That brings the socially liberal independents to the table.
-Fred is campainging on smaller government. Hillary is running on universal healthcare. Are independents the voting block that is more or less likely to embrace federal government governing healthcare?
-A big difference between Rudy and Fred is their style. Rudy is a big time authoritarian. What style will independents gravitate towards?
The next debate will hopefully clear up alot of things.
Theworldisnotenough on October 8, 2007 at 7:41 PM
Frankly, I think Fred wil attract more independent votes than Rudy will. ALOT of folks are sick to death of politicians, Fred comes off as NOT being a politician. He is different, he campaigns differently. And I think the people will dig that. Oh, pointy-headed pundits may not get it, but the people will.
And, to the other side of the question, Rudy is EXACTLY the kind of candidate many Conservatives REJECTED last November. Republicans win when they are Conservative, Rudy is not Conservative enough in the minds of many Conservatives. There is a good chance he will lose some Conservative votes, Fred, I believe, will unite those Conservative voters.
Gatordoug on October 8, 2007 at 7:41 PM
Given that Rudy is pro illegal immigration and the polls show the majority of people are against illegal immigration, including Democrats and Independents, why would they have an incentive to cross party lines?
rockdalian on October 8, 2007 at 7:42 PM
I left Dobson after the Schiavo disaster.
Theworldisnotenough on October 8, 2007 at 7:42 PM
Allah -
You question whether Fred will deliver 6 out of 10 independent votes.
That’s a fair question, and I don’t know the answer.
My question to you, though, is: will RUDY deliver 6 out of 10 independent votes in the general? If there’s no solid reason to think Rudy will deliver that level, why does Fred get held to that standard?
Ragnar on October 8, 2007 at 7:43 PM
They keep saying that Rudi’s problem is just with evangelicals…
Problem is that there are a LOT of independent Conservatives who won’t vote for him either, but we are not polled as a group… we have no spokesman…
Rudi vs Hillary will be the biggest slime fest we’ve ever had in an election, with neither one of them putting forth a single idea that will really fix anything.
Rudi will run on “I’m not as Liberal as her”
Hillary will run on “I’ll pay more for your vote”…
Both are authoritarian figures with Liberal ideas, who will destroy the Constitution.
Romeo13 on October 8, 2007 at 7:43 PM
cs explodes in 5…4…3…2…
Just had to get that in…
jdawg on October 8, 2007 at 7:45 PM
I talk to lots of Social Conservatives, most of them Christian. They are very hapy about Thompson, I think very few will actually listen to whiny Dobson. You are correct, Dobson is getting heat, as he should.
Gatordoug on October 8, 2007 at 7:45 PM
Rudy has nuanced his position. Now he can stop illegal immigration, and will do so. Now he wants immigrants to speak English. You do not hear a peep about internal enforcement. If Fred can coax Rudy into admitting he plans to “end illegal immigration” to only grant amnesty, adios Rudy. And bye-bye independents.
Theworldisnotenough on October 8, 2007 at 7:46 PM
Ooooh boy…….
Here comes doriangrey, gregor and all those who make hollowpoints……..
I got my popcorn ready….. let me take a long hot bath first before I read them….and..then a long hot shower afterwards…. I’ll be back
Mcguyver on October 8, 2007 at 7:46 PM
We need to wait and see how Fred handles the debates. If he does poorly, we don’t need to chose.
bnelson44 on October 8, 2007 at 7:46 PM
jdawg on October 8, 2007 at 7:45 PM
beat me to it
mrfixit on October 8, 2007 at 7:47 PM
Good. He shouldn’t encourage a huge voting block to sit it out because of his litmus tests. The liberal counterparts to these “conservatives” are a terrible option for the future of our nation and our Christian heritage. If Dobson doesn’t concede to that he’s not really paying attention.
NTWR on October 8, 2007 at 7:48 PM
My sense is, this is really going to test Dobson’s relevance in all this.
Could be interesting.
Mcguyver on October 8, 2007 at 7:48 PM
Heh. I’ve always wanted to do that! ;-}
jdawg on October 8, 2007 at 7:49 PM
It’ll cause csdeven to go completely flipping crazy providing us all with amusement to emotionally offset inevitable electoral loss.
aengus on October 8, 2007 at 7:50 PM
Fred’s a former lobbyist. You don’t think that’ll be brought up and spewed by the Clinton camp? In case you haven’t noticed, people don’t think kindly of lobbyists.
As to who was rejected last November, I’d point out that we were left with a Congress that we had to work overtime to stop from passing amnesty for illegal aliens and that wasn’t the Democrats fault, is was the Republicans we were left with who support amnesty.
amerpundit on October 8, 2007 at 7:50 PM
Seriously though Rudy or Fred would make good candidates.
aengus on October 8, 2007 at 7:51 PM
Mcguyver on October 8, 2007 at 7:48 PM
One of the founders (I forget which) once said we should prefer and select Christians for our rulers. I’m okay with that, but what I’m not okay with is someone telling me not to vote for someone because he/she doesn’t fit thier definition of a Christian. We’ve thrown a lot of good people under the bus because of that attitude.
jdawg on October 8, 2007 at 7:51 PM
But then how much influence does he and his fellow Evangelical leaders actually have? Could be interesting, as Mcguyver said.
amerpundit on October 8, 2007 at 7:51 PM
Dobson = IRRELEVANT
Gatordoug on October 8, 2007 at 7:52 PM
amerpundit,
Clinton’s a lawyer
bnelson44 on October 8, 2007 at 7:52 PM
Ok, I’ll bite. What’s the relevance of that?
amerpundit on October 8, 2007 at 7:53 PM
OK, this is stupid even before you get to the analysis. If you go by these polls, the Republicans have already lost no matter who our candidate is.
I recall a lot of insanity over the years, but I think this is the first time it’s ever even occurred to any of the “political masterminds” out there to try to pick a candidate based on who is ahead before the race starts.
It seems like some people are forgetting about a tiny little detail called THE CAMPAIGN.
But (contrary to what the media keep screaming at us) the election is not being held today, and the Primaries were not over six months ago. Political Primaries are not the time to stick your finger in the wind; they are the time to pick the man you can get behind.
Newsflash: the center has never won or lost any election. And it never, ever will.
The question is not whether social conservatives will show up on election day. Sure they will. But there is a lot more to elections than taking a half hour off work one day every four years. If you nominate somebody the base isn’t jazzed about, you don’t lose a handful of VOTES, you lose a gigantic reservior of SUPPORT.
You can bet your ass that Hillary Clinton will have an army of hyperactive Brownshirts behind her. Nominating somebody to try to “energize the moderate base” to counteract that juggernaut is a prescription for political suicide.
logis on October 8, 2007 at 7:53 PM
I really doubt his being a lobbyist matters to most folks, it certainly does not to all those I converse with.
And, I pointed out Conservatives rejected the “RINOS” last election, many good Conservatives like Hayworth, and Allen were caught up in that too. You do not think Conservatives were fed up with “RINOS”? You do not think that helped the GOP lose?
Gatordoug on October 8, 2007 at 7:56 PM
Sorry, that’s just not idiotically twisted enough. Can’t you start off with something like, “Given that Rudy is in favor of gay illegals getting married and performing abortions on all of our daughters while he cavorts in a prom dress…”?
I’m sure it’d be a lot more effective!
CK MacLeod on October 8, 2007 at 7:57 PM
ameripundit,
In re: the lobbying issue vs. Hillary-
Hillary recently stated there are good lobbyists too, right? I’m thinking the gun is empty if she wants to attack Fred on this.
Tman on October 8, 2007 at 7:59 PM
hopefully, around next September when people start really paying attention they won’t give the Whitehouse, senate and congress all to the dems at same time.
jp on October 8, 2007 at 8:01 PM
You don’t think people will care when the Clinton campaign spews the fact Thompson is a former lobbyist? Anything she flings his way will be picked up by the media, what he flings back will be majorly ignored. One magazine (can’t remember the name) wanted to do a cover picture of Bill and was also going to do a negative column on the Clintons. They forced them to remove the column.
Again, I’d point out that we were left with a pro-amnesty Congress who’s even been seen wavering on Iraq.
amerpundit on October 8, 2007 at 8:01 PM
I haven’t felt lucky at all for quite a while.
Ask me again after tomorrow’s debate if I have even a vague expectation of a positive outcome of the 2008 election.
If Fred!? does very well tomorrow and through the Primaries, I believe that he CAN win the General election. (Depending, of course, on how many dead people and illegals the Dems get to turn up at the polls, and how many filled ballot boxes they can ‘find’ in the closet after the first round of ballot counting is done.)
LegendHasIt on October 8, 2007 at 8:01 PM
Again, the media touts what Democrats say, yet the standard is to ignore the evidence Republicans fire back with. The Clinton machine has a war chest larger than all of the top Republicans have combined.
amerpundit on October 8, 2007 at 8:03 PM
Hllary will sling mud at any GOP opponent, and we already know what the media will do, carry her lunch, as always. THAT problem is not unique if Thompson is the nominee.
Yes, we were, because Conservatives felt they had been taken for granted by the GOP. Nominating Rudy will NOT help that problem.
Gatordoug on October 8, 2007 at 8:09 PM
They’ll probably have the dead victims of illegal immigrants voting for them.
aengus on October 8, 2007 at 8:11 PM
Beat Hillary or face the prospect of at least 8 or maybe 16 years of Democratic control. Put your ideological purity nonsense on thw shelf and lets go for a win – a Rudy/Thompson ticket could be a winner.
Hilts on October 8, 2007 at 8:13 PM
No, but to say Americans won’t care is inaccurate – she’ll make sure they do.
They were so angered at all of the RINOS that they removed several good Conservatives and left a RINO Congress they don’t agree with…
amerpundit on October 8, 2007 at 8:14 PM
As one of those voters, I agree 100%. Kerry didn’t beat Bush on a platform of Anybody Besides Bush, and Thompson (or any Republican nominee) won’t beat Clinton on a platform of Anybody Besides Clinton. If it comes down to it, I’d rather see the Ice Queen as commander-in-chief than Boss Hogg, and I’d rather see Giuliani than either.
RightOFLeft on October 8, 2007 at 8:14 PM
But to insist this or “else” is the antithesis to the freedom of religion that the Dobson’s, et al so vehemently support.
Nowhere in the world do we have more different expressions of religion.
The Dobson’s, et al really need to wake up and apply the same standard to candidates running for office, as you would your pastor who runs and has run a very successful church organization……but…..has and does/believes in things…..that you cannot comprehend nor believe in, but at the same time, does not interfere with the successful running of the organization that contributes to the greater collective good.
And then they, Dobson’s, et al, need to choose the one that has been and is potentially – based on track record – the most successful for the greater good.
And if the Dobson’s, et al can HUMBLE themselves and do this they will have relevance in this election and beyond. If not, they will destroy this country by default, AND THEIR CHOICES, AND, RELEVANCE WILL GO DOWN TOGETHER!
Mcguyver on October 8, 2007 at 8:14 PM
A lot of you come up with these irrational ideas about Rudy. Things like “Rudy will run that he is less liberal,” or that his whole stance is that he will win independents.
Rudy has been running as a fiscal conservative who will appoint constructionist judges.
Stop soiling his stance and promises.
Vincenzo on October 8, 2007 at 8:14 PM
Rudy would beat Hillary in the debates as well.
Hilts on October 8, 2007 at 8:15 PM
I disagree. Hard core Dems that I know cannot stand her and she is going to implode. It has begun. She is not savvy. At all. She is brutal, and it comes across. This is not a campaign like Bill’s which is what they are banking on. She is cruel, and snarky and inexperienced. It shows and will show more as time goes on, as she becomes more tired from the strain of this campaign. IMHO.
CrimsonFisted on October 8, 2007 at 8:18 PM
as reading this I flip the channel to HBO and see that Chuck Hagel was on Bill Maher bashing republicans of course. Part of the problem.
jp on October 8, 2007 at 8:19 PM
I said most folks I talk to would not care. I was very clear.
Alot of them stayed home, disgusted. Look how much lower that voter turnout was fron 2004. And, yes, I know mid-term elections draw lower turnouts than presidentaial races do. But the turnout was down. Let’s do the math here. In 2004 GOP does great, with a huge turnout. Two years later, they get beaten like rented mules, and the turnout was….
Gatordoug on October 8, 2007 at 8:19 PM
And this is the problem that gets conveniently ignored when they bring up the ‘evil evangelicals’. I still don’t know who Dobson is other than from this board. Evangelicals are not single issue voters and they don’t vote in a block.
Conservative issues are constant among the voting block that could be considered ‘evangelical’.
But again, I liken it to Dale Earnhardt Jr. saying he couldn’t vote for a woman, and having Hillary say ‘I’ll change my gender’ for the chevy driver vote. It doesn’t work that way with evangelicals or chevy drivers.
That said, there are more people to choose from than Rudy or Thompson. Romney is ahead in Iowa and New Hampshire. And Rudy won’t likely win South Carolina.
Those are the first three primaries. If Rudy can’t win one of those three, Rudy won’t be the Republican nomination no matter what the ‘national polls’ say.
ThackerAgency on October 8, 2007 at 8:19 PM
I like Romney, and certainly am not counting him out. He will draw Conservatives too.
Gatordoug on October 8, 2007 at 8:22 PM
Why can’t we have both? Fred/Rudy ’08?
They’re twins on small govt., Fred’s federalism is the best a pro-choice Republican like Rudy is ever gonna get in this party, they agree on jihad, and Rudy would be a good Nixonian attack dog for Fred anyway. Give him a strong, relevant brief like Cheney got (DHS, Market-Based Green Energy, Entitlement Reform, and Anti-Jihad input) and a promise for support in ’12 or ’16 and I don’t see why he couldn’t be happy.
The Apologist on October 8, 2007 at 8:23 PM
cough cough – ‘pro-choice Republican’ would have been an oxy moron two years ago. There’s one thing not wanting to overturn Roe, another being ‘pro-choice’.
I’m really hoping we get Hunter on the ticket for some sanity on the Conservative side.
ThackerAgency on October 8, 2007 at 8:27 PM
The difference is that if Hillary “mudslings” that the evil Fred Thompson used to be a lobbyist, or that he didn’t compete in enough of the pre-pre-Primary debates to be taken seriously as President, of course no sane person will give a rat’s ass.
But as you point out, hypocrisy is the liberals’ prerogative. If Giuliani wins the Republican primary, the very next day the liberal media are all going to suddenly remember that Rudy is another Bush-league moderate; and they’ll loudly remind us of that fact a hundred times a day between then and the election. And that particular brand of mudslinging will actually WORK.
After 8 long years, I freely admit that I’m sick to death of that crap. And I suspect I’m not the only one who feels that way. If we screw up and nominate another Rockefeller Republican, I’m just a little bit tempted to step back and let his “hard-core moderate supporters” shoulder the burden this time around.
logis on October 8, 2007 at 8:29 PM
…………Don’t forget……James Dobson is on Hannity and Colmes in a half hour.
Mcguyver on October 8, 2007 at 8:33 PM
Agreed. What they will do is not try to keep moderates from voting for Rudy. Hillary will try to paint Rudy as a moderate – liberal even. Hillary doesn’t risk losing the Democratic base if she paints Rudy as a liberal. What will happen is that she’ll paint Rudy as a liberal and keep the Conservatives from voting for Rudy.
If you put up a Conservative, Hillary will campaign against the ‘vast right wing conspiracy’. If you put up Rudy, Hillary will say I’m more conservative than him (look at her war votes) – and my husband is Bill Clinton so you’ll get him back if you vote for me.
I really thought that the whole ‘Rudy for Republican President’ idea would have faded by now. I guess I underestimate the power of the NY media and the amount of time an unemployed ‘public servant’ can spend glad handing for cash and votes.
I wonder how McCain would have done if he was unemployed like Rudy is.
ThackerAgency on October 8, 2007 at 8:35 PM
No, you said:
You highly doubted that that will matter to “most folks” then presented the fact that you know for a fact it doesn’t to those you converse with.
And that worked out so well for them. Look how much closer this Congress represents their views than the last one!
amerpundit on October 8, 2007 at 8:36 PM
red on
redfredMojave Mark on October 8, 2007 at 8:39 PM
My feelings exactly. We have still not seen that Bill and Hillary can switch roles seamlessly. Hillary is currently using Bill as a crutch. When the heat is on she’ll need to have him as a scapegoat. I don’t see how that kind of transmutation is possible. Until Bill Clinton puts on a pink dress and says he only wants to bake cookies, I won’t be convinced.
Of course underestimating your enemy is always bad. But people forget that OVERestimating your enemy can be even worse. Step back and look at what we’re talking about here: suggesting that one candidate should be nominated because polls show him LOSING to Hillary by two points less than another candidate. And all this a whole freaking year before the election!
If that’s not defeatist, I don’t know what is.
logis on October 8, 2007 at 8:42 PM
Actually, Rudy isn’t unemployed, he works at the Bracewell & Giuliani law firm. He’s just not working in government right now. You know, like how Fred Thompson is working in entertainment – not government – and Romney is no longer in government.
And interestingly, Fred’s poll numbers have been going down as Rudy’s are stabilized even after the blitz of information on how Moderate he is.
amerpundit on October 8, 2007 at 8:43 PM
Schwarzenegger? Whitman? George H. W. Bush? They’re out there chief, they just don’t make a lot of noise.
The Apologist on October 8, 2007 at 8:45 PM
So if Dobson drops dead of a heart attack tomorrow, all the pro-life social cons who’ve said they won’t vote for a pro-choice candidate are instantly going to just change their minds? I don’t think so.
Even if Dobson is irrelevant, the division that a Rudy nomination could cause within the Republican party isn’t.
Hollowpoint on October 8, 2007 at 8:47 PM
“it certainly does not to all those I converse with”. That is my quote. What part of “those I converse with” escapes you?
Yes, yes, I do KNOW what the people I talk to say, and I doubt, an opinion, that most people will care.
Yes, you are correct it was a disaster, but, it happened, and may happen again if Rudy is nominated. That is all I am saying.
Gatordoug on October 8, 2007 at 8:49 PM
I completely agree. I was addressing his demnouncement of Fred Thompson, not Rudy.
Gatordoug on October 8, 2007 at 8:51 PM
And I’ve long hoped that I’d win the lottery, but sadly it hasn’t happened.
Hollowpoint on October 8, 2007 at 8:53 PM
Hunter could be a good VP for any of the ‘frontrunners’
ThackerAgency on October 8, 2007 at 8:55 PM
Let me continue on The Apologist’s point. Gerald Ford? George Pataki? Fred Thompson in the first Trimester? Condoleezza Rice? Arlen Specter? Susan Collins? Olympia Snowe? Kay Bailey Hutchison? Colin Powell? Susan Molinari? Pete Wilson?
amerpundit on October 8, 2007 at 8:56 PM
Tell me about it
Gatordoug on October 8, 2007 at 8:57 PM
Iowa
24 – Romney
16 – Thompson
13 – Rudy (who?)
ThackerAgency on October 8, 2007 at 8:58 PM
New Hampshire
25.2 Romney
21.4 Guiliani (who?)
16.6 McCain
ThackerAgency on October 8, 2007 at 9:02 PM
The part you left out of your quote:
So again, you doubted it matters to most folks. Which you reaffirm here:
There’s a difference between most people you converse with agreeing, and saying you don’t think most people will care, and certainly those you converse with don’t.
And that makes sense? Instead of electing a guy you may agree with on many issues, stay home and allow someone who just about never agree with to control the country for 4 to 8 years…
Just for the record, who are you supporting?
amerpundit on October 8, 2007 at 9:02 PM
South Carolina
20.5 Guiliani (YAY)
20.3 Thompson (who?)
16.5 Romney
14.3 McCain
ThackerAgency on October 8, 2007 at 9:04 PM
My point is this race is not Rudy’s by a LONG SHOT no matter what the ‘national polls’ say.
ThackerAgency on October 8, 2007 at 9:04 PM
Rudiani = third party split = Hill wins
I voted for Ford, Reagan, Bush, Dole, Bush. I will not vote for Rudiani.
saved on October 8, 2007 at 9:05 PM
So Rudy’s behind Romney in Iowa, which has elected Democrats in 4 of the last 5 elections, and New Hampshire who elected Bill twice and supported Kerry in 2004 and Democrats in 2006.
amerpundit on October 8, 2007 at 9:07 PM
amerpundit, that just goes to show you don’t understand how this primary game is played. Pay attention this year. It happens the same way every year. It’ll start in earnest in January.
ThackerAgency on October 8, 2007 at 9:10 PM
I know that New Hampshire nominated McCain in 2000 (the last Republican Primary), and Iowa barely nominated Bush over McCain in the same cycle.
amerpundit on October 8, 2007 at 9:17 PM
Not true. According to insiders in Rudy’s camp, all Rudy needs to do is win Florida leading into super mega Tuesday. Poll.
tommylotto on October 8, 2007 at 9:21 PM
Allah: Is this it, then? You’re officially a Giuliani homer now?
Good thing you’re a pessimist and an atheist. Because it’s hopeless, and Giuliani doesn’t have a prayer.
Ali-Bubba on October 8, 2007 at 9:27 PM
The GOP need to appeal to the broadest audience. The opinion that abortion should be illegal is held by what? about 20% of the population. Why are we allowing such a small minority of voters to select our candidate. It does not make sense. We do not want to loose that vote, but shouldn’t we try to appeal to the other 80% as well. How long is the GOP going to carry this albatross?
Rudy has a position that shouldn’t offend the 20% (discourage abortions, promote adoptions, appoint strict constructionists) and can still appeal to the other 80% (recognizing that abortions are a matter of individual choice with certain restrictions).
How long does the tail wag the dog?
tommylotto on October 8, 2007 at 9:32 PM
Dobson sounded a fool on H/C tonight. He’d rather fight Hillary as president than defeat her in an election over ONE issue (abortion) that he’s assuming the leading GOP candidates are lying about. How many children has Dobson adopted, by the way? It’s a fair question.
SouthernGent on October 8, 2007 at 9:44 PM
I wish I understood Guliani’s appeal. It appears to be based on some presumed ability to offend the least number of potential voters. What some would (politely) call “middle of the road.”
Sounds pretty weenie to me. Probably why I’m more inclined to support someone like Thompson.
manwithblackhat on October 8, 2007 at 9:49 PM
But Rudy was at 9-11! He is a hero! Just ask him!, Or wait, you do not have to ask, he will tell you, over and over and over…
I am not really sure if Rudy was at 9-11 more, or if Kerry was in Vietnam more.
Gatordoug on October 8, 2007 at 9:54 PM
I fully agree. I’d even vote for McCain if he were wise enough to pick Hunter for his VP.
In a completely rational and well informed America, Duncan Hunter would be THE frontrunner. Since it is not, I definitely want Hunter as VP to whoever gets the nomination. Set us up nicely for 2012 or 2016, get him some name recognition.
None of the frontrunners is likely to accept the second slot because of their personalities, so forget the dreams (or nightmares depending on your prejudices) of Rudy/Fred, Mitt/Rudy Fred/Mitt or the inverse of any of those. Hunter loves America enough to take the VP slot if offered to him, and he would be a very good one.
LegendHasIt on October 8, 2007 at 10:02 PM
Well, if he’s that arrogant jackass we saw in the other clip, he’ll tank.
If he shows up as his meandering “talk Suthern say Nuttin” self he’s been since his campaign began he’ll tank. Only Fredheads seem to think you can say nothing about everything and still be a good candidate.
BKennedy on October 8, 2007 at 10:16 PM
Question for the Fredheads. How does Fred keep NM, Colorado and Iowa? Is Ohio a slam dunk for him? What Blue states does he even have a chance of being competitive in?
Bradky on October 8, 2007 at 10:26 PM
What a pleasure NOT having AP’s friend ‘CS’ here ruining a good political discussion with his rude, profane, denigrating, out of place remarks. He only brings the sight down to the level of KOS or HuffPo. Maybe he got banned?
countywolf on October 8, 2007 at 10:39 PM
AP:
Perhaps you’ve noted it elsewhere, but there’s another fact/figure you forgot to add to the equation: Kristol’s daughter works for Fred Thompson’s campaign. That for sure makes him a better choice in Kristol’s mind. But not more electable or less unelectable than Rudy.
Debbie Schlussel on October 8, 2007 at 10:45 PM
Wishful thinking, my friend. Wishful thinking.
techno_barbarian on October 8, 2007 at 10:56 PM
Cant speak for the other states, but I can for Colorado, where I live.
Reps 998,878
Dem 860,407
Unaffilated 967,853
Registered voters as of last month.
Now, there are a LOT of unaffiliated voters who are conservative, who have left the Republican party of fiscal policy, war, not being conservative ENOUGH!
Bring in a conservative candidate, like Fred!, and you have a chance…
Otherwise, you get more of the Boudler vote (which you will still loose), but will loose a lot of the rest of the state.
Romeo13 on October 8, 2007 at 11:13 PM
Thanks for the reply. The 04 election had about a 100K difference for bush but then elected a democrat for senator. NM and IA margins were much closer.
Bradky on October 8, 2007 at 11:18 PM
Independents, for the most part, do not concern themselves with the intricacies of constitutional law. They are generally more interested in government that works efficiently and gets things done. They also don’t like the religious right or the commie left getting up in their faces too much. Aside from the fact that a lot of ideologues use “federalism” as a refuge for when they are losing the debate on one of their pet issues (e.g. gay marriage), it’s viability as a governing principle depends on the health and effectiveness of state and local governments. Unfortunately, many such governments in this country are incompetent, or worse. Therefore a presidential candidate who’s platform is “you guys deal with it yourselves” has a major loability among pragmatic, non-ideological voters.
Big S on October 9, 2007 at 12:36 AM
See? I don’t even have to show up and some would rather talk about little old csdeven instead of that lying fake scumbag lobbyist Fred.
Fred is not electable at all. And Hillary wont attack Fred’s lobbying past. Some other group will do it. They will compare the lobbying efforts of others toward causes that help Americans and the efforts Fred engaged in that were almost always against Americans.
Fred lobbied for a dictator. He lobbied for the deregulation of the S&L industry. He lobbied for an abortion group. He lobbied against the victims of asbestos poisoning. He lobbied for a failed nuke plant. He gave legal advice to Syrian terrorists that blew up a jet full of innocent people.
Fred also funneled campaign cash to his son.
All facts that will destroy Fred in a general.
csdeven on October 9, 2007 at 2:05 AM
It was Libyan terrorists you blithering idiot. And he didn’t give advice to them, because he wasn’t on their defense team.
But nice “facts” there, troll.
Hollowpoint on October 9, 2007 at 2:58 AM
Good point. You can see by the reaction it brought from the public that illegal immigration is an issue that really matters to the vast majority of citizens.
All the Democrats are pro-amnesty (as far as I know). The Republicans would do well for themselves to nominate an anti-amnesty candidate, which Rudi is not. If Rudi is nominated, Independants and Center Democrats will have less reason to vote R.
jaime on October 9, 2007 at 3:17 AM
Are you sure they were Libyan? And Fred certainly did give legal advice to their attorney. Since their attorney is their legal representative, Fred gave advice to terrorists.
csdeven on October 9, 2007 at 7:53 AM
If the Hsu fits…
Texas Nick 77 on October 9, 2007 at 8:16 AM
I see the MSM is doing their job… painting Rudy as a moderate and cutting down Fred. I am still amazed at the number of neuron-challenged people who vote.
Texas Nick 77 on October 9, 2007 at 8:33 AM
But you make it sooooo easy to do just that.
Hey, man… Chill out, drink a cool one, smoke ‘em if you have to, but lower the venom level. We need to unite and not self-destruct. The democrats have the MSM shilling for their candidate (and one of ours, BTW), we don’t need to do their work for them, and HER.
Texas Nick 77 on October 9, 2007 at 8:56 AM
Didn’t read all the comments, and don’t know if you’re on of those that equates Hillary with Rudy. But Rudy is a capitalist. Hillary is a socialist. I hope that those who dislike Rudy will agree on that.
JiangxiDad on October 9, 2007 at 10:02 AM
The RNC and all the guys at FOX News can keep spinning and selling Rudy all they want. I will NEVER, EVER again vote for another liberal Republican for POTUS! If Rudy is the best that the Republican Party has to offer us then we deserve to get our asses handed to us in ’08, and that is exactly what is going to happen. We are going to get slaughtered not only in the Presidential election but also in the House and Senate! A message needs to be sent because they didn’t get it last time!
sabbott on October 9, 2007 at 11:19 AM
I feel your pain. Eight years is long enough. I’m sick of it.
The media in general is a lot more liberal than the average New York residence, but Fox News reporters are right about on that line, and they see the election through that prism.
Sure, Rudy was conservative BY NEW YORK STANDARDS, but so what? So was Hillary Clinton.
The problem is that nobody is running for President of New York – or Massachusetts for that matter. And most of the people in the rest of this country are not going to get enthused about a race between someone who wants to make America more liberal, and someone who wants to make America more liberal – but at a slightly slower pace.
I’m not saying I wouldn’t take a half-hour out of my busy life come election day and vote. But, frankly, I’m TIRED after supporting a Rockefeller Republican for so long. And I don’t think I have it in my anymore.
logis on October 9, 2007 at 11:52 AM
Doesn’t your personal safety and that of your family, and that of those serving on the front lines in the military count for anything?????
Are you another trying to bring on the end times?? I’m not ready to go or to stop fighting. Would you allow Hitler to be elected because his opposition wasn’t sufficiently pro-Jewish?
Wake up! Your perfect world doesn’t exist, (yet, if you insist.) Each generation pushes back evil as best it can. You do not vanquish it entirely. Do your part, and leave the undone for your children. NONE OF THE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES ARE PERFECT, AND NONE HAVE A FATAL FLAW. THE DEMOCRATS ARE FATALLY FLAWED.
JiangxiDad on October 9, 2007 at 11:53 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »