Why the odds still favour Rudy upsetting Hillary's bandwagon

[T_i_B]

Doom & Gloom from the UK Observer.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2185479,00.html

Leaving aside whether or not Clinton will win the Democratic nomination, the fact is that America is perfectly capable of voting Republican again. Far from looking ahead to a Clinton White House, be prepared for a Rudy Giuliani one.

After all, the Democrats have been here before. Repeatedly. In 2000, conventional wisdom had it that Al Gore would crush a Texas cowboy famous for little more than being his daddy's son. In 2004, how could John Kerry, a heroic Vietnam veteran, lose to that same cowboy who had just embroiled the country in a needless war. Conventional wisdom was deeply wrong both times.

Republicans have consistently shown themselves better at winning elections, even when everything points in a Democrat direction. Republicans are superb at exploiting conservative issues that resonate deeply with the American public. Democrats often flounder getting their message across. In the past 60 years, Democrats have won more than 50 per cent of the total popular vote in a presidential election only twice. Let me repeat that. Twice in 60 years. Even Bill Clinton - now regarded by many Democrats as the incarnation of a lost golden age - needed the third party candidacy of eccentric billionaire Ross Perot to assure him of his two victories. He never beat 50 per cent. In American elections the Republicans always have a good chance. It is unlikely that 2008 will be any different.

The crucial name is the one not on the ballot: George W Bush. Though no Republican candidate has decisively broken with Bush so far, it will be a powerful card to play once nominated. Giuliani, and his liberal social beliefs, could easily appeal to independent anti-Bush voters. So instead of Clinton wondering which red states she can pick off, she could find herself fighting off Giuliani in her own backyard of solid-blue states such as New Jersey.

[Rene]

1. No decent person will vote for that self-serving idiot(ghourliani) and

noone will allow he and his w----e enter our White House.

[Captain Hilts]

7. He's had too much 'female trouble' of his own making and his own kids aren't speaking to him.

People won't want to deal with that in the White House.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

10. In the same way that no decent person would have voted for Bush?

I'm afraid I think a Giuliani victory is the single most likely outcome in 2008.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

11. Our Friends Across The Pond Sometimes Don't Understand Americans Very Well

eom

[Donald Ian Rankin]

12. True, but sometimes we do.

And, conversely, I suspect many Americans don't understand Americans very well - it's often easier to be objective about something from the outside.

[Tellurian]

2. Rudy's problems are every other candidate in the race..

the paper boy can beat Rudy in the primarys.

[William769]

3. Just goes to show that a paper in Britain hasn't a clue of American politics. NT

[displacedtexan]

4. The missing magic words: Republicans cheat.

It's not "winning" when you have to cheat.

[Captain Hilts]

5. Not to worry. Suburban 'Security moms' will vote for her. nt

[Carrieyazel]

13. No they won't. Many moderate Repuke women, Indep women,

who comprise the security moms will go with Ghouliani. He's pro-choice, a "different kind of Repuke" they might say. Hillary will go down if Ghouliani is the nominee. She needs to pray for Fred Thompson. Much like Ghouliani is praying for her to be the Dem nominee.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. "Much like Ghouliani is praying for her to be the Dem nominee"

Is that why he wimped out and didn't run against her in 00?

Oh, a pre-emptive strike...Don't use the prostrate cancer excuse... John Kerry had the same challenge in 04 and stayed in the race...

Rudy's knew she would kick his ass...Now she's going to do it for real...I almost pity him for the humiliation he is about to get...

[Carrieyazel]

15. Rudy couldn't win in 2000 in NY, it was a Democratic held seat

and Repukes were fading statewide. Of course you're correct that Rudy didn't have a chance in 2000. But he knows he can beat Hillary in a national election, and that's why he wants Hillary now. He's calculating as hell, but no way Hillary beats him nationwide.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. I Would Argue With You But Since You Can't Distinguish Between Opinions And Facts It's Futile

eom

[Captain Hilts]

18. Nope. Rudy Garland has had FAR too much self-inflicted 'female troubel'...

and my firm was polling in NY in 2000 and 'security moms' don't like what's been going on with the war and Rudy's promising more of the same.

In fact, she would have beaten him in NY in 2000. That's why he bailed out of the race.

They'll vote for HRC.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. Is That Why People Who Put Their MONEY Where Their MOUTH Is Are Choosing Hillary?

http://www.intrade.com/

http://www.biz.uiowa.edu/iem/markets/Pres08.html

Oh, and the assertion that Perot made Clinton president is demonstrably and empirically false too..


http://www.leinsdorf.com/perot.htm


Without proof and links your assertions stinks...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. This Is A Crock Of Shit Assertion

"After all, the Democrats have been here before. Repeatedly. In 2000, conventional wisdom had it that Al Gore would crush a Texas cowboy famous for little more than being his daddy's son. In 2004, how could John Kerry, a heroic Vietnam veteran, lose to that same cowboy who had just embroiled the country in a needless war. Conventional wisdom was deeply wrong both times."

His whole argument rests on an assertion that is demontrably false or in colloqial terms, a crock of shit... There was no widespread consensus that Bush* would lose in 04 and 00...In fact Bush was tied or had a lead in many of the polls in the months leading up to both elections...

[Midwestern Democrat]

16. You're absolutely correct.

Since 1972, the only election I can think of where the Democrats were truly favorites and managed to blow was 1988. We almost blew 1976. The other elections, though, were either - from the start - a moderate GOP advantage (1972*, 2000, 2004) or not a snowball's chance in hell for the Democrats (1980, 1984). (*1972 was a Nixon landslide because of the McGovern nomination - Humphrey/Muskie/Jackson almost certainly would have kept the race well within 10%).

[DemocratSinceBirth]

20. Yeah

By the time the conventions are finished you have a pretty good idea of how the election will turn out...In fact you can get a pretty good picture in the year or so before...In 00 it was a pickem and in 04 Bush* was a small favorite...

The 88 election was odd... I never thought the Duke's seventeen point lead was real...It might have been an artifact of polling... Anyway a seventeen point lead turned into a eight point defecit, a swing of twenty five points... The swing in 76 was actually larger... Jimmy Carter saw a 33% post convention lead shrink to a <2% lead on election day... In fact, if not for 30,000 votes in Hawaii and Ohio he loses...

I look at history, polls, and the structure of this race (now) and it seems a Democratic victory is more likely than not...

[OHdem10]

9. He has it , spot on. If Dems doe not listen, it is to their own

peril.

I desperately wish for our party to win, but the reality
shows we have a real fight on our hands. I think Rudy
will be worse than Bush.

There are many Americans who see Rudy differently.

The Englishman has it ritht.

[rucky]

17. If Rudy's the nominee, the Value-Voters will stay home, unless...

it's Hillary.