On Giuliani - are the rethugs simply writing off the South?

[RiverStone]

I don't get it. Many rethugs are touting how the former big-city NY mayor is leading in a variety head to head polls vs Clinton or Obama. Yet with his (formally?) liberal views on abortion, gay rights, and gun control; how the heck does any rethug think he has a snowball's chance with red state Christain Conservatives? Or even the red midwest?

The irony is the past 2 elections, the DEMS wrote off much of the South as un-winnable (minus Florida). If Rudy actually gets the nomination, I think we DEMS have a better shot at winning the southern red states! Does it seem Giuliani is trying to play both ends of the fiddle?

I believe the DEMS will easily win the Presidency anyway - I just don't get why so many rethugs seem enamored with a candidate that runs against the core values of the wacko religious right base? :shrug:

[napi21]

1. O think it's the media who's enamored with Rudy.

From everything I can tell, the majority of the Pubs don't like anyone who's running right now. That's why you hear so much about Fred Thompson and Newt! They're still looking for their savior. And no I don't mean that in religious terms!

I don't think any of the current Pub candidates stand much of a chance nationally, and I don't think Thompson or Gingrich stand a chance either because neither one can withstand the investigation into their past!

[NoodleBoy]

2. word

although from what I've been hearing, some people like Duncan Hunter because he is very conservative and has been running an aggressive campaign.

[RiverStone]

4. Yep - I'd agree on your MSM...

Characterization. Much like Hillary is also the media darling of the mainstream press at the moment.

In my view, both will fade as the long road to the election wears on. They may both have Hollywood name recognition, yet neither ultimately appeals to the core values of their respective party's. Hillary is the most "conservative" DEM while Rudy is the most "liberal" puke.

[Kool Kitty]

7. Rudy is Chris Matthews' latest

crush, that's for sure. I can't wait to hear him fawning and see him drooling tomorrow night. :eyes:

[blitzen]

3. Since xenophobia and warmongering trump even "family values," Giuliani would...

probably win the South.

[RiverStone]

8. Speaking as a kid who grew up in the Bible Belt....

Georgia to be specific - I can tell ya places beyond the (relatively) more progressive city of Atlanta are VERY slow to change. I'd be amazed if Rudy won, simply because he's a Yankee is enough for most redneck righties to write him off.

My parents are both New Yorkers, and I recall getting dissed as a kid in the south just for that! BTW, been on the west coast for over 20 years now. Don't miss the Bible thumpin, do miss fireflies, southern cookin, and thunderstorms. The south IS a beautiful place - just don't wash with the politics.

[jobycom]

5. Hey, that's a good point. Guiliani's not a good fit for the South.

I know the Republicans believe that they have the Evangelicals and the conservatives in the South sewn up, and aren't really afraid that these voters will cross over and vote Democrat. They probably also figure they can revert to SOP, which is to slander our candidate so bad that the fundies get riled up and vote for the lesser evil.

But Guiliani could be disasterous for them in the South. He might keep the Evangelicals at home, inspire only a moderate turnout amongst the hardline conservatives, and even lose a lot of moderates if the Dems pick someone Southerners are comfortable with. With his accent and his Yankee gruffness, he won't appeal personally to a lot of Southerners. And Clinton, Obama, and Edwards all have some appeal in parts of the South--Clinton because of her role in Arkansas, Edwards because he's southern, and Obama because he comes across as relaxed and genuine.

Hmm. Guiliani would change the dynamics quite a bit, wouldn't he? The Dems wouldn't have to win all of the South to screw up the Republicans. Just a couple of states.

[treelogger]

6. It is indeed an enigma

I happen to frequent quite a few gun discussion forums, which by their nature are heavily populated by republicans. So much so that I've been evicted from gun boards several times, for outing myself as a democrat and progressive, and for advocating some forms of gun control.

The fascinating thing is: the republicans on these forums universally hate Giuliani. I agree with your conclusion that if Giuliani wins the primary (mostly because of lack of other viable candidates), he would lose in the south and parts of the west (all but California, where he would have a good chance in urban republican areas, such as San Diego).

But: If the democrats continue the madness they are currently doing (only harping on Iraq, and pushing massive gun control bills, like HR1022, the new AWB, or the most recent Gonzales-inspired gun bill introduced by a democratic congressman), they would also lose the south and the same parts of the west.

The enigma is: Who would these voters go for? At this point, there seems to be no third party candidate. Neither greens nor libertarians are capable of attracting that voter base.

You say "I believe the DEMS will easily win the Presidency". I agree, there are no really attractive republican candidates, and the coattails of the shrub make it hard for a republican in 2008. But I'm also quite worried that the republicans will win both houses of congress back.

[RiverStone]

9. And raises a challenging question for DEMS in the south-

On pushing massive gun control bills, like HR1022 --- I recall some political pundits saying thats what hurt Gore/Kerry/Edwards the most in the south - particularly in Tennessee and North Carolina - if either state had flipped in either election.....

I'm ALL for gun control and yet to WIN in the south, I believe the DEMS may need to modify their platform on this. Another battle for the convention!