Giuliani Leading Among Social Conservatives

"I hate that "pragmatism" viewpoint.  It didn't work out so well with JBT (or John Kerry for that matter)."

No offense, but there's no comparison between JBT or John Kerry and Rudy Giuliani.

"Vote for who you think is best, and let the chips fall."

I'm OK with that. 

I'm not OK with those who keep repeating the mantra that Rudy cannot win support from social conservatives.  Even though this poll indicates his support is based on pragmatism, it also shows that the support is real at this moment.  Rational political actors know that electing someone who agrees with you half the time (Giuliani) is better than electing someone who never agrees with you (Obama or Clinton).  And a great many of us have already come to the conclusion (rightly or wrongly) that neither McCain nor Romney nor anyone else currently in the GOP field can beat Obama or Clinton. 

I'll take what I can get.

"And the view that Romney and McCain can't beat Clinton or Obama is based on what exactly?"

Based on my opinion - that's why I stated it as such.

"Rudy has serious issues that more time on the campaign trail will tend to flush out even more.  Rudy's brand gets tarnished, not strengthened by the great amount of time between now and the general election. "

I disagree.  I think Rudy's biography gets stronger as people, especially Independents, become more familiar with it.

"On the other hand, Romney has been plummeled by the DNC, who obviously thinks he is the greater threat, and opponents who have been trashing him for months.  It would seem to me that Romney only gets stronger from here."

The DNC hasn't touched Romney, or any other GOP canididate other than McCain.  They don't need to, and to think otherwise is slightly paranoid.  And there's no way Romney gets stronger from here - everything in his record contradicts his current positions.  And even though he can't bring up his own record, the Democrats surely will.

"Either way, there is a heck of a lot of time left and it seems a bit premature to say who will be able to win or not because there is little but idle speculation to back that up."

Again, that's why I said it was my opinion, though I have backed it up with my reasoning.  Clearly you disagree.  So be it.

"Romney hasn't even begun a national campaign."

Romney's been running TV commercials for most of 2007.

"Rudy is trying to ride his Post 9-11 popularity through the general election.  That didn't work so well for Bush in the long run.  Let's see if Rudy can hold onto the sentiment."

It worked well enough to get President Bush re-elected.  That, and being consistent about his positions, regardless of whether they were popular or not - a lesson Romney should take to heart, again in my opinion.

"Win or lose, then, Giuliani could damage the brand."

I'm not sure that the Republican brand, nationally, could be any more damaged, after the 12 years of pork, deficits, corruption and rank stupidity that have come out of Congress while we held the majority. 

To me, this "damage the brand" argument doesn't carry much weight, as it's the equivalent of asking, "What will make the GOP stronger long-term?"  Certainly nobody thinks that either Romney or McCain hold any long-term benefit for the GOP, or the principles of the party. 

As to the specific concerns about the impact on the party, a Romney nomination will create the impression that GOP voters just need to fed formulaic panders, and that we're unconcerned about distinguishing rhetoric from record. 

And a McCain nomination creates the impression that Republicans believe that the Constitution should be trampled on to satisfy this-or-that "reform" movement.

In my opinion, both of those possibilities will do more long-term damage to the GOP than nominating Rudy, or Fred Thompson, or even Mike Huckabee.  But I think it's a weak argument that needs to be twisted to try and attack Rudy while somehow promoting Romney and McCain.

"I really don't understand why the core ideological groups in either party accept so many folks that share none of their values or goals. The only explanation I can think of is that they are scared that if they don't, they won't win any elections. So it's a mutual arms race where we all get crappy candidates."

As my old PolySci ("You want fries with that?!?") professor would say, you can blame that on our first-past the post, single-member-district electoral system.  Duverger's Law:

A two-party system often develops spontaneously from the single-member district plurality voting system (SMDP), in which legislative seats are awarded to the candidate with the most total votes within his or her constituency, rather than apportioning seats to each party based on the total votes gained in the entire set of constituencies. This trend develops out of the inherent qualities of the SMDP system that discourage the development of third parties and reward the two major parties.

One of that professor's other frequent sayings is also apt:  "I'll let you pick the candidates and issues.  You let me pick the rules.  I'll win every time."  That's one of the reasons that I get so worked up about campaign finance when no one else on the planet cares.

"While I despise the man, at least Giuliani is not a cookie-cutter party of hate person."

How do you really feel?  ;-)

"My random poll of  "social conservatives" indicates that the moment they know of his stances, they drop him like a hot potato."

The poll above contradicts that finding.  How many people did you sample?  How random were they?  :-)

"The Guiliani boomlet is based on Reps being frightened of Dems and praying to they can find some one to win."

My support for Giuliani is based on his leadership, his understanding of the threats we face, and his honesty.  I also think that he and Fred Thompson are the only candidates who can win in November 2008, but that's not why I'm supporting him.

"If Fred gets in, he wins.  If not, its McCain.  Really folks, step back from the blogging and think about the American Electorate.  This should be pretty clear."

Fredy maybe.  McCain cannot win the nomination.  Republicans just don't trust him - even more than they don't like Rudy's social moderation.

But thanks for sharing your wisdom, even if you did so condescendingly.

"One thing to keep in mind is that there seems to be a complete lack of fresh issues coming from the Republicans."

True - but that also goes for Democrats.  The candidate who has ben annoited as fresh and brilliant, Sen. Obama, this week unveiled a universal health care plan that is substantially identical to the Clinton proposal from 1994. There's just not that much originality and creativity on either side right now, at least in terms of issues.

At this stage of the game, candidate preferences are more personal popularity contest than issues-based.  Either way, it's very early, and it's interesting for a politial junkie like myself to watch.

From your article:

The Pew survey cited by Kuhn indicates that forty-four percent of social conservatives believe that Giuliani has “the best chance of becoming president in ’08.” But that’s not the same as saying they personally would support Giuliani.

From the article I quoted in the original post:

Giuliani is winning 30 percent of the social conservative bloc, compared to 22 percent for McCain. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney captured just 8 percent — a figure that puts Romney in fourth place, behind former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who is currently not a declared candidate.

I think Mr. Edwards is ignoring half of the poll's results, and then attacking the poll for not indicating the part that he's ignoring.

"well, then "boo" for Mr. Edwards, and me too, for not rereading your original post :-)"

That's OK - it was heartening for me to read it and be reminded that Romney is only getting 8 percent from social conservatives.  Maybe more people realize that he's a condescending panderer than I had thought.