The DJ Drummond/Patrick Ruffini Spat: Behind Door Number One…
…we find Rudy G. This weekend, in an eloquently titled post, I examined the strangely vehement denunciation of Patrick Ruffini’s straw poll by DJ Drummond of PoliPundit. Patrick himself responded here:
I’ve never claimed to be George Gallup here. As I laid out a few months back, a poll of self-selected blogosphere activists will never mirror a general media poll, or a screen of Republican voters. I don’t make any claim to measure opinion beyond the blogosphere. That’s not a bug – it’s a feature. To the extent that those who pay attention to Presidential politics right now are a leading indicator of opinion, polls like this can help tell us who’s over- and undervalued in the political space. It’s a tool that’s more akin to Tradesports than to any media poll.
Drummond, oddly, felt compelled to strike again:
I believe you meant well Patrick, but the bottom line is, you blew it. And not just once. I wrote this article because it’s become apparent that rather than correct errors on the matter of your “poll”, you choose to reinforce them, and I cannot in good conscience let that pass.
It certainly seems a forceful position to take regarding what was an online poll, essentially, that a lot of folks had a bit of fun with, and one that reveals what folks who frequent conservative blogs are thinking, no more, no less.
The mystery is solved, however, when two facts are thrown into the mix: Rudy G. outpolled everyone else, and Drummond doesn’t like Rudy:
It’s about a writer claiming broad national support for a candidate who has yet to commit to the extant GOP platform, or to pursue the priorities demanded by American voters.
Oh, I see…Rudy isn’t ideologically pure, so Ruffini’s poll must be denigrated. Never mind the messy fact that Rudy G. led the most recent CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll and Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll, and finished in the top three in the most recent Zogby poll. All polls that, presumably, meet Drummond’s stringent qualifications for approved discourse, and yet, dare I say, reveal broad national support for a candidate who has yet to commit to the extant GOP platform, or to pursue the priorites demanded by American voters.
I’m nowhere near endorsing a candidate for 2008, but I’ll tell you this much: a lot of folks had better get prepared for the possibility that the Republican nominee in 2008 will be either Rudy G. or John McCain. Throwing darts at the work of other bloggers is not going to diminish that one iota…
UPDATE 2:49 p.m.: Patrick Ruffini responds at his own blog here. It’s worth quoting at length:
I don’t have a dog in this fight, but my general sense of this right now is that the media’s got it back asswards: Rudy could be nominated, but John McCain most definitely could not be.
Both are seemingly unlikely picks, but if asked to pick between the two, it boils down to this: partisanship matters. Giuliani differs from the Republican base in ways he’s smart enough not to emphasize, but he is fiercely partisan. That may not win him points with the Randall Terry crowd, but it does impress the party regulars — the blue-haired ladies who attend Lincoln Day Dinners who picked 43 over Forbes/Keyes, Dole over Buchanan/Forbes, and 41 over Kemp/DuPont. Rudy-skepticism has a certain hearsay quality to it — I like the guy, but when the other 99.9% of Republicans who are anti-abortion zealots find out about him, all bets are off. McCain-skepticism among the base is much, much more direct: I viscerally dislike the guy because of: McCain-Feingold / the Gang of 14 / tax cuts / Kyoto / baiting the religious right / (insert support for any item on Democratic domestic agenda here.) McCain checks certain boxes ideologically — though barely, but he is not very partisan. And anyone who thinks that doesn’t matter should read Unconventional Wisdom’s engrossing take on how the GOP nomination process actually works.
Let me also inject this. I remember standing on the floor Monday night at the Republican convention a year ago this week, when McCain and Giuliani spoke back to back. Except for the Michael Moore line, who got the better applause from the delegates? Rudy, hands down. Maybe the other bloggers who were up in New York could share their impressions on this one.
Politics abhors a vacuum and the prospect of a couple of “moderates” duking it out for the GOP nomination militates in favor of a lesser-known conservative challenger rising Dean-like in 2007 (and ditto for Hillary and the Democrats). As a leading indicator — and in the absence of any good polling in the media — online polls of political junkies might be able to better tell us who that will be. Right now, my bets are on Russ Feingold for the Dems and George Allen for the GOP.
George Allen, maybe…but Russ Feingold? I hope you’re right, Patrick, because that would be an easy GOP win, but I have my doubts…
Mark –
Couldn’t find the link, but David Brooks made an excellent point regarding Rudy in a column a few weeks ago, it was titled “Send in the Spartans.” His main theme was that when things get tough, you call for the people who won’t flinch from doing what needs to be done, regardless of the opposition.
I’d vote for Rudy not only because he’s an excellent speaker and has the courage of his convictions, but just to watch his press conferences. It would be like watching the lambs lead to slaughter.
I really could get behind Guliani. But, McCain?!?
Do I really have to get prepared for the fact that he might be our nominee?!?
I’m just saying it’s not out of the realm of possibility…
It would be nice to see a president who didn’t view news conferences as just a series of landmines to be avoided but as a battle to be enjoyed.
I can’t figure out why DJ seems to think this poll is not only unscientific (a fair enough complaint), but also somehow so bad for the GOP, the blogosphere and the Western world in general that it needs such denouncing. If his concern is that Rudy is too liberal, isn’t it better for him to rise to the top of the polls now, so people can start paying him more attention three years before election day, rather than having a sudden boomlet of attention like that that enveloped Howard Dean and nearly led to him running away with the nomination?
Republicans do tend to close ranks around one guy early, so I suppose some folks such as DJ who don’t like Rudy have reason to worry Hizzoner may start getting that mantle of inevitability soon. And I respect those who say they’d have a hard time voting for Rudy because they view him as liberal on social issues. But whenever I see someone essentially arguing they’ll hold their breath unless the GOP nominates Rick Santorum or someone like that, I’m left wondering if they remember that President Bush, who is only a moderate social conservative, still just barely won.
Also… does it seem to anyone else like all of these polls entirely miss the point?
To win the presidency, a candidate needs to take swing states (like Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania) and if possible put states from the other side into play. (like Guliani probably does for New York)
It makes not the slightest bit of difference what anyone in California or Texas thinks — we already know that the Democratic candidate will get all of California’s electoral votes and the Republican candidate will get all of Texas’s electoral votes.
Isn’t anyone doing polls exclusively in swing states? (You’d better believe that the candidates are, but I mean someone who’s making them public…)
totally agree. DJ was a bit out of line, solely because he doesnt like Rudy. More to the point, Polipundit has come out for Cindi, who I would support, but she is unlikely to run. I think Rudy really is a republican…he cut spending, taxes, crime, was a fantastic supporter of the President, a fantastic campaigner for Republican races, and over all, a great Republican Party man. Go Rudy!
Folks, I’m getting scared. Not very, because you guys seem to be as out of touch as Patrick is… but there is something about intelligent people buying in large numbers into an idea as nutty as the notion that a Giuliani candidacy is even marginally viable that is inherently frightening.
Can it really be that so many of you don’t
realize how radically unacceptable Rudy Giulani’s views on social issues are to the Party’s very base- and the consequences once those views become more widely known? He’ll never survive the early primaries and caucuses. And if, by some miracle, he were to win the nomination,it would be worthless. Too many members of that base (myself included, btw) would prefer to lose an election than our Party, and would not vote for him if he were nominated.
I wouldn’t vote for Hillary (or any of the other potential Democrat candidates), mind you. But I wouldn’t vote for Rudy either. I would leave the Presidential line blank- and a big enough chunk of the Party’s base would do the same to destroy any chance of Giuliani winning the election even if he got the nomination.
I simply see no basis on which to prefer him to the alternative.
When Bill Clinton was running for the Presidency, I always asked “if he lied to his wife about being faithful, what else will he lie about? And to whom?” You could ask the same question about Giuliani.
Not the biggest reason to not vote for him (abortion and gun control are). But a good one.
Bob and fatman, I’m not throwing my hat into the Rudy ring yet (though I like him very much), but I am saying this: if the choice comes down to ideologically pure, but a loser, or Rudy G., at that point, I’ll say: lead the way, Rudy…
I can’t buy this notion that a Giuliani candidacy is doomed. I can understand being upset that Giuliani might win and do harm to the causes that social conservatives care about most deeply, but the idea that he can’t win doesn’t ring true to me.
First off, social conservatives aren’t unified on Rudy. One of the most interesting things about the Ruffini poll is the comments section, where you see a variety of opinions from social conservatives on Giuliani.
Second, as Clint pointed out, this is an electoral college race. Even if his margins of victory are lower in places like Texas or South Carolina or Kansas, I’m still reasonably sure Giuliani would carry those states.
Third, and this ties into the second point, for all the social conservatives who might stay at home, Giuliani has the chance to pick up votes from those middle-of-the-road voters who want strong defense and low taxes but are uncomfortable with Republicans on social issues like gay marriage and abortion. We’re talking about the Jeff Jarvis Democrats here. They are ripe for the picking, especially if the Kossacks succeed in driving the Democrats ever leftward. I live in New Jersey, and I would bet that if Giuliani is the nominee in 2008, this state has a good chance of going red.
The things that unnerve me about Giuliani are his temper and his ego. I think his screwy personal life is largely a function of that. He can be very touchy, which isn’t a good thing to be if you’re in a position where every day, somebody is burning you in effigy. So I’m not sold on him yet. But he’s the most compelling candidate I’ve seen so far.
Dennis, well said…you’ve laid out the Rudy G. case perfectly…