Decision ‘08

The King Of New York?

Alas, no…despite being “America’s Mayor”, Rudy G. cannot overcome the inhospitable climate the Empire State poses for Republican presidential candidates. Though he is far and away the choice of New York Republicans (he’s the choice of a cool 50% of NY Republicans, even with Thompson in the race), Rudy trails Hillary in the head-to-head…badly:

Head-to-Head Match Ups
Clinton 52 - Giuliani 39
Clinton 54 - McCain 36
Clinton 57 - F. Thompson 29

What’s it mean? Well, here’s what this observer takes away. Rudy probably puts more solidly blue states in play than any other Republican - but the climate in 2008 is going to be very, very challenging for the GOP. Hillary will stir up a whirlwind of opposition if she is the candidate (as looks increasingly likely) - but there is a built-in animus against the Republican Party at the moment that does not bode well for retaining the White House. It’s too early to call anything, but my belief is that we are running from the position of underdog at the moment…

10 Responses to “The King Of New York?”

1 JB Says:
May 31st, 2007 at 11:34 pm
Kerry beat Bush by 18% in New York. So I suppose one could say that Giuliani improves the GOP’s chances in NY, but only marginally and still remains well outside the margin of error; and that’s considering he was the mayor of NYC, leading them through one of their darkest times. If he truly were able to bring more blue states into play for the GOP I would’ve expected him to at least have been closer in NY. I don’t see how this bodes well for him in other blue states if he can’t even be close in NY.

I’d be curious to hear if any Giuliani supporters have given any real, objective consideration, amid all their pipe-dreams of turning NY and/or CA red, as to whether Giuliani will lose any red states, especially in the south and southwest.
2 JB Says:
May 31st, 2007 at 11:36 pm
BTW Mark, I thought you were in semi-blogging-retirement. You’re going like your hair’s on fire lately. Take it easy and go ASU in college WS.
3 Aaron Says:
June 1st, 2007 at 12:31 am
How are this and this for evidence that Giuliani could flip some blue states, or at least turn solid blues into battlegrounds?

Sure, he’s tied in CT and down by 3 in NJ, but the other GOP candidates are getting trounced and I’d assume 3% is within the MOE (can’t find it anywhere). Pundits have become fond of saying that the 2008 democratic candidate needs only to win one state that Kerry lost in ‘04 to take the White House and that Ohio is looking very blue right now. If Giuliani can either take CT and NJ or at least force the Dems to divert funds there from PA and the Upper Midwestern states, which Bush lost by 2% or less in 2004, then Ohio will not matter as much. If Thompson or Romney is the nominee, they have no chance of taking either CT or NJ.
4 JB Says:
June 1st, 2007 at 1:33 am
On the plus side, those polls are at least from Rasmussen. On the downside, they include that goofball Bloomberg, which confuses things. He is a true liberal who also happens to be a Republican - the true definition of a RINO - and it’s tough to say which candidate he takes votes from.

You make a good point that, should these polling numbers continue into the general cycle, assuming Rudy is the R nominee, the dims would certainly have to commit funds in order to retain these states. However, NY will not be a battleground state. Based on the NY poll above, which admittedly is a narrow data base but it’s all we’ve got right now, Rudy makes up roughly a third of Bush’s 2004 deficit in NY. If he does the same in neighboring CT and NJ he’s still outside, or at best, on the fringes of the margin of error in those respective states. And I would also argue that Rudy’s ability to cut Bush’s deficit is very regional and narrow, so possibly Pennsylvania comes into play, but outside of that, his regional appeal dillutes (spelling?).

Plus, as you said, Ohio is going to be tough for any GOP nom, and you still don’t address the problems Giuliani will face in the South because of his liberal social views. I don’t believe that we can just assume that all the other red states will simply fall in line and vote GOP when we have a socially liberal candidate on the head of the ticket.

And finally, I don’t believe that we can really compare the head to heads of the other GOP candidates to the Dems. It’s not apples to apples at this point. Giuliani still has that rockstar appeal around the country while Romney and Thompson are comparatively unknown outside of political junkies. Name recognition alone is quite possibly getting Rudy the higher poll numbers at this point. These polling disparities tend to dissipate once the candidates win their respective nominations, their support consolodates, and their names become household ones.

Anyway, good points and good debate.
5 too many steves Says:
June 1st, 2007 at 8:29 am
In what fantasy world does ANY republican have a chance in NY? Likewise MA. Not even worth campaigning there if you ask me. (for the record, no one has - yet).
6 Bob from Ohio Says:
June 1st, 2007 at 9:10 am
No GOPer is going to lose any southern state to Obama or Clinton or Edwards. The margin of victory may be lower but that is all.

NY is a lost cause, it is NJ that Rudy puts in play.
7 peter Says:
June 1st, 2007 at 11:00 am
“What’s it mean?”

Given that until this year, New York had a Republican governor since 1995, New York City has had Republican mayors since 1994, and Republicans still control the State Senate, maybe the conclusion is not that New York is an “inhospitable climate” for Republican Presidential hopefuls against Hillary Clinton.

Maybe it’s because she did a good job for New Yorkers as their Senator and they recognize that.
8 Bob from Ohio Says:
June 1st, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Maybe it’s because she did a good job for New Yorkers as their Senator and they recognize that.

Ok, I’ll bite. Name one thing she has done as Senator?
9 peter Says:
June 1st, 2007 at 2:21 pm
I don’t follow the individual achievements of one hundred Senators, so I’m not familiar enough with her record to answer the question — but I do know that her percentage of the vote went from 55% in 2000 to 67% in 2006, so obviously the voters in New York approve of what she has done.

My guess is that if you ranked each Senator by the percentage of votes received, she would be at the top (or very near the top) of the list. For someone as allegedly polarizing as she is — in a state which seems to elect more Republicans than Democrats overall — I think this is quite an achievement.
10 Sean P Says:
June 1st, 2007 at 3:11 pm
52-39 is a 13 point deficit. That’s a 5 point improvement in NY with Rudy as the nominee, in a political climate vastly less favorable to Republicans than when Bush was re-elected. And, while Rudy is a NYC mayor, Hillary is an 8 year Senator from NY. Moreover, for a Senator, her base of support is across the entire state, for a mayor, the base of support is localized in the city where he was mayor and the suburbs where commuters live — and in the case of NYC, most of the commuters life in different states, mainly New Jersey and Connecticut. THAT’s where Rudy’s home state appeal works the most, as well as Florida (plenty of ex-New Yorkers) and Pennsylvania (not many NYers, but plenty of Italian Americans and in a relatively competitive state). Plus, if the Dems decide to pass over Hillary in favor of Obama (which they just might), the Dems lose their own favorite son in NY, making Republican prospects that much brighter.