Richardson vs. Guiliani

[adam]

Well, I win either way.

Richardson would do very well in the west, but I doubt he would swing Colorado. Perhaps against another Republican, but not against Giuliani. I would predict something I like this:

I agree with SP Conservative in that I think PA would be the big state to watch. At the moment, I would give Richardson the edge here.

[adam]

Richardson is only Democrat currently running that could beat Guiliani.

Obama has no substance and Hillary's polarizing.

I am tempted to agree with you. Rob makes a great point about the NRA, it would be the first time in my life time that the Democrat would snag their endorsment over that of the Republican. This would do Richardson a big favor in a lot of western states and certainly the south.

Let me remind you that when the Republican nominee really riles the base, he loses a lot of states a typical Republican nominee would win.

In 1996 the Republican party nominated the "tax collector for the Great Society." Bob Dole.

I believe it was said by Senator Feingold that anyone who thinks Bob Dole isn't passionate, should see him fighting for a tax increase!

For the first time since 1948 Arizona did not vote for the Republican nominee for President, as the voters thoroughly despised him.

If Giuliani is the nominee in 2008 (unlikely in my opinion), and faces Richardson, conservatives by the millions will bail out on the Republican party for the Presidential race.  Arizona (and most of the west) would vote for Richardson.

Giuliani may lose a sizable portion of his base if he is nominated. Having said that, I would think that he would do rather well among independents nationwide.

[adam]

The reason why I don't think Giuliani will do well with independents is that he has an extremely abrasive and rude personality.

Why do you say that? I have met him several times and he was a very cordial. Where did you get the idea that he was rude?

[adam]

The reason why I don't think Giuliani will do well with independents is that he has an extremely abrasive and rude personality.

Why do you say that? I have met him several times and he was a very cordial. Where did you get the idea that he was rude?

Ask those who have dealt with him.

As long as you agree with him he can be "cordial," but disagree with him and watch out.

As one tangible of example of how Rudy deals with others, take the case of his most recent ex-wife.   She learned of his decision to seek a  "divorce" from a press conference!

I thought that was more funny than anything. Then again, I have a twisted sense of humor. None-the-less, I really get the feeling that the personal lives of the candidates won't be as big a factor in this upcoming election as it has been in the past two. People want their questions answers, and if Giuliani can do that then he shouldn't have problems.

[adam]

While conservatives are not fans of Clinton, Guiliani would be a worse President that Hillary.

How would Giuliani be worse? The positions that he holds different than the majority of Republicans are also shared by Hillary. Simply said, you are implying that GOPers would sooner accept a complete liberal with hawkish tendencies than a complete hawk with liberal tendencies.

[adam]

Its really very simple.

Too many Republicans in Congress would accept something proposed by a nominal Republican President that they would oppose if proposed by a Democrat President.

Given the composition of Congress at the time, do you think President Gore would have been able to push through a prescription drug program for medicare?

Kennedy et al have stated that without Bush putting pressure on Republicans in Congress, they have no hope of passing their amnesty for illegal aliens program.

In short, Hillary will face more opposition when trying to implement a liberal program and Giulliani would trying to implement exactly the same program!

That's exactly what you aren't telling us though, what sort of "liberal" programs are you expecting Giuliani to try and push through?

[adam]

Its really very simple.

Too many Republicans in Congress would accept something proposed by a nominal Republican President that they would oppose if proposed by a Democrat President.

Given the composition of Congress at the time, do you think President Gore would have been able to push through a prescription drug program for medicare?

Kennedy et al have stated that without Bush putting pressure on Republicans in Congress, they have no hope of passing their amnesty for illegal aliens program.

In short, Hillary will face more opposition when trying to implement a liberal program and Giulliani would trying to implement exactly the same program!

That's exactly what you aren't telling us though, what sort of "liberal" programs are you expecting Giuliani to try and push through?

First, whatever attacks on gun owners he thinks he can get through Congress.

Second, I suspect that the amnesty program will fail this year, but Guiliani would try to revive it.

Third, Guiliani would seek the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" and tell the military that they must not criticize homosexuality.

How's that for a start?

I seriously doubt that Giuliani would do anything to limit gun rights. For starters, it's a very cold button issue. I can't see any president on either side of the issue wasting time on it in this day in age. Also, if Giuliani is elected, I doubt he would want to do anything that would cause divisions in the party. Last thing the GOP needs is bad press, and he knows that.

Where did you get the idea that Giuliani is pro-amnesty. Being the tough on crime mayor and all, I assume that would translate to a hardline position on immigration. I can't speak with any certainty, however. Has Giuliani mentioned the immigration issue lately?

Again, a cold button issue. With the war in Iraq going straight to hell and a plythera of economic issues at hand...I doubt some silly fringe issue would be at the top of his agenda.

[adam]

i think Giuliani vs Richardson would go something like this:

Giuliani being from a NY, and having liberal social positions, and being "America's Mayor" would give him enough to switch a few northeastern states, but these same social positions plus his background may cost him in the west and south; also Giuliani's social views combined with Richardson being Hispanic may help Richardson him in TX/FL; also Richardson's 20+ year political career will show him as more experienced

personally, even though i think Giuliani would make a good president, i would probably vote for Richardson, if nothing else, because he is more experienced (otherwise i'd have to toss a coin, because im actually supporting both)

Being hispanic would help Richardson in Texas? Hahaha. Even the conservative leaning, hispanic Democrat, Tony Sanchez, could only muster 40% against Rick Perry in 2002. Victor M. Morales, another conservative Democrat, could only garner 43% against Phil Gramm in 1996. Granted, Morales ran a rather low-budget campaign but, Gramm had just come off a horrid attempt at running for president...he should have been an easier candidate to take down than the numbers of this senate race would imply. Things haven't gotten any better for hispanic politicians in the Texas area. So long as immigration is an issue, a hispanic will not carry Texas. Especially not a moderately liberal one. Other states I doubt Richardson would win in this scenario include West Virginia and Missouri.

Florida is another story though. Given that Richardson is actually more pro-gun than Rudy, combined with his ethnicity...he could very well win Florida in this matchup. Also, to Richardson's advantage...I see no reason as to why New Hampshire, Oregon, or New Jersey would vote against him. New York is also a stretch.

[adam]

i think Giuliani vs Richardson would go something like this:

Giuliani being from a NY, and having liberal social positions, and being "America's Mayor" would give him enough to switch a few northeastern states, but these same social positions plus his background may cost him in the west and south; also Giuliani's social views combined with Richardson being Hispanic may help Richardson him in TX/FL; also Richardson's 20+ year political career will show him as more experienced

personally, even though i think Giuliani would make a good president, i would probably vote for Richardson, if nothing else, because he is more experienced (otherwise i'd have to toss a coin, because im actually supporting both)

Being hispanic would help Richardson in Texas? Hahaha. Even the conservative leaning, hispanic Democrat, Tony Sanchez, could only muster 40% against Rick Perry in 2002. Victor M. Morales, another conservative Democrat, could only garner 43% against Phil Gramm in 1996. Granted, Morales ran a rather low-budget campaign but, Gramm had just come off a horrid attempt at running for president...he should have been an easier candidate to take down than the numbers of this senate race would imply. Things haven't gotten any better for hispanic politicians in the Texas area. So long as immigration is an issue, a hispanic will not carry Texas. Especially not a moderately liberal one. Other states I doubt Richardson would win in this scenario include West Virginia and Missouri.

Florida is another story though. Given that Richardson is actually more pro-gun than Rudy, combined with his ethnicity...he could very well win Florida in this matchup. Also, to Richardson's advantage...I see no reason as to why New Hampshire, Oregon, or New Jersey would vote against him. New York is also a stretch.

Yes, West Virginia is just the perfect fit for an anti-gun, anti-labor, socially liberal Republican. Giuliani would win it in a walk

I agree with the rest though.

I never said that Giuliani was the perfect candidate for WV...but being a hispanic virtually eliminates any chances Richardson has of winning the state. I mean, Robert Byrd was in the Klan for Christ's sake, and it still didn't affect his career. Sad, but true.

[adam]

i think Giuliani vs Richardson would go something like this:

Giuliani being from a NY, and having liberal social positions, and being "America's Mayor" would give him enough to switch a few northeastern states, but these same social positions plus his background may cost him in the west and south; also Giuliani's social views combined with Richardson being Hispanic may help Richardson him in TX/FL; also Richardson's 20+ year political career will show him as more experienced

personally, even though i think Giuliani would make a good president, i would probably vote for Richardson, if nothing else, because he is more experienced (otherwise i'd have to toss a coin, because im actually supporting both)

Being hispanic would help Richardson in Texas? Hahaha. Even the conservative leaning, hispanic Democrat, Tony Sanchez, could only muster 40% against Rick Perry in 2002. Victor M. Morales, another conservative Democrat, could only garner 43% against Phil Gramm in 1996. Granted, Morales ran a rather low-budget campaign but, Gramm had just come off a horrid attempt at running for president...he should have been an easier candidate to take down than the numbers of this senate race would imply. Things haven't gotten any better for hispanic politicians in the Texas area. So long as immigration is an issue, a hispanic will not carry Texas. Especially not a moderately liberal one. Other states I doubt Richardson would win in this scenario include West Virginia and Missouri.

Florida is another story though. Given that Richardson is actually more pro-gun than Rudy, combined with his ethnicity...he could very well win Florida in this matchup. Also, to Richardson's advantage...I see no reason as to why New Hampshire, Oregon, or New Jersey would vote against him. New York is also a stretch.

Yes, West Virginia is just the perfect fit for an anti-gun, anti-labor, socially liberal Republican. Giuliani would win it in a walk

I agree with the rest though.

I never said that Giuliani was the perfect candidate for WV...but being a hispanic virtually eliminates any chances Richardson has of winning the state. I mean, Robert Byrd was in the Klan for Christ's sake, and it still didn't affect his career. Sad, but true.

They elect Byrd in spite of him being in the Klan, not because of it. WV has an Arab American congressman. I think they can get over the race issue (especially when you consider Richardson is really as white as I am, unless Spaniards aren't white)

I think people waaaaaaaaaaaay overestimate the racial impact on Richardson. I mean, his last name is "Richardson (hardly ethnic), his background is as WASPy as it gets, he's tougher on immigration than Bush, and he could easily pass for Italian. We aren't talking about the Latin Al Sharpton here folks.

All I was getting at with Byrd was that, it would have killed just about anyone else in this day and age. Even George Wallace had to make a complete u-turn to remain relevant.

I assume the congressman you mention is Nick Rahall, who represents WV-3. This is a very poor, rural district in the southern half of the state. In other words, just about ANY Democrat could win this district.

I will agree with you that I don't think that Richardson's ethnicity will murder him in a vast majority of places, like some people would say. However, if I had to pick one state where a non-white couldn't win in a presidential election, West Virginia would be it. To many xenophobes and racists remain.

[adam]

Being hispanic would help Richardson in Texas? Hahaha. Even the conservative leaning, hispanic Democrat, Tony Sanchez, could only muster 40% against Rick Perry in 2002. Victor M. Morales, another conservative Democrat, could only garner 43% against Phil Gramm in 1996. Granted, Morales ran a rather low-budget campaign but, Gramm had just come off a horrid attempt at running for president...he should have been an easier candidate to take down than the numbers of this senate race would imply. Things haven't gotten any better for hispanic politicians in the Texas area. So long as immigration is an issue, a hispanic will not carry Texas. Especially not a moderately liberal one. Other states I doubt Richardson would win in this scenario include West Virginia and Missouri.

I think Richardson would do better in Texas than you think.  I'm fairly certain he wouldn't win there but I'm thinking against Guliani it could easily go 53-47 without independents, third parties. ect.  If you thrwo in independents and thrid parties it would likely be even closer as I'm thinking libertarians and the Constitution party would be against Guliani.

Unfortunately, Texas will not go for a Richardson anytime soon. I'll stick by what is evident cultural truth, albeit a cultural flaw: no state in which immigration is the number one or two issue will a hispanic take the vote, regardless of what that hispanic actually believes about immigration in comparison to his opponent. I've lived, literally, all over the state of Texas and I can safely say that a bitter distaste for the hispanic community is something consistant through most areas north of the border.

[adam]

But in his time, most politicians were Klan... It was the only way you could get elected in the south... You had to have their support... Byrd wins now just because he's a very very old man and they feel sorry for him.

 and because he is the king of pork barrel politics.

Which is odd, considering that West Virginia is probably the biggest hell-hole in the country, only to be challenged by Mississippi. All in all, I would say that Ted Stevens is the only candidate that could wear the crown of pork king.