Richardson vs. Guiliani

[CARLHAYDEN]

With a third-party conservative it could be a landslide of course, say, along the lines of the following (tossups go to the third party and lots of very light colors):

Pretty close.

[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.

[ag]

As mayor, and in his first years thereafter, Giuliani was emphatically and very publically pro-immigrant. I am pretty sure he was a clear supporter of the NYC policy prohibiting police from reporting illegal immigrants to federal authorities: precisely from the law-and-order motivation (he prefers them to actually report crime). Whereas I don't think he is talking much about this now, I am pretty sure he was sincere in his pro=immigrant stances. At the very least, he is unlikely to have much patience for all sorts of "round them up and deport them" crap.  Furthermore, amnesty or no amnesty, he wouldn't need much pursuading to go for major legal immigration increases.

As for the guns: he was a big city prosecutor and big city mayor. He hates NRA and the like and he might well make gun measures part of anti-crime bills.

Richardson is white. His ancestors range from Mass. WASPS to Nicaraguan and Mexican fresas, but, hey, 15% of Mexican population has pretty much all-European ancestry (in the Mexico City university I teach in, there are fewer "visible" hispanics than in any NYC highschool, unless you count the custodial staff; common student last names include, say, Kaiser, Shuster, Gurfinkel or Schwabe - all Mexican) . Calling him a "person of color" doesn't make much sense: in his case "Hispanic" means pretty much just the language of ancestors, and not much more. For that matter, my daughter is "Hispanic": she was born in Mexico and speaks Spanish - but she is still, mostly, Jewish.

[Eraserhead]

The very qualified but rather dull Richardson would be blown away by Giuliani's star power.

What?  I knew you Obama supporters were more concerned with the celebrity status of candidates rather than their actual substance but this is taking things too far.  First off, Guliani's "star power" will mean absolutely nothing to an American public seeking a solution to our international problems once Richardson whips out his foreign policy credentials.  If I have the choice between a "star" and an experienced diplomat when it comes to plotting a new course in the Middle East I'm certainly not going to go with the "star."  Richardson would destroy Guliani on the issues of foreign policy which is one of the big ones for 2008.  Second, Richardson is going to beat Guliani again on gun control.  This isn't a major national issue but it will help Richardson carry the west and some swing states in which gun ownership is important.  Third, Richardson is not "dull."  His 2006 campaign ads are actually very funny.  Check this out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0juSJ-y9xg

This is your opinion but not the opinion of most Americans. I'd gladly vote for Richardson myself over Rudy but the cold hard truth is that he would be crushed. If 2004 taught us anything its that many people do not vote on issues although I myself am not supporting Obama because of his "star power". I wish Richardson could win but I don't see it happening.

[Padfoot]

This is your opinion but not the opinion of most Americans. I'd gladly vote for Richardson myself over Rudy but the cold hard truth is that he would be crushed. If 2004 taught us anything its that many people do not vote on issues although I myself am not supporting Obama because of his "star power". I wish Richardson could win but I don't see it happening.

What 2004 should have taught you is that single issue negative campaigns are a complete disaster and know-it-all, condescending, Northeast liberals cannot get elected president.  All I ever heard out of Kerry's mouth was "Bush is wrong" and "the war in Iraq is wrong."  There were no issues.  His entire platform was based around "anyone but Bush."  That's why he lost.  Also the GOP very effectively used the issue of gay marriage to push Bush ahead in critical states like Ohio.  The people did in fact vote on the issues its just that the GOP was the one that brought them all to the table.  For a Democratic example look at the Missouri Senate race just last year.  If not for the issue of stem cell research The Democrats likely would have lost.  Issues do matter to people and if Richardson and Guliani are the nominees Guliani will have little advantages.

Despite his current primary front-runner status Guliani is not that great of a candidate.  His background is littered with scandals and sordidness.  The only reason he is even in the race is because he just happened to be mayor of New York on 9/11.  Otherwise he really has nothing to offer.  His social positions will eventually alienate the social conservatives to the point where they either vote Democrat (Richardson is actually more conservative on immigration and guns than Guliani), go for a third party southern conservative, or they won't vote at all.  Also, with the current state of world affairs the American public is not going to choose a man with absolutely no foreign policy experience over a man with it coming out his ears.

[Hammy]

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)

[Dr. Cynic]

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)

That is the most random ass map I've ever seen.

[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.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.

[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.

[Dr. Cynic]

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.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.

[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.

[Padfoot]

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.

[ag]

Giuliani is not very likely to win NY in any realistic Dem matchup. He could make it a race, and he would have some chance, but, on ballance of probabilities he won't win: too big a deficit he'd have to overcome from NYC, and too far disintegrated the Rep political presence. Can they still run any passable GOTW in the state (outside Staten Island)? All those New Yorkers who happilty voted for Giuliani for mayor ("I know he is a faschist, but that's what we need" - I am quoting more than one person I know) - won't even think of voting for him for president (not against anybody half competent - and all the three Dem current candidates are pretty competent).

[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.

[CARLHAYDEN]

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.

Actually, Byrd wins reelection because he doesn't generally veer to the hard left (he opposes amnesty for illegal aliens, gun control, etc.) and because he is the king of pork barrel politics.

[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.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

There's no way that Giuliani wins his home state of NY.

[Bay Ridge, Bklyn! Born and Bred]

Image Link

Arizona and Florida are the two closest states.

I'm telling you, in a generic election, I think Rudy wins PA against almost any Dem candidate, esspecially Richardson.  There are a lot of people who at least have a lot of animosity towards Hispanics in a lot of parts of this state, if not outright hatred.

I think you're vastly overestimating the "racist hick vote".  Sure, there are people who wouldn't want a hispanic in power, but those people would end up voting Republican anyway and if Giuliani wins PA it is because of his moderate politics rather than Richardon's ethnicity.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Image Link

Arizona and Florida are the two closest states.

I'm telling you, in a generic election, I think Rudy wins PA against almost any Dem candidate, esspecially Richardson.  There are a lot of people who at least have a lot of animosity towards Hispanics in a lot of parts of this state, if not outright hatred.

Richardson is a personable ,reasonable, and experienced candidate.

He doesn't make being of hispanic origin the raison d'etre of his candidacy.

Don't think too many people would object to his ethnic background.


I think you're vastly overestimating the "racist hick vote".  Sure, there are people who wouldn't want a hispanic in power, but those people would end up voting Republican anyway and if Giuliani wins PA it is because of his moderate politics rather than Richardon's ethnicity.