Richardson vs. Guiliani

[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.

[CARLHAYDEN]

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!

[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?

[ag]

One thing for sure, in a Richardson/Giuliani race the map would look different from the last couple times.

Safe states are safe states. Nothing these days would move UT or MA (though both might not be the usual landslides, both are safe). But in even somewhat close states it would pay to see, what is the source of the local partisan strength.

1. Giuliani won't inspire "the base". Even if most conservatives vote for him (and I expect them to), they won't be enthusiastic, they want really turn out too well, nor would they work to turn people out. So, if a state is close, and is normally won by Reps because of social-conservative enthusiasm, expect a mediocre result for Giuliani. Furthermore, whereas conservatives might not work too hard, unions will: of all the Republican candidates around, I would expect Giuliani to be one of the most poisonous, as far as the unions are concerned (he wasn't very easy negotiator as a mayor, if I recall it well).  So, where Dem strength is union-based, expect Richardson do especially well.  Richardson would attract Hispanics, of course, though Giuliani would have cards to play here, if he knows how.

Conclusion: I would expect OH to switch and PA to be actually quite safe for Dems. Midwest would be very Dem, with only IN sufficiently Rep to be reliable, and Richardson would, probably, do fine enough in his own neighborhood: I'd expect not just NM, but also NV and CO to switch and AZ to be somewhat competitive. Even in the South FL might actualy go Dem (you don't need that much of a slack in the Panhandle for Dems to benefit, and don't underestimate the Hispanic factor, even if older-generation Cubans aren't swayed), as could AR, though both are by no means very likely. 

2. On the other hand, Giuliani is the sort of a Republican that a suburban (or even urban) non-union white-collar white or ethnic Northeasterner or Westcoaster is comfortable with.  The "liberal suburbs" are not really partisan - they are just liberal and they don't like "hicks".  Giuliani is liberal, and he is surely no hick, so he is acceptable. A lot of the (non-Hispanic) ethnics would actually love Giuliani.  Giuliani would do fine with newly naturalized citizens: he is known to be fairly pro-immigrant.

Conclusion: I would say, that the suburban states, such as NJ and CT (and, of course, NH) would clearly be likely Giuliani pick-ups. While NY is, probably, has too much of a Dem core, it could quite conceivably be a lot closer than normal (expect Giuliani to win handily on Long Island), as could be CA (not very likely, but Giuliani could pick it up - probably, the only Rep who could). VA would be entirely non-competitive Rep (the NOVA would be ambiguous). In the Northwest, both OR and WA would look strange: expect much less polarized maps, with low turnout inland balanced out by relatively less Dem coast.

[CARLHAYDEN]

One thing for sure, in a Richardson/Giuliani race the map would look different from the last couple times.

Safe states are safe states. Nothing these days would move UT or MA (though both might not be the usual landslides, both are safe). But in even somewhat close states it would pay to see, what is the source of the local partisan strength.

1. Giuliani won't inspire "the base". Even if most conservatives vote for him (and I expect them to), they won't be enthusiastic, they want really turn out too well, nor would they work to turn people out. So, if a state is close, and is normally won by Reps because of social-conservative enthusiasm, expect a mediocre result for Giuliani. Furthermore, whereas conservatives might not work too hard, unions will: of all the Republican candidates around, I would expect Giuliani to be one of the most poisonous, as far as the unions are concerned (he wasn't very easy negotiator as a mayor, if I recall it well).  So, where Dem strength is union-based, expect Richardson do especially well.  Richardson would attract Hispanics, of course, though Giuliani would have cards to play here, if he knows how.

Conclusion: I would expect OH to switch and PA to be actually quite safe for Dems. Midwest would be very Dem, with only IN sufficiently Rep to be reliable, and Richardson would, probably, do fine enough in his own neighborhood: I'd expect not just NM, but also NV and CO to switch and AZ to be somewhat competitive. Even in the South FL might actualy go Dem (you don't need that much of a slack in the Panhandle for Dems to benefit, and don't underestimate the Hispanic factor, even if older-generation Cubans aren't swayed), as could AR, though both are by no means very likely. 

2. On the other hand, Giuliani is the sort of a Republican that a suburban (or even urban) non-union white-collar white or ethnic Northeasterner or Westcoaster is comfortable with.  The "liberal suburbs" are not really partisan - they are just liberal and they don't like "hicks".  Giuliani is liberal, and he is surely no hick, so he is acceptable. A lot of the (non-Hispanic) ethnics would actually love Giuliani.  Giuliani would do fine with newly naturalized citizens: he is known to be fairly pro-immigrant.

Conclusion: I would say, that the suburban states, such as NJ and CT (and, of course, NH) would clearly be likely Giuliani pick-ups. While NY is, probably, has too much of a Dem core, it could quite conceivably be a lot closer than normal (expect Giuliani to win handily on Long Island), as could be CA (not very likely, but Giuliani could pick it up - probably, the only Rep who could). VA would be entirely non-competitive Rep (the NOVA would be ambiguous). In the Northwest, both OR and WA would look strange: expect much less polarized maps, with low turnout inland balanced out by relatively less Dem coast.

I understand your perspective, but, let me throw an additional factor into the mix.

If Giuliani is nominated (I think it highly unlikely), conservatives won't just lie down and be run over.

Expect a third party candidacy.  While it will be dissed by the liberal media, it will have at least as much impact as Anderson in 1980, perhaps as much as Perot in '92.

Remember, that although he has tryed to fudge things in the last few months, Giuliani is: (a) opposed to the right to keep and bear arms, (b) for amnesty for illegal aliens as well as against enforcement of laws against the employment of illegal aliens and supports "open borders," (c) is pro-abortion (to the point he favors taxpayer funded abortions), (d) VERY pro-homosexual (he's trying to muddy his position on the matter right now).

[12th Doctor]

I guess I should post a map:

Richardson is endorsed by the National Rifle Association, breaking 40 percent in Wyoming and Nebraska. He takes over 45 percent in Montana, South Dakota, and Oklahoma; he does roughly as well as Kerry in the Northeast, but runs far ahead in the Midwest. He wins West Virginia 55-44, in a near reversal of 2004's outcome.

I hate to say it, but the second people find out Richardson is Hispanic, he woudl be dead in Western, PA and Guiliani would take the East anyway.

[Reignman]

Image Link

Arizona and Florida are the two closest states.

[ag]

Actually, here are a couple of maps I would consider quite plausible in this scenario:

A conservative variant (I just realized, it would be an exact electoral draw

A more radical version (not too likely, but not impossible):

[12th Doctor]

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.

[ag]

I hate to say it, but the second people find out Richardson is Hispanic, he woudl be dead in Western, PA and Guiliani would take the East anyway.

Richardson is Hispanic, of course. But he doesn't have to be a Hispanic in Western PA , if he is smart (and he is). He is Richardson, because he is a WASP On his paternal line he is quite a blueblood NE aristocrat, and he is white, anyway.  He is exactly in the mode of certain newer-generation Bushes.  I don't think a lot of people are that xenophobic. For PA he should just go accross as an ethnic - and, for that matter, no more ethnic than Giuliani.  And if it comes down to stands on migration - well, Giuliani is a lot more liberal than Richardson.

[12th Doctor]

I hate to say it, but the second people find out Richardson is Hispanic, he woudl be dead in Western, PA and Guiliani would take the East anyway.

Richardson is Hispanic, of course. But he doesn't have to be a Hispanic in Western PA , if he is smart (and he is). He is Richardson, because he is a WASP On his paternal line he is quite a blueblood NE aristocrat, and he is white, anyway.  He is exactly in the mode of certain newer-generation Bushes.  I don't think a lot of people are that xenophobic. For PA he should just go accross as an ethnic - and, for that matter, no more ethnic than Giuliani.

That's not the case I'm affraid, and the fact that he is Hispanic would get out to these people sooner or later.  Let me break it down.  Reading, PA has one of the highest, if not the highest murder rates in the Northeast.  Whether it is fair or not, people blame the large Puerto Rican population... but as far as those people are concerned, it doesn't matter where you are from, you are just a "Spic" in thier eyes.  Here in the West, losts of people absolutley hate "Spics" because they blame them for taking their jobs away.  These people favor hard-core anti-hispanic immigration policies, and it has only gotten worse over the last few years.  Here in Erie, where a lot of illegals come up to pick grapes over the summer, there are people who sit around in bars and seriously talk about going in with a gun and shooting them all while they are working in the fields, and there aren't many people who appear to be opposed to the idea.  My neighbor Edward gets a lot of nasty things hurled at him, both verbally, and sometimes in acctuality, even though he is from the Dominican, and not the areas where the "problem people" come from.  They blame Hispanics for the all the meth labs around here, inspite of the fact that 99% of them are run by whites and 80% of the buyers are white.

Richardson would = "filthy, murdering, drug dealing, job-stealing, greasy spic" in the minds of alot of people around these parts

[ag]

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):

[12th Doctor]

BTW... I can't imagine it is any different in Western NY or Eastern Ohio either.  Prejudice doesn't stop because of some line on a map.

[ag]

I hate to say it, but the second people find out Richardson is Hispanic, he woudl be dead in Western, PA and Guiliani would take the East anyway.

Richardson is Hispanic, of course. But he doesn't have to be a Hispanic in Western PA , if he is smart (and he is). He is Richardson, because he is a WASP On his paternal line he is quite a blueblood NE aristocrat, and he is white, anyway.  He is exactly in the mode of certain newer-generation Bushes.  I don't think a lot of people are that xenophobic. For PA he should just go accross as an ethnic - and, for that matter, no more ethnic than Giuliani.

but as far as those people are concerned, it doesn't matter where you are from

Even if you are from, say, Massachusetts ? For god's sake, he is a Richardson, and of the two candidates he would be the anti-immigrant one.  A few commercials about his WASP ancestry and his border-protection stances should be enough.  Culturally and personally Richardson might well turn out to be closer to Western PA folk than Italian New Yorker Giuliani. And that's before those people realize that Giuliani is both "soft on the border" and pretty much the most anti-union guy around.

Again, I would have a lot more faith in Richardson playing well both the Hispanic and the WASP cards, region by region, than I have about Giuliani beeing able to sell his ethnic appeal outside some NY suburbs.

[ag]

BTW... I can't imagine it is any different in Western NY or Eastern Ohio either.  Prejudice doesn't stop because of some line on a map.

Prejudice doesn't. But a) Richardson is not that Hispanic (he is more of a "colonial") and b) for these sorts of people Giuliani is no better: policywise, he is their Antichrist. They don't have to vote Richardson: they just don't have to vote.

[Inmate Trump]

I think it'd look something weird kinda like this.

[JSojourner]

It's so hard for anyone to come up with a credible map.  You have to consider so many things.

* How badly was the candidate damaged in the primary?
* How did he or she fare in the debates?
* Have any ads badly backfired?
* Or -- have any ads been amazingly effective?
* Is race helping or hurting the candidate in a given area?
* Which last name sounds more "American"?
* How is Iraq going?
* Did one candidate take an unpopular stand on a big issue like taxes?

On and on.

No, it is certainly NOT right for race or a candidate's last name or religion to be a negative factor.  But as I said in another thread, people are people.

And whoever said in this thread that bigotry doesn't stop at some imaginary line on a map?  You couldn't be more right.

I live in Indiana.  But I do business with Virginians.  Believe me -- there are plenty more racists and bigots here in good 'ol Indiana.

[Rob]

I hate to say it, but the second people find out Richardson is Hispanic, he woudl be dead in Western, PA and Guiliani would take the East anyway.

I have no doubt there's a racist element that simply won't vote for a person of color, but honestly. Richardson has an Anglo surname, doesn't look or sound like a sterotypical Chicano, and doesn't directly appeal to ethnicity. He's a bluff, hearty, all-American; basically a white guy with a tan.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

So, where Dem strength is union-based, expect Richardson do especially well. 

Map of union membership by state:

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Guiliani can't take NJ. It's NJ. Interesting stage actually, the Democrats don't have a huge majority, but the state is just too polarized to swing to the Reps way.

And isn't Richardson one of those Hispanics like Patricia Madrid and the Salazars where they're just descendents of Spanish settlers who've lived there for hundreds of years?  In that case he's just as white as I am (Spaniards are white, does anyone actually dispute that?)

[Jacobtm]

And isn't Richardson one of those Hispanics like Patricia Madrid and the Salazars where they're just descendents of Spanish settlers who've lived there for hundreds of years?  In that case he's just as white as I am (Spaniards are white, does anyone actually dispute that?)

Actually, with the moores having controlled spain for so long, most Spaniards are actually a mix of white and arabic/african.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Granted, but try finding a truly "pure" European people who have never had any race mixing in their past. No prude, such things do not exist.

[Eraserhead]

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

[Padfoot]

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

[CARLHAYDEN]

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?