I was watching the Giants - Colts game this past Sunday night, and in the crowd was the next President of the United States. How do I know? Well, the reaction to his appearance: A huge standing ovation and plenty of cheering. Who was it? Why, Rudy Guiliani, of course.
I'm not the biggest Guiliani fan: He's a social liberal, and not a mild one at that. However, he is a better option than most of the others that seem to be planning a run, and it seems clear that if he runs in 2008, he will win - and here's why: The electoral college system.
First, here are the 36 states plus Washington DC that were solid red (GOP) and blue (Dem) in both 2000 and 2004:
I am starting with the safe assumption that these states [save the ones I will discuss later], which all won by 5+% in both elections, will vote as they did in 2004 and 2000. Of 538 electoral votes, this means that the GOP begins with 191, and the Dems begin with 183. (270 are needed to clinch victory.)AlabamaAlaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Connecticut
DC
Delaware
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Mississippi
Montana
Nebraska
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Oklahoma
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wyoming
Of the 14 remaining states, all but New Hampshire and Ohio have swung to the right... and they stayed right around the same as they had in the previous election. Some quick analysis:
First of all, thanks to demographic shifts – which I’d say are mostly due to births and the Roe Effect – Red states picked up 11 electorals while losing 4, while blue states picked up 1 while losing 8. That’s a 14-vote swing right there. [2000 vs. 2004] This shouldn't affect the 2008 elections, as they won't be adjusting the electoral votes by then, as far as I know.
Second: Of the only 3 states that swung in the past election, 2 swung Bush (Arizona, Iowa) and 1 swung Kerry (NH).
Of the 11 swing states in 2004, this is how Bush did as opposed to 2000: (margin of victory <5%)>* This was based off whatever numbers I was using - a couple of these may be off slightly, as the New Hampshire one at least seems off... but the numbers and the point I'm making should be correct regardless.Of the 12 states that were swing in 2000, 3 were no longer close in 2004 – all easily red. Of the 2 that were new to the list, 1 came from each party. Of the 9 that remained on the list, New Hampshire is the only one to become more “blue”, and by a negligible amount.
Pennsylvania and Michigan are *still* swing states. Bush did better in Illinois (+1.5) and way better in NJ (+6%) than he did in 2000. He even picked up 3% more in CA and 5% in NY. This, despite being one of the most vilified incumbents in a long time during an election.
Even if we assume that the three former swing states (FL, TN, MO) that Bush won by more than 5% in 2004 don't continue to swing right, it is safe to assume that they will not swing left in this election, particularly if Guiliani runs for President. Therefore, one can add another 49 electoral votes to the Guiliani tally, giving him 240 to start.
Now, here's the interesting part: Guiliani can win just one other state and win the election. Care to guess which state? Why, New York, of course. New York's 31 electoral votes would give Guiliani a minimum of 271 electoral votes, which means he could lose every single 2004 swing state and still win the Presidency. Heck, he could even lose Tennessee and Missouri if he pulls off Connecticut and New Jersey.
Some people may ask, "How do you know Guiliani will win New York!?" - especially if he is facing Hilary Clinton. I could easily answer that Hilary isn't as well liked, especially compared to Guiliani, or note how popular Guiliani was on all sides of the spectrum when he ran NYC, but it's so much easier to point to this past Sunday night's football game and say:
I heard the cheers... I heard the cheers.
Tags:
"A quick post before I get back to work..."
ReplyDeleteEzzie, that you'd indicate that you actually had been working!
-regards to Serach, I keep missing her calls which, BTW ,(and please do tell her) have been cut off before she finishes leaving her message
The day the GOP elders put up a pro abortion pro gay candidate for president will eb the day pigs grow wings
ReplyDeleteE2-4 - Thanks, I'll tell her.
ReplyDeleteTC - Remind me to duck. :)
What the town crier said...
ReplyDeleteYou've forgotten one little detail -- he'd never ever get out of the GOP primary. The GOP has been growing more dependent on the religious right, not less. The only way Giuliani wins is if his main GOP rival implodes at exactly the right time.
But yeah, he, McCain, Colin Powell, basically any moderate Republican (or faker like McCain) would win the general if the Dems can't come up with anybody reasonable.
How does that make sense? The right is NOT the left. Look at Chafee - he won, and the GOP celebrated. The GOP would rather win with a moderate than lose with a conservative.
ReplyDeleteThose who vote in primaries tend towards the extremes. The extreme Republicans now are the religious right. They will ALL vote against Giuliani. He's pro-choice and pro-gay. He's confessed to marital infidelity. And he's from New York City. There's no way he wins the primary.
ReplyDeleteThe GOP celebrated Chafee because his opponent would have lost the seat, not because they like Chafee.
JA - Those who vote in primaries tend towards the extremes.
ReplyDeleteSo how did Chafee win?
There simply isn't a nutty extreme that carries weight on the right as there is on the left. There's a strong right; not a strong right fringe. There's no strong left, but there's a strong left fringe.
He's pro-choice and pro-gay.
And he'll probably promise to make it a state issue.
He's confessed to marital infidelity.
Better than staying with a cheater. :)
And he's from New York City.
And he sent Yasser packing.
The GOP celebrated Chafee because his opponent would have lost the seat, not because they like Chafee.
And they'll do the same for Giuliani. He's the most "electable" - the one with a guaranteed win ahead of him. At this point, that's more important to the GOP. Keep the tax cuts, keep the war on terror strong, until the [long-term] results become obvious. Don't let the Dems get in, screw it all up because they can't wait that long, and then blame the GOP when everything comes crashing down because of what they do.
Sfunny how two faced jews are. They hated clinton cuz he had a girl under his desk and Rudy is well known for his multiple affairs while in office including the one that destoryed his family. (not to mention then shacking up with a gay guy).
ReplyDeleteThe guy will do terribly in red states - the GOp would never be that stupid, especially not the way it is run now.
Rudy won't be able to ride the "9/11" wave forever, but it will be laughable to see him try.
It will also be a hoot if he is the Republican nominee to see him go up against Gore, Hillary, Warner...
Huh? Nobody is condoning or ignoring Guiliani's past. Clinton lied under oath about what he did (re: perjury), and while trying to hide it, may have screwed up other issues around the world (we'll never really know how much it affected his approach to different issues). Rudy isn't just riding the "9/11" wave: I was in Milwaukee when he was mayor, well before 9/11, and people were raving about how great of a job he'd done in NYC.
ReplyDeleteWhat's "terribly" in red states? Will he lose to a Democrat? No. JA is right - he'll have a tougher time getting out of the primary. But as I said in the post, winning the Presidency would be a joke.
He and Olmert are buddies and figured they'd rule the world together. We have Olmert, and I wish you better luck.
ReplyDelete"while trying to hide it, may have screwed up other issues around the world"
ReplyDeleteActually he was trying to run the country, and many people whose jobns it were to help him run the country instead chose to waste time and money, not to mentino morning television when kdis were wathingh talking about the width of penis. sorry to be so grpahic, but thats what was more important to the republican leadership at the time
Sheva - Thanks. Great comment.
ReplyDeleteTTC - Yes and no. Where did you Republican leadership going crazy? I saw a media frenzy, not helped by a President who lied and claimed it never happened. Had he done a Guiliani and simply confessed, right away, the story would have died rather quickly. He instead tried to cover it up, and in the process, hurt the country.
"hurt the country"?
ReplyDeletei must have missed that. Though i know how ken starr hurt the country, i fail to see how clintons infidelities effected the country. (as opposed to the many lies of our current president)
Clinton was 100% wrong during the whole Lewinsky scandal -- both doing the act and then lying about it. I'm not letting him off the hook for that.
ReplyDeleteBUT if not for Ken Starr and his witch-hunt and the Republican hacks that milked it for all it was worth, it wouldn't have affected the country one bit. They're the ones who made an issue out of a blowjob, even though Clinton helpfully handed them all the ammo they needed.
JA - But that's the point. Most wrongful actions, if ignored completely, will have no lasting consequences. Therefore what? They should be let go? Pretend they never happened? Sorry, that's just wrong.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, the left has made everything into an issue... though it turns out that almost all of them are completely and utterly false. What did more damage? Ken Starr's going after Clinton, which included him perjuring himself, or Fitzgerald's going after Bush, which turned out to be a bunch of crap - and he knew it was for two years and still kept going?
in the end, clinton will be remebered by the world for being the brilliant man that he is while the monkey will be remebered for being the dumbutt that he is.
ReplyDeleteEzzie:
ReplyDeleteJA - But that's the point. Most wrongful actions, if ignored completely, will have no lasting consequences.
You have it completely backwards. Most irrevelant wrongful actions, like the President messing around with an inturn, if ignored completely, will have no lasting consequences. Assuming the allegations about the Plame stuff were true, one agent was outed and possibly many others' lives were put at risk. Assuming Lewinsky blew Clinton... what? It's completely irrelevant.
Most of the stuff the left is making an issue of -- the war, wiretaps, torture, curtailing of liberties, the environment, the economy -- are issues of substance that matter a great deal. The right went after Clinton because he couldn't keep his d*ck in his pants.
See the difference?
The President messing around with an intern, while carrying out his duties, doesn't matter? Sorry, I disagree... especially when it (theoretically) is something that can be used to blackmail a President.
ReplyDeleteThe Plame stuff wasn't true, which is exactly the problem. It was pretty clear from the get-go that she wasn't "outed" and that no damage was done by her supposed "outing" - much more damage was done by the false claims against the administration and the way in which the President is now perceived.
All the false stories: From Plame to how the wiretaps were explained to "torture" to curtailing of liberties... it's all been BS, and it all has had a negative effect on this administration. Throw in that some of it has cost the NSA some terrorist targets, and the media coverage has only hurt this nation to a level we can't measure. What the Times did with what they knew was basically legal treason - that's sickening.
All the issues you named are matters of substance, but not in the way the left has gone after them. They've continually made up stories or gone after stories that have no substance. It's the "fake but accurate" approach.
You can complain about what the GOP focused on in the Clinton administration, but remember three things: The original act was his, not theirs; he could have stopped the circus at any time by admitting to it; and everything they were going after was true.
In Bush's case, none of those have ever been the case.
TC - What will Clinton be remembered for? That he was a Rhodes Scholar? He presided over a great economy, and (wisely) didn't touch it. With a GOP Congress, he did a bit for health care [not my expertise]. Other than that... what did he do, exactly? He will be remembered more for Monica, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", and the infamous Peres-Arafat handshake/failed Camp David than anything else.
ReplyDeleteBush, meanwhile, will be remembered for toppling Saddam Hussein, keeping the country intact after 9/11, rebuilding a shredded economy into one of its most stable periods in history, and for installing two strong Supreme Court Justices. And that's so far. A good 1/4 of this country may hate his guts... but in 50 years, he will be looked back upon as one of the better Presidents in US history.
oy yoy yoy yoy oy.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, Clinton still is not done make a difference in the world and is already known more for his Tsunami releif partership with bush 1 than for his girlfriends. Ulesys S. Grant was a known womanizer yet he is still on the 50 dollar bill. Whether he becomes Sec. of the UN or does more work with his global initiative, bill clinton is not done. Plus, it is a typical GOP jew response to say that he will be remeber for the failed handshake when everyone knows that rabin and peres dropped oslo in his lap, as opposed to the failed roadmap which was all the bushies doing.
Bush toppled saddam hussein? Yes, he has his pistol mounted on his desk. and now more americans have died in iraq than on 9/11, not to mention the many more iraqi civillians men women and children who died because of our ill timed incursion.
Ezzie:
ReplyDeleteThe Clinton investigation had nothing to do with Lewinski. It was a completely BS investigation into the whole Whitewater thing, which turned up nothing. Ken Starr managed to catch Clinton in a lie about something which was frankly none of anybody's business but his, Hillary's, Monica's, and possibly the Secret Service's.
I've agreed repeatedly that it was Clinton's fault and that he could have stopped it by coming clean. That doesn't change the fact that a wild, sprawling goose chase to catch the Clintons in *something* -- it didn't matter what -- wasted tons of money and tons of time. Then they freaking impeached him over it. All the while, he maintained around a 60% approval rating, indicating that the people thought it was all irrelevant as well.
The Plame investigation is several orders of magnitude smaller and the issue being investigated was directly related to the national interest. It was never just a game of "gotcha."
All the false stories: From Plame to how the wiretaps were explained to "torture" to curtailing of liberties... it's all been BS, and it all has had a negative effect on this administration.
Plame was outed. The wiretaps are illegal. There are freaking photographs of some torture and Bush is trying to change the law to allow more torture against the wishes of even his own party. Liberties have been curtailed, as well. These are the facts -- I don't see how you can call it BS and the fact that it has had a negative effect on the administration is pretty much the only reason I still have any faith in our country.
They've continually made up stories or gone after stories that have no substance.
Vince Foster ring a bell? Let's see, who was involved in that... Oh yes, nobody other than Valerie Plame's outer Bob Novak. Whitewater? Paula Jones et al? (Okay, some of the women's stories were probably true, but the right jumped on all of them, including the unlikeliest ones.)
Bush, meanwhile, will be remembered for toppling Saddam Hussein,
We'll see what becomes of Iraq.
keeping the country intact after 9/11
Could he have been more divisive if he'd tried?
rebuilding a shredded economy into one of its most stable periods in history
SHREDDED??!?! He turned a huge surplus into a huge deficit and gave us a debt we'll be paying for generations.
...A good 1/4 of this country may hate his guts... but in 50 years, he will be looked back upon as one of the better Presidents in US history.
You really are smoking the good stuff. You might want to check out a letter in this month's Atlantic, which asks if Bush is as bad as Nixon or just as bad as Carter. It concludes "Nixon," since the harm will take longer to undo than Carter's.
Firstly, Clinton still is not done make a difference in the world and is already known more for his Tsunami releif partership with bush 1 than for his girlfriends.
ReplyDeleteThat's nice, and great, but I don't think he's all that recognized for it.
I'll recognize that it is good stuff, though... though it's split with Bush I - and Bush II, who sent them to do it.
Plus, it is a typical GOP jew response to say that he will be remeber for the failed handshake when everyone knows that rabin and peres dropped oslo in his lap, as opposed to the failed roadmap which was all the bushies doing.
"GOP Jew" - this isn't DovBear, and empty rhetoric is meaningless here.
I'm not saying that Rabin and Peres didn't drop it on his lap, but he will still be remembered mockingly for it.
more americans have died in iraq than on 9/11, not to mention the many more iraqi civillians men women and children who died because of our ill timed incursion.
Yes, people have died. From the US standpoint, it's almost nothing compared to any other war. Is it tragic that people die? Of course. But it happens, and will continue to happen. From the Iraqi standpoint, they're getting killed at a lower rate per year now than they were under Saddam - and people actually get to live lives, and not get murdered by their own government. Go check the polls of Iraq (which I linked to a couple weeks ago) - they're far more optimistic about their country than those of us here in the US who only read negative news reports and casualty figures.
The Clinton investigation had nothing to do with Lewinski. It was a completely BS investigation into the whole Whitewater thing, which turned up nothing.
It didn't turn up nothing - just not enough to convict, thanks to payoffs and positions given out.
Then they freaking impeached him over it. All the while, he maintained around a 60% approval rating, indicating that the people thought it was all irrelevant as well.
I don't think anything should be decided by approval ratings. I don't think you believe that either. Is perjury an impeachable offense? I should think so. Was it a waste of time when we knew the Senate would vote on partisan grounds? Perhaps.
The Plame investigation is several orders of magnitude smaller
Ha. Not according to the MSM.
the issue being investigated was directly related to the national interest
How?! In no way was her "outing" (which wasn't an outing under any reading of the law or understanding of CIA regulations - she was back for 5 years and her address and phone number are found through simple Google searches, as the Judge in the case found) affecting national security. The only thing that affected national security was Wilson's claim in the first place, which was a blatant - and false - partisan attack on the Bush administration. It was always a game of "gotcha", but Wilson got busted for it - and when he did, he cried Wolf and said the administration "outed" his wife.
The wiretaps are illegal.
Um, no. At best, they're possibly in violation of FISA, but FISA itself doesn't think so.
There are freaking photographs of some torture
What, Abu Gharaib!? You've got to be kidding me. That has nothing to do with this.
and Bush is trying to change the law to allow more torture against the wishes of even his own party
Read the piece in Best of the Web from Friday. [opinionjournal.com/best]
Liberties have been curtailed, as well.
Name me ONE.
We'll see what becomes of Iraq.
That we shall.
Could he have been more divisive if he'd tried?
Who divided it? Him, or left-wing nuts who slowly took over the Democratic party?
SHREDDED??!?! He turned a huge surplus into a huge deficit and gave us a debt we'll be paying for generations.
That statement takes a complete lack of understanding of economics and what happened in this country... and what IS happening in this country.
You might want to check out a letter in this month's Atlantic
Ah, yes. The Atlantic. A completely non-partisan magazine.
Sfunny, the president himself said that it was a matter of national security and that the perps should be dealt with harshly...
ReplyDelete...if they were in fact guilty of anything. Of course, seeing as how it was Armitage who was responsible, maybe he was directing it at him. :)
ReplyDeleteIt didn't turn up nothing - just not enough to convict, thanks to payoffs and positions given out.
ReplyDeleteUsing the exact same standard of proof that you used to determine there's no fault within the administration regarding anything Plame-related, no doubt. Nice ignore of the Vince Foster stuff, btw.
I don't think anything should be decided by approval ratings. I don't think you believe that either. Is perjury an impeachable offense? I should think so. Was it a waste of time when we knew the Senate would vote on partisan grounds? Perhaps.
Is perjury impeachable? Of course. Is perjury about a freaking blowjob something which *should* be impeached? Of course not. The approval ratings are an indication that the American people agreed with me. Although approval ratings shouldn't be the sole justification of anything (except an election, when formalized as votes) it's clear that most people thought the impeachment trivial.
The Plame investigation is several orders of magnitude smaller
Ha. Not according to the MSM.
I meant the size of the investigation, not the coverage. Although it's laughable that you think they're close even in coverage. Monica was the biggest story for months and months.
Liberties have been curtailed, as well.
Name me ONE.
Ezzie, come on. You should at least be taking the line that the curtailment is necessary. What do you think the USA PATRIOT act did?
Could he have been more divisive if he'd tried?
Who divided it? Him, or left-wing nuts who slowly took over the Democratic party?
"You're either with us or against us." He hired only cronies. Much much more credit was given for loyalty than for competence in every area of government, here and in Iraq.
That statement takes a complete lack of understanding of economics and what happened in this country... and what IS happening in this country.
*eyeroll* Yes, I must be just too dumb to see the brilliance of his borrow-a-ton-and-spend-like-there's-no-tomorrow plan.
Using the exact same standard of proof that you used to determine there's no fault within the administration regarding anything Plame-related, no doubt.
ReplyDeleteHuh? That's ridiculous. Armitage is now known to be the leaker. Both he and Novak were against the war. How could you compare that?
Nice ignore of the Vince Foster stuff, btw.
Honestly, the name does NOT ring a bell.
Is perjury about a freaking blowjob something which *should* be impeached? Of course not.
Are you serious? Perjury is perjury. You want to say that extra-marital affairs aren't impeachable? You have a case. But perjury?! You're kidding, right?
Although it's laughable that you think they're close even in coverage.
Plame has been a top-level story for well over a year. Same as Monica? No, but that's primarily because they've had bigger stories to go after Bush on.
Ezzie, come on. You should at least be taking the line that the curtailment is necessary. What do you think the USA PATRIOT act did?
I think we're defining 'curtailment of liberties' differently, then. I don't think that there are any actual liberties being curtailed, and I think you'd be hard-pressed to argue that people can't do anything now that they could 5+ years ago. I don't know of anything in the USA Patriot Act or even in airport screenings that you could call a "curtailment of liberty". If that's the stuff you mean, then yes, they're necessary, but I find it really difficult to understand those as "curtailments of liberty".
"You're either with us or against us."
That was directed at (alternatively) those who are supporting us, or the terrorists. It's a bit strange to point to that as divisive among Americans.
Much much more credit was given for loyalty than for competence in every area of government, here and in Iraq.
That's an outlandish, baseless claim.
Yes, I must be just too dumb to see the brilliance of his borrow-a-ton-and-spend-like-there's-no-tomorrow plan.
Ah, I thought you were referring to the tax cuts et al, which have clearly boosted all facets of the economy. I'm with you on spending - he's worse than just about any Democrat on this. Amazingly, the deficit is STILL dropping, which is almost a shame - if it weren't, perhaps he'd cut wasteful spending. More importantly, if he'd cut wasteful spending, the deficit drop would be a hell of a lot more noticeable. It may be the issue with Bush that bothers me the most. (Not using his veto until what, stem cells? That's another big one. Abandoning Social Security is another. The Saudis. I have a nice list, actually. You'd probably like most of them.)
Much much more credit was given for loyalty than for competence in every area of government, here and in Iraq.
ReplyDeleteThat's an outlandish, baseless claim.
Ties to GOP Trumped Know-How Among Staff Sent to Rebuild Iraq
Many of those chosen by O'Beirne's office to work for the Coalition Provisional Authority, which ran Iraq's government from April 2003 to June 2004, lacked vital skills and experience. A 24-year-old who had never worked in finance -- but had applied for a White House job -- was sent to reopen Baghdad's stock exchange. The daughter of a prominent neoconservative commentator and a recent graduate from an evangelical university for home-schooled children were tapped to manage Iraq's $13 billion budget, even though they didn't have a background in accounting.
The decision to send the loyal and the willing instead of the best and the brightest is now regarded by many people involved in the 3 1/2 -year effort to stabilize and rebuild Iraq as one of the Bush administration's gravest errors. Many of those selected because of their political fidelity spent their time trying to impose a conservative agenda on the postwar occupation, which sidetracked more important reconstruction efforts and squandered goodwill among the Iraqi people, according to many people who participated in the reconstruction effort.
are you too young to know about vince foster?
ReplyDeleteIn any event, there is no comparison between the two presidents. not in intellect, not in accomplishments, not in idiocy, not in crimes, not in legacy.
JA - Interesting. Nevertheless, I disagree with the point in general. Perhaps there have been instances where undeserving people got jobs, perhaps not (who else wanted the job? how "unqualified" were these people?) - but in general, Iraq is progressing quite well.
ReplyDeleteTTC - Perhaps I am. And I completely disagree.
Being pro-choice and pro-Gay won't hurt Giuliani in the New Hampshire primary. The state has a Gay rights law that was enacted with bipartisan support and it is one of the few states where Republicans are more likely to be pro-choice than Democrats. Evangelical Christians aren't that common in New England, the state has a Gay Anglican Bishop, and there is a huge libertarian ethic there ("Live Free or Die"). In addition, Independents can vote in either party's primary in New Hampshire.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I can't believe that no one has picked up the REAL Giuliani problem: his support for gun control! The Democrats can nominate Howard Dean and Dean would carry Texas and Pennsylvania against Giuliani on that issue alone!!!
'in general, Iraq is progressing quite well.'
ReplyDeleteIf "well" describes what it looks like now, I don't want to see what "bad" looks like.
Vince forster committed suicide.
ReplyDeleteTHe republicans who chose to not help the president run the country but instead spent his entire term searching for new ways to discredit him, failed with multpiple harassments and girlfriends so they tried to pin the foster suicide as a murder by bill and hillary.
As for intellect - Bill Cliton (was poor orphan boy from a shack) is a Lawyer and an Rhodes Scholar - a rhiodes scholar who was successful at everything he did his entire career.
George Bush was very wealth spoiled brat from a rich prominent texas family who's daddy got him in to school, though he could barely pull a c average while getting all doped up on drugs and then later becomeing an alcoholic - failed oil businessman, failed baseball owner, before becoming the worst governor over the worst crime rate, and other things in texas history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vince_Foster
ReplyDelete