View Full Version : Which party's primary would Rudy Giuliani be more likely to win?
Assume that Rudy were a Dem and in the 2008 Dem primary... and compare his chances of getting the Dem Party nominiation to his chances of getting the Rep Party nomination...
Which party's primary would Rudy Giuliani be more likely to win?
Bowser
11-14-2006, 11:08 AM
That's a tough one.
Isn't Rudy a pro-choicer? That alone costs him the religious right's vote.
Bowser
11-14-2006, 11:10 AM
I'll vote Dem on a whim, but I really don't know. The Repubs know how popular he is and wouldn't want to give that up.
So Dem, with a ? throw in.
I voted Republican because I don't think the Dems would have much of a shot with a candidate from the North. Didn't work out too well for them last time. He'll still be a tough sell for the Republicans, but he's strong on defense and security and takes the war on terror very personally.
Mr. Kotter
11-14-2006, 11:14 AM
Partisanship in the Democratic party is more driven by ideological interests than in the Republican party.
The right pays a lot of lip-service to the ideologues; but ever since Reagan, it's been all talk....with little in the way of substantive partisan policies or actual laws being dictated by the far right. On the other hand, the special interest groups and minorities, Labor, trial lawyers, and teacher unions....they OWN the Democratic party, lock, stock, and barrel. No way the Dems would nominate a "party switcher." Not that the Republicans would either, but Guliana is a Republican....
Partisanship in the Democratic party is more driven by ideological interests than in the Republican party.
The right pays a lot of lip-service to the ideologues; but ever since Reagan, it's been all talk....with little in the way of substantive partisan policies or actual laws being dictated by the far right. On the other hand, the special interest groups and minorities, Labor, trial lawyers, and teacher unions....they OWN the Democratic party, lock, stock, and barrel. No way the Dems would nominate a "party switcher." Not that the Republicans would either, but Guliana is a Republican....
You added an element that didn't exist in the question... "Assume that Rudy were a Dem".
I didn't say anything about switching parties.
I voted Republican because I don't think the Dems would have much of a shot with a candidate from the North.
That's a pretty good point.
If Rudy kept his positions on the issues exactly as they are today, but instead were a Dem, he'd be crucified by the media, the Republicans and the religous right.
Mr. Kotter
11-14-2006, 12:24 PM
You added an element that didn't exist in the question... "Assume that Rudy were a Dem".
I didn't say anything about switching parties.
I tried to make your original post meaningful and relevant.
Mr. Kotter
11-14-2006, 12:25 PM
....
If Rudy kept his positions on the issues exactly as they are today, but instead were a Dem, he'd be crucified by the media, the Republicans and the religous right.
The Religious Right? Maybe. Otherwise, you are full of shit.
Chiefnj
11-14-2006, 12:27 PM
He'd be more likely to win the repub.
Rudy probably has a bunch of skeletons in his closet and Repubs know how to fight better and utilize trivial crap against a candidate (eg Swift Vets). If he were running as a Democrat Kerry would probably say something stupid days before and cost Rudy the vote.
The Religious Right? Maybe. Otherwise, you are full of shit.
I'm full of shit?
Were you in the country during the Clinton years? Rudy has much more material to "work with" than Clinton did.
Nightwish
11-14-2006, 12:49 PM
Assume that Rudy were a Dem and in the 2008 Dem primary... and compare his chances of getting the Dem Party nominiation to his chances of getting the Rep Party nomination...
Which party's primary would Rudy Giuliani be more likely to win?
If he runs, I'll probably vote for him, regardless. But I imagine he'd have an easier time getting the nod on the GOP ticket. If the Dems look like they'll hold Congress in '08, I'll probably vote Republican, if they're running somebody halfway decent, especially if its Guiliani. What I don't want is for the same party to control Congress and the White House again. That's what led to so many fugups this time, and while I don't think it would be quite as bad under the Dems, I don't imagine it would be a whole lot better.
Baby Lee
11-14-2006, 12:52 PM
I'm full of shit?
Were you in the country during the Clinton years? Rudy has much more material to "work with" than Clinton did.
Difference being, at heart Guiliani is a fiscally conservative law and order type who also happens to have libertarian positions on social issues, while at heart Clinton is a big government progressive who restrains his social program "it takes a village" urges to triangulate power.
They may find themselves in roughly the same neighborhood on some issues, but they end up there from vastly different routes.
Nightwish
11-14-2006, 12:56 PM
Partisanship in the Democratic party is more driven by ideological interests than in the Republican party.
The right pays a lot of lip-service to the ideologues; but ever since Reagan, it's been all talk....with little in the way of substantive partisan policies or actual laws being dictated by the far right. On the other hand, the special interest groups and minorities, Labor, trial lawyers, and teacher unions....they OWN the Democratic party, lock, stock, and barrel. No way the Dems would nominate a "party switcher." Not that the Republicans would either, but Guliana is a Republican....
You're confusing ideological motivations with special interests. Make no mistake about it, the GOP is quite firmly in the grip of special/corporate interests, too. If you're going to compare the two on ideological grounds, then compare them on ideological grounds (Republicans and the religious right vs. Dems and dogmatic secularization, for instance). If you're going to compare them by their penchant for kowtowing to special/corporate interests (Dems and labor unions vs. Republicans and energy lobbies, for instance), then compare them on that scale, but don't try to make the case that the Dems are more driven by ideologies than the Republicans by comparing Republican willingness to serve ideological interests with Democratic willingness to serve special/corporate interests.
Hydrae
11-14-2006, 01:01 PM
This shows a portion of disgusts me in politics in the early 21st century. People are changing party affiliations based on which party will get them elected rather than actually sticking with a base of political beliefs. Either you are Dem, Rep or other. Not whatever flavor is in favor this week! :banghead:
Along those lines though, I would love to see Rudi run as an independent and get away from the partisan bull that is running rampant in DC these days.
All I ask in the upcoming presidential elections is please, no more with the Bush/Clinton family dominance! 20 years is enough already!
Mr. Kotter
11-14-2006, 01:08 PM
You're confusing ideological motivations with special interests. Make no mistake about it, the GOP is quite firmly in the grip of special/corporate interests, too. If you're going to compare the two on ideological grounds, then compare them on ideological grounds (Republicans and the religious right vs. Dems and dogmatic secularization, for instance). If you're going to compare them by their penchant for kowtowing to special/corporate interests (Dems and labor unions vs. Republicans and energy lobbies, for instance), then compare them on that scale, but don't try to make the case that the Dems are more driven by ideologies than the Republicans by comparing Republican willingness to serve ideological interests with Democratic willingness to serve special/corporate interests.
Democratic party constituency, as represented in special interest groups that support them, is more ideological based than the Republican party constituency, IMO. Progressives, hippies, radical egalitarian types, are simply more philosophically and intellectually oriented than more pragmatic and the financially based motive that drives similarly situated Republican special interest groups. Dems are driven by "we;" Reps are driven by "me." So, you are the one who is confused, IMHO.
:)
Nightwish
11-14-2006, 01:15 PM
Democratic party constituency, as represented in special interest groups that support them, is more ideological based than the Republican party constituency, IMO. Progressives, hippies, radical egalitarian types, are simply more philosophically and intellectually oriented than more pragmatic and the financially based motive that drives similarly situated Republican special interest groups. Dems are driven by "we;" Reps are driven by "me." So, you are the one who is confused, IMHO.
:)
Nice spin. I commend you, you almost managed to not make all that sound like BS.
Democratic party constituency, as represented in special interest groups that support them, is more ideological based than the Republican party constituency, IMO. Progressives, hippies, radical egalitarian types, are simply more philosophically and intellectually oriented than more pragmatic and the financially based motive that drives similarly situated Republican special interest groups. Dems are driven by "we;" Reps are driven by "me." So, you are the one who is confused, IMHO.
:)
American Life League ($7 million budget), Family Research Council ($10 million budget), The Christian Coalition (once took in $26 in donations in a single year, now down to 300,000 members), Christian Legal Society ($2 million budget), Concerned Women for America ($8 million budget), Eagle Forum ($2.3 million budget), Focus on the Family ($150 million budget), Independent Women's Forum ($1.3 million budget), National Right to Life Committee ($12 million budget), Traditional Values Coalition (claims over 43,000 churches nationwide), Young America's Foundation ($11 million budget).
I chose all these groups because they are concerned with ideology. Some may also be concerned with financial issues as well, but all of these groups include ideological components.
Certainly, the left has plenty of special interest groups as well, but I just wanted to show you a sample of ideological special interest groups on the right.
Mr. Kotter
11-14-2006, 01:45 PM
American Life League ($7 million budget), Family Research Council ($10 million budget), The Christian Coalition (once took in $26 in donations in a single year, now down to 300,000 members), Christian Legal Society ($2 million budget), Concerned Women for America ($8 million budget), Eagle Forum ($2.3 million budget), Focus on the Family ($150 million budget), Independent Women's Forum ($1.3 million budget), National Right to Life Committee ($12 million budget), Traditional Values Coalition (claims over 43,000 churches nationwide), Young America's Foundation ($11 million budget).
I chose all these groups because they are concerned with ideology. Some may also be concerned with financial issues as well, but all of these groups include ideological components.
Certainly, the left has plenty of special interest groups as well, but I just wanted to show you a sample of ideological special interest groups on the right.
I didn't say Republican didn't have ideological based special interest groups supporting them. I merely contend the legislative agenda and platform of the Democratic party is more ideologically based. They are seperate issues, IMHO.
I didn't say Republican didn't have ideological based special interest groups supporting them. I merely contend the legislative agenda and platform of the Democratic party is more ideologically based. They are seperate issues, IMHO.
I've referenced it here before on this forum, and I think we should hold off praising these ideas until they become realities, but Nancy Pelosi made it clear what her agenda in the first 100 hours of the new congress is:
1) Ethics legislation about lobbyists and members of Congress (not ideological)
2) Enact all the recommendations of 9/11 commission (not ideological)
3) Cut interest rates on student loans (not ideological)
4) Allow medicare to negotiate with drug companies (not ideological)
5) Raise the minimum wage (not ideological)
6) Enact stem-cell legislation (ideological)
Like I said, we'll see if this really happens and we'll also have to wait and see what the Dems do after the first 100 hours, but what they have proposed so far is not very ideological.
Mr. Kotter
11-14-2006, 01:59 PM
I've referenced it here before on this forum, and I think we should hold off praising these ideas until they become realities, but Nancy Pelosi made it clear what her agenda in the first 100 hours of the new congress is:
1) Ethics legislation about lobbyists and members of Congress (not ideological)
2) Enact all the recommendations of 9/11 commission (not ideological)
3) Cut interest rates on student loans (not ideological)
4) Allow medicare to negotiate with drug companies (not ideological)
5) Raise the minimum wage (not ideological)
6) Enact stem-cell legislation (ideological)
Like I said, we'll see if this really happens and we'll also have to wait and see what the Dems do after the first 100 hours, but what they have proposed so far is not very ideological.I won't quibble (though some might--especially 5) over your characterization of the first five as "not ideological"......
However, you are very wise to be cautious. If the rhetoric matches with the actual accomplishments, it won't be a first....but it will be close. :)
Cochise
11-14-2006, 02:17 PM
LMAO Go ahead and try to claim him as your own... get on the winning team... ROFL
Baby Lee
11-14-2006, 02:19 PM
Which party's primary would Rudy Giuliani be more likely to win?
Is Ned Lamont running against him?
ROFL ROFL
Nightwish
11-14-2006, 06:29 PM
I won't quibble (though some might--especially 5) over your characterization of the first five as "not ideological"......
However, you are very wise to be cautious. If the rhetoric matches with the actual accomplishments, it won't be a first....but it will be close. :)
Actually, this is a rather interesting sidebar, and it would be interesting to see a side-by-side list of the various special interests embraced by each side. All of them can be described as ideological, in the loosest sense of the word, but I think when people use the word "ideological" in the political sphere, they're usually referring to cultural facets such as morality, religious identity, and cultural norms, more quality of spirit type things, as opposed to quality of life type things.
mlyonsd
11-14-2006, 06:57 PM
I honestly think if he could out live a battle with the Clinton political war machine Rudy could win either primary.
go bowe
11-14-2006, 07:48 PM
Partisanship in the Democratic party is more driven by ideological interests than in the Republican party.
The right pays a lot of lip-service to the ideologues; but ever since Reagan, it's been all talk....with little in the way of substantive partisan policies or actual laws being dictated by the far right. On the other hand, the special interest groups and minorities, Labor, trial lawyers, and teacher unions....they OWN the Democratic party, lock, stock, and barrel. No way the Dems would nominate a "party switcher." Not that the Republicans would either, but Guliana is a Republican....funny you'd mention reagan when talking about party switchers...
didn't he switch from the democrats to the republicans back in the day?
maybe obama should switch parties... :hmmm: :hmmm: :hmmm:
go bowe
11-14-2006, 08:02 PM
I honestly think if he could out live a battle with the Clinton political war machine Rudy could win either primary.the clinton political war machine didn't help lieberman get the democratic nomination...
i don't think the clinton political war machine is all that it's cracked up to be...
dems have definitely regrouped and gotten better organized on the local level, as illustrated by the election of a bunch of democrat congresspeople and senators (and governors)...
the clinton political machine isn't what it used to be... :deevee:
im not so sure that nominating hillary would be a good thing, to put it mildly...
big if...
Mr. Kotter
11-14-2006, 10:21 PM
funny you'd mention reagan when talking about party switchers...
didn't he switch from the democrats to the republicans back in the day?
maybe obama should switch parties... :hmmm: :hmmm: :hmmm:
I should have qualified it by saying, a party-switcher so CLOSE to his switch...but, yes, you are correct sir.
'Hamas' Jenkins
11-14-2006, 11:11 PM
Difference being, at heart Guiliani is a fiscally conservative law and order type who also happens to have libertarian positions on social issues, while at heart Clinton is a big government progressive who restrains his social program "it takes a village" urges to triangulate power.
They may find themselves in roughly the same neighborhood on some issues, but they end up there from vastly different routes.
I have this query about Clinton: If your assertion is true, then why did he shrink the federal government down to it's lowest size since the Kennedy administration??
Direckshun
11-14-2006, 11:19 PM
This is folly. No way Democrats in their right mind will support a guy who has publicly bashed them for the better part of three decades and has taken the GOP's side on nearly every major political battle.
No, Rudy has backed the GOP horse. Always has. And while he may have a tough time getting nominated by the GOP because of his liberal social stances, it would be impossible to get nominated as a Democrat.
patteeu
11-15-2006, 05:55 AM
I should have qualified it by saying, a party-switcher so CLOSE to his switch...but, yes, you are correct sir.
One big distinction is that Reagan's switch took place before he entered politics. As far as I know, he never ran for elective office as a democrat.
patteeu
11-15-2006, 05:56 AM
I have this query about Clinton: If your assertion is true, then why did he shrink the federal government down to it's lowest size since the Kennedy administration??
Because he slashed the size of the military. The same military that people say is being stretched too thin right now. Brilliant!
Besides, the measure of the size of government shouldn't be the number of government employees, it should be the amount of money it diverts from taxpayers' pockets and the amount of control it exerts on their lives.
BucEyedPea
11-15-2006, 08:51 AM
Besides, the measure of the size of government shouldn't be the number of government employees, it should be the amount of money it diverts from taxpayers' pockets and the amount of control it exerts on their lives.
I'd say the number of govt employees can be related to the amount of money taken unless the govt outsourced everything they did.
patteeu
11-15-2006, 08:58 AM
I'd say the number of govt employees can be related to the amount of money taken unless the govt outsourced everything they did.
I'm all for reducing the size of the non-military government workforce, but that's secondary to reducing the size of the federal budget and the extent of government regulation of our lives, IMO.
BucEyedPea
11-15-2006, 09:01 AM
I'm all for reducing the size of the non-military government workforce, but that's secondary to reducing the size of the federal budget and the extent of government regulation of our lives, IMO.
Got it. I just see them as related in the current set-up.
Mr. Kotter
11-15-2006, 09:14 AM
I have this query about Clinton: If your assertion is true, then why did he shrink the federal government down to it's lowest size since the Kennedy administration??
So, the whole "reducing the MILITARY = reducing GOVERNMENT" ruse worked on you, eh?
Bowser
11-15-2006, 09:37 AM
So, the whole "reducing the MILITARY = reducing GOVERNMENT" ruse worked on you, eh?
Has the same effect as "There were twent billionity new jobs created" (never mind that most of the new jobs went to illegal aliens working at fast food or toilet cleaning), eh? ;)
patteeu
11-15-2006, 09:51 AM
So, the whole "reducing the MILITARY = reducing GOVERNMENT" ruse worked on you, eh?
LMAO
Mr. Kotter
11-15-2006, 02:13 PM
Has the same effect as "There were twent billionity new jobs created" (never mind that most of the new jobs went to illegal aliens working at fast food or toilet cleaning), eh? ;)
Actually, my statement is true; yours is easy to discount on a number of points.....unless you make it more accurate by saying something closer to "there were 4.2 million new jobs created, though many were lower paying retail, or service sector entry level jobs"--which doesn't involve the same level of hyperbole as your silliness.
:p
Calcountry
11-15-2006, 05:06 PM
Rudy or McCain, WILL NOT get my vote, either in the primary or the National election.
I didn't vote for Swarzeneggar either. I left governor blank.
Go ahead and run forlong to the Center and your doom Republicans.
Nightwish
11-15-2006, 05:19 PM
Actually, my statement is true; yours is easy to discount on a number of points.....unless you make it more accurate by saying something closer to "there were 4.2 million new jobs created, though many were lower paying retail, or service sector entry level jobs"--which doesn't involve the same level of hyperbole as your silliness.
:p
Don't forget that when they came out with that 4.2 million figure, it was right after the holiday shopping season, and a significant portion of those new jobs were temporary holiday retail help.
Adept Havelock
11-15-2006, 06:01 PM
One big distinction is that Reagan's switch took place before he entered politics. As far as I know, he never ran for elective office as a democrat.
You are quite correct. It came after he was fingered by the HUAAC. A shocking overnight conversion, that was. :)
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.