Rudy and the Map

On his way out the door for a few days, Marc left readers with the following provocation:

If Rudy Giuliani wins the Republican nomination, he'll put Connecticut and New Jersey in play for the GOP and force the Dems to spend money in the expensive NYC market.

Which Democrat(s) could similarly expand the map, in which states, and why?

I'm inclined to dispute the premise, and agree with the argument Peter Keating made recently for TNR Online. Looking at current state-by-state polls, Keating pointed out that against Hillary Clinton, "Rudy is likely to lose Connecticut, lose Pennsylvania narrowly and run well in Florida and Missouri - just like George W. Bush did last time around." As in 2000 and 2004, he suggested, the next election will be determined by swing voters in the Upper Midwest and the Mountain West; even with a New Yorker like Giuliani in the race, there's almost no way to bring the northeast into play for the GOP.

Sure, Rudy might do better in Connecticut than Bush did, but Bush lost my home state by ten points last time around; he lost New Jersey by seven points, and New York by nineteen points. You'd need an awful lot of socially-liberal, fiscally-conservative, Giuliani-loving "security Moms" to swing right to make those states competitive, particularly in a year when the GOP brand is a lot more tarnished than it was in '04.

It's not that the conventional wisdom about Rudy's unusual general-election impact is entirely wrong: I'm sure he would draw some Rockefeller Republicans into the GOP column, even as he would lose some pro-life, economically-moderate voters to the Democratic column. But in a polarized electorate, these shifts are likely to happen on the margins, not on the kind of grand scale that would be required to make the GOP competitive along the I-95 corridor. Should he take the nomination, how Giuliani expands or contracts the Republican base will indeed determine the election. But it will determine it in states like New Mexico and Florida, Iowa and Ohio, Colorado and Wisconsin - in the purple states, rather than the heart of Blue America.

Comments

I've seen Quinnipiac polls for Ohio that show Clinton beating Giuliani by 7. If that gap held up through next year, it would be an unmitigated disaster for Republicans. In fairness to Giuliani, though, he seems to be more competitive than Fred the Saviour, who loses by even larger margins.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1322.xml?ReleaseID=1102

Posted by Daniel Larison | September 11, 2007 10:56 PM

There are only 13 "Rockefeller Republicans" left, and 9 of them live in Florida and 4 in Arizona, and at least 6 of them are unable to remember their own names, let alone tell you who Rockefeller was.

There may be significant numbers of "moderate" Republicans left, but no one in the current GOP field seems to want to talk to them.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 11, 2007 11:40 PM

I think it depends on how far left Giuliani decides to run in the general. Remember, Republicans CAN win in almost any state if they emphasize economics and neutralize the social issues.

Of course, in doing so, Giuliani would lose the votes of some social conservatives. Still, I don't see how it is impossible for him to scramble the map if he chooses that strategy.

I don't want to question Ross' good faith here, but I do get the feeling that the LAST thing he wants is a pro-choice Republican on top of the ticket. So he's never going to concede the obvious point that such a person is more electable.

Posted by Dilan Esper | September 11, 2007 11:41 PM

If the fundamentals are bad, they are bad. Right now, because of Iraq, they are so for the GOP no matter who is at the top of the ticket.

The only way the GOP would ever be the favorite post-Bush is if two things were true:

1). Iraq was not the top issue
2). The GOP nominee was a midwestern technocrat acceptable to social conservatives (Pawlenty or something similiar)

Posted by Jay | September 12, 2007 1:05 AM

I hope Giuliani isn't the nominee for this reason: if he is, then (whether he wins or loses) there will be a bunch of people who vote for him. And while I tend to be pretty easygoing about this kind of thing, voting for Rudy Giuliani for president, given the campaign he's running, is, in my moral calculus, not just misguided; it's deeply, characterologically immoral, more-or-less on part with voting for David Duke or beating up slow kids or ripping wings off butterflies for fun. So there will be all these people, some my relatives no doubt, who I'll feel morally obligated to confront, not invite to dinner, and so on, about their voting choice. That will be a big pain. So hopefully no Rudy.

Posted by Christopher M | September 12, 2007 1:08 AM

What Dilan said.

I'll just add that I think Ross is making a mistake by buying into the whole "Blue America, Red America" spiel. The electoral maps of the last two elections reveal some very real divisions in the populace, but the red/blue divide tells us little about party loyalty... it represents George W. Bush and the two men who ran against him. His increasing unpopularity will change that map, and a very different candidate nominated by either party would change the map.

We tend to forget just how far a state can swing between elections. Bill Clinton carried Missouri, Louisiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Arkansas twice. He carried Georgia, Arizona, and Montana once each. In 1988, George Bush carried California, Maryland, New Jersey, Michigan, Illinois, and 4 of the 6 New England states... but failed to carry West Virginia or Iowa.

If the Republicans were to nominate a cultural liberal like Bloomberg, it would completely tear up the red/blue electoral map. Giuliani, with his history of picking fights with cultural liberals, won't have as strong of an effect. But I think he instantly puts New Jersey and Connecticut into play... and probably puts the border states into play for the Democrats.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | September 12, 2007 1:21 AM

Dilan Esper writes: "I think it depends on how far left Giuliani decides to run in the general. Remember, Republicans CAN win in almost any state if they emphasize economics and neutralize the social issues.

Of course, in doing so, Giuliani would lose the votes of some social conservatives. Still, I don't see how it is impossible for him to scramble the map if he chooses that strategy."

If the electorate is truly that stupid - and after 2004 I suppose it's quite possible that it is - then stick a fork in America, because it's so far past done that even buzzards won't peck at what's left.

I prefer to think that 2006 showed that people are sick of opportunistic fake tough guys shoveling lies at them. But maybe that's just because I'm too old and settled in to emigrate.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 12, 2007 1:22 AM

If Guiliani gets the Republican nomination and Clinton is the Democratic nominee, I'd expect to see Bloomberg and an as-yet unnamed 'real' (i.e., Southern) conservative join the race. Any bets on how a four-way race with three New Yorkers comes out?

Posted by MattF | September 12, 2007 6:54 AM

Re: Connecticut... I just have a hard time seeing a state going red when that state's Republicans ran ads of their opponents morphing into George Bush (to great effect) in the '06 congressional election.

Posted by Freddie | September 12, 2007 8:49 AM

I-95 Corridor? You don't mean the stretch that runs from Savannah through the low country on up to Richmond, do you?

Posted by Mark H. | September 12, 2007 9:38 AM

The italian population is huge in the northeast. If they swing to him, that alone could make a difference.

Posted by Chris | September 12, 2007 10:25 AM

Even if Rudy doesn't win one of those states the D's still have to spend money and time campaigning there - which puts them at a major tactical disadvantage in the wider race. That's the point Marc was making.

And don't take today's polls as gospel.

Posted by Some Hack | September 12, 2007 3:26 PM