STATE OF THE ART ON HALLOWEEN

Below I have reproduced Liz Mair's take on Rudy's "campaign strategy", posted on the GOP Progress web-site on Saturday, 28 October. My take on same follows.

Giuliani shows some smarts
By Liz Mair
Posted on Sat Oct 28, 2006 at 02:44:00 PM EST

“A couple of interesting tidbits have come out over the last couple of days relating to Rudy Giuliani, and his 2008 prospects. The upshot is, I can see Rudy adopting a smart strategy--and one that could yield real dividends for him, even if that's not immediately obvious right now.

“Analysis of said tidbits below the fold.

“Tidbit no. 1 is this: yesterday The New York Daily News ran a story entitled ‘McCain makes hay while Rudy ponders a run.’

“The point of this story was to demonstrate that McCain is trumping Rudy in what some observers call the "staff primary," especially in New Hampshire, where, just last week, a whopping 50 state legislators signed on to aid McCain's PAC, Straight Talk America.

“Larry [Sabotage] has claimed this is evidence that "McCain is leapfrogging Giuliani in his own backyard." Well, actually, it's more like McCain leapfrogging Romney in his own backyard, since New Hampshire is a long way from New York (trust me, I've done the Concord to NYC drive in one day), but neighbors Massachusetts. But the point is this: a lot of observers think Giuliani's being too pondering, too slow, and just frankly not showing the dedication McCain is because he hasn't done nearly as much to make headway in New Hampshire, in particular.

“Let me go out on a limb here and suggest something else.

“New Hampshire is territory owned by McCain. That has been the case since 2000, and it's not going to change unless an Act of God occurs. Rudy's no dummy, and he's bound to know that.

“He also knows, that while it will be nigh on impossible for anyone to knock McCain out of the no. 1 position in New Hampshire, he's currently sitting comfortably in second place, a position he should be able to hold easily given that the next in-line contender is Mitt Romney, a man already known to Granite Staters because they get Boston TV, and whom they don't seem much interested in. It took the injection of roughly $1,000,000 via an RGA ‘Kerry Healey’ ad touting Mitt Romney that was broadcast in New Hampshire, for Romney to see even a minute bounce in his poll numbers in the state, which bodes pretty badly for the conservative-inclined, blue state Governor.

“Rudy will be well aware of all this, so it seems to me a good strategy on his part to keep doing what he has been doing with regard to New Hampshire, albeit with an increasing step-up as we get closer to the beginning of 2008.

“Why? Well, he's not wasting resources on New Hampshire where he can't win outright. He's focusing on other places, where polls suggest he has more of a chance, while he does enough in new Hampshire to keep his name on people's tongues and in their minds. In essence, he's gunning for first elsewhere, specifically, in states where McCain does not have a clear and unchangeable lead, and where Romney lacks one, too, despite many visits, mass hires, and a lot of press. Like South Carolina.

“This leads on to tidbit no. 2.

“Tidbit no. 2 is Byron York’s South Carolina poll, published yesterday, which probably made for downright troubling news for the Romney camp, and just so-so news for McCain. On the flipside, that poll made for outright fabulous news for Rudy.

“Why? Well, the poll shows in no uncertain terms that Rudy--yes, New Yorker, pro-choice, gay-friendly, occasional drag-wearing Rudy--is positioned better than any other likely 2008 contender in the state.

“Rudy has name ID just short of McCain and Newt Gingrich (93%), yet he has a higher favorable rating than any other likely GOP 2008 contender. Let me say that again. Rudy Giuliani has a higher favorable rating in South Carolina than any other likely GOP 2008 contender--higher than McCain, higher than Romney, and higher than Gingrich.

“This is astonishing. Rudy has a 78% favorable rating, and just a 10% unfavorable rating, compared to McCain with a 65% favorable rating, but a 23% unfavorable rating, Newt with a 53% favorable rating and a 31% unfavorable rating, and Romney with a 41% favorable rating and an 11% unfavorable rating.

“Now, sure, one thing those numbers tell you is that Romney isn't well enough known in the state yet for people to say ‘favorable’ or ‘unfavorable.’ That will change with time, I am sure, but his camp have got to be worried, given the amount of attention that has been focused on the state (somewhere they must feel is an easy place to try to kill off McCain, rightly or wrongly), that 60% of those polled have never even heard of him. It begs the question: what is their press and grassroots operation up to, exactly?

“The numbers are also notable in that they show that what is, in my view, a larger than expected percentage of voters favorable to McCain, but still, given the effort he's put into turning South Carolina in his direction, it's worrying that a social liberal has seemingly strolled in, and charmed a lot of voters. His unfavorable rating is also not so great, though it will probably be nudged down a bit with time.

“Of course, as ‘Race 4 2008’ has noted, the impressions the public have of McCain, Rudy and Newt are relatively fixed and unshapeable at this stage. While McCain will always remind a few South Carolina voters of 2000 (not overly helpful), Rudy will always remind them of hope and triumph in the face of the 9/11 attacks (brilliant). And I know that Rudy has been doing a lot to talk to voters and GOP activists face to face about his views on social matters--probably their only real concern regarding a Giuliani candidacy. And while being frank about his views on abortion (which, given that he is a pro-choicer who seems to support the position that abortion is an issue for the states, not the federal government, aren't turning out to be so bad for him anyway), he's also been being frank about his views on things like school choice--which is a big concern for many Christian conservatives who want to educate their children in line with their own beliefs, whether that means chartering a school, using school vouchers to send their kids private or parochial, or homeschooling.

“From where I sit, it looks like Rudy's employing a pretty smart strategy for a guy who seems to still be mulling it over. Sure, it may not be enough to push him over the finishing line (he won't beat McCain in New Hampshire, and he's probably got no shot in Michigan), but then again, some funny old things happen in the course of Presidential primaries. Like a candidate that many moderates and libertarian-leaners feel is their best philosophical match getting support from those furthest to the right (even if it turns out to be enough to only let him finish second, in the end).

“One thing this poll does tell me, for sure, is that Romney is going to have to work his cotton socks off to get anywhere in two of the most important states: NH and SC. New Hampshire is probably a lost cause, and is perhaps best ignored in favor of focusing on South Carolina, where it seems like there is the most potential for him to do well. That being said, of course, it is a sad fact that there may be only so far a Mormon can go in a state, many of whose evangelical voters don't even seem too big on Catholics (a much more known quantity than Mormons in terms of their theology). Romney may turn out to be too much, too soon for Palmetto staters, while McCain and Giuliani may both come out looking just about right.

“In any event, Giuliani is playing it smart from now, from where I sit”.

With but three exceptions, this is, in my judgment, the absolute state-of-the-art analysis of Rudy's Presidential possibilities as of this moment.

Exception one: This piece was apparently written before the Ken Mehlman "bombshell" that Kathleen Parker dropped on the Chris Matthews' Show this past Sunday. If the "rumor" turns out to be true that RNC National Chairman Mehlman will join the Giuliani campaign following the mid-term elections, then Rudy will, with one fell swoop, have put himself squarely in front of the queue, and all the current analysis will have to be re-thought.

Exception two: I don't think Ms. Mair factors Iowa sufficiently into the analysis. Don't forget that in early August, Rudy led McCain 30%-18% in a poll of Iowa Caucus workers, with no one else in double figures. At the time, all the commentators thought this was "stunning". Now, however, even people generally favorable to Rudy, like Ms. Mair, seem to have forgotten all about it. (Now, it is the South Carolina poll numbers that are "astonishing". Perhaps political commentators really do have the attention span of a fruit fly.) Remember also, that Iowa Republicans have scheduled a campaign swing through the state for Rudy on the eve of the mid-term elections. Moreover, Ken Mehlman would be among the best in the business at turning this preference among Iowa political (semi) professionals into a caucus victory.

Exception three: This one is summed up in Ms. Mair's comment that: "[Rudy] won't beat McCain in New Hampshire, and he's probably got no shot in Michigan, but then again, some funny old things happen in the course of Presidential primaries." Exactly! I think it is simply too early to write off completely Rudy's chances in New Hampshire. Don't forget, the demand for paid tickets to see Rudy in October was so great that New Hampshire Republicans had to schedule a second visit, which they have scheduled for four days before the mid-term elections. Moreover, the Manchester Union Leader, which used to be thought of as the absolute sine qua non of victory in the state, has all but endorsed Rudy.

Thus, in both Iowa and New Hampshire, the actual candidates and political professionals seem to want to hitch their wagon to Rudy's star. That I think is the most telling omen of all. And, it seems to give at least some credence to the Mehlman "bombshell rumor".

That said, I very much agree with Ms. Mair that the best strategy for Rudy would be to focus on South Carolina and, I would add, Iowa. If Rudy can score a victory in the Iowa Caucuses and the South Carolina Primary, and finish second to McCain in the New Hampshire and Michigan primaries, then, less than two months after the voting begins, the race for the Republican nomination would be down to Rudy and McCain, with Romney, Newt, and everyone else headed home. I would say also that this state of affairs would clearly put Rudy in the driver's seat. Even now, some influential Republican commentators are saying that McCain is finished if he loses South Carolina again, as he so famously did in 2000. Perhaps most importantly, it would have put the final kibosh on the MSM's Conventional Wisdom that Rudy can't win in the South because of his "liberal" social positions.

Finally, let me throw one other point into the mix that Ms. Mair has overlooked: Ralph Reed! Despite "taking it on the chin" in the Republican Primary for Lt. Governor in Georgia, owing to his admittedly unfortunate dealings with Jack Abramoff, Ralph remains one of the most astute and capable political professionals in the GOP. Moreover, Ralph's particular expertise is in the South, most particularly among what are now being called "values voters", e.g., what used to be called the Religious Right, Christian Coalition, Moral Majority, Evangelicals, Conservative Christians, etc., etc., etc. Well, by whatever name they are called, Ralph is among the best in the business to organize and turn out this vote. Don't forget, it was Ralph Reed, as the head of Pat Robertson's soi disant "Christian Coalition", who turned these voters into a solid Republican bloc in the late 1980's and early 1990's. Remember also that Rudy campaigned extensively for Ralph last Spring. This tells us at least two things: (1) Ralph owes Rudy. (2) Ralph wanted to have Rudy campaign for him because, obviously, he thought Rudy would "play" well among the Religious Conservative base that Ralph was seeking in Georgia.

That brings us to the final piece of the puzzle: Rudy's genuinely and deeply felt Catholic faith. Among the thoughts floating around the blogosphere of late is that Rudy could make a "faith-based" common cause with the Christian Right on the basis of his Catholicism. As far back as April, I suggested that this could be a possibility, and I pointed to several ways that Catholics and Southern Evangelicals are already making such common cause: Aids in Africa, opposition to abortion, environmentalism, genocide in Darfur, etc., etc. Indeed Ms. Mair comments on this sort of "bargain" in terms of Rudy's positions on returning control of abortion to the States, as well as school choice/school vouchers. In short: Ralph Reed would be the perfect person to strike such a bargain on Rudy's behalf and make it work.

To close, I think the most important analytical point Ms. Mair makes is this: "Rudy will always remind [voters] of hope and triumph in the face of the 9/11 attacks (brilliant)."

My ultimate conclusion: Run Rudy Run!

PS: Here are the actual numbers from Byron York's recent South Carolina Poll, referred to as "astonishing" by Liz Mair in her pro Rudy piece on GOP Progress (reproduced above), with what I think is some very good analysis and a very astute comment at the end from “Race 4 2008”. I do think, however, that these numbers leave Mitt Romney with a very hard row to hoe, and that the results for McCain, when properly analyzed, are indeed closer to "DOA" than to "Amazing". Even the current "conventional wisdom" in the MSM has it that, if McCain doesn't win South Carolina outright, he doesn't win the nomination.

My ultimate conclusion: Run Rudy Run!

“October 27, 2006

South Carolina Rates the Candidates

“I've been trying to nail down this poll all day, and South Carolina expert Byron York finally delivers it. Much to even my surprise, Rudy has far and away the highest favorable ratings among South Carolina Republicans.

Candidate Heard of Favorable Unfavorable

John McCain 96% 65% 23%
Newt Gingrich 95% 53% 31%
Rudy Giuliani 93% 78% 10%
George Pataki 69% 35% 18%
Bill Frist 66% 43% 21%
Mitt Romney 40% 41% 11%
George Allen 37% 38% 11%
Mike Huckabee 16% - -

“Convert it to the net rating and it's Rudy +68%, McCain +42%, Romney +30%, Allen +27%, Frist +22%, Gingrich +21%, Pataki +17%. It's true that there's a New Yorker in this race who will never sell in the South. Except his name is George Pataki. Moderate New Yorkers bookend this poll in terms of favorability.

“People carp about ‘name ID’ skewing polls like this. I agree 100%. Romney or Huckabee just aren't where they'll be in February of '08. But a legitimate comparison can be made between candidates who are well known (Rudy, McCain, Newt), those who are moderately well known (Pataki, Frist), and those who are complete unknowns (Romney, Allen, Huckabee).

“Among the universally well known candidates, Rudy beats McCain who beats Newt. Because they've been on the public stage for years, opinions of these leaders are the hardest to change. While opinions of these leaders are likely to take somewhat of a beating, their public personas are to some extent firm and fixed. McCain won't become a conservative hero. Rudy will never lose that association with 9/11.

“In the welterweight category, Frist and Pataki have been on the public stage as "supporting actors" and have managed to rack up pretty high unfavorables, a fact that probably dooms their bids. Though there are theoretically 30% or 40% of Republicans who haven't heard of them who can be moved, everyone basically agrees that these two are dead in the water because of the baggage they've already collected manifested by their inability to move beyond a 2-1 favorable ratio.

“It's not a coincidence that those considered the brightest stars in the field (at one point or another) share the fact of low name ID. They're clean slates. They can introduce themselves to the electorate on their own terms. They could easily rocket up to Giuliani/McCain heights by extending their 3 and 4-1 edge in favorability with the 60% who don't know them. Romney's nearly 4-to-1 favorable ratio has got to be encouraging from the standpoint of knocking down the LDS issue as a problem for his bid in the South.

“Perhaps a more accurate measure might be the ratio of favorables to unfavorables. They are:

Rudy 7.8 / 1
Romney 3.7 / 1
Allen 3.5 / 1
McCain 2.8 /1
Frist 2.1 / 1
Pataki 1.9 /1
Newt 1.7 / 1

“You'll notice that McCain hovers not too far above DOA status.

One Response to ‘South Carolina Rates the Candidates’:

“Are you kidding me? A 65% favorability rating (or a 42% net rating) is amazing for McCain given the leftover hostility towards him for 2000. This is far from "not too far above DOA status." Granted, this isn't a 2008 poll (come on Strategic Vision, how much longer do we have to wait?), but it'll do. Since McCain has the highest name recognition and considering that Allen, Frist, Pataki, and Huckabee are all non-entities, that's a significant portion of the vote that will be divided up amongst McCain. Rudy, and Romney. Rudy's numbers aren't surprising at all and they correlate to almost all of national and state polls we've seen in the past. Romney is doing very well in South Carolina as well, again that's not surprising. This doesn't necessarily mean Romney has slayed the LDS issue, it just means that the people who have heard about him view him favorable, not that they'd vote for him (the same can be said for McCain and Rudy too).

“If I'd be so brave as to make an extremely tentative prediction for the SC 2008 poll. I'd say it would be around:

“Rudy Giuliani 30%
John McCain 20-25%
Mitt Romney 10-15%
George Allen 10%

”Everyone Else takes to remainder.

“If SV releases a poll with McCain under 20% support then he has a big problem. But this CU poll makes that seem very remote.”

NEWSFLASH: REPUBLICANS HOLD BOTH HOUSES!

Newsflash: Barron’s has predicted, in the cover story of its current issue, that Republicans will lose seats in the up-coming mid-term elections, but, directly contrary to the prevailing "Conventional Wisdom" in the “Liberal Media”, that they will maintain their controlling majority status in both houses. Here is the Hyper-Link to the complete article:

http://online.barrons.com/public/article/SB116138396438799484-IdCXhh7Ie9DTbX74S9pa7pqHYY4_20061120.html?mod=9_0002_b_free_features

Barron's has actually analyzed all 435 House races and 33 Senate races, and made an individual prediction in each one. Then, by adding up those individual predictions, they forecast that, when the dust has settled, Republicans will find themselves with 52 seats in the Senate and 224 seats in the House -- just enough for a bare majority in each Chamber. The "quirk" about the Barron's analysis/ predictions is that they base their prediction in each individual race solely on which candidate has raised the most money. Now, I agree that this does sound a bit outré, but I urge you all to read the actual piece, where they explain/justify their analytical/predictive methodology. There you will learn, inter alia, that this very method actually bucked the "Conventional Wisdom" and accurately predicted the election results in both of the last two elections, 2002 and 2004. You will also learn that this single predictive factor has (would have) correctly forecast 93% of all House races, going back to 1972, and 98% in recent years. On the Senate side, this method has proven accurate 89% of the time since and including 1996.

Perhaps more importantly, for our purposes this time round, we have a golden opportunity to analyze the accuracy of the "Conventional Wisdom" and the integrity of the Liberal Media. Yesterday on "Meet the Press", Tim Russert presented this Barron's article/method to a "special pre-election roundtable", for which Mr. Russert had "assembled the best and brightest in political analysis", consisting of: David Broder of the Washington Post, Charlie Cook from National Journal and the Cook Political Report, John Harwood of CNBC and the Wall Street Journal, and syndicated columnist Robert Novak of the Evans-Novak Political Report.

These four soi disant "best and brightest" were unanimous in forecasting a minimum Democrat gain in the House of 20 seats, and probably "many more" than that. As for the Senate, they were more equivocal about forecasting a shift in control. Three of them more-or-less agreed that the most likely outcome would be bare Republican "control" of that Chamber, with the GOP holding on to 50 seats, but that it "could be much worse". The odd-man-out as to the Senate, Robert Novak would not agree to a numerical prediction for the Senate, saying simply that the outcome there was "not as certain" as in the House.

All four of these "best and brightest" were confident of their predictions to the point of being downright smug. The only shadow of doubt they allowed to show was as to whether the gain for the Democrats in the House would be the "minimum" of 20 seats or many more than that. Moreover, they were all very much smug and dismissive of the Barron's piece and its methodology. The unspoken, albeit clear, attitude was: "No mere predictive formula could even presume to be as accurate as our intuitive predictions, based on our great wisdom and sagacity. Besides, this particular formula is downright stupid." Russert, for his part, did not see fit to mention the past accuracy of the Barron’s methodology as reported in the piece itself.

So, there you have it! The perfect opportunity to test the self-righteous smugness of the "Conventional Wisdom" and the "Main Stream Media". Read the Barron's piece, print it out, and save it. Read the transcript of the "special pre-election roundtable" on "Meet The Press" and save it too. Then, we shall re-visit this issue after the mid-term elections.

My ultimate conclusion: Run Rudy Run!

LIBERAL MEDIA MULTIPLIER EFFECT

Below, I have re-produced, my own analysis of the mid-term elections that I wrote on 07 August 2006, wherein I first identified the “Liberal Media Multiplier Effect”. As of 28 September 2006, I still thought I had “nailed it”. Events since that time have indeed caused me to become less sanguine about Republican chances of maintaining control of Congress this November, but I think you will find the August piece interesting in any event. In my next posting, I shall revisit the subject of the Liberal Media’s anti-Republican bias, and its affect on their predictive abilities, a scant two weeks before the 2006, mid-term elections.

My ultimate conclusion: Run Rudy Run!

“On the morning after the election in 2004, I sat in a law-firm conference room in New York and discussed with a colleague of mine -- a former Republican candidate for state-wide office -- the previous day's reporting of the election returns, principally at the Presidential level. The big topic was that on election day, from late afternoon on through early evening, all the networks were reporting ‘exit polls’ that purportedly showed that John Kerry was heading for a ‘big win’. Apropos of George Bush's solid victory, I recounted an analysis of the, shall-we-say-flawed, reporting that I had heard -- I don't remember where -- with witch I agreed, to the effect that: The exit polls did indeed ‘get it wrong’ because they assumed that the Democrat ‘ground game’ would dwarf Republican efforts, as in the past, and hence they (the pollsters) were un-prepared for the fact that the Republican get-out-the-vote efforts on election day actually dwarfed the Democrat effort. This error, bad enough in itself, was then exacerbated because the reporters reporting the error actually wanted to believe it, and this desire acted like a multiplier (borrowing a mathematical concept from the 'dismal science') and washed through the early coverage of the returns.

“In a subsequent lunch conversation during the summer of 2006, I reported on an analysis I had read in the ‘Blogosphere’ of the Democrats' prospects of re-taking either or both Houses of Congress this Fall, to the effect that the Republicans would lose seats in both Houses, but actually hang on to bare majorities in both. My colleague expressed surprise at this because everything he had heard was actually predicting something like a mini-landslide for the Democrats, and that they would sweep into control of both Houses. Well, not to put too fine a point on it, I thought mightily over the week end about what my colleague said, and I came to believe that we were witnessing that summer (2006) a ‘multiplier effect’ similar to the one at work on election day 2004: Virtually all the reporters at most of the major news outlets -- that is all major news outlets except Fox News and The Washington Times, to the extent the Times can be considered a ‘major’ news outlet -- are at best ‘closet Liberals’, and they very much want to believe that the Democrats will sweep into control of both Houses this Fall, so they are, subconsciously I grant, skewing their analysis of the facts on the ground so as to look forward to that outcome.

“Now, I'm not issuing my own ‘prediction’ here. The electoral calculus really is too close for that, but I do believe that the 'Conventional wisdom' is skewed by a ‘Liberal Media Multiplier Effect’. To wit:

“Bob Novak says that, even though there is ‘anger’ at Republicans over the war in Iraq, The Democrats do not seem to him to be getting any ‘traction’, because they aren't offering any coherent alternative platform. Frank Luntz essentially confirms this with actual polling results. [Don't forget the oldest wisdom in politics: ‘You can't beat somebody with nobody!’]

“Rahm Emanuel, Chairman of the House Democrat Campaign Committee, is in a major spat with Party Chairman Howard Dean primarily over how much money will flow from the Party's national coffers into which House races. Apparently, it's so bad that the two men are not even speaking to each other. Moreover, Frank Luntz's polling tends to confirm that the country in general thinks Howard Dean is an embarrassment for the Party.

“The New York Times is still listing the Allen/Web Senate race in VA as merely ‘leaning Republican’, whereas Allen actually enjoys a 16 point advantage in the latest poll.

“The Times only just recently changed the Ohio Senate race as from ‘toss up’ to ‘leaning’ Republican, whereas David Brooks last night on ‘The Chris Matthews Show’ ‘reported’ that the incumbent Republican, Mike DeWine had pulled out to a ‘comfortable’ lead.

“Even at that, if Democrats win all the House and Senate races the Times lists as ‘in play’, they will still win only bare majorities in both houses, whereas if the Republicans win all those races, they will have prohibitive majorities: 61 Senators and 246 Representatives.

“The ‘big story’ on NPR this morning was that Cindy Sheehan has taken her sleeping bag with her to Crawford, Texas!

“What put me ‘over-the-top’ about the ‘Liberal Media Multiplier Effect’ was yesterday's Op-Ed pages in the ‘Week in Review’ section of The New York Times. Most of one page was filled with four 'reports' on four ‘in play Senate races, written by stringers for The Times in the individual states: Minnesota, Montana, Ohio, and Tennessee. I'm sure you read these pieces yourself, but just in case you didn't, I have provided the hyper-link to each one at the end of this posting.

“These four authors are not professional reporters; hence they are unskilled in hiding their biases, and those biases are on display for all to see. The ones from Minnesota and Montana are the most blatant. The tone of each one is: ‘This is how I want it to be because I want the Democrat to win.' Now, I have no personal knowledge of either race, and the Democrat candidate may indeed win each one, but this Op-Ed piece in the Times tells me nothing more than that the author wishes it so. Minnesota: The epithet ‘Karl Rove slimeballs’ is supposed to pass as intelligent commentary. Montana: Incumbent Republican Conrad Burns' ‘haircut ads’ don't sit well with the folks at the barbershop that the author talked to. The Times ‘political calculator’ has Minnesota as ‘leaning Democrat’ and Montana as a ‘toss up’.

“The piece on Ohio is not nearly so blatantly partisan, perhaps only more clever. After labeling the Ohio race as 'one of the half-dozen that will determine control of the Senate’, the author adopts a ‘pox-on-both-houses’ stance to the candidates, and tells us essentially nothing more than that Ohioans will not even focus on this race until after the Summer. Well, compare that to David Brooks' take last night on ‘The Chris Matthews Show’ that the incumbent Republican Mike DeWine has pulled into a comfortable lead.

“All the Op-Ed author tells us about DeWine, however, is that he -- an incumbent two-term Senator -- is not ‘particularly well endowed in the charisma department’ and that ‘he might be an assistant principal at your local middle school’. As for the Democrat challenger: he 'might manage the men's wear department at the new Macy's’. ‘It's the bland leading the bland.’ Well, even if one assumes arguendo that that's a fair assessment of both candidates and the current interest level in Ohio, then one would have to give the edge to the two-term incumbent Senator. The Times political calculator only recently changed the Ohio race from ‘toss up’ to ‘leaning Republican’.

“The Tennessee author is by far the most honest observer, and he essentially gives the Republican candidate the edge to succeed Bill Frist. Of course, he gives that in a sort-of backhanded way, choosing to focus on the legal troubles of Harold Ford's uncle. Perhaps more to the point, this piece, to the extent it actually does give the edge to the Republican candidate, must, in my view, be seen against the backdrop of The Times, as well as the networks and cable channels, fawning all over Harold Ford all Spring and summer: potentially the first African American Senator from the South since Reconstruction, blah, blah, blah. Now, I actually like Harold Ford, but I certainly don't knew whether he will win in Tennessee or not, particularly given 'Tennessee's ever-growing love affair with the Republican Party' as the Op-Ed author puts it. Moreover, The Times' political calculator lists Tennessee as ‘leaning Republican’. The point is: A casual observer of politics at the national level, who doesn't really focus on specifics too closely will probably have gotten, almost by osmosis, that Harold Ford is a strong front runner in Tennessee, and that just isn't so.

“In sum, the view of these four ‘closely watched’ Senate races, that The Times Op-Ed Editor chooses to put forward as a microcosm of the overall race for control of the Senate is at best flawed on its face, and even more flawed when one considers other reporting. Now, there's no neat Cartesian conclusion to be drawn here, the Democrats may indeed seize control of both Houses of Congress this Fall. Still, I must go back to what I said at the beginning of this missive: There is a 'Liberal Media Multiplier Effect" at work in any current perception that the Democrats are now charging hell-bent toward that eventuality.”

My ultimate conclusion: Run Rudy Run!

NYT Op-Ed Links:

Minnesota:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/06/opinion/06baxter.html

Montana:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/06/opinion/06mcnamer.html

Ohio:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/06/opinion/06chaon.html

Tennessee:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/06/opinion/06hicks.html

WHY “RUN RUDY RUN”?

All right, I won’t put it off any longer! Today, Thursday, 19 October 2006 -- the 225th anniversary of George Washington’s victory at Yorktown, Virginia -- David Brooks wrote his Op-Ed column in The New York Times, urging Illinois Sen. Barack Obama to run for the Democrat nomination for President in 2008. He chose to title his column: “Run, Barack, Run”! Now, I can’t say for certain that Mr. Brooks pilfered this locution from moi, but, apart from the superfluous commas, the similarity is striking. Thus, am I motivated finally to “get off my duff” and explain to one and all why I chose “Run Rudy Run” as both the title for this blog and as my political mantra for 2008.

Apart form the obvious, i.e., that I mean to urge former New York City Mayor Rudolph “Rudy” Giuliani to run for President, my choice of this specific locution was the result of a three-step thought process, as follows:

1. I wanted a mantra to employ in the same manner as Marcus Porcius Cato (234-149 BC), known as “Cato the Elder”, employed “Carthago delenda est”. Cato was famous for, among other things, ending all of his speeches in the Roman Senate by saying: "That is my opinion. It is further my opinion, that Carthage must be destroyed." (“Ceterum censeo, Carthago delenda est.”) This was shortened to simply “Carthago delenda est” for most purposes outside the Senate, such as political sloganeering. Eventually, his fellow Senators became so worn down by Cato’s single-minded determination that they launched the Third Punic War (149-146 BC), which ended with Carthage in fact destroyed, and the ground sowed with salt. Thus, so as to evidence the same single-minded determination as Cato the Elder, the title of my political blog, and my political e-mail missives, is “Run Rudy Run”, and I end all my political analyses with the complete locution: “My ultimate conclusion: Run Rudy Run!”

2. The phrase is short, punchy, and in this political season, its meaning is unmistakable. There is only ONE “Rudy” and only ONE thing that urging him to “Run” could possibly mean. Moreover, the alliteration of the three successive “R’s” was simply too good to pass up.

3. The actual phraseology, “Run . . . Run”, was adopted from the most popular German film of the 1990’s: “Lola rennt”, literally “Lola runs”, starring Franka Potente as Lola. The film was released in the United States in 1998, however, with the English language title “Run Lola Run”, and became one of the most popular foreign language films ever.

Hyper-link: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Run_Lola_Run)

The film is similar in conception to Akira Kurosawa’s masterpiece “Rashomon”, in that it presents three separate versions of the same transaction. In each version, Lola is a very physically fit young woman, obviously a track athlete of some sort. She is on one side of town and her boyfriend/fiancé is about to get into serious trouble on the other side of town. The idea is that only Lola can save him, and only if she can run all the way across town in a seemingly impossibly short period of time. Thus, only Lola can “save the day” and only if she will “run”. Thus, the phrase “Run Rudy Run” has its subtext drawn form the film: Only Rudy can save the United States in 2008, and only if he will Run for President!

My ultimate conclusion: Run Rudy Run!

ANOTHER POLL TO REMEMBER

Just as with the GOP Bloggers’ October straw poll, AOL’s on-line, self-selected, Presidential straw poll should not be overlooked by supporters of Rudy, albeit for different reasons. First the results, as reported on Giuliani Blog:

“Sunday, October 15, 2006

Giuliani Wins AOL Poll

Huge sample size, and includes the Democrats, independents, libertarians and vegetarians McCain does so well with.

Which Republican would you favor for president?

Rudolph Giuliani 39%

John McCain 36%

Other 18%

Mitt Romney 7%

Total Votes: 131,245”

As the blogster points out, the sample-size is huge, essentially 10 times the size of the GOP Bloggers October straw poll, and I believe just about the largest I have ever seen. The size is not, however, the most important point for analysis. In the first place, this poll includes everyone – across the political spectrum and off the spectrum, and I am perfectly willing to concede here that these results do reflect largely “name recognition”. What is most striking, however, is that John McCain comes within three percentage points of Rudy, whereas in virtually all the relatively recent polls of “Republicans only”, “political professionals”, such as the Iowa caucus workers, and people with a great interest in politics, such as the GOP Bloggers, Rudy has led McCain by double digits. The only exceptions have been in Michigan, and one recent poll in New Hampshire. This tells me two things:

First, the heretofore prevailing “Conventional Wisdom” about these two candidates has been flat wrong. The C-W has had it that, while both Rudy and McCain would be attractive “moderate-general-election” candidates, Rudy could not be nominated by the Republican Party because his soi disant “liberal positions” would cause the Republican “Base” to shun voting for him in the primaries, particularly in the South. At least up to now, however, Rudy’s “liberal positions” have not appeared to hamper his poll standing among the “Base”, and the Party’s professionals. On the other hand, John McCain’s past “positions”, indeed past “actions”, such as his leadership of the “gang of 14” and his initial opposition to the Bush Administration’s detainee bill, have caused him essentially to “drop off the radar screen” among the Party’s “Base”. Thus, the C-W has in fact had it exactly backwards: It would appear to be John McCain who would make a good general election candidate, but who cannot win the Republican nomination.

The second thing this straw poll tells me is that no one, least of all Rudy, should underestimate John McCain. Despite his current poll-problems with the Republican “Base” and the Party’s professionals, he would clearly make a formidable candidate in the general election, and that fact alone will undoubtedly sway some primary votes in his favor, when people actually get “in the booth”.

Finally, with respect to the AOL straw poll, I cannot help but notice that Mitt Romney fares very much worse, at 7%, than he has in the other recent “scientific” and “straw” polls discussed above. In those other polls, Governor Romney has experienced a “meteoric rise” in the past two-to-three months, to the point where, it was beginning to look like a three-way race for the Republican nomination, or perhaps even a two-way race, with the descent of McCain’s poll fortunes. I’m not quite sure, at the moment, that I know exactly what to make of this Romney dichotomy. One thing that comes to mind – and I wouldn’t want to be held to this – is that true “political people”, such as Party members, caucus workers, and bloggers, simply “leapt past” Romney’s Mormonism, whereas the country in general may not prove quite so accepting. Right now, however, that’s just a thought.

My ultimate conclusion: Run Rudy Run!

DON’T IGNORE THIS STRAW POLL!

Here, for your edification, is the hyper-link :

http://www.gopbloggers.org/octoberpollresults.php

to the "running" results of the GOP-BLOGGERS Presidential straw poll, as of this morning, 12 October 2006. Normally, I wouldn't pay much attention to a straw poll like this because the voters/poll respondents are self-selected and the knowledge and interest level among those voting does not reflect a real-world dynamic in any state, or even in any locality. Nevertheless, I do think this poll should not be ignored, for at least the following reasons:

1. The current vote total, over 12,500, is actually larger than almost all professional/scientific polls. This straw poll is capped-off and re-started every month. Hence these results reflect voting in the first 12 days of October.

2. The people who vote in this straw poll bid fair to be THE MOST knowledgeable and up-to-the-minute group on the candidates and their positions. Hence, whatever else may be said, there can be no claim that these results are borne merely out of name-recognition or "ignorance" of any candidate’s "social positions".

3. These respondents are BY FAR the MOST conservative -- though not necessarily "Christian" conservative -- "sample" of any poll. As you will see, each voter is asked to rate himself on a scale ranging from "1" (RINO) to "5" (Center-Right) to "10" (Ultraconservative). This self-selected spectrum currently shows that almost exactly one-third (33.3%) rated themselves 9-10, and almost 80% (79.8%) rated themselves 7-10. Thus, it is simply not tenable to dismiss this poll out-of-hand by saying "yes, but" a candidate with "liberal social positions" will drop dramatically in the conservative Southern Republican primaries.

4. With two exceptions, these results reflect a consistent preference pattern over the past year -- the site and poll were launched on 20 January 2005. The first exception is that Mitt Romney has experienced a veritable "meteoric rise" in both overall support and general acceptability rating, so much so that the poll sponsors have, in just the last month or so, chosen to poll, in addition to the 11 candidate preference/acceptability ratings, for a three-way race among Rudy, McCain and Romney, whereas before they polled separately only for a Rudy-McCain race.

5. The second exception is, I think, more important: John McCain has dropped like a rock, both in terms of preference and general acceptability -- a NEGATIVE acceptability rating (today) of 66.4%, and a 3.5% preference -- to the point where he is now essentially "off-the-radar-screen" among what is probably the most hard-right, self-selected, knowledgeable group in the Republican Party. When this poll is coupled with the "War Re-Alignment" analysis to be found at “Race 4 2008”:

http://race42008.com/2006/10/11/a-war-alignment/#respond

the current "tea leaves" do not portend well for a McCain Presidency.

Rudy, on the other hand, remains the consistent front-runner, with currently 29.5% of the vote, in an 11 candidate field, to Newt's 2nd place total of 21.8%. Moreover, Rudy has a general acceptability rating (today) of 67.6%, and he beats Romney in both two-way and three-way races. Perhaps most importantly for the primary nominating process, Rudy's numbers do not drop-off significantly in Southern states.

My conclusion: Run Rudy Run!

PS: Yes, I voted for Rudy, but I did list McCain as "acceptable", and I rated myself an "8".

S-S-D-D!

In addition to the story about the reaction to l’affaire de Mark Foley that I commented on earlier (“Mark Foley and Liberal Projection”), The NYT has also run today, Monday, 09 October 2006, a story entitled “With Giuliani, GOP Focuses on 9/11 Role”. The link is:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/09/nyregion/09giuliani.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

I have read the piece, and my overall reaction is summed up by the old Air Force saying: "S-S-D-D" ["Same Shit, Different Day"]. Moreover, in 40 years of reading The NYT essentially every day, I have developed a sort of "crap-detector", which in this case says that the "real message" of the piece is this: "Rudy is a real hero West of 12th Avenue, and he might be elected President! All us good New York Liberals down here at the Times are absolutely-scared-to-death of that, so we are going to do absolutely anything we can to keep alive the old saw that he can't win the Republican nomination because of his liberal social positions. If nothing else, we hope we can turn the saw into a self-fulfilling prophecy." Did someone just say "Big-Lie Technique"?

To a palpable extent, the story on the Foley scandal, gives the lie to this second “Rudy” story. Ironically, but not surprisingly, both stories appeared in the same edition of The NYT! Moreover, the people in southeastern Virginia would be, in the lexicon of the Rudy story, far more likely to "have a problem" with Rudy than those in Iowa or New Hampshire. I think, however, as I said, the SE-VA story also shows that they are far more likely to be aware of everything they need to be aware of and "strike a bargain" with Rudy -- clear-headed, cold-eyed, and hard-nosed! They know what they want, and they are perfectly capable of ordering their priorities!

Probably the most "telling" -- perhaps unconsciously so -- part of the Rudy story is this paragraph: "In August, at a fund-raising dinner in Charleston for South Carolina's very conservative Republican Party, Mr. Giuliani spoke about port security. When the party faithful had a chance to pose questions, they did not ask him about abortion or gays - only reporters did that."

At the time of Rudy's appearance in SC in August, a friend of mine, who is a former Republican candidate for state-wide office, and I discussed the reaction to him extensively. That reaction was one of the main things that caused my friend to move from "He can't win" to "He's got a shot". Indeed, a reporter from a Conservative publication (I believe The New York Sun) who covered a Rudy breakfast talk in SC flatly admitted that he (the reporter) was the only one there who wanted to talk about "social issues". South Carolina is a real bell-whether for Conservative Christian Republican sentiment -- "stop-loss" primary and all -- and they are absolutely ripe for a bargain with Rudy. I have discussed this in some of my earlier postings at below. In fact, it was right about the time of Rudy's SC appearance that I began this blog. The folks in SC WANT Rudy, DISDAIN McCain, LOATHE Hillary, and look upon Lindsay Graham as a "nice young man". As one former SC Party Chairman said when discussing McCain's and Graham's initial opposition to the Bush Administration's detainee bill: "We elected Bush-Cheney; we didn't elect McCain-Graham!"

In this same SC vein, an 01 August news release stated as follows: "SC GOP Chair Katon Dawson: 'We are excited and honored to have Mayor Giuliani visit South Carolina. His steady leadership during crises and his record of accomplishment truly make him 'America's Mayor.' He is an exceptional individual and I am proud to call him a fellow Republican.'" Could The NYT, with a straight face, accuse Mr. Dawson of either: (1) not knowing what he needs to know about Rudy, and/or (2) not having his finger on the pulse of South Carolina Republicans? I don't think so!

As for Iowa: The NYT reporter presents his conversation with Chris Rants, the Republican speaker of the Iowa State House of Representatives, as reflecting a lack of knowledge among Iowans about Rudy. As I read the exchange more closely, however, it sounded to me like Mr. Rants was saying: "Don't try to draw me into that. I don't want to talk about that stuff." Read it again yourself, and see what you think. As for NH: As I have already commented upon, the reaction to Rudy there was so positive that the NH Republicans had to schedule a second appearance for him this month when they couldn't accommodate everyone who wanted tickets to the first appearance. When it suits the pleasure of The NYT, they are the first to tout the people in NH as being sophisticated and constantly up on national affairs. Now, in the context of sowing doubts about Rudy's "depth" of support, they imply that New Hampshirites know essentially next-to-nothing about him. Equine excrement (ou ca-ca d'oie)!

Now, consider the two "political observers" from whom The NYT chose to elicit comment: Larry J. Sabotage and Frank Luntz. For my money, Mr. Luntz is the most honest and astute observer today of the national political scene, though this is the first time I have seen him comment on Rudy in some time. As for Mr. Sabotage, whom I have known for 32 years since he published the first issue in his series on "Virginia Votes”, please read my postings below about Mr. Sabotage's recent treatment of George Allen.

Now, as to my assessment of the "depth" of Rudy's support among the "Base", which is "Times-speak" for "it's all name-recognition -- all those religious bumpkins don't know anything about Rudy's liberal positions", please allow me to reproduce here something I wrote initially to my friend the state-wide Republican candidate, on 21 May 2006, when we were only just beginning our discussion of Rudy's chances in Republican primaries:

"Surely, the Apocalypse is at hand! I am transmitting for your consideration the column by Frank Rich in The New York Times, Sunday, 21 May 2006. Normally, I feel motivated to hold up a crucifix even when Rich's name is mentioned, as I find him to be the absolute epitome of the self-deluded, Bush-obsessed, left-wing loony -- in the same league with Maureen Dowd. I am transmitting this column for two reasons, as follows:

"1. It illustrates very well what I have frequently said about The Times: Knowing the liberal bias of most of the Times' reporters/writers, and given the basic professionalism of most those reporters/writers, one is usually able to "read around" the bias and understand what is actually going on.

"2. After performing the "read-around" exercise on Rich's column, one is left with a perfect example of the point I made to you earlier in the week about Rudy Giuliani's potential bid for the Republican Presidential nomination in 2008.

"Of course, I submit the entire column for your perusal, but the important two paragraphs are the following:

'Whatever happens in November, the good news is that the religious right leaders most stroked by Mr. Rove, many of them past 70, may no longer command such large blocs of voters anyway. As Amy Sullivan writes in the latest New Republic, Mr. Rove has reason to worry about "another group of evangelicals: the nearly 40 percent who identify themselves as politically moderate and who are just as likely to get energized about AIDS in Africa or melting ice caps as partial-birth abortion and lesbian couples in Massachusetts." The bad news is that no sooner does the religious-right base show signs of cracking in a youthquake than the Democrats trot out their own doomed Da Vinci strategy.'

* * *

'The one New York politician even more disingenuous in this racket is Rudolph Giuliani. He outdid John McCain's appearance with Jerry Falwell by campaigning last week for Ralph Reed in the lieutenant governor's race in Georgia. Any religious conservative who mistakes "America's mayor," an adamant supporter of abortion rights and gay rights, for a fellow traveler is in desperate need of an intervention, if not an exorcism.'

"Now, despite the self-serving liberal spin that Rich puts on Rudy's appearance with Ralph Reed, the important lessons to be learned from the two paragraphs above are as follows:

"Ralph Reed knows the soi-disant "religious right" as well as anyone, and certainly better than Frank Rich. Rudy would not have been in Georgia campaigning for Ralph unless Ralph wanted him to do so. I read Rudy's message in campaigning for Ralph as evidencing Rudy desire to make the following points:

"1. The most important issues in the 2008 race are going to be National Security and Homeland Security, and I am by far the best candidate in the Republican field on those issues.

"2. If Hillary is the Democrat nominee, I am THE ONLY potential Republican candidate who can put New York "in play" against her. If Hillary is not the nominee, I am THE ONLY potential Republican candidate who WILL WIN New York against any of the other potential Democrat nominees, and the Democrat Party simply cannot with the White House unless they carry New York.

"3. I will not run away from my past positions on gun control, gay marriage, or abortion, but neither will I emphasize them, and I am by far the by the "greenest" candidate in the Republican field. Moreover, I have spoken out, frequently and with great moral outrage, on issues like Aids in Africa and genocide in Darfur.

"4. To Republican politicians in the South: I have campaigned for you, and I have raised money for you, and now you owe me your endorsement.

"5. To religious conservatives: The choice is yours: Do you want to retain the White House with me, or run the very grave risk of turning it over to Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy.

"Finally, I must agree with the message, both explicit and implicit, in Rich's penultimate paragraph: Bill Frist is the most craven figure in American Politics. Moreover, he is so awkward in the way he does it that religious conservatives can see through him as through a plate-glass window. He is already a spent force, though he probably doesn't know it yet. Next to that pigmy, Rudy looks like a real moral giant."

Now, follow up this analysis by reading the first two postings below, from late July. Read also the posting entitled "Polls, Polls, and More Polls. I could rattle on-and-on, but I think you all get the message.

My conclusion: Run Rudy Run!

MARK FOLEY AND LIBERAL PROJECTION

Liberals and the MSM typically assume that "Conservative Christians" and "Evangelical Voters", i.e., the oft-cited "Republican Base", are as consumed-within-themselves and as reductively knee-jerk as are Liberals themselves. I have always found this to be a marvelous example of psychological projection. Whatever. Every once-in-a-while, however, a news story manages to "seep through" the Liberal screen and demonstrate for all the World to see that the perception of the "Base" held by the MSM, its "Fellow Travelers" among polling organizations, and other assorted "Useful Idiots", is -- projection or not -- simply not based in fact.

Please follow this web-link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/09/us/politics/09conservatives.html?hp&ex=1160452800&en=892671df9338ef10&ei=5094&partner=homepage

for such a news story, one that appeared in The NYT this morning, Monday, 09 October 2006, with reporting from Norfolk and Virginia Beach, as well as directly from the campus of Pat Robertson's Regent University. The NYT describes this swatch of "southeastern Virginia" as a "conservative Christian stronghold". In Virginia, we used to think of this part of the Commonwealth, at least Norfolk and Virginia Beach, as decidedly Liberal. Henry Howell, where have you gone? Again, whatever.

The story demonstrates, quelle surprise, that l'affaire de Mark Foley will likely NOT cause Conservative Christians to cast a knee-jerk vote against any candidate with the word "Republican" after his name. Indeed, these interviews suggest that the Foley scandal will cause such voters to feel an even greater urgency to support the Republican candidates they have always trusted. In the immediate vicinity of the story's coverage, and in next month's elections, that urgency will benefit Sen. George Allen and Rep. Thelma Drake, both Republicans running for re-election. As for the longer term, however, I see the same shall-we-say "maturity" and self-awareness reflected in the story as driving the "Bargain" that I have described in this space and elsewhere as a-borning between Rudy and the Republican "Base".

My ultimate conclusion: Run Rudy Run!

THE RUDY PARADOX

Yet again, I have been confronted with the “Conventional Wisdom” that Rudy, whatever, his “national” support for President, simply cannot win the Republican nomination because the Republican “Base”, particularly in the South, simply will not vote for him in Republican primaries because of his soi disant “liberal positions” on the social issues. This “Conventional Wisdom” is simply wrong, because it underestimates both Rudy himself and the Republican “Base”, at the same time. As I have said before, in this space and elsewhere, Rudy has solid support in “Base” states like South Carolina and Georgia, and this support does not drop off significantly either when Rudy’s former and current “liberal positions” become known, or when poll respondents are “push-polled” with respect to these issues. One more-or-less culmination of this polling trend is the recent 30%-18% Rudy lead over McCain among Iowa caucus workers.

The “Conventional Wisdom” underestimates the Republican “Base” in two ways:

First: It has been the “Conventional Wisdom” now for well more than six months, thumped in the MSM and elsewhere, that the Republican “Base” will not support Rudy when his “liberal positions” become known. During this time that “Base” has not remained resolutely ignorant. They have indeed informed themselves of those positions, and Rudy’s current level of support has “factored that in” — sort of the political-polling version of the Wall Street “efficient-market” hypothesis. This “education” on Rudy’s positions has come both from the base itself — see: Jerry Falwell’s Op-Ed column in The NYT last May when he invited McCain to speak at Liberty U. — and from Rudy himself in appearances in GA, AR, VA, SC, et al.

Second: The “Base” has, at least for now, decided to strike a clear-headed, cold-eyed, hard-nosed, BARGAIN with Rudy, for at least three reasons: They want Rudy’s LEADERSHIP! They truly CANNOT STAND John McCain! They WILL NOT stand by and see the White House fall to the Democrats, and particularly not to Hillary! These three reasons, to some greater-or-lesser degree with respect to any individual segment of the “Base”, is leading that “Base” to overlook/accept/tolerate/ put-up-with Rudy’s soi disant “liberal positions” and support him for President.

The “Conventional Wisdom” underestimates Rudy in two ways:

First, and this is absolutely key: the Education feeds the Bargain. Up to now, and even now to some extent, the constant MSM mantra about Rudy’s “liberal positions” has had a “Pit and the Pendulum” effect. Nothing is quite so fearsome as the “unknown evil”. As the “Base” has actually listened to Rudy, however, and educated themselves about his actual positions, on a wide range of issues, they have discovered that those positions are not so offensive as they have been portrayed to be. At a minimum, those positions are not so “bad” as to overcome the absolute need for Rudy’s LEADERSHIP, the DISDAIN for John McCain, and/or the LOATHING of Hillary.

Second: The “Base” and others are discovering what I have come, over 23 years of observing Rudy in public life, to call the “Rudy Paradox”. When Rudy acts as a prosecutor, or leads the charge against terrorists, their fellow travelers, and other enemies of the U.S., he is absolutely the MOST UNREASONABLE of men! That’s the Commander-in-Chief everybody needs! When, however, Rudy sits down at the bargaining table with people of good will, he is absolutely the MOST REASONABLE of men. That’s the President-as-Head-of-Government that everybody wants! Paradox or not, they are both Rudy!

My conclusion: Run Rudy Run!

POLLS, POLLS, AND MORE POLLS

As some of you know, I am "famous" in some circles for holding the firm opinion that "no poll is worth a damn, including this one"! I stand by that opinion with respect to any single poll, whether or not it says what "I want it to". I do hold, however, the equally firm opinion that when a number of different polls, taken on the same subject, taken by reputable polling or news organizations, and taken over an appropriately discrete time frame, say essentially the same thing, they are almost certainly “correct”, and should not be ignored.

By that standard, or indeed by any other, the sheer volume of polls over the past six months, virtually all -- with Michigan as the sole exception -- showing Rudy to be the clear frontrunner for the Republican nomination, clearly establishes in my judgment that, should he actually enter the race, the nomination, and probably also the Presidency itself, would be "his to lose", as the old saying goes!

Moreover, these polls have been taken by something on the order of a dozen different polling organizations, and their sampling pools have been quite literally "all over the map". They have included sampling sizes ranging from a "national" sample, to about two dozen states, including all the major "battleground" states, to a geographic entity as small as Cobb County, Georgia. The "internals" have included virtually all the relevant demographic groups: all eligible voters, registered voters, likely voters, Republicans only, Democrats only, Independents, political professionals, random attendees at various events, such as the Iowa State Fair, Iowa Caucus Workers, et al., et al., et al.!

Perhaps most importantly, these polls, as a group, have not shied away from the "Conventional Wisdom" about Rudy's lack of favour among the Republican socially-conservative and religious "Base". Essentially, they have shown that this soi disant "disfavour" both does not exist to the extent that the "Conventional Wisdom" would have it, and that, in any event, any such disfavour that may exist is by no means fatal to Rudy's primary fortunes in even the most "Conservative" states, such as South Carolina and Georgia.

The most recent WNBC/Marist Poll, published under the headline: “Rudy's Head and Shoulders Above the Field” [Rudy 23%; Rice 20%; McCain 15%], together with recent Strategic Vision Polls that show Rudy with commanding leads in Pennsylvania, Washington, Georgia, and Florida, are very good, albeit not even the best we have seen. They are also, most importantly, thoroughly emblematic of literally dozens of polls over the past six months.

My ultimate conclusion: Run Rudy Run!