Not good enough for bloggers to spell the poor man's name correctly. Unless Dan is referring here to Morty Guliani, who owns a muffler shop in Queens. Morty will never be popular with the GOP base until they need a muffler.

Do any readers believe that Guliani's popularity with the GOP base is anything other than an ephemeral phenomenon?

God, I hope so.

The chief reason that pundits dismiss Giuliani's chances is their assumption that conservatives know about Giuliani solely because of 9/11 and don't know about his positions on gay rights, abortion, gun control, etc. Now it seems to me that in principle it should be possible to test this empirically. The same polls that ask people who tney prefer could add "How do you think your chosen candidate stands on {abortion, gun control, whatever)?" If such polls show that Republicans know about Giuliani's stands on such issues and *still* back him, then I think he has to be taken very seriously.

The chief reason that pundits dismiss Giuliani's chances is their assumption that conservatives know about Giuliani solely because of 9/11 and don't know about his positions on gay rights, abortion, gun control, etc. Now it seems to me that in principle it should be possible to test this empirically. The same polls that ask people who tney prefer could add "How do you think your chosen candidate stands on {abortion, gun control, whatever)?" If such polls show that Republicans (including conservatives) know about Giuliani's stands on such issues and *still* back him, then I think he has to be taken very seriously.

"The chief reason that pundits dismiss Giuliani's chances is their assumption that conservatives know about Giuliani solely because of 9/11 and don't know about his positions on gay rights, abortion, gun control, etc."

I hate to underestimate the intelligence of the average voter, but that wouldn't shock me. While it is probably assumed that a New York Republican would be more liberal than most other types, it's very possible that those in other parts of the country, far outside the Northeast, don't know about his very liberal social positions. After all, if I had to guess, I'd say no more than half of the articles describing his presidential chances give more than a moment's mention to his positions.

And on that note, how much of this is a result of his 9/11 halo? In the eyes of the public, he's probably not a politician. But once he jumps into the race, the novelty will (finally) wear off, and he will be seen for what he is.

I could actually envision a scenario where a slightly moderate Republican might capture the nomination--say, one who is pro-choice but not a supporter of late term abortions. But Guiliani isn't one or the other. He's all of these things, so I really have a hard time seeing how he'll get past it all.

In fact, should he get the nomination, I could see a scenario where a moderate Democrat picks up some of the support from the more conservative elements of the electorate and where the strongly conservative base either supports another candidate or stays home, thereby leading to a nice Electoral College sweep for the Democrats.

Well, speaking as a social conservative who likes the guy a lot and massively distrusts McCain, you're right that much of the electorate doesn't know how liberal Giuliani is on some of these issues. However, they have an enormous amount of respect for him due to 9/11, his 2004 convention speech, and his campaigning for Republican candidates in '04 and '06, enough to get them to give him a listen. And when they sit down and listen, and he describes his approach to leadership and how he governed NYC conservatively, they come away impressed. Hewitt and others think, too, that Giuliani could dispose of a lot of this by promising to appoint strict constructionist judges.

I'm baffled by the anecdotal evidence supporting Giuliani and I don't think it will last long. The social liberal/economic conservative politician is the least electable kind outside of NYC. I just don't see the party nominating a pro-choice candidate no matter how strong his national security credentials (and how strong are they, really?).

And then there's this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IrE6FMpai8&eurl=
as Atrios pointed out awhile ago.

People always say they'll vote for a drag queen, but when they actually get to the voting booth, it's a different story ...

Giuliani is terrible on immigration. I believe New York is and was a 'sanctuary city' -- meaning it decided to ignore US law -- on his watch. He will lose support among Republican voters, and among the white working class that the Republicans need to get back, once his position on this critical issue is widely known.

PS The black and even long-standing Latino working class ain't crazy about open borders either.

I could actually envision a scenario where a slightly moderate Republican might capture the nomination--say, one who is pro-choice but not a supporter of late term abortions. But Guiliani isn't one or the other. He's all of these things, so I really have a hard time seeing how he'll get past it all.

How much of this is what the man believes, and how much is taking positions necessary to win in NYC?

Yeah, I realize the man would be considered a Democrat in most areas outside of New England. OTOH, he's proven to be a competent administrator- the guy cleaned up NYC, a feat many considered impossible- and is also proven to be a good man to have at the helm when the brown stuff hits the rotating blades. That counts for a lot- at the very least, Republicans will hear the man out.

Given the way the field has narrowed in the GOP, I think Guiliani's chances have improved from dismal to merely unlikely.

It is not just his position on social issues that could hold him back. The guy was mayor of a big city with major corruption issues. While he deserves great credit for cleaning the place up, I have to think he is not as pure as the driven snow. He must have looked the other way from time to time in the name of political expediency. I don't blame him - it is the only way he could have survived. However, I am sure once the McCain campaign starts digging, they are gonna find all kinds of ugly little secrets with the unions, the police, school board, etc. It is the nature of local politics in big cities.

That said, it is kinda fun to think of what some voters would do if they had to choose between an italian divorcee from NY and a black guy whose middle name is Hussein. Not a WASP in sight.
Could 2008 be the year of the post-modern presidential campaign?

"However, they have an enormous amount of respect for him due to 9/11..."

Some of my conservative friends who I argue with--who will continue to argue with me even after I call them on the weaknesses of their arguments, which causes them to change things midcourse--will readily admit that Guiliani did little more than act like Oprah after 9/11. There's something to be said for that, of course, but that doesn't indicate any particular value when it comes to dealing with matters of national security. So really, why won't the rest of the country realize this when he's put under the microscope?

"And when they sit down and listen, and he describes his approach to leadership and how he governed NYC conservatively, they come away impressed."

I need to do more research on his tenure as mayor, but how did he govern the city conservatively?

"Hewitt and others think, too, that Giuliani could dispose of a lot of this by promising to appoint strict constructionist judges."

And this means what? That he has to lie or abandon his principles in order to be elected?

"How much of this is what the man believes, and how much is taking positions necessary to win in NYC?"

My guess is, they are genuine positions. In fact, if I am remembering what I read of LEADERSHIP correctly, he describes why he supports his socially liberal positions.

" the guy cleaned up NYC, a feat many considered impossible- and is also proven to be a good man to have at the helm when the brown stuff hits the rotating blades. That counts for a lot- at the very least, Republicans will hear the man out."

His record, besides that which is due to factors outside of his control like the general improving economy, will earn him points, but that will only go so far. And while he may throw in the typical lines about reforming welfare and taxes and what not, he's still going to have to either turn away from his socially liberal positions or explain why people should support them.

Perhaps primary voters, given their relatively partisan and motivated backgrounds, are not as dumb as are often assumed. Republicans just lost both houses of Congress. They are probably willing to vote for Guiliani, so long as he can make peace with the religious conservatives and let them know he won't try to change matters toward his views. Guiliani has earned the trust of most of America on national security and competence issues, and that probably goes double for religious Republicans.

Besides, no one should underestimate the all-important "Stop Hillary" issue. Almost every Republican will consider electability the primary concern if Hillary is the clear Democratic leader.

Since nobody seems to have any real data, my anecdotal evidence is as good as anyone's, I guess.

At my wife's overwhelmingly Republican office Christmas party in our overwhelmingly lower midwestern Republican area, I spent a lot of time with the office husbands, drinking generously-spiked eggnog and talking college basketball and 2008 presidential politics.

There was a lot, a lot of support for Romney, less so for Rudy, and very little for McCain. A good number of the Republican men I spoke with knew of and were not impressed by Rudy's social positions, but they definitely liked what they knew of Romney. YMMV.

Then there's the question of whether Rudy's libertarian support will melt when people remember how he once served as the definition of "overzealous prosecutor," dragging guys out of Kidder Peabody in handcuffs, only to have them acquitted at trial. Part of his appeal to the base is, I assume, his tough-guy, authority-figure stance, but it has a seriously scary side.

I'm not sure how Giuliani will do, but I am sure that a lot of the predictions of his demise from the left are more to do with the Middle America of their imaginations than real life.

I think he'd be the most competitive GOP candidate, so there's a lot of wishful thinking there, much like the righty commentators waiting for Obama's knockdown.

"Besides, no one should underestimate the all-important "Stop Hillary" issue. Almost every Republican will consider electability the primary concern if Hillary is the clear Democratic leader."

Whoever said this hit the nail on the head. I like Rudy, he'd make a fine president, and he might even win -- if we voted by national majority-rule. But in our current system, he can't even beat Hillary in his own state. Well technically he declined the contest in 2000 due to health problems, but if he had stayed in the race, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

"Besides, no one should underestimate the all-important "Stop Hillary" issue. Almost every Republican will consider electability the primary concern if Hillary is the clear Democratic leader."

Whoever said this hit the nail on the head. I like Rudy, he'd make a fine president, and he might even win -- if we voted by national majority-rule. But in our current system, he can't even beat Hillary in his own state. Well technically he declined the contest in 2000 due to health problems, but if he had stayed in the race, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

"They are probably willing to vote for Guiliani, so long as he can make peace with the religious conservatives and let them know he won't try to change matters toward his views."

So he has to abandon the positions that make him different from much of the Republican candidates and thus more appealing to the more moderate voters? Unless he can gather every single potential conservative voter in a room, keep out all Democrats and media, and ensure that nobody will leak, he's going to have a huge conflict there.

"Guiliani has earned the trust of most of America on national security and competence issues, and that probably goes double for religious Republicans."

Unless he's more than meets the eye, his shallowness on national security will be revealed. He will thus lose another reason behind his alleged appeal.

Dan its disappointing that you take anything Ryan Sager says seriously. I happen to be a Giuliani supporter. However, Sager who claims to be a libertarian keeps bashing the President over issues like campaign finance reform, which the President signed into law reluctantly, while Giuliani was an avid supporter. What Sager really wants is not a libertarian but a socially moderate to liberal candidate and Giuliani fits the bill.

BTW, I agree with other posters that Giuliani mainly polls well because of name recognition and many "supporters" don't know his true stances on the issues.

That said, I think Giuliani is socially conservative enough to win the nomination. His national security issues credentials will triumph over his more liberal social positions. Judges are mainly what will matter to
religious voters as they can't get a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage or abortion. He was very supporter of Alito and Roberts and he is personally religious (he almost became a priest).

That said, I don't Rudy can win or will run because of his personal baggage (married to his cousin, twice divorced, father allegedly a mob enforcer, Kerik, his deal with the New York liberal party boss, a whole slew of political enemies, etc).

But at this point, Republicans have a very weak group of candidates. Romney until the 1990's wasn't even a Republican, then he was a William Weld style Republican and now he is claiming to be an arch Conservative. Meanwhile, he wasn't that popular a governor. The old Romney I might have voted for the new Romney, probably not.

The other frontrunner is McCain, who looks to be in poor health and is considerably less popular when he is not criticizing fellow Republicans. While I respect McCain for his heroic service during the Vietnam War, I don't altogether trust him. I think he acted like a sore-loser in 2000 and other than foreign policy it is hard to know what he really stands for.

Right now I am fairly sanguine on Republican chances in 08. Maybe Rudy, baggage and all, is our best shot.

George, Rudy would smoke Hillary in just about every state and possibly including New York. If anything, very-liberal New York would be the anomaly-- if a consensus candidate with executive experience and a heroic aura (from 9/11) such as Rudy runs against Hillary, she's toast. If anything, I'd figure that New York might be one of only about 5 states where she'd be competitive, everywhere else she's toast.

If the Democrats want to win in 2008, the answer is probably either Barack Obama or John Edwards. Maybe Wesley Clark or Bill Richardson could pull off something.

"George, Rudy would smoke Hillary in just about every state and possibly including New York."

Not necessarily. At worst, they'd be equals in regards to social policies. At best (at least as far as voting is concerned), she'd be the moderate or more conservative candidate. When you factor in her fiscal stances, she'd have the edge. In other words, the average voter in Ohio, seeing that she may be more in line socially with him and definitely in line with him fiscally, would voter for her over Rudy. Besides that, his 9/11 halo will wear off if he runs. There's no way it won't.

In the end, of course, she could lose, but I doubt it would be a wipeout like every other person is predicting.