Does Pat Robertson's Endorsement Hurt Guiliani's Appeal among Independents?

[CorpGovActivist]

I've already heard from a number of friends who previously said, "If it comes down to Hillary and Rudy, I don't know what I'll do," who expressed dismay at the Robertson nod.

- Dave

P.S. I'd be interested to see if Rasmussen or anyone else polls on this issue this week.

[SteppingRazor]

1. On the contrary, I think it helps Giuliani among evangelicals.

For Giuliani, I think the positives of this endorsement outweigh the negatives.

[CorpGovActivist]

3. For the Primary, Maybe; But for the General?

That's the $64 million question, I think.

- Dave

[SteppingRazor]

10. For the general, more-moderate GOP voters are completely willing to overlook a Robertson endorsement

As far as they're concerned, the endorsement of the religious right is just something that's inevitable to the GOP candidate. There are exceptions, but for the most part, moderate Republicans will just roll their eyes at Robertson's endorsement, think nothing else of it, and continue to talk about tax cuts.

[CorpGovActivist]

12. But, as the OP Asks, What Will Independents Do?

I'm less concerned with the effect on the intramural scrimmage in the GOP nomination, than I am on the effect this will have on unaffiliated independents in the general.

- Dave

[SteppingRazor]

16. Your average indy who leans toward Giuliani...

still thinks of him as "America's Mayor," the one guy who stood up to terrorists while the world crumbled. Given that, for most thinking voters, that hagiography long ago crumbled, I doubt the indies who lean Giuliani are even aware of the Robertson endorsement.

[CorpGovActivist]

19. I'm Not Talking about Guiliani Leaners...

... I'm talking about those for whom a Clinton/Guiliani matchup has - at least until now - left them almost flipping a coin.

The friends I've heard from on this score are not dolts. They're well-informed, don't buy into the "America's Mayor" schtick, and yet, they can't quite bring themselves to write him off as their ultimate choice if the matchup comes down to Clinton/Guiliani.

For some visceral reason, though, the Robertson endorsement seems to have jolted several of them.

- Dave

[SteppingRazor]

21. I don't really know what to say, other than...

if Giuliani/Clinton is a tossup to them, are you sure they're really that well-informed? :shrug:

[CorpGovActivist]

24. Yes, They Can Rattle off...

... a list of things they like and dislike about each, and can pinpoint specific policy areas of (dis)agreement with each, with reasonable and well-structured arguments for how those policies would affect them, those they care about, their communities, and the nation as a whole.

Much to my (pleasant) surprise, the Robertson endorsement struck a nerve with some. It was so noticeable, and such a quick reaction, I'm curious as to whether it could be a "peel-away" from Guiliani's indies nationwide.

- Dave

[Virginia Dare]

5. Does Robertson have the following he once did?

it seems like he jumped the shark long ago.

[CorpGovActivist]

6. High Negatives...

... among progressive independents. That's why I'm wondering if this may have been a short-term tactical gain for the primary, but a long-term strategic blunder by Guiliani.

- Dave

[Virginia Dare]

15. It's a good thought..

I hope you're right, they seem to be nothing more than partners in crime.

Old Patsy is my distant cousin, not something I'm proud of...:blush:

[CorpGovActivist]

17. LOL...

... now there's a DU confession, if ever there were one.

; )

- Dave

[SteppingRazor]

8. Not nearly the following he had in the heady Golden Age of the Christian Coalition, but...

given that, just a few weeks ago, Christian conservatives led by James Dobson and Tony Perkins were threatening to go third party if Rudy got the primary nod, this does wonders for Rudy.

[CorpGovActivist]

37. Given Robertson's High Negatives...

... I think it hurts him in the general, if he's the nom.

- Dave

[Virginia Dare]

2. He's got appeal among Independents?

interesting. One can only hope it hurts him.

I think Hillary could easily beat old Rudy.

[CorpGovActivist]

9. Yeah, Guiliani...

... polls well among many self-described independents, in some worrisome swing states.

- Dave

[Clark2008]

31. I don't, but I like outside the blue bubble.

I can only hope the wrong-wing goes third party, then the Dem will have a chance.

[spanone]

4. how could a pat robertson endorsement help anyone?

[Mz Pip]

11. Even Rudy is probably

thinking "Ewwwww," while he stands there next to Robertson smiling through clenched teeth.

Robertson has shown his true colors though. He is abandoning his moral high ground in favor of winning. If he really was all about his fundy beliefs then he would have endorced Duncan Hunter or Mike Huckabee. McCain must feel like he's been stabbed in the back after all the pandering he did to that group.

Hypocricy rules.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[CorpGovActivist]

13. McCain Said He Was "Speechless"

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tab=wn&q=mccain+speechless

- Dave

[blondeatlast]

7. If he even has independent support (I doubt there's much, especially this early)

it will hurt him. He's wise to get PR's support early as it SHOULD be ignored later.

SHOULD--but I think we in the progressive blogosphere can do something about that...

[CorpGovActivist]

23. He Has Tremendous Early Support among Indies...

"And as a general-election candidate? Let's not kid ourselves: Giuliani would be formidable. McCain has spent the past year trying, in increasingly desperate fashion, to hold on to his appeal among independent voters while assuaging the right. He has flopped. But there is evidence that Giuliani could pull this off.

We know from many a poll that he's won conservatives over in the early stages. As to independents, a March 7 survey by the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute shows the potential of his appeal. The survey matched the presidential heavyweights against one another in various permutations in the three crucial states of Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. In other words, nine possible matchups pitted Giuliani against the three leading Democrats -- Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards -- in all three states. Among independents, Giuliani won all nine of those matchups, seven of them by double digits. By contrast, McCain led in just six of those matchups, all by feeble single digits, and Romney trailed in all nine, many by 20 points or more. Yes, it's just a snapshot, but as snapshots go, it's an ominous one."

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=12632

Granted, that's from this spring (a political lifetime ago), but more recent articles/radio segments bear out his sustained appeal among self-described independents: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15912602

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/2008_republican_presidential_primary

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=independent+voters+giuliani&spell=1

- Dave

[blondeatlast]

25. IF that's truly the case, the blogosphere needs to play up the Robertson endorsement.

It will hurt Captain 9/11 big time among most indies.

[CorpGovActivist]

26. Even If It Hurts Him Among *Some*...

... that could make a real difference in some key swing states: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unaffiliated_voter

- Dave

[JVS]

14. Nah. This helps him among evangelicals (bad news for Romney), but most independent voters...

a) don't really care about what Robertson wants
b) If they do care about what Robertson says, would understand that this endorsement is more of a message to Robertson's crowd that they should tolerated Giuliani rather than a message that Pat thinks Giuliani's views are awesome.

[ljm2002]

18. I don't know...

...but I do know that, should Mr. G receive the nomination, the Democratic nominee would have to be crazy not to make hay about it.

After all, if "America's Mayor", the man who only has one sentence to sing (noun, verb, 9/11), is willing to accept an endorsement from a man who BLAMED AMERICA FIRST for the attacks, then what does that say about Mr. G's "integrity"???

They really need to do this. In fact someone ought to be doing it right now. Take that "blame America first" crap and shove it right up their collective ass.

[CorpGovActivist]

20. Pin Guiliani Down on Whether He Agrees with Robertson and Phelps...

... that gays and feminists caused 9/11.

- Dave

[catmandu57]

22. I feel that independent voters are fed up with robberson

and the whole kristian right movement. This is something to hit very hard with in a general election, no, it doesn't help him at all past the primary.

[CorpGovActivist]

34. Hope You're Right n/t

[Stop Cornyn]

27. All the endorsement proves is that neither abortion nor gay rights matter as much to fundamentalists

as tax cuts.

It says more about Pat Robertson than it says about Giuliani, and it moves perhaps a dozen votes from Huckabee to Giuliani.

It will not affect the race in Iowa which Romney will still win and Huckabee will still finish a strong 2nd place (which will be the big news story).

[CorpGovActivist]

28. Forget the Primaries...

... do you think it affects indy votes in the general (i.e., turns them off to Guiliani, if he's the nominee)?

- Dave

[Stop Cornyn]

30. Not at all. It is too remote in time from the general election to make even a tiny difference.

[CorpGovActivist]

33. Iowa Electronics Market...

... has a remarkable track record, even moreso the further out from the election you get: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=iowa+electronics+elections

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=iowa+electronics+elections+clinton+giuliani&spell=1

- Dave

[mtnester]

29. Based on what we all watched happen to the incumbent governor of Kentucky last night?

Oh hell yes.

[CorpGovActivist]

32. Good Point n/t

[Blackhatjack]

35. Independents/Undecideds and Unaffiliated Voters Are Acting Different This Election Cycle...

In the past the standard operation procedure for the Democratic Nominee was to 'move to the center' to try and attract this group and form a majority coalition that could get them elected. This meant adopting positions closer to the Republican position on certain issues.

This election cycle the Independents/Undecideds and Unaffiliated voters are being polled on favorable/unfavorable numbers regarding the different candidates, and from those polls it is emerging that this group is responding to the John Edwards Progressive/Populist message. This is quite telling in that those polled are indicating extreme dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq and the corruption within the Bush Administration and Republican Party.

When it comes to the Right Wing Conservative Fundamentalists which have been holding power within the Bush Administration, I cannot see how the Independents/Undecideds and Unaffiliated Voters would view an endorsement of Rudy Giuliani as a positive thing. However, I do not think by itself it will make that much difference. I think their anger over the dismantling of the constitution and the rule of law, added to an unnecessary war in Iraq they want ended, will be the deciding factors.

[CorpGovActivist]

36. BHJ: I Have the Same Strong Misgivings...

... about Edwards as I do Obama: experience does matter.

That isn't to say that I wouldn't support either if he were the nominee. At least Edwards finished a full Senate term, but I can't help but raise my eyebrow at how he actively campaigned for the Veep spot in 04. If he'd been Mayor of Charlotte or Raleigh, even, I'd probably have a more favorable view.

Don't get me wrong; I like his message, and some of his "two Americas" remedies resonate.

But did he even chair a single subcommittee? I'm honestly asking.

- Dave

[Blackhatjack]

38. I can tell you what I know about Edwards personally....

John Edwards and I practice law in the same city for approximately 20 years. During that time, Edwards was heads and shoulders above other plaintiffs' attorneys in his skills, perserverance, abilities, and his honesty.

He was tireless in his pursuit of a fair settlement on behalf of his clients, and that upset a lot of insurance companies. He went up against the best financed defense firms in the state, and refused inadequate offers in settlement and did the unthinkable --went to trial to get his clients fair compensation.

Early on the most seasoned defense attorneys immediately recognized the threat he posed. Trials are public, and negotiated settlements are almost always subject to confidentiality clauses. Edwards began winning, and the public read about it. Insurance companies got the message and began settling his cases rather than letting them go to trial.

When Edwards would address the jury, it would be standing room only in the courtroom. He would speak without notes for hours on end, never missing a detail.

Over time insurance defense attorneys gained a high measure of respect for him. He never stretched the facts. He never lied. He was rock solid on what needed to be done, and he would not go away. He outworked them all.

When Edwards' son Wade died, Edwards had already been considering a possible entry into politics as his son had suggested. Edwards pursued that interest after Wade died by taking on a Republican Incumbent Senator with huge backing from the Jesse Helms machine and the Republican Party. None of the established Democrats would agree to oppose him. Edwards jumped in as a neophyte, learned everything he could, was relentless in his campaigning, and got the State Democratic Party to give him some support. Long story short, he won in a huge upset...

When Edwards went to D.C. as a senator, he arrived just in time for the Clinton impeachment and removal trial in the Senate. Clinton chose Edwards to head up his defense in the removal trial in the Senate, and as you know he got rave reviews and Clinton was not removed.

Edwards was immediately recognized as a rising star, but he chose to 'work with other Senators' to learn all he could AND to provide imput where he thought he could make the most impact. He worked with Ted Kennedy on Education, he was a sponsor of the Patients Bill of Rights, he studied the financial bills and offered numerous amendments to make bad bills better which were destined to pass anyway. This provided him more freedom to interact and learn from others than if he had been a Committee Chair.

Edwards is a very quick study of any topic he chooses to pursue. He also has been in a position of having to make decisions all his professional life that have very real consequences for those he represented. Because he had to earn everything himself from his own efforts, he does not forget what it was like to be on the bottom of the economic scale --and all the problems that affect people there.

Edwards greatest strength and weakness is that he presents to the American people that he is not a D.C. insider, is not beholding to special interests and corporate/business campaign contributors, but he also does not have a long resume of government service other than his Senate tenure.

Of all the people I have known, Edwards is one of the smartest people -- if not the smartest person, I have ever run into.

You can bet if there were any character flaws and wrongdoing in his past, it would have come out in the opposition research that was done in the 2004 campaign. They went over every thing with a fine tooth comb and essentially came up with nothing. Because of that, the only alternative left to the opposition is to try and frame Edwards on character issues(ie. Haircuts, his home, etc).

We would be very lucky to have Edwards as President. You could trust him to tell you the truth, and to make the best informed decision for all Americans, not just those with the big money trying to influence him.

That is what I know personally. IMHO he reminds me most of John and Robert Kennedy, and there will be a fresh breeze through the White House if he is elected. For that reason, he most likely is the candidate most feared by those currently controlling the levers of power in this country.

Hope this helps.

[CorpGovActivist]

39. As You Know (I Hope)...

... I respect your opinion and insights a great deal.

All of the things you mention are "knowns" to me (I've spent a LOT of time poking around his website). I can even live with his stance on gay rights issues (his answers rang very genuinely when he appeared at the LOGO/HRC forum). I believe he "gets" the inequality issues there (e.g., healthcare, separate-but-equal, etc.): http://visiblevote08.logoonline.com/2007/08/09/video-john-edwards-rewind/

What I still don't know - and haven't heard him explain adequately - is what motivated him to leave the Senate after only a single term. You compared him to JFK and RFK.

Well, JFK spent four years in the House, and a full term in the Senate. He served in the military. He had a first-row seat while Joe was Ambassador to the UK.

RFK's string of public service was also longer than Edwards'.

I know (personally) the moxie and continuous homework necessary to make the large corporate defense firms break a sweat, so I don't discount in the least what it must have entailed to force the insurance companies' defense attorneys to sit up and take notice.

Nor do I discount that it requires a sharp intellect and "quick study" mindset to master the details necessary to win complex litigation, and to have immediate recall of the necessary nuances to dispute defense lawyers' muddy-the-water tactics.

Your personal respect for him comes through loud and clear. I respect him, too.

But there's something I just don't "get" about his break in service, or his active lobbying for the Veep spot. Like I said, if he ends up being the nominee, I'll support him, albeit reluctantly.

I guess I'm dissatisfied with the field of players the Dems have put forward. Maybe if Edwards addressed why he left the Senate with a simple, truthful answer, I'd give him a little more leeway on the experience issue.

- Dave

[Blackhatjack]

44. Here are a few things to consider...

Edwards cannnot change the amount of public service in the his past. That is a legitimate difference between him and other Dem Candidates. However, it is not a disqualifying element.

When Edwards left private practice he walked away from millions of dollars he could easily bank, given his reputation and the ability to pick and choose cases he wanted to take. Yet Edwards was not satisfied to measure his success in terms of only cash and possessions.

Not many people know it, but Edwards was on the short list as Gore's VP. Edwards made the final cut, and Gore followed very bad consulting advice and chose Leiberman. Edwards would have been a dynamic VP running with Gore, but at that time he had not undergone the extensive opposition research and his short time in service in the Senate, not his performance there, was used against him.

If there is a candidate running who will treat gays with respect and insist that they receive equal rights with everyone else it is Edwards. I think sometimes he is too honest in revealing the process that leads up to his decisionmaking. He and Elizabeth are the same on this issue for all practicable purposes, but they use different words to describe their positions. Gays would be very happy if Edwards were their President.

When Edwards ran in 2004 he was the last DEM candidate to concede to Kerry. Another fact that has not gotten a lot of play is that internal polling WOULD HAVE SHOWN that if Edwards had remained in the race another week Edwards would have risen in polls against Kerry and it would have been a horse race. He conceded before he got those results. The Kerry strategist knew that Edwards was rising, and it helped him get the VP spot with Kerry's campaign.

It was not true that Edwards decided not to run for reelection to the Senate because he thought he would lose. Edwards did talk about the difficulty to campaign and hold the Senate position at the tsame time. I think he decided the people deserved someone who could give more time to the position, and most people thought the Democrat running in his place would win --but he did not.

I don't think there is any explanation except that Edwards believes he can make this country better for all Americans. That is why I compared Edwards to JFK or RFK. They had money and did not have to run for public office either. They all had ambition. They believed they could be successful. I think that is where Edwards arrived in his decision to run for President.

I have no doubt that John & Elizabeth will continue to promote anti-poverty programs in this country. They have spent a lot of their own money not just to identify solutions, but to finance prototypes to prove they work. If Edwards does not get elected President, I think he will be satisfied to pursue that goal.

A lot of Repub opposition researchers have indicated Edwards is too good to be true. However, I think he is exactly as he appears on the stump. And nothing has come out to change my evaluation.

BHJ

[CorpGovActivist]

45. Thanks for Taking the Time...

... to lay out your insights so thoughtfully (as always). He's grabbed my attention recently (I invested a lot of time poking around his website these past few weeks following the LOGO/HRC debate).

I admire him, I admire Mrs. Edwards (maybe even more than him), and I would vote for him if he were the nominee.

My only strong misgiving remains: what made him wake up at the end of only one term in the Senate, look himself in the mirror, and say, "Nobody else is more qualified than me to run the Executive Branch of this country."?

For what it's worth, I've got a lot of extended family in some key swing states (you know my refrain, "border states/Upper Appalachia") who like Edwards a lot. They're often pretty good proxies for emerging trends (e.g., I had the Kentucky gubernatorial race nailed a while back, based largely on feeling them out).

Iowa is pretty much it for him, though, I think. If there is a sudden pandemic of cold feet in Iowa regarding Hillary's electability, he may be the passive recipient of the "sane, straight, married white man" alternative vote there (the anti-Dean, anti-Hillary, anti-Obama fear factors rolled into one). That'll be enough to make him competitive in NH. Failing that, though, I don't think he's gonna be on the ticket.

One final question: what state(s) that Kerry/Edwards didn't carry in 04 do you see flipping with Edwards/??? in 08?

- Dave

[Blackhatjack]

46. Start with North Carolina, Edwards home state ... Kerry decided not to spend any $ here ....

IT was like Edwards did not exist in his home state if you watched TV. It was a bad call for Kerry strategists to write off NC, and they did over Edwards' objection.

Even just a little money spent here and Kerry would have won NC. It was remarkably close given the non-existant campaigning here.

I am not sure about how the states broke, but this time Edwards would flip Virginia... and believe it or not, SOUTH CAROLINA. Take Obama off the ballot and Edwards does very well in S.C. where he was born.

Really given the dynamics of this election, unless there is a terrorist attack at home or a new war in Iran to fight, I think Edwards could flip most any state except Utah and Texas. However, that is just an educated guess.

[CorpGovActivist]

47. Carolinas, Virginias, Ohio, and Kentucky...

... flipped, would deliver a decisive Electoral College victory, assuming all other blues remain blue (the nominee - whoever s/he is - is gonna have to speak to coal-fired plant construction, though, and thread that needle, to carry all those):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US_presidential_election_2004_map.svg

- Dave

[Blackhatjack]

48. Edwards is very strong environmentally, but results oriented...

That is indeed a difficult issue. The problem has become significant for NC, and we are presently suing the TVA over coal-fired polluted air that is drifting into NC.

I am just guessing, but Edwards would probably back a plan to help those companies install cleaning filters. The problem is the companies have had their hearts set on maintaining Bush's 'Clear Skies Act' which allows them to forgo the installations completely.

If the companies realize that soon they will have to install the cleaning filters on their own, then they will look favorably on an Edwards proposal to help pick up part of the costs. ANd this will help keep the plants open and save jobs where they are located.

[CorpGovActivist]

49. Smart Answer...

... that could avoid this painful deja vu:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22coal+miners%27+doubters%22+gore

- Dave

P.S. In 2000, WV's theretofore reliably blue Electoral Votes flopped red over this issue. With coal in an oil-driven boom right now, coal-producing states are going to vote their pocketbooks.

[Blackhatjack]

50. Edwards will always be on the side of the workers and saving jobs...

IF there is a way to keep jobs in the US and avoid layoffs and outsourcing Edwards will find it.

The really ironic thing about environmental issues is that by implementing cleaner technologies, we will be CREATING new jobs.

Same is true by cultivating renewable energy initiatives. WE can create lots of new jobs and businesses by beginning to address the global warming issues now, not later. As we come up with workable projects, we can export them to other countries.

[BlackVelvet04]

40. Robertson threw his support

to Guiliani because he knows that the republican party has lost many of their core supporters. They have to appeal to moderates and even liberals.

Family values be damned now because it's all about winning at any cost.

[CorpGovActivist]

41. Making G the "Throw the First Stone" Candidate...

... so to speak, for the right wing?

; )

- Dave

[BlackVelvet04]

42. I really can't imagine any real rightwing

fundamentalists supporting Guiliani, but then again they hate Hillary Clinton with a passion so it should be interesting.

What I'm hoping is that Robertson is finally at the end of the proverbial rope and we are seeing the rightwing stranglehold in this country drawing it's last breath.

[CorpGovActivist]

43. Amen! n/t