Do Republicans really like Giuliani on ‘social issues’?

October 3, 2007

Given all the attention on the latest Washington Post poll on the state of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, it’s only fair to note that the WaPo polled on the race for the Republican nomination, too.

There hasn’t been too much fluctuation in the race of late. Rudy Giuliani still leads the field with 34% support, followed by Fred Thompson with 17%, John McCain at with 12%, and Mitt Romney close behind with 11%. No other candidate reached double digits, though Mike Huckabee wasn’t too far off with 8%.

Thompson had been gaining steadily since rumors about a possible campaign started circulating in the spring — the actor/lobbyist/politician early doubled his support from April to early September — but then he officially threw his hat into the ring, proved to be an inept candidate, and his poll numbers plateaued.

Giuliani’s poll numbers are about where most would expect them to be at this point, with most rank-and-file Republicans considering him the most “electable” in the GOP field. Then, however, the WaPo noted this:

More curious was that Giuliani led on whom Republicans trust to handle social issues. Despite his support for abortion rights and gay rights, 41 percent of those surveyed cited Giuliani as the one they trust, with Thompson a distant second at 18 percent. There was no clear explanation for that finding, given a previous Post-ABC News poll that showed concern among many Republicans about Giuliani’s positions on those issues. But the poll did not specify which “social issues” respondents should consider.

I suspect most Republicans are pretty well aware of what the phrase “social issues” means, but I’d argue that most Republicans aren’t at all aware of what Giuliani’s positions are on these issues.

This comes up from time to time, but a surprising amount of political observers in the media assume that Giuliani’s positions on the hot-button, culture-war issues are well known throughout the party. They’re not.

As recently as last month, a poll from the Pew Research Center asked respondents to name the only pro-choice Republican candidate. Only 41% were able to identify Giuliani.

This was similar to results of a Pew Research poll from June, when fewer than half of Republicans realized that Giuliani is pro-choice.

I haven’t seen any data on the subject, but I’d guess that an even higher percentage of the GOP probably doesn’t know that Giuliani supported gay rights and has a record as a thrice-married adulterer, either.

Maybe Republicans care about this, maybe not. But when a plurality of Republicans nationwide point to Giuliani as the candidate they trust most to handle social issues, it’s not because they agree with him, and it’s not because they don’t understand the question; it’s because they have no idea what Giuliani has been saying about these issues for years.

When voters start hearing more about this from Giuliani’s GOP rivals, then the polls will carry more weight.

I’d say “social issues” might also mean “kicking homeless (IOW brown) people out of the downtown area”.

fewer than half of Republicans realized that Giuliani is pro-choice.

Since 40% of Republicans believe that Saddam was personally involved in planning the 9/11 attacks*, I’m not too surprised that a lot of them are stupid enough to not know Rudy is (or was) pro-choice.

And since most Republicans still think the Iraq war was a good idea, I’d say fewer than half of all Republicans do much thinking beyond the level of “Democrats bad”.

*
three in four Republicans say going to war was the right thing to do, while three in four Democrats say it was not. Nearly half of those who now say the Iraq war was the right thing to do connect 9/11 with Saddam.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/12/opinion/pollpositions/main3253552.shtml

  • I think “social issues” is now code for “kick muslim butt.” It’s the only thing the bedwetter base is seriously concerned about.

  • I don’t think it’s the social conservatives voting for Rudy you have to worry about – because by themselves they can’t elect anyone. What you have to worry about are those who think they can have the best of both worlds – socially moderate/fiscally conservative. With them voting for Rudy, it’s a bit dicier.

    I think the best approach os to make him as unacceptable to as many people as possible.

    Rudy avoiding the religious conservatives could be seen by the moderates as proof of his independence, and refusal to pander or be beholden to that crowd – that could be framed as a good thing, which would earn him some votes.

  • Now apply these lessons learned to observations about HRC’s lead and we will understand why poll numbers are at this point, indeed, meaningless.

  • Rudy avoiding the religious conservatives could be seen by the moderates as proof of his independence, and refusal to pander or be beholden to that crowd – that could be framed as a good thing, which would earn him some votes.

    McCain tried that strategy in 2000 and it failed him miserably.

    Of course, Rudy doesn’t have a GWB to worry about, so giving the finger to the religious conservative portion of the base might not be so detrimental to his efforts – they’ve got few alternatives to rally behind to oppose him. On the other hand, the Republican party has been shrinking, so those religious conservatives might make up a much larger portion of the vote now than they did even in 2000.

    Of course, this is all predicated on the idea that ‘social issues’ means something more than ‘putting non-white people and wimmin in their place’. If that’s all the base means by “social issues” then Rudy may very well be their dream candidate.

  • Emperor Rudy is a shoo-in on many issues. He can’t win the religious wingnut vote, and I doubt he’ll try. They will go off and field their own candidate and that’s the best thing the Rethugs could hope for. He’ll draw from the racist and bigot crowd who aren’t all religious wingnuts, and there are lots of them (who are also serial adulterers).

    As mayor of NYC he went out of his way to alienate people of color, and was quite successful at it. Black and Hispanics didn’t support him so therefore he didn’t represent them. He set the black-shirted police department on them unmercifully. In fact he changed the police uniform in NYC to black specifically because it made the force look more menacing. That’s his thinking. I doubt many Rethugs are aware of this sad history of race relations, but that would only raise his image in their eyes anyway.

    Rudy is a menace. As president he will finish what Junior and Dart have started: creating a dictatorship.

  • Giussolini appeals to them because he’s a mean-spirited, hate-addled prick. He revels in pushing around the less fortunate and coming up with absurd rationalizations as to why they’re themselves to blame for their sorry plight.

    I imagine his sadism is on some level viscerally appealing to the Dobsonites, even if their Christatollah isn’t so much of a fan.

  • On October 3rd, 2007 at 8:59 pm, dajafi said:

    Giussolini appeals to them because he’s a mean-spirited, hate-addled prick.

    I enjoy your postings, dajafi; I really do. But, at the end of a very long day, I cant help but muse about pots and kettles. “Hate-addled”?

  • Senator Fred Thompson is the only major candidate that gets it. He makes decisions based on principles. Principles don’t change. You have to stand for something and not change who you are based on the polls. That is what Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani have done and all of the Democrats do it. Give me a leader that will stand by his principles anyday versus someone that stands for everything.

    I know many, many Republicans that will stay home if Rudy Giuliani is the candidate. He does not represent our values as Conservatives, and never will. Mitt Romney is a RINO (though a very nice man) that simply has everything else and nothing to do. “I guess I’ll just try to buy the presidency”. Conservatives will simply stay home and the Democrats will pick up additional seats in the House and probably get the 60 seats in the Senate they need to completely destroy our Country. Nice picture huh?

    However, I think Fred can bring America back together, if that’s even possible. America needs a rebirth of patriotism and honor. Republicans also need a rebirth. President Reagan was our last rebirth and he can never be duplicated. Fred Thompson will bring his own down-to-earth common sense to this Country and strength back to our party. A little of the good old days of faith and family would do well for this Country. If a Conservative runs as a Conservative, he will win!

    Think of it this way: Eight years of another Clinton White House? Now if that is not a sufficient enough reason to pull together as a party, as a Country, and fight this socialist liberal takeover of our government, what is? It is not impossible to take back the House and the Senate. We are winning in Iraq—they know it. The best they can do now is stop our progress and choose defeat, just like they did during Vietnam. We lost because Congress chose defeat. History repeats itself when not learned from.

    Folks, we are in for the fight of our lives, just as our young men and women are fighting for our freedoms in Iraq and Afghanistan, we must fight for our Country right here and now! I truly believe Fred Thompson is the one man who can pull this party and nation back together! Rudy Giuliani will just tear us apart as a party. Liberal is liberal every day of the week.

    Really tick off the leftist democrats and contribute to Fred Thompson: https://www.fred08.com/contribute.aspx?RefererID=c637caaa-315c-4b4c-9967-08d864cd0791

  • alan:

    wow. your post is simply mind numbing. i think i disagree with just about everything you posted.

  • Alan has nailed it! I agree with Everything he said and conservatives will most definitely catch the Fredalwave. I pray for Fred and HRC defeat.

    • Comments are closed.