Centerfield

Yes, I think that this poll reflects name recognition as opposed to the attractiveness of stated policies (what stated policies?). As I've said here before, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans would be foolish enough to put up a Northeasterner for president.

Rudy is anti-gun and pro-abortion, as is Hillary. These are positions required to get on any ballot in New York, but they won't play in Peoria.

Rudy has some administrative experience as mayor of New York, but a rocky record in civil rights/law enforcement (remember Amadou Diallo?), including his time as the insider-trading prosecutor for which he had zero trial convictions (a lot of plea deals, and a couple of Wall Streeters led away in handcuffs). In a couple of words, he's too liberal for the Republicans, and too conservative for the Democrats. And no, that doesn't make him a centrist, it just makes him unattractive as a candidate.

Hillary, on the other hand is Socialized Medicine and Victimized Wife. It might get her into some primaries, but it won't bring home a nomination. Didn't the Democrats recently run a Northeastern Senator with not much of a legislative record? Seems to me, I recall they did...

To be fair, she is getting decent marks from New Yorkers as a Senator. But they are not rave reviews. She has not achieved the stature of "Pothole Al" D'Amato in his first term (and he was a Republican, anathema to most New Yorkers).

The nominees will be a) a Republican governor - ideally from a Southern State- or a member of the Bush Administration, like Rice; and b) a Senator from a Midwestern State (who will lose).

Do we really ever get sick of the bloodsport that is Presidential politics?

If the primary schedule stays the same -- Iowa, N.H., S.C. -- I don't see how Giuiliani survives. The religious right will pull out all the stops to beat him, despite Pat Robertson's recent remarks.

And don't underestimate the stupidty of Democrats. Why wouldn't they elect a northeastern liberal? There's a big chunk of the party convinced they lost last time because they were insufficiently McGovernesque. I think this next round is a bigie for the Dems. Blow this and I don't know that the party will survive.

The "nuclear option" is not unpopular among Republicans. It wouldn't be unpopular among the general population either if they understood the issue. You have to look past that recent ridiculous push poll that the WaPo did. If you look at the way they phrased the question it was done in such a way as to misrepresent the issue and manipulate people into saying they were against the rules change.

Rudy seems to be better liked throughout the country. McCain is very abrasive, and is not considered trustworthy by many Republicans because he hasn't supported issues that are important to many in the GOP, and was talked about as a Kerry VP candidate, which is not exactly a glowing recommendation in his favor.

McCain would probably still be able to beat Hillary, who has more baggage than a Samsonite store, but Rudy would probably beat McCain out forr the nomination if it were between the two of them.

Of course if Hillary runs, I'd expect fraud to reach epic proportions. The dead shall rise from the earth in great numbers to cast their votes for Clinton II.

EyeDoc:
Oh, I think the people get the nuclear option just fine. They understand that the GOP is not content with merely controlling all three branches of government but must seek out and eliminate the last, tiny shred of power still in the hands of the shattered Democratic party. It's 100% or nothing for the GOP.

The people have a pretty good insitinct for power-mad pols, and they have a pretty good insitinct for pandering I-gotta-be-president Senate majority leaders.

And by the way, how is it that pro-life, pro-gun war hero John McCain is somehow less palatable to GOP'ers than pro-gay, pro-choice, anti-gun Rudy? I don't get that.

Hillary's anti-abortion. She's pro-choice. There's a huge difference, and Peoria knows it, 'cause that's what Peoria is when it comes down to their daughter or sister or best friend's abortion.

Hillary's not a Northeastern liberal. She's an American. She was raised in Illinois, Ivy-Leagued it for college, spent some time in Arkansas, some in D.C., and now some in New York. And though she hasn't crossed the ole Mississip', as a Westerner, I still like her quite a bit. Don't let Rush Limbaugh trick you into calling her names.

"Hillary's not a Northeast liberal. She's an American." Pretty heady analysis.

Regardless, answer these:

1. Is she running 62% popularity in NY State because she's a Southern centrist?
2. Name 1 Red State that she'll pick up that Kerry lost.

And a big Centerfield Welcome for the Official Friends of Hillary Fan Club!

"They never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity." That old joke used to be used on the Palestinians. If the Dems pick Hillary it should be applied to the them.

Kreiz has posed the precise question: what red state will Hillary add for the Dems? Gov. Warner of VA could bring VA, and that's the ball game. Bill Richardson would hold NM and maybe energize enough Hispanics to carry Arizona and Florida. Again, that's the ball game. I don't know if Bayh could hold Indiana, but he might tip some border states.

Hillary? She adds nothing. If the Dems go to Hillary, they're the Whigs. Finished.

Re: Why would Republicans pick Rudy over McCain?

Anyone who says this doesn't have a lot of GOP friends. Not an insult; I'm just saying, I DO have a lot of GOP friends, so I know the scoop on this issue. In order to illustrate the reason Republicans would pick Rudy over McCain, let's go back to 1988 and examine the GOP primaries that year. Back then, a northeastern social liberal, Bush 41, beat his closest competitor, a Western conservative WWII vet, Bob Dole. Dole had won the IA caucuses. All conservatives had to do to make sure that pro-choice Yankee Bush 41 didn't get the nomination was to throw their support behind Dole. Instead, they backed Bush. Why? Because Dole had spent the past 8 years in the Senate criticizing Reagan's tax cuts, criticizing the deficit, and criticizing the new prominence of religious conservatives in the GOP. Bush 41 was seen as the only guy who could stop Dole from winning the nomination, becoming president, raising taxes, and pushing Pat Robertson out the door.

Now let's fast-forward to 2008, and let's say that Rudy and McCain are still leading the pack as we come out of Iowa. Once again, religious conservatives and tax cutters are going to realize that a pact with Rudy is the only way to prevent McCain from becoming president. And, as Robertson pointed out, they won't let that happen. Why? Because they don't trust him. A guy can be as pro-life and pro-gun as they come, but if the GOP base doesn't trust him, he's not gonna be the GOP nominee.

Rudy, on the other hand, has been extremely loyal to the party. And simply running on social federalism ("My social views are MY views; as president, I intend to stay out of the culture and appoint judges who will let New York be New York and Alabama be Alabama!"), Rudy will defuse the issues of abortion, gun control, and gay rights. On all the other issues, Rudy has a very compelling case to make for both conservatives and moderates based on his record managing NYC and his war on terror creds. There was a Nat'l Review article awhile back detailing Rudy's successes at keeping taxes low, at budget balancing, at curbing spending, and at gov't reform in the Big Apple. It was very convincing.

That's an interesting analysis, Dave. You make many good points. The problem is, while Rudy may be as big as the moon in the sky now, he'll probably look as tiny as Alpha Centuri three years in the future. He's out of office now, and the public can have a short memory. In 2008, 9/11 will be seven years in the past; if he then claims to be "America's mayor", many will look at him blankly. I still think he would be better off if he ran against Spitzer for governor, or against Hillary for Senate, and left the Presidential race to the big dogs. If he runs for governor and wins, or even ran for Hillary's Senate seat and lost, he would be a bigger name to reckon with in 2009, and he would still have 2012 for the White House.