Will You Vote For Him: Giuliani?

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by ELA

I normally do not take part in political or religious discussions, but this one seems safe enough. At least I hope so, LOL.

I think when you look at the political landscape globally, Rudy presents an interesting proposition. He has the appeal, and he stepped up during this nation's most difficult time in recent years. He brought forth the leadership needed and addded stability to a very tough situation. That appeals to people. That makes people feel that he can lead. Are people going to look at the Roman Catholic aspect? Maybe. I've read it. Personally, I don't care. Does that trickle into one's views and platforms on tough, today issues? I guess so. I've always been a fan of Rudy's, and personally, I would probably support anyone, merely by default, against Hillary Clinton.

Now, with regard to Hillary Clinton, the real strategic issues have not yet been addressed. The party needs to decide if she is 'the one' so to speak. The party needs to decide if the American public will make her 'the one'. What that means, and I think the American public also needs to look at this as well, is that Hillary's overall 'electibility' needs to be addressed.

This is one of the most critical factors that a party looks at -- over and above what polls may say. Polls tend not to assess electibility and what it means, offers, detracts from, etc. the party and the nation.

So, what does this mean? Here is my take -- if you look at recent elections and how the Democrats operate, they tend to look at a candidate, their electibility and what it can and cannot mean to the party. They tend to lean towards a center-oriented candidate who can play the 'role model' role for the party and the nation. In addition, if that person is a Southerner, who they think Republicans could possibly vote for, then that would be ideal. Interestingly enough, the Democratic party seems to be willing to overlook the charismatic and dynamic politician that should lead the party. We've seen that. Think about the some of the recent candidates.

The Democratic party has always seemed to put forth a candidate that they think Republicans might vote for. This is very different than the Republican methodology.

With Hillary, the public thinks this and she is different. So, the polls say so. That is not enough -- not nearly. She has several things in favor -- she is named Clinton, she is a woman, she votes center, and has liberal appeal. However, she has alienated many major powers in the party.

There is a question as to whether or not she has, or can win them back, and more importantly, whether or not she is a true 'team' and 'party' player.

The people who tell me that women will vote for Hillary Clinton just because she is a woman, IMHO are not only naive, but are foolish as well. I know plenty of women, intelligent women, who are truly insulted by this. Will the conservative women vote for her? How about the religious ones?

More importantly, I think there is a real question that strategists need to answer -- is she well liked personally? That means something. They don't have to love you, but if they dislike you personally, any political strategist will tell you what grows from there.

Eric

A thoughtful response with good points...I take a simple approach here...who do I like and have faith in as a person? While my mind is always open to new information, I think my "top 4" will remain unchanged and I will vote for one of those if possible. As an independent voter who could care less about the fate of either party, I focus strictly on the person...so while I agree with much of your analysis, it really doesn't concern me as I will vote for the candidate that I feel is the best...not the most electable. Still...good stuff!!

[ELA]

While I conceptually agree with the "vote for the person" methodology, unforutantely, the concept is flawed. I've often found that on a local level, for example, a municipality or town level, the "vote for the person" works. Party politics and platforms are sometimes not the major ingredient. Now I know that wouldn't fly in a major city, but in a small town I've seen it.

When I was younger and gorwing up in Central NJ, the mayor of our town won 3 or 4 successive elections -- as a Republican, a Democrat, and an Independent (he may have won a 4th with some other party affiliation -- I just don't remember). On a national scale, the flaws are inherent.

I am certainly not familiar enough with the meat around the bone of all the candidates, however, if I was going to vote Democrat, my initial knee-jerk reaction is that Rudy would be first, but I am so far very impressed with Obama. I want to see more -- much more.

Eric

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by ELA

While I conceptually agree with the "vote for the person" methodology, unforutantely, the concept is flawed. I've often found that on a local level, for example, a municipality or town level, the "vote for the person" works. Party politics and platforms are sometimes not the major ingredient. Now I know that wouldn't fly in a major city, but in a small town I've seen it.

When I was younger and gorwing up in Central NJ, the mayor of our town won 3 or 4 successive elections -- as a Republican, a Democrat, and an Independent (he may have won a 4th with some other party affiliation -- I just don't remember). On a national scale, the flaws are inherent.

I am certainly not familiar enough with the meat around the bone of all the candidates, however, if I was going to vote Democrat, my initial knee-jerk reaction is that Rudy would be first, but I am so far very impressed with Obama. I want to see more -- much more.

Eric

Rudy is a Republican.

[ELA]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Rudy is a Republican.

LMAO! What a mistake that is. Thank you for pointing it out, and with class. I actually have no idea what I was typing, LOL.

Eric