'Electable,' they say: the myth of Giuliani as Hillary-Slayer

PEOPLE who object to Rudolph Giuliani's nomination are, by now, used to hearing the inevitable retort: But he can win. Conservatives should swallow their concerns--about abortion, or guns, or immigration--because he is the Republicans' strongest candidate in a year when the odds are against them. Electability is his trump card.

The Giuliani campaign knows it. In October, it leaked a document purporting to show that, up against Giuliani, Hillary Clinton could count only Massachusetts and Vermont as safe states.

This campaign tactic is working. Even Republicans who don't support Giuliani now see him as the most electable candidate. Thirty-eight percent of Republicans view him as the strongest potential candidate for November 2008, compared with 11 percent for his nearest rival, Mitt Romney. (That's according to a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll released in December.) Some of his supporters are behind him primarily because he would be such a strong candidate.

Those polls also show that some voters place electability behind other considerations in deciding whom to support. It's a classic principle-vs.-pragmatism debate. But it may be beside the point. Before moving forward from the premise that so many Republicans accept--that Giuliani would be a very strong candidate next year--we should ask: Is the premise true?

The case for Giuliani's strength as a general-election candidate has four components. First, his record as mayor of New York City would neutralize the Democratic accusation that Republicans are incompetent. Second, national polls show him to be highly competitive with Hillary Clinton. Third, state-by-state polls show that he would do well in swing states, and even put some usually Democratic states within Republicans' reach. Fourth, as Jason Zengerle put it in a recent story on the "pseudoscience of electability" for New York magazine, it is "widely assumed that his moderate views on abortion and guns would help him in a general election."

Some of these assumptions are valid. Giuliani's record as mayor was extremely impressive and would be a major asset to his campaign next year. He made a city that had been thought to be ungovernable function. But other assumptions are shaky, and Giuliani has weaknesses as a general-election candidate that have been insufficiently discussed.

Let's start with those national polls. They can be misleading. Michael Dukakis left the Democratic convention in 1988 17 points ahead of George H. W. Bush. He ended up losing the election 53-46 percent. The national polls don't even reliably tell us which Republican candidate would perform best. They underestimate how well Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson would do because they are not well-known nationally. John McCain is almost as well-known as Giuliani. In an average of recent polls compiled by RealClearPolitics.com, McCain runs slightly better than Giuliani against either Clinton or Obama.

Giuliani's strategy director, Brent Seaborn, thinks the state-by-state picture looks a lot better for his man. He outlined the campaign's theory in an online strategy memo.

   [I]f Rudy is the nominee, Democrats will be forced to spend money
   in California, New Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Illinois,
   Maryland, Michigan, New York and Washington--states that they have
   spent almost no money in over the last few election cycles. Hillary
   Clinton will be forced to advertise in New York City, Los Angeles
   and Chicago--the 3 most expensive media markets in the country,
   something Democrats haven't had to do in 20 years. This will
   effectively take Florida off of the Democrat's target
   map--making it a safe Republican state in 2008 if Mayor Giuliani is
   the nominee. If another Republican is the nominee, traditional blue
   states will be safe, meaning the Democrats can plow all their
   resources into Ohio and Florida.

The state polls reflect Giuliani's high name recognition, just as the national polls do. They don't show that Giuliani has any special edge. SurveyUSA has McCain and Giuliani performing equally well--which is to say, badly--in California and even in New York against Clinton. Angelenos will not be seeing many political ads next fall.

Giuliani does significantly worse than McCain in SurveyUSA polls from several actual swing states: Virginia, Ohio, New Mexico, Wisconsin, and Iowa. SurveyUSA doesn't have data on Pennsylvania, but Quinnipiac found McCain and Giuliani running even against Clinton. New Jersey is the only state where Giuliani is beating Clinton but McCain isn't. That's a point in his favor, but Giuliani's margin is tight and the state is still a long shot.

The theory that Giuliani would redraw the electoral map at all, let alone redraw it in Republicans' favor, is open to question. Neither 9/11 nor the war in Iraq redrew that map, after all. Only three states switched sides between 2000 and 2004. Even if Giuliani redrew the map successfully, however, it might not help Republican candidates for governor, senator, and representative, since such a victory would, by definition, come from people and places that do not normally vote Republican.