GOPWars: A Ridge Or A Rudy

Let's play Counterfactural along with ex-PA Gov. Tom Ridge, who tells reporters that "the dynamics would be different in Pennsylvania" if Ridge were on the ticket.

Forget the ticket.

Had GOP had nominated a moderate like Giuliani (tough on defense and crime, but socially liberal) would they be in better shape now?

If parts of the South are trending blue -- if Obama wins at least one of Virginia, North Carolina and comes within 5 in all three, and within 7 in GA -- a Giuliani or Ridge can make a pretty strong case for a new map to 270

If obama wins, and the map is blue, we'll know it's a realignment if, in fact, the GOP is forced to discover a new path to 270 markedly different from the one they use now (a path predicated on a regional lock in the south).

Has the lock been picked?

Comments

As a rabid Obama supporter let me say this. If McCain picked Romney, Ridge, or Pawlenty I think right now I would be biting my fingernails. I don't think many moderates consider Rudy a moderate and the Republican "base" can't stand him either. Sarah Palin ran another McCain advisor off today who served as Solicitor General under Reagan. Effectively John McCain grabbed defeat from the clutches of victory. And I thank him for that!

Posted by sgwhiteinfla | October 24, 2008 4:35 PM

"Has the lock been picked?"

No, if this were a 50-50 election, Obama would not be winning in North Carolina, he would probably be behind in Florida. Really only FL and VA are potential swing states in a close election.

Republicans can still win with a Solid South, provided they can get one or two midwestern states. But Obama has always run incredibly strong in the upper midwest (WI, MN, MI, IA)

You have previously made the point that the GOP cannot reinvent itself by jettisoning the Christian right, as the Tories did in the UK. But Ridge or Rudy would clearly signify jettisoning the Christian right.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | October 24, 2008 4:39 PM

Some words are missing. What's the third southern state?

Long-term trends: the bluing of the mountain region, and of the high tech areas of the southeast, the 50-state strategy. So many Dems would be stronger there. Any one of those states might be teetering. But Obama is an exceptional candidate. He draws in many who would have sat out, or who would have voted unexcitedly for McCain-Pawlenty, assuming that team ran an unexciting campaign that avoided comparisons to Wallace's south.

Like SgWhite, I think that if McCain had picked a competent Republican as his running mate and responded on the economy in a way that did not embody "erratic," this race would be a lot closer.

Posted by Deborah | October 24, 2008 4:45 PM

I don't know if this one election will convince them of the need for a new map because a lot of Rs think publically Obama was beatable if someone ran a "good campaign" that wove Wright, etc. into the attack fabric from the beginning.

But at some point, if VA, NC, GA and FL become true Swing States, and CO, NM, NV and probably AZ soon, keep drifting Blue (and one wonders about TX in 2012/16 given demographic shifts and the fact that a Texan won't be on the ballot or in the White House), how long can you keep not being competitive at all in CA, NY, NJ, CT, RI, WA, IL, MA and MD, which are 166 EVs instantly. And it to be more Liberal, WI, MN and MI seems to be drifting Blue on the Federal level which almost gets you to 203 EVs if you're a solid candidate before event looking at Swing States...

Posted by dt | October 24, 2008 4:46 PM

I agree with Nicholas above. For Republicans to win elections they need the religious right (RR) on their side. Rudy or Ridge would both cause the RR to stay at home.

Pawlenty, on the other hand, might have meant that McCain would be in this fight.

Posted by Scholar in Training | October 24, 2008 4:52 PM

The GOP is going to have to find a way to appeal to urban voters. Just firing up the wingnuts isn't going to cut it, as we've seen. But in order to do that, McCain would have had to have run as a moderate, not just picked a moderate VP choice. He instead decided to run as four more years of Bush. I know that's an Obama talking point, but on the major issues there really wasn't any disagreement.

Posted by Nathan | October 24, 2008 4:52 PM

Suppose Giuliani had won the election, putting Jindal (Southern, minority Governor) on the ticket as VP.

Let's additionally stipulate the following:

a) economic/financial crisis hits in September

b) Obama/Biden is Democratic ticket

c) Bush is President, with international picture as today

d) No disastrous gaffes by either party.

What would have changed?

The Republican nominee would still be facing devastating headwinds (economy, Bush unpopularity).

The Democrats would likely have strong advantages in fundraising and ground organization.

The Democratic ticket would be defending few of its own battleground states and attacking along a wide front of Red State targets.

You might argue that in conducting a campaign, McCain/Palin hasn't done a heckuva job. But I still think you'd be looking at Obama/Biden +4, rather than +7.

I'm not sure yet that you're looking at realignment. Census changes, etc come into play beyond 2010. Much depends on the next two years - whether the Republican brand is damaged as badly as the UK Conservative brand was damaged after 1992, and whether Obama/Biden (with healthy majorities in the House/Senate) are able to create some sense of recovery by the midterms.

Posted by Andrew | October 24, 2008 4:52 PM

Rudy was D.O.A. There is no chance that a pro-choice, cross-dressing lawyer from NY city sporting a bad combover could have won the nomination as a Republican regardless of what kind of race he ran.

"Has the lock been picked?"

Arguably, but one of the main reasons that Obama is as competitive in the south and coastal Atlantic is due to John McCain's very real weakness in those regions. Which makes it that much more curious that he wasted all those weeks that he had his nomination wrapped up and Obama was battling with Clinton. Instead of making lame attempts at making national news with a variety of mini-stunts, he should have been organizing in those areas that he didn't want to have to come back to later on and defend. This is exactly what Obama did, and it's paying off in spades right now.

I think true realignment is going to be difficult for the RNC, because after this, they're going to be such a regional Evangelically dominated party on the national level that holding onto Georgia and North Carolina in 2012 might be the least of their worries.

Posted by dannity | October 24, 2008 4:54 PM

The right can re-establish it's lock on the south. The question is who else they need. I think the artificial affinity between the south and the mountain west will only continue to break down.

The west (other than Utah) is not conservative like the south is conservative. The west is libertarian and secular.

Dems can grab many of these states for the long haul, compete in Ohio and Penn (where race presumably won't be an issue with the next Dem candidate), and the south won't be enough to do the GOP much good.

Posted by BB | October 24, 2008 4:59 PM

I agree about jettisoning the religious right. But they cannot win without the numbers, so they can't. I think most people can get behind a fiscal conservative that is compassionate, the so-called compassionate conservative that W was sold as being.

Posted by Siryn | October 24, 2008 5:03 PM

I have to strongly disagree - if McCain had picked Rudy or Ridge Obama would be sweeping through VA, NC, SC, GA like Earl Campbell in his prime.

Hell, maybe even TX, LA, MS, AL etc...if McCain had picked a social liberal the convention would've been a disaster and the base that is so riled up now would be just as mad at McCain as they are at Obama.

Posted by houlios | October 24, 2008 5:04 PM

I don't think the lock has been picked, I think the various factors are going to bust down the door. But I do not believe that the south is permanently shifting back to the Democrats.

Long term the issue will be an increasing Democratic gains in the west (excluding Idaho/Utah). One contributing factor to this is the latino vote trending Democratic. The problem for the Republicans is that they can't win without the Evangelicals and they will have trouble winning in the northeast, the industrial midwest, and the west as long as the Evangelicals are the base of the party.

Posted by Robert | October 24, 2008 5:06 PM

Should Obama be elected, one major component in this puzzle is how Obama governs. If he satisfies the assumption by secular, moderate Republicans that he will govern in a pragmatic, centrist manner, the Republican Party will probably become a regional party with limited influence and a base that revolves around the Christianists.

Should Obama be elected, concede to more liberal factions within the Democratic Party and force through an agenda that is too far to the American Left for the polity, the Republican Party will have a decision to make: jettison the Christianists and play towards the center or hope that the moderates will be willing to tolerate the complete juvenile attitude that the Religious Right has on myriad issues.

Posted by erikoistutkija | October 24, 2008 5:13 PM

Worth noting that demographic change isn't just about migrants. A solidly republican block of older voters are - for lack of a more sensitive word - dying off, and the younger ranks are overwhelmingly democratic. The republicans will realize that they need a new approach that is more across-the-board appealing and I trust that they will take it.

Posted by Joel | October 24, 2008 5:14 PM

at some point don't Republican's need to address the fact that the answers they had for the problems of 1978 are not applicable to the problems of 2008?

Though Barack is garnering astronomical votes from AA in VA, NC and GA which are not likely applicable to anyone else, one could say that a Mark Warner or Ed Rendell would have put TN, KY, and AR definitely in play as well as NC and VA, and FL probably would have been lock-solid blue (as polls show Hillary winning it still by 10 pts even with her high negatives in the panhandle).

I think the lock has been picked. The "silent majority" baby boomers who recoiled at the social upheaval and were ripe for picking in the South, West and MidWest are slowly losing their numbers and being replaced by young, highly skilled/educated people moving into Northern VA, Research Triangle, Tech Alley in CO and ABQ, etc. who are socially moderate (slightly right of center) but don't want to hear about 60s Guns, God and Gays. They care about high paying jobs in bio-tech, nano-tech and e-services (Stem Cells and funding for other research) in VA and NC and TN, tax-credits for renewable and alternative electricity, etc. (NM, CO, WA, OR).

Add it all up together lend to the narrative of a party stuck in the past and not prepared to deal with the challenges of today. The Torrie's are starting to talk about this stuff and consequently being given a second look.

Posted by dt | October 24, 2008 5:17 PM

If McCain is not on the ticket in 2012, then add Arizona to the list of tossups. GOP needs a new path no matter what happens in Georgia, etc.

Posted by trendline man | October 24, 2008 5:25 PM

Giuliani would've brought the same anger and slanders as Palin, but without the support of the religious maniacs.

In short, Rudy would've helped Gramps to a 75% - 25% loss.

Posted by mars | October 24, 2008 5:28 PM

Interesting thoughts regarding whether the GOP could win without the support of the Religious Right.

I think they could ... but it would take a very special candidate.

First, where is the Religious Right going to go? They are certainly not going to suddenly embrace the Democratic Party (although a growing number of young Evangelicals are Democrats). The worst that can happen is that they stay home. Possible, but doubtful.

Second, it would take a Republican candidate who would have to have the warmth and missionary zeal (think Mike Huckabee without the goofiness) yet the strength and backbone to be a very good politician (Ronald Reagan comes to mind).

That sort of individual would have the ability to pick a middle-of-the-road running mate, and be able to look the Religious Right in the eye and say, "My job is to select the person best able to protect this country should something happen to me. We all know deep in our hearts that person is ..... so quit griping and get on the team."

Of course, that VP candidate would have to be somebody of obvious qualifications, i.e., the anti-Sarah Palin. Every time McCain talks about how qualified Palin is to be vice president, you can just hear more and more votes leave the party, because Americans will only buy so much B.S. before saying no mas.

Posted by Gus | October 24, 2008 5:53 PM

To rearrange the metaphor a little (okay, a lot), what we're seeing is a garage door opening slowly, driven by the gears of demographic trends and the Republican refusal to adapt to gen-x and later cultural mores.

Obama's ethnicity is forcing the issue this year, creating competition in places where Generic Democrat would be falling short. On a generic ballot, I'd expect Virginia to be dead even this year, lean blue in 2012, and clearly Dem in 2016. The "real" Virginians would know what time it was if they had been paying attention to the 2006 election.

North Carolina is one or two election cycles behind VA. It's dead even this year on the strength of Republican idiocy and Obama's candidacy, but all things being even it's going to be a major battleground state for the next decade, probably starting to tilt blue by 2016 or 2020.

Georgia is probably yet another cycle away for the Generic Democratic Ticket. Urbanization is in progress, and appears irreversible, but the numbers have farther to go before it really is competitive. Obama might - MIGHT - have a shot at it this cycle, if Rep turnout is down, if there's truly historic AA turnout, if this is a wave election. I don't think GA will be a true battleground before 2020... but it is inevitably going to get there.

The Southwest is solidly blue this year. It's not going to come back to the Republicans while the anti-immigrant wingnuts have so strong a voice in the party. Texas... I don't know. Urbanization works there, too, but I get the sense that it's probably yet another cycle behind GA.

The trends in the midwest are clear - each cycle the Dems make another state competitive there. It looks like Obama has sliced away a few more, and I suspect these have a better chance of sticking than NC and GA do.

The interior South is going to be a harder nut to crack... but when it finally goes blue, probably within 30 years as the generations who lived through the party upheavals of the 60's die off, there's not going to be any more havens for Republicans. Except maybe Utah.

Or maybe the Dems will turn out to be evil, powermongering, incompetent children like the Bush Republicans and trap themselves in CA + New England again. I just don't think so.

Posted by Ked | October 24, 2008 6:08 PM

I agree with the last poster. It all depends on how the Dems govern. I'm a staunch D, but I honestly hope we fall one short of 60 in the Senate. That way we can get moderate Rs with us on popular, commonsense issues, but don't get cocky and overreach (Defense of Marriage Act, etc). Just fix the economy, improve clean energy and infrastructure. That's what I hope President Obama does. If he does, he'll make it through 2012.

Posted by Jon | October 24, 2008 7:00 PM

Policy Wise: The GOP needs to take some time and look at the world as it is today and will be tomorrow, not how it is from the pew or how it was in 1980.

A lot of the policy godfathers in the party right now have sold out and are no longer credible leaders. Grover Norquist won an election 30 years ago, 2 years ago he cost us congress.

Communications Wise:Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh are members of the media, they are pundits, not reps who are accountable for what they say and whether it has any relevance.

Politically: Republicans who live outside the sec and big 12 are not liberal wimps to write off. They are the folks in the suburbs of philadelphia , chicago, new york, l.a., san diego, ect that used to provide much of the dough for our candidates and were strong fiscal conservatives.

Coalitions Wise: The fact that young evangelicals are no longer flocking gop should say all you need to hear about how great an idea that is to focus on a narrow coalition.

Personnel:Boehner, Blunt, McConnell, Ensign,Cole, Putnam, and Coleman should all be packing their desks right now. We need people who have ideas and want to win not losers who failed to make it happen. Blunt's ties to big tobacco are enough disqualify him already.

2012:Forget Huckabee, Palin, Romney and Jindal if he does that god/social conservative fiscal liberalism stuff. I'm ready to see a real republican with some real ideas that actually has a 21st century brain, strong philosophical backbone and a spleen to vent.

Good news in all of this is that we are going to get a cleaning out of all the reagan hangers on who offered nothing but recycled talking points of 30 years ago they didn't invent but hoped would carry them to political careers they didn't deserve.

Posted by Former Bush appointee/gop staffer | October 24, 2008 7:03 PM

Former Bush accomplice writes: "Forget Huckabee, Palin, Romney and Jindal if he does that god/social conservative fiscal liberalism stuff. I'm ready to see a real republican with some real ideas that actually has a 21st century brain, strong
philosophical backbone and a spleen to vent."

There is no such thing. The Republicans have been replaced by the Repiglicans.

What you need is a new party. The one you belong to now is rotten from bottom to top.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | October 24, 2008 7:25 PM

A moderate like Giuliani?

May I recommend that you read
"The Giuliani moderation fallacy":

www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/11/13/giuliani/index.html

Posted by Chris | October 24, 2008 7:30 PM

I don't know how many more people are like me.

I have voted Dem now for quite a while, but could easily be swayed by the R's if they jettisoned the religious right.

Now that I think about it there are other things that would have to change.
1. Pick the best person for the job, no cronyism.
2. Zero domestic spying.
3. Environmentally friendly
4. Reasonable mix of business vs. citizen trade offs.
5. I am sure there are more in this vein.

None of these requests seem radical to me, why does it seem that hell would freeze over before a party of this type would emerge?

Posted by rob | October 24, 2008 7:36 PM

Obviously there is no lock to be picked if you are at say -4 or worse in the polls and one could argue in this environment if McCain had picked Abraham Lincoln he'd still not be even.

But lets say we are a 2 point race a la 2004. If you have, say Ridge on the ticket, McCain/Ridge can still lose VA, CO, NV and get over 270 if they can take PA...remember Kerry took PA by less than 2%. Now this makes OH/FL and probably IA and MN as the battleground states and that is maybe equal footing for the two sides.

So, just as the map required a victorious Democrat to be a moderate southerner (to the annoyance of their more liberal coastal bretheren), more likely the GOP would need to move toward a moderate Great Lakes governor (e.g Pawlenty) - to the annoyance of their evangelical bretheren, to pull it together.

Posted by Scott | October 24, 2008 7:41 PM

I have voted Dem now for quite a while, but could easily be swayed by the R's if they jettisoned the religious right.

And the neocons. I'm not voting Republican while they still have spokespeople who think "reality-based" is a slur.

Posted by Deborah | October 24, 2008 9:40 PM

Deborah:
That should have been my #5.

Posted by rob | October 24, 2008 10:38 PM

I think some of you are way overexcited. Exempting Virginia and North Carolina McCain is ahead in the South. (Florida isn't really part of the South as such) He is probably not going to lose Georgia.

As for "what are they going to do go Democrat?", I'd say yes that's exactly what they may do. The South being Republican is a recent thing in historical terms. It used to be called "The Solid South" because it was Democratic. In 1976 the South loved Carter and unlike much of the nation the South largely liked Stevenson more than Ike. They event went for JFK even though many Southerners didn't much care for Catholics. Virginia is fairly well-off, but much of the South is still relatively poor. Take-away the cultural issues as a factor and many of them would have reason to vote Democratic. In addition the Hispanic population in the South is growing and I think few of them would be won over by a secular pro-business party. So if you lose just some white Southerners, without gaining any non-white Southerners, I think it could put it in play.

And for what? The off-chance of regaining New Jersey? It makes little sense.

Posted by Thomas R | October 24, 2008 11:12 PM

It might be informative to see how the first years of an Obama administration go before trying to settle these questions.

Posted by bdbd | October 25, 2008 9:48 AM

I don't claim to know the "real" answer here, but I will offer the opinion that the GOP's biggest challenge over the next four to eight years will be winning back Hispanics. Republicans have to be competitive with Hispanic voters if they want to have a chance at winning the South West. (As Matt Yglesias mentioned way back during the primaries, Texas is steadily turning demographically into a giant version of New Mexico and if it becomes a swing state the Republicans will be in a world of hurt.) Indeed, one of the most underreported stories of the campaign it seems is how the Republicans managed to shit away 20 years worth of minority outreach efforts in 18 months.

Posted by Just Dropping By | October 25, 2008 10:49 AM

Indeed, one of the most underreported stories of the campaign it seems is how the Republicans managed to shit away 20 years worth of minority outreach efforts in 18 months.

Good point. One of the better analyses of the Republicans (from a normal voter, who intended to usher his party into the wilderness for 8 years of trimming away the scary people) declared one of his end goals to be the 2016 primary debates not featuring a dozen old white men. From macaca through the very special people recording interviews outside Palin rallies, I think they've gone backward on that goal.

Posted by Deborah | October 25, 2008 11:53 AM

Has the lock been picked? No, but the house is shrinking. Like Florida, Virginia has seceded from the Confederacy. North Carolina will be next, then Texas, then Georgia. "The South" will become an obsolete construct by 2020.

Republican base territory -- identified accurately if offensively by Sarah Palin, Robin Hayes, Michele Bachmann, et al. -- could be called Evangelical Ruralia, a territory including greater Appalachia (a triangle whose points are Pittsburgh, Montgomery and Springfield, MO), northern Michigan and Wisconsin, the Gulf coast, the Plains and northern Rocky Mountain states, and Alaska.

Much of this territory is declining in population, and its growth areas are attracting the "wrong" sorts (Latinos, secular coastal emigres), making places like Montana and the congressional districts around Omaha, Boise and Salt Lake City competitive.

Catering to the evangelical-rural base, and consequently putting off voters who aren't as socially conservative, consigns the Republicans to chronic minority status. (Their redoubt would be the Senate, where it's hard to picture the GOP falling much below 40 seats.)

Ross & Reihan, Mike Huckabee, Tim Pawlenty and others are correct in envisioning the GOP's way out of the wilderness as some mixture of social conservatism and economic populism. But I don't think that's going to work unless some key issues -- healthcare, access to post-secondary education, elder entitlements -- are resolved equitably.

I think it's going to take 10 years or more for the Republicans to adjust purist-conservative ideology to societal and electoral reality -- about as long as it took them to reconcile themselves to the New Deal.

Posted by allbetsareoff | October 25, 2008 1:18 PM

Re: Republican base territory -- identified accurately if offensively by Sarah Palin, Robin Hayes, Michele Bachmann, et al. -- could be called Evangelical Ruralia, a territory including greater Appalachia (a triangle whose points are Pittsburgh, Montgomery and Springfield, MO), northern Michigan and Wisconsin, the Gulf coast, the Plains and northern Rocky Mountain states, and Alaska.

I'd drop the "Evangelical" from the label as Evangelicals are really only a major factor in the South/Appalachia. In the plains it's mainly conservative Lutherans and Catholics; in the mountain West it's Mormons and some Catholics, and up in Alaska it's a mix of mainline Protestant and Eastern Orthodox (the latter put down deep roots there back in the Russian days).

Posted by JonF | October 25, 2008 1:33 PM

McCain's Hobson's choice is in plain view - he can't capture the moderates if he selects a winger as VP, and he can't get the wingers to the polls if he selects a moderate. This, to me, says the lock has been picked.

I think McCain's best pick would have been Jindal. I, personally, think Jindal's religious views are nuts, but nobody doubts he's very smart, very accomplished, has a great deal of meaningful experience given his young age. His election too would have been a landmark. And he's from the south - I could imagine him appealing to moderates, and his skin and name would telegraph change, as Obama's do. When he talks, he sounds competent and knowledgeable and safe.

Jindal was the great missed opportunity, and from what I read, he was never seriously considered. Marc - can you talk to your excellent sources and tell your readers why Jindal was jilted?

McCain/Jindal would have been a terrific ticket. I wouldn't have voted for it, but it would have made me nervous about November 4.

Posted by Hieronymus Bosch's Poodle | October 25, 2008 1:40 PM

JonF: Pentecostals are a growth religion in the Plains and western states. Missouri Synod and some other rural Lutherans are as evangelical as Southern Baptists. And ideologically, there's not much daylight between Mormons and evangelicals (or conservative Catholics, for that matter). I'll stick with my hyphenated terminology.

Posted by allbetsareoff | October 25, 2008 1:50 PM

The individuals (lay people) who are subjected to the Religious Right carnival barkers, are fine people who almost always treat everyone honestly and with dignity. I was born and educated among them. Unfortunately Elmer Gantry is alive and well where he can be seen and heard daily on cable TV and talk radio as well as in church pulpits on Sunday. These lay folk of the congregations need to expel the "money changers from [their] Temple". These fine folk are needed in the selection and governance of this country. They need to retire their self appointed, self aggrandizing priests.
ccr

Posted by charles | October 25, 2008 2:25 PM

The GOP's southern strategy is dead. It was nice while it lasted I suppose. But now that some of the border states are becoming more cosmopolitan, they are being regulated to the deep south and states like Kentucky. This isn't enough to win and they'll have to become more moderate in order to win. Would Rudy made a difference? I highly doubt it, but who knows...

http://demockracy.com/a-lesson-from-canada/

Posted by Kevin | October 25, 2008 4:40 PM

Somehow I don't think this is a conversation we'd be having if the other great 2008 campaign counterfactual (HRC) came to pass.

(Favorite comment so far: "I think some of you are way overexcited. Exempting Virginia and North Carolina McCain is ahead in the South. . . . He is probably not going to lose Georgia.

Posted by bab23 | October 25, 2008 5:20 PM

The 'Giuliani' path is no better than the 'Palin' path.

The trouble is that the GOP now represents lawless and irrational people: people who think they're entitled to special treatment and couldn't care less about fair play, and who are also ideologues who continue spouting the same bromides even when they're proved wrong. This applies to all the factions: the superrich, the theocrats, and the neocon imperialists. They just express it in different ways.

To revive their party, they need to get pragmatic people with some sense of fairness. *But they haven't got any left*. This is how Schwarzenegger won, but he doesn't really have a party of like-minded people behind him. Same with Charlie Crist.

Posted by Anon. | October 25, 2008 8:16 PM

Re: And ideologically, there's not much daylight between Mormons and evangelicals (or conservative Catholics, for that matter).

They all tend to vote GOP, true, but there are some very major canyons, theologically and historically, between them and this produces some differences in their attitudes toward public policy too-- at least once you get beyond abortion and gay marriage. For example, the Evangelicals are the one who make evolution such an flashpoint-- Catholics made their peace with Darwin long ago, and I don't think the Mormons care either. The Catholics meanwhile have a strong tradition of social justice concern and also a philosophy of Just War that does not mesh well with current GOP thinking on foreign policy. Then there's the tendency of GOP candidates to go pandering to the likes of Ted Hagee and BJU, where the anti-Papist slurs and slanders of the Reformation are still in vogue. Not to mention the visceral hatred many Evangelicals have toward the LDS, whom they even refuse to recognize as Christian. It used to be said that the Episcopalian Church was the GOP at prayer. To the extent that the modern GOP lets itself be branded as the political acion commitee of the Southern Baptist Convention it risks underperforming among either conservative Christian groups and conservatives who are not Christian or religious at all.

Posted by JonF | October 26, 2008 10:17 AM

sgwhiteinfla (first comment in this thread) had it right: Ambinder could not have chosen a worse example of a "palatable Republican" than Giuliani. The discussion would be more productive if you start with Huckabee's name.

Posted by T.W. | October 26, 2008 8:01 PM

"the extent that the modern GOP lets itself be branded as the political acion commitee of the Southern Baptist Convention it risks underperforming among either conservative Christian groups" JonF

TR: Yes! Some people act like they just need to dump any kind of social conservatism altogether. I really don't think that's the problem except in extremis. I think being too specifically Evangelical is more a problem.

Although a potentially bigger problem I think is the party emphasizes tax cuts to an irresponsible degree. It starts make them sound kind of silly and repetitive.

Posted by Thomas R | October 27, 2008 4:57 AM