Profiling the political viability of liberal Republicans
Perhaps the biggest surprise of this cycle's batch of Republican Presidential candidates is that there are a significant number that the base is complaining are too liberal, particularly several of the leaders. While Giuliani has been criticized because he is openly pro-choice, pro-gun control, and in favor of same-sex marriage, Romney has been criticized for his past positions on abortion, as has McCain. Gilmore, a former unpopular governor of Virginia, though describing himself Pro-Life, recently said he believes in abortion for the first eight weeks, a position that neither side of the debate seems to respect. Former Wisonsin Governor Thompson has supported embryonic stem cell research. How have GOP candidates with similar values on these issues fared in recent elections?
Taking a look at the 2006 Senate and Congressional races may provide an insight into their "electability." According to http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/writeup/2006_senate_realclearpolitics_poll_averages-63.html, a site which averages polls and shows the actual election results of Senate candidates across the countries in "swing states", we can see which candidates were successful, and a pattern seems to emerge. In Washington state, Pro-Choice (R) Mike McGavick, once hailed as the "perfect candidate" to win a seat in a liberal leaning state, was slaughtered by incumbent Democrat Maria Cantwell by 19%, a huge margin. In New Jersey, another Pro-Choice Republican, Thomas Kean Jr. lost by a wide margin of 8% to Democrat Robert Menendez, also Pro-Choice. In Pennsylvania, Pro-Life GOP candidate Rick Santorum lost his seat to a Pro-Life Democrat candidate, Bob Casey by 17 points. In Rhode Island, both candidates were again of the same position on abortion - pro-choice as incumbent (R) LIncoln Chafee lost by 6% to (D) Sheldon Whitehouse.
Many news articles appeared arguing the Democrats were reaching for a majority by using a "northeast strategy" where the "liberal" or "moderate" Republicans in "blue states" were overwhelmingly defeated in Congressional races during the Democratic takeover of Congress. Other GOP Senate losses include Dewine's seat in Ohio, another moderate. Three of the Senate losses, however, Allen in Virginia, Burns in Montana, and Talent in Missouri, were GOP Pro-Life candidates losing to Democratics Pro-Choice candidates. Burns and Allen however, were both close races, within a single percentage point, and both campaigns were plagued by scandals. Talent's loss in Missouri was also close, and was considered a toss-up down to the wire. He lost by a couple of points, and the lead in the race had switched hands many times over the course of the campaign. Senator Corker, a Pro-Life (R) managed to defeat Pro-Choce Ford (D) in Tennessee, and Pro-Life (R) Michael Steele made an unusually close race out of the generally liberal state of Maryland race against a Pro-Choice (D) Cardin, though ultimately coming up short.
Indeed, Giuliani once had a Senate race with Senator Clinton of New York, likely the next Democratic nominee for President, where he bowed out of the race after polls showed he would not be able to defeat her. It would seem extraordinarily unlikely that he could do much better against her in a national race where her national network far exceeds his own, where she beat him on his only turf in New York already, and where his social views are likely to alienate much of the GOP base. I find it particularly surprising, therefore, that he continues to be plugged as the "electable candidate" where it would seem, in addition to drawbacks on his conservative credentials so distasteful to the GOP base, he is also quite unelectable.
Part of the reason for the success of liberal GOP candidates such as Giuliani, or in 2000 McCain, is that several states GOP primaries have allowed Democrats and Independents to vote in the primaries. While this ploy is designed to create a "big tent" in which more liberal voters are drawn into the GOP fold, most liberals who vote in the GOP primary vote for the most liberal GOP candidate and then vote for a Democrat in the general election anyways. More conservative voters tend to find the "big tent" too big - that is, their values are no longer represented, and so they don't vote. This losing strategy seems to be a growing trend within the GOP as California recently added its name to the list of states that will employ the "big tent" primary voting scheme.
