Why voters are turning against Giuliani

Clark Coleman writes:

You say that you don’t know why voters are turning on Giuliani.

I think Giuliani has the kind of support that Saddam had in Iraq. The “Strongman” is the winner, the one you had better befriend if you want to be on the winning side. As soon as he seems to no longer be a winner, his former supporters no longer need to pretend that they cannot see his flaws. Thompson and Huckabee are gaining ground steadily on Rudy. There was no reason to support Rudy except to be on the winning side. If his victory looks uncertain, he is finished. His support is an inch deep.

- end of initial entry -

Steven Warshawsky writes:

Over the last few days, the newspapers have been trumpeting that Giuliani’s and Clinton’s respective leads over their primary rivals have been slipping in the national polls. Lots of ink (and electrons) have been spilled trying to explain why this happening. I think the most logical and parsimonious explanation (to borrow a highbrow science term) is that several months ago, Giuliani and Clinton were the most famous politicians in the field, with international name recognition. Voters would choose their names in polls almost by default. Since then, the voters have started to learn about several other candidates. Given how varied are the personal and political preferences of American voters, it hardly is surprising that some of these candidates have siphoned away some of the support that previously went to Giuliani and Clinton. Of course, I have no doubt that many voters have discovered they do not like Giuliani and Clinton after all. But I suspect that Giuliani’s and Clinton’s drop in the polls has more to do with voters being intrigued by fresh faces than a rejection of the two presumptive party leaders.

LA writes:

John Podhoretz at Contentions has some interesting analysis and speculations on the GOP race.

P.S. I never said that John Podhoretz is not bright and that he does not occasionally say interesting things. His appointment as editor of Commentary nevertheless remains the most obscene, self-interested and cynical exercise of nepotism in historical memory.

If his name were John Smith instead of John Podhoretz, would he have been picked as the editor of Commentary?

Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 04, 2007 01:52 PM | Send