wow. great post. my one quibble: where the hell is my link?

Well, Karol, while I agree with some of what you say, you seem to make the same mistake. You seem to think that people involved in working with and for politicians are representative of "real" people. You aren't. If anything, you're bigger freaks than bloggers. Look at the primaries, for example. Yes, you're absolutely right that Rudy/Condi would have to make it through a Republican Primary ... and wouldn't. That doesn't mean the overwhelming majority of normal American people wouldn't vote for either of them--single or not.
I know plenty of self-identifying Democrats and Republicans who don't know what Able Danger is and, more important, don't know what a Tom Tancredo or a Mitt Romney is, who say they would vote for Rudy tomorrow.
By the way, your comparison of Condi to Dean is silly. Dean caused a stir because he IS married and his wife didn't show up. If he had no wife, it wouldn't have looked odd to be campaigning without one.
But you know what, it doesn't matter. Because the guiding lights of the Republican Party and their nut-job Primary voters will have their say. After that happens, the only hope they have of winning is that the Democrats will somehow make an even stupider choice. Luckily, they've been doing a lot of that.
I say, to hell with a McCain third party run. Run Rudy on a third party ticket with Condi as his VP and see what happens.

Ken, That doesn't mean the overwhelming majority of normal American people wouldn't vote for either of them--single or not.
. Yes it does. a majority of 'normal' American would not vote for either of them. They're too conservative for Democrats and too liberal for Republicans.

The thing is that Democrats have a primary too. And you'll have less in common with their primary voters than with Republican primary voters. And I'm willing to make a sidebet to our Condi bet (I believe I get one dollar if she doesn't run or a dollar if she runs and loses in the primary, correct?) that you'll be a lot happier with the eventual Republican nominee than with the Democratic one.

Wait, you mean people actually believe in Jesus? And listen to Country-Western? And use Internet Explorer over AOL dial-up?

I don't understand the AOL dial-up part.

The point with Condi is that she is not married. Karol used the Dean analogy just to show the importnace of marriage in campaigns. Rudy would be criticised for the same reason. It almost took down the Clinton Presidency. Family and marriage matters.

As for Ruffini's list I was disapointed with the selection. I was hoping for some dark horses like Mark Sanford of SC. I would almost put Huckabee in that category. Arkansans are looking for redemotion.

It will be the greatest miscalculation of this century for the Republican Party to dismiss the moderate faction of Rudy/Condi/McCain in the primaries in 2008. There is no future in the Party of Old Men. I am not suggesting that we compromise all of our beliefs in order to pick a more liberal candidate (to the contrary, I think that the nation is veering away from Liberalism), but I am suggesting that we consider the simple fact that race matters, sex matters, and personality matters. A candidate for the presidency of the United States is more than merely a lump of conservative beliefs; he (or she) is a salesman who has to be able to communicate those beliefs, and to persuade the public of their rightness. Increasingly, that ability requires a multi-cultural perspective that reaches across race and gender lines and, frankly, there are very few traditional candidates with the benefit of that perspective.

I think Sanford and Huckabee are both real possibilities. Oh and Haley Barbour of Mississippi.

First, kudos to Karol for an excellent post. She's right about the blogs being atypical of the country on both sides. She's also right that neither party gives a damn for shrinking he government's size, income and power. Sorry Republicans. You've had the presidency for 25 of the last 37 years, 7 of the 9 nazgul on the highest bench, control of the House for 11 years and, for the most part, control of the Senate at the same time. It's time to see some results. Kudos to Karol for her courage here. Most politcial acivists who depend on the game for their bread and butter would not be so vocal.

Based on her post, I'm wondering if Tim Pawlennty's people have contacted her since he seems to be the only candidate in the field who fits her bill. And before anyone says it, no, Romney is not popular and is a Mormon to boot. I think the problem with the Southerners that Karol mentioned are fairly simple; just as New York Republicans scare conservatives, southern Republicans scare moderates. The Bush boys are different; they are from nowhere, just like their father before them. I don't think Barbour was cheerleading at Andover.

Michael
Family and marriage almost took down Clinton? Sorry, but I call bullshit. If Clinton had been allowed to run for a third term, the man would have won. Whether or not it hurts Hillary remains to be seen. And the Dean analogy STILL doesn't work because you're comparing apples and oranges... okay, nuts and oranges. Yes. If you are married, people think it a little odd if your spouse isn't tailing around with you. And, as Kerry found out, it matters if she is and she has a big mouth. And if I remember correctly Gary Hart was doing pretty good in the polls before his indiscretion. This just sounds like Karol's version of Taranto's Roe Effect. It's an intriguing hypothesis resting on extremely flimsy evidence and erroneous cause-effect relationships.

And Karol, I'll take that bet. I can imagine voting for Hillary over some of these other assclowns--esteemed gentlemen that they all might be. And there are plenty of people IN the party just like me who don't feel like taking another chance on a Holy Roller.

Holy caffeinated long rant. BUT very good and true.

I am linking this one to my straw poll :)

By the way, where's this Daily Kos straw poll at?

Here's the Kos poll.
Here's the DD poll.

Ken, when was the last half-way serious single candidate? It's not a coincidence. And, it's not a hypothesis. Single people just don't seem settled enough to run the country. And I'm on for that bet. You're not voting for Hillary (or whomever the nominee will be).

Von Bek, in addition to being conservative, the eventual nominee will have to have a wide network and be able to raise a lot of money. Barbour is a winner on all those things.

Huckabee, possibly. Pawlenty in Minnesota, also possibly, although the cigarette tax will bite him if he tries. I think the most likely bet will be George Allen. He has been both a governor and a Senator, good name recognition, solid conservative but very likeable and telegenic. I'd say an Allen/Pawlenty or an Allen/Huckabee ticket might be what we get.

I made a post at Club 100's forum before the last election. It was titled: "After the Election, Let's Have a Party". There is a growing number of people who are looking for an alternative they can fit into. I think, with the Blogosphere and all, that our political system is in for a dramatic change over the next couple of election cycles.

OK. Yes, political communications means you assume few things, and you make damn sure about them. Bloggers assume too much, really. On my own blog I take time to explain, to gain an audience among those who don't live and breathe this stuff. More bloggers should, but don't, do this. More for me.

I agree that Rice and Guiliani are not easy to sell to a national audience and I agree that NYC audiences are pretty out of touch with what works nationally. It's that Steinberg drawing. But tastes are evolving. Guiliani does better in national polls than he does locally. 9/11 made him a national figure. He needs to be sold as such and he needs to get broader and deeper exposure outside NY. He's not an impossible sell, he's an uphill battle. Rice probably is impossible, but mainly because she needs to run for something, hopefully outside of DC. The black thing and the woman thing and the unmarried thiing, you have to allow that some people will have problems with them. But with other folks it's an advantage. Those things can be overcome and played to their best advantages. But the never-ran-for-office thing, yeah, there is no workaround for that.

I often hear from my smart, educated friends that they have no idea what I'm talking about my blog.

Uh, either do I.

. . . both had Wesley Clark as the winner of their polls.

They're hard core madonna fans.

. . . all anyone was talking about was that Kerry didn't say he loved his wife. . . Spouses matter.

I think everyone was just sick of Teh-ray-za by then and looking for an excuse to dumb her.

I agree with pretty much everything Karol said, except I think a pro-choice candidate may have a chance, if they emphasize the states dealing with this issue, as opposed to federal gov't.

However elitist Karol might paint Ken, he's not alone. Remember a few days ago, when on this blog's comment section, some paranoid queen was arguing for a Christian state, remember how many people got pissed and slapped the bitch? A lot of folks, including Christian Republicans, want less govt and more sanity. And, dragging religion into the realm of govt means MORE govt. You don't have to be an atheist New Yorker to feel that way.

I think the key to success for a potential Rep. candidate is to represent the red values (fetuses are people, and gay men are not women), while projecting respect for blue values - such as secular society.

Look for the nominee to be a popular governor of a medium sized state.
Couldn't agree more. And, making emphasis on limiting govt power definitely seems like a winner at this point.

Since there is no heir apparent, I believe that the race will hinge on fundraising ability, personality/charisma, resume/record, and issues.

Fundraising and records still have time to develop. To some degree, candidates can develop a new schtick and work on flaws.
Right now we can only judge on these points.

However, there are a lot of unknowns.
What issues will drive the public, but especially Republicans in 2007-8?
Immigration and Trade are becoming very contentious national issues that divide conservatives and libertarians.
Energy policy and hi-tech and biomedical research are also capturing headlines.

What will the world look like in 2007?
Will Iraq be stable? Will Iran have nuclear weapons? Will China have tried to take advantage of our focus on the Middle East? Will the socialist surge in Latin America doom CAFTA and create tens of thousands of refugees?

What will be the results of the elections in 2006? (A few candidates need to be re-elected)

How popular will the Bush administration be?
If it is unpopular, will sentiment be drawn to the left or will a forward-looking conservative maverick hit Bush from the right?

"Von Bek, in addition to being conservative, the eventual nominee will have to have a wide network and be able to raise a lot of money. Barbour is a winner on all those things."

That's what they said about Phil Gramm back in 1996. I think Barbour would be ok but he may be a bit too southern to play well in other places. Haley also may be too much of an insider (foreign money anyone ?) and his lobbying would come under intense scrutiny. He also has a face or radio. I like him but I don't really see him as that presidenital.

I view Condi as that mythical type of ruler mentioned in many of the early philosphy writings. Almost inhuman and divine in her nature. So she does not have a shot of winning, but I would love to see her run in the primary, that would really shake things up.

I have got to disagree with you on the whole married thing. IF you are married then the "I love my spouse and they support me 110%" is necessary, we have had single presidents before. I doubt that our first woman president will be married though. I don't think our nation is ready for the First Husband, although I doubt many would blink at a female prez.

What keeps Ms. Rice from being a serious candidate is lack of executive experience. I would love to see her tapped for a VP slot. Pro choice? Remember that Bush Sr. held a mild pro-choice view personally even if his adminstration held pro-life policy positions. I don't think thats as big an obstacle as you think.

Now that I'm thinking about it, Barbour is up in 2007. If he runs for a second term, that pretty much crushes his presidential aspirations since he'd only have 2 months to focus on the primaries.

Good post. I have a few quibbles, but I generally agree that bloggers and blog readers are quite different from the rest of the population, and tend to be more libertarian. For example, most bloggers on the right have a hard time believing that, among the general population, small government isn't all that much of a winner. While most right-of-center bloggers would like the federal government to do little more than its Constitutionally-mandated functions, everyday folks actually want the federal government to do things that they believe will help them. They, somewhat paradoxically also want low taxes, but they want what taxes they paid to be used to benefit them personally. Pork-barrel spending doesn't matter much to people if it means giving them a job.

The quibbles I have are that, while I agree that Condit and Rudy probably wouldn't make it through the primaries, I do think they would stand a chance at winning if they got the nomination. Their pro-choice positions won't matter much except perhaps to keep hard-core pro-life voters away from the poles, since they'll be running against other pro-choice politicians. Second, as Taleena pointed out, we have had single presidents before, so I don't think this is really a problem for Condi. Nor do I think the fact that she's had no experience running for office or that she's female will matter much (esp. if she's running against Hillary!). Many people on the moderate left and right would have voted for Colin Powell if he would have run, and he had no experience.

Karol stated that: "They're too conservative for Democrats and too liberal for Republicans." But, as she points out in her post, most voters don't pay that much attention. Most voters are pretty much middle of the road, politically, and have a tendency, unfortunate as it may be, to vote for personalities rather than policies, esp. if things are going pretty well economically. Rudy has sort of an "everyman" persona that helps him, and Condi has sort of a (I hate to say this) novelty effect going for her. The gay marriage positions hurts Rudy a little, but all he has to do is throw out some rhetoric about "states deciding for themselves," and using "the democratic process to decide" and he'll be fine.

Anyway, I think the major flaw in your argument is that you are claiming that the left is choosing far left candidates because they believe them to be "winnable" (i.e., Clark), while the right is choosing moderate candidates because they like their positions, and that they're both wrong to do so. The right should pick someone with more conservative credentials, even if they don't agree with them (e.g., pro-life, against gay marriage), and the left should pick someone with ideas they agree with, and both will be better off. It doesn't make much sense. Someone has to win, someone has to lose.

If you want to argue that Condi or Rudy wouldn't get the nomination, I think you're probably right, but if you want to argue that they couldn't possibly win if they did get the nomination, well, it depends on who the Democrats nominate. Both Condi and Rudy seem like decent, likable people, and that will go along way with the electorate. You can't really say that about Dean, and probably not Clark, either.

By the way, I voted for Huckabee in that pole, so this isn't wishful thinking on my part.

Jason, no I am saying what you're saying: that both sides should choose who they actually like, not who they think will win. I don't think the right is wrong to choose moderate candidates in an online straw poll, just that it's outside the realm of reality that these candidates will actually succeed in real life.

I agree with two of your premises: 1) Bloggers are not a representative sample of the electorate, so what bloggers want and what the electorate want are two vastly different things. Bloggers tend to be more extreme, one way or the other, than the average Joe on the street. 2) Rudy and Condi probably would not be able to get the Republican nomination, although I think that's far from certain.

Where I disagree is that I think both Rudy and Condi could win, if nominated. As Karol points out, most people just don't pay that much attention. As a result, personality, like it or not, often matters more than their individual positions. Both Rudy and Condi seem like decent, likable people. The same cannot really be said of Dean or Clark, although there might be a potential Democratic candidate out there that it can. Karol stated that: "They're too conservative for Democrats and too liberal for Republicans." She's right that this might stop them from making it through the primaries, but it won't hurt them with the electorate. But one of them might make it through the primaries if the Republicans are willing to compromise on a few positions in the hopes of winning.

Rudy's biggest challenge is his marital problems, which will be exploited, but only because being on a third marriage tends to give the electorate some question about what kind of person he is. Condi, on the other hand, isn't really hurt by not being married in that she appears more like a busy, professional woman who just didn't have time. And as Taleena has pointed out, we've had single presidents before.

Ultimately, it really depends on who they run against. While I personally don't think Condi is going to run anyway, if she were to run against Hillary! then gender becomes irrelevant. And even her single status doesn't hurt her in this case because Hillary, after all, is married to Bill. While the electorate tends to like Bill, they don't envy that marriage.

And unless Rudy faces Hillary!, he has the electoral advantage of possibly taking the state of New York. That's huge.

Anyway, this is all speculation. I don't think Condi will run, although I do think she would stand a better chance of making it through the primaries than Rudy.

By the way, I voted for Huckabee in that poll, so this isn't wishful thinking on my part. I honestly do believe that Rudy or Condi would stand a chance if they made it through the primaries. McCain, on the other hand, will have trouble in the primaries, and if he made it, would have a difficult time with the electorate. Like it or not, people could get excited about Condi or Rudy...McCain, not so much.

Whoops, sorry Karol. I thought that previous post didn't go through, so I tried to rewrite my thoughts more succinctly and post again.

Feel free to ignore the last one.

Great post. Followed the Conservative Grapevine here. Finally! Someone plays to the Senator vs. Governor factor. Bob Dole anyone? Senator's just typically are weaker candidtates and voters like candidates with legislative experience from the executive position. I still don't hear much rumbling, but I really think Bill Owens will make himself a legit candidate sometime. He had issues with his wife, but they're back together now and pretty much all his dirty laundry is in the air. He's conservative on all the right hot issues for the far right, but a very likeable right-center republican. Just my opinion. Good post again, and I'll have to check you out regularly.

I think the left-leaning blogs are particularly 'out there' because of their obsession with the 'chickenhawk' meme, hence their obsession with nominating a guy with a military record they can hide behind, and thus Clark. Whereas the average Dem primary voter is highly likely to support Hillary, who is pro-Iraq-war and never served in the military.

The right-leaning blogs may be on to a candidate like Rudy whose sheen could wear off in a primary, and it's true that right-leaning bloggers tend to be less socially conservative and more libertarian. But I also think that at least they reflect that, in a GOP primary held today, Rudy would probably win, or Condi if she was on the ticket. I suspect Ruffini's poll has it about right as far as the two main candidates look like they will be Rudy and Allen, with Allen largely fitting your description of what a successful GOP candidate looks like.

Problem: we Conservatives have nobody with the name recognition of Hillary, and half the ones who have ANY name recognition at all are RINOs (that's how they got it).

Answer: Condi. She prevents the Dems from feasting yet again on the female and minority vote, and pushes Hillary to the left.

Outcome: We win.

Bonus: A Pres who scares the shit out of our enemies.

dittoes, karol. good post, and good comments.

"7 of the 9 nazgul on the highest bench." hehe.

man, i'm glad i'm on the right.

Mitt Romney is who you described and I'd be thrilled with him as President.

Romney is a strong conservative that is a leading fighter against gay marriage, and has a very successful non-political background. His charisma and intellect (Harvard MBA/law degree), similar to Rudy's, warms moderates and some liberals towards him, as evidence by his election in MA. He has NO baggage, he doesn't even curse, ever.

Someone wrote:

"While most right-of-center bloggers would like the federal government to do little more than its Constitutionally-mandated functions, everyday folks actually want the federal government to do things that they believe will help them. They, somewhat paradoxically also want low taxes, but they want what taxes they paid to be used to benefit them personally."

I think if you replace "somewhat paradoxically" with "completely ignorantly", you'd have a much more accurate sentence.