Thanks for the thoughtful response, JPod. I agree of course that donor trends don’t translate to voter trends, though when it comes to donors choosing among candidates within one party the connection is also certainly not entirely arbitrary (as a review of the 2000 equivalent this map would show). This is just about general patterns.
Your broader points about Giuliani all make good sense. But I would urge a look at the other side of the equation—the Republican voters you lose with a very liberal Republican candidate. Perhaps Ohio is lost either way (perhaps not). But certainly Indiana, Missouri, West Virginia, Tennessee, and Iowa (all of which went GOP in 2004) as well as a couple of Midwestern states which were close but went to the Democrats are in grave jeopardy for Republicans if social conservatives don’t see much of a difference between the Republican and Democratic candidate on their issues. Social issues are not (and in a time of war in my view should not be) the deciding factor in a presidential race in the abstract. But on the ground, state by state, in a number of these Midwestern states social issues are clearly the reason for Republican victories in recent decades. Many Midwestern voters, especially Catholics, are Republicans for no other reason. In a close presidential race, any one of those states could make the difference. The question is whether Giuliani could make up for the loss of a few of these states with other states that Republicans haven’t been able to count on. I do think it’s an open question, and an important one. But as I noted originally, it’s also very premature.