Posted on 03/09/2007 3:08:02 AM PST by FairOpinion
McCain now trails Rudy Giuliani in all polls of Republican voters, and the gap has been widening.
Michael Barone examined state-by-state polling data on Giuliani against Hillary Clinton from last summer. It showed Giuliani competitive or ahead in several northeastern states the GOP has consistently lost since 1992: New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Maine. Even in solidly Democratic New York, Rudy was running about even.
Giuliani was also a solid candidate in the tight Midwestern states: Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Iowa. But those states are always hard fought over. States like New Jersey and Connecticut have been all but written off by the GOP in recent Presidential elections, and New York was considered impossible. A series of new Quinnipiac polls confirm Rudy's strength in key match-up states.
As in 2000, Bush lost more Electoral College votes in the close state races in 2004, than he won, including New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Oregon.
Pragmatic Republican and conservative voters might take a flyer on Giuliani despite less than 100% comfort with his views on the issues or his personal life story, since he might be the most likely candidate to break the Electoral College balance that the nation entered into in the 2000 election. Given that the GOP lost control of both Houses of Congress in November and is unlikely to regain control of either body in 2008, especially having to defend 21 of 33 Senate seats up that year, a loss of the White House would be disastrous for the Party. With a Democrat in the White House, liberals would regain the ability to choose Supreme Court justices and replace the most likely retirees, liberals John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsberg.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
I am OK with opposing Giuliani in the primary. However, should he win, the above is our choice.
The problem of opposing Rudy in the primary is that if he doesn't win the nomination, Hillary WILL roll over anyone else, and WILL become president.
I think Hillary will roll over Rudy anyways. We have polling indicating it is tight between Clinton and Giuliani. This comes at a time when nobody is paying attention and before the media have had a chance to destroy the Republican and build-up the Democrat (like they do every election).
Of course, this doesn't take into account the potential 5 million new female voters that a Hillary nomination might bring out to vote for the first "woman" President.
Some would say that a Republican candidate who is pro-abortion, pro-amnesty, pro-gay and pro-gun control wears a lot of stink as well.
Oh, but he can win, and that's all that is important, right? Doesn't matter if he's pro-gay-marriage, anti-RKBA, and a proven cheater. He's got a shot at WINNING. And we all know the purpose of the GOP is to keep those federal offices staffed by GOP members.
/sarc
Blowhard Dick Morris has mentioned this aspect a number of times... it's one of the few things I agree with him on. I call it the... “zombie-factor”. Once they get in that voting booth... whatever common sense they had evaporates and they all become Pat Schroeder.
It would also happen with Obama and blacks or Richardson and hispanics.
Until you guys come up with a realistic option on the right for us GOPers, all this Rudy-hating is nothing but kicking, screaming and stamping your feet.
There is no star on the right this election cycle. Come up with someone, fine... otherwise deal with reality. Rudy's not my dream candidate either, but he's clearly the best bet electorally to beat Hillary.
But it always does with 'minorities'... this, no matter how absolutely dreadful... would be “unique”.
and this is precisely why woman's suffrage is a bad idea. Women generally "feel" and do not reason very well.
The problem of opposing Rudy in the primary is that if he doesn't win the nomination, Hillary WILL roll over anyone else, and WILL become president.
________________________
A tad early to say it but that expresses my position precisely.
My take on the state of the GOP Race:
I think if Fred enters the campaign, he wins the nomination. Even if he doesn't, a Rudy/Thompson ticket would work for me.
McCain is already flaming out and the only candidate who's close to Thompson on the issues with a snowballs chance in hell, Romney(who I'm leaning toward, for now), may set off warning bells in the South and Midwest among primary voters who've learned to distrust any Northeastern pol, especially one from Taxachusetts.
As for the other candidates, Brownback, Hunter, Huckabee, and Tancredo simply can't come up with the cash, because the big donors have all gone towards Rudy and Romney. As the article mentions, even McCain is struggling in this area, which is why I think his campaign is DOA.
Newt has too much personal baggage and the Clinton smear machine, along with the MSM, spent almost as much time villainizing him in the '90s as they did Ken Starr. I really think he's angling for a cabinet position.
So as it stands now, I think it'll come down to Rudy and Romney, but if Fred jumps in, all bets are off. He'll definitely hurt Romney, if not kill his candidacy(a lot of people who are supporting him, like me, will vote for him instead), and he'll put a dent in some of Rudy's support.
Right, because the American people are all stupid, and the only way we can trick them into voting for what is right for the country is to nominate someone who reminds them of Hillary so they choose our side.
I'll be much happier spending 2008 arguing for the solid conservative positionf of our candidate, making the truthful point that these positions are what is right, and good, and best for our country.
It's going to be a lot harder arguing that people should elect a president who is wrong on much of what the country needs, but everybody should vote for him because he'll appoint right-wing supreme court justices that will overturn Roe-v-Wade.
I predict this -- if the general election comes down solely to two peas of a pod, with the only issue being whether Roe-v-Wade is overturned, we will LOSE the election, because on THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE we are not in the majority.
And since so far as I can tell Rudy is not a strong proponent of overturning Roe, I don't think he'll appoint the right judges. If this article is correct and the democrats have the senate, and then of course theirs Specter, Snowe, and a couple other republicans who are pro-choice, there is no way Rudy gets a clearly pro-life nominee through the process.
And since Rudy doesn't believe in it, he won't even fight for it as hard as Bush did, which is not nearly enough. We were barely able to get two justices that we only HOPE will do the right thing on Roe.
When Rudy sits with the Senate leadership, and they give him a list of "acceptable" candidates, he will pick the most constructionist judge he can find on the list, and go with it. That is his record as Mayor, going along with the process, making the best of the bad picks.
And he'll likely appoint a judge like Alito and Roberts. Except the judge will believe in super-precedent. And probably hold personally liberal positions, because picking judges seems to be about being comfortable with them, and Rudy will be comfortable with judges who think like he does.
So we'll get a strong law-and-order constructionist who likely will do nothing for us on Roe.
Hillary isn't very principled. Let's offer her the election if she promises to appoint good judges. It would be a lot easier on all of us.
That much is true, but unlike Bill, who would go along with the GOP congress as long as it made him look good, Her Heinousness is a different monster altogether. She's a closet communist who, if she manages to con enough voters into electing her, will make Bill's 8 years look tame by comparison. She'll rule with an iron fist, and it won't be pretty...
"Given that the GOP lost control of both Houses of Congress in November and is unlikely to regain control of either body in 2008, especially having to defend 21 of 33 Senate seats up that year, a loss of the White House would be disastrous for the Party.An infuriating reminder that the Republican Congress and Presidential Administration--through utter stupidity--gave Congress to the Democrats in 2006 and placed Congress and the Presidency in jeopardy in 2008!With a Democrat in the White House, liberals would regain the ability to choose Supreme Court justices and replace the most likely retirees, liberals John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsberg."
Had the Republicans
(1) Fortified and closed the Mexican Border and stopped additional illegal immigration--according to the wishes of the vast majority of Americans,They would have increased the Republican majority in 2006 and assured a Republican Congressional majority and Presidency in 2008!(2) Nullified the Supreme Courts ridiculous "eminent domain" decision--according to the wishes of the vast majority of Americans, and
(3) NOT expanded federal entitlement and the federal budget by adding prescription drug benefits--thus alienating wise Americans, including the Republican base support,
The American people have good reason to be furious!
The best thing that can be said about the Republicans now in control is that the Democrats are INFINITELY WORSE!
Americans who love the United States and who want to bless the world with The American Dream--viz. liberty, justice, and prosperity for all of the people of the world--must be pragmatic, pray for the survival of the U.S.A., and devote their blood, sweat, toil, and tears to saving the United States.
The enemy within the United States--viz. the Left--is far more dangerous than any foreign enemy. The Democrat Party is its Political Machine. The "Mainstream Newsmedia" is its Propaganda Machine. The Left is decadence. It is the most dangerous enemy the United States has ever faced.
Were it not for the Left, America's foreign enemies would be of little consequence and would be easily dispatched.
And the Republicans in Washington have careless and stupidly empowered this very Fifth Column.
The American people have good reason to be furious! And we are!
BTW: I think the article is off on another thing, if a Rudy/Thompson or Thompson/Rudy ticket wins, which I think would, they'll bring back the House with them. Pelosi and the RATS have done nothing but make fools of themselves so far, and a lot of the new members who ran as "conservative democrats" are still vulnerable. The Senate is a little more questionable, but it's not beyond the realm of possibility...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.