Posted on 10/02/2005 10:56:50 AM PDT by InvisibleChurch
Sunday, Oct. 2, 2005 1:04 p.m. EDT NY'ers Back Rudy Over Hillary for Prez
New York State voters would back former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani for president over home state senator and Democratic Party favorite, Hillary Clinton, according to a Marist College poll released Friday.
Forty-nine percent of New Yorkers say Rudy should run for the White House, while only 40 percent want Hillary Clinton do the same.
While more than two-thirds of Empire State Republicans [67 percent] want Rudy to seek the Oval Office, just 54 percent of Democrats [52 percent] say Hillary should run.
What's more, despite two years worth of media coverage touting her White House bid, an astonishing 36 percent Democrats in that bluest of blue states say Hillary should shelve her presidential ambitions for 2008.
Only 28 percent of Republicans turn thumbs down on President Rudy.
The news is even worse for Mrs. Clinton among those not affiliated with either party - a segment that usually constitutes the all-important "swing-vote" in national elections.
While 51 percent of Independents back Rudy for president, just 38 percent want to see Hillary back in the White House.
A full 57 percent of New York Independents say they oppose a presidential bid by Hillary.
Marist surveyed 707 registered voters in New York on September 26th and 27th. The poll has a margin of error of +/- 4 percent.
That's right...everybody wants to to be put back to the States. So I honestly don't see what good that'll do. So how many States would make it illegal? So you hop on a plane and go to a State that does. Really...please explain.
I totally agree.
If Rudy is so great, he should run against Hillary for NY Senate. Leave the big job to someone worth voting for.
on abortion, yes of course - overturning Roe will hand it back to the states and I agree with you that only a very small number of states would ban abortion for adult women in the first trimester. and in those states that did, you would find women going to neighboring states to get the practice anyway.
however, I do think you would get more strict enforcement of parental notification and partial birth/late term abortion at the state level. only the most liberal states would adopt "anything goes" abortion laws - underage girls, late term, partial birth, hell states like California might even allow infanticide in some cases (birth defects, etc).
“They DON'T like meeeeee!!!”
Rudy should reflect upon how well Wilson did in the primaries and then he should do the right thing and run for governor or senator in 2006.
But America does not need a pro-abortion, pro-gay, gun-grabber as president, whether they're named Hillary or Rudy or Romney.
In some ways the Alexander campaign was an even bigger disaster.
The fact remains that on many issues-from paycheck protection, to border enforcement, to rolling back racial preferences-the man was prescient, to say the least.
The fact that some people thought it was in the GOP's best interests to willfully distort his position on abortion is another matter altogether.
actually, the pics of the woman he brought into Gracie Mansion when his wife and kids were still living there showed a woman who was not all that hot.
besides being kind of nasty to his wife and kids, Rudi really cracked down on the evil dog owners in NYC.
he's a little nuts, not so nice, and very arrogant.
also, didn't rudi support bill clinton in one of clinton's presidential campaigns?
and he helped hilary become senator by refusing to give his campaign money to rick lazio until it was too late.
i think rudy puts himself first, his mistress second, and the people third.
he won't get the nomination because of the abortion issue, but i don't think he would make a good candidate anyway. his arrogance and meanness would leak out at some point and sink him.
Agree 100%%%%%%
NO Way I would go for Rudy.
Don't get me wrong, he is a GREAT leader on some issues. Not enough for my President though.
I am observing George Allen. He does not come across as "Strong" though.
i should have been more specific about the "evil dog owners".
by the end of rudi's regime, he seemed to be cracking down on ever more trivial offenses. he should get credit for cleaning up the real crime in the city, and i'm not against fines for people whose dogs mess up the place. but rudi seemed to going after minor "crimes" in a bizarre, fanatical way. for instance he had a bunch of wiccans or pagans arrested for their service (or whatever they call it) on a public beach--they had a bonfire, so they had to be arrested. there is something nutty about this type of crackdown. i guess it reminds me of the inquisition or oliver cromwell's puritans in england. i'm all for law enforcement, but i think rudi sometimes shows real bad judgement.
I, for one, would love to see Rudy take on the Clintons. I was disappointed when he dropped out of the NY senatorial race. And I'm not a New Yorker, either.
Also, how is Rudy going to handle religion in the election? Last I checked, he's an excommunicated Catholic (twice-divorced, pro-abortion.)
Didn't seem to hurt Kerry much. And, as for character, Rudy has far more of it than most other politicians.
Though I doubt that any Republican will be able to carry states like Washington, New York, or Connecticut in a general election.
The others are up for grabs, I suppose.
If it's Rudy vs. Hillary, Rudy won't lose a single one of those states. And he wouldn't lose Texas either.
You are under the mistaken impression that every Republican is a one-issue voter. They're not.
Some of the most enthusiastic responses to Giuliani have come from the Southwest, which would be a pivotal region in any future presidential race, especially if Bill Richardson is on the opposite ticket.
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.