Posted on 11/13/2005 2:28:18 PM PST by RWR8189
November 12, 2005--Unlike the Democrats, there is no clear frontrunner for the Republican Party's 2008 Presidential nomination.
Three candidates, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and Senator John McCain all are favored by more than 20% of GOP voters. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist are the only other Republicans to reach the 5% level of support.
McCain is the leader among the minority of Republicans with an unfavorable opinion of George W. Bush.
If the three leading candidates do not run, "Not Sure" takes over the Republican lead at 30%. In that scenario, Gingrich is the top choice for 27% of Republicans and Frist is next at 11%.
Senator Chuck Hagel, Senator George Allen, and Congressman Tom Tancredo were also included in the survey. None of them reached the 5% level of support.
A plurality of Rice supporters favor Gingrich if the Secretary of State is not in the running. A plurality of both the McCain and Giuliani supporters move to the Not Sure category.
New York Governor George Pataki attracts more of Giuliani's vote than any other Republican.
CrossTabs are available for Premium Members.
A separate survey conducted earlier this year found both McCain and Giuliani leading the Democrat's frontrunner Hillary Clinton.
Rasmussen Reports is an electronic publishing firm specializing in the collection, publication, and distribution of public opinion polling information.
Rasmussen Reports was the nation's most accurate polling firm during the Presidential election and the only one to project both Bush and Kerry's vote total within half a percentage point of the actual outcome.
During Election 2004, RasmussenReports.com was also the top-ranked public opinion research site on the web. We had twice as many visitors as our nearest competitor and nearly as many as all competitors combined.
I guess, it's my slant, being a business man, super pro-military ultra-conservative Economics / Business major kinds guy.
There are lots of worse people being mentioned. At least Condi is honest (unlike Romney, other weathervane pols) and isn't a crusader for the Left (a la Giuliani, McCain).
If you want an unpopular conservative economist, it's hard to beat Phil Gramm.
Bingo!
Who is "he"?
Pro-nouns cause more mental discourse probelems than any other pieces(s) of grammar. When I run meetings, there is a poster that proclaims the dis-use of pron-nouns.
Well, I feel your fustration, but I would not stay home on election day. Sometimes I vote republican just to keep the democrat out of office. McRino would make a terrible president, but not as bad as Hitlery.
New Mexico, Nevada, Missouri, Ohio, Montana, Iowa, among others...
Sorry I got in a hurry and I was not clear. IMO, McCain is a popularist and an oportunist.
Hillary is running in 2008. Any calculation we make has to factor that in. If we dust off another Bob Dole candidate, or send in another Bush, we're getting 8 more years of President Clinton. That's a fact. So, we need to get all the crying out of our system now, and accept the fact that if we send in an old white guy, he'd better have considerable street cred with the swing voters. That pretty much leaves us Giuliani and McCain. Very electable, but not very conservative. Boo hoo. Nobody said life was fair.
On the other hand, we've had 200+ years of boring white guys. The voters want a change, let's give it to them. Condi is smarter than Hillary, more attractive than Hillary, and is tougher than Hillary. She's also considerably more likeable than Hillary. They've both seen how the system works from the inside, so their experience levels are pretty much comparable.
Does the rest really matter? We don't seem to have another Reagan waiting in the wings, so lets make due with what we have. We could have been dealt some considerably worse cards.
Hillary Clinton is one of the most divisive figures in American politics.
Of the states you listed, I couldn't see her carrying any of them, against almost any GOP candidate.
"None of these three will ever be on a national ticket."
Amen Bro. and if they are, I wouldn't vote for any of these liberal rinos.
I am talking about Bush's current poll numbers [similar to other presidents at this point in their second terms] and the fact that the Republicans seem increasingly in disarray.
There is a steady drumbeat on the other side and an increasing amount of talk about impeachment [for payback]. It is taking a toll.
I do not think Jeb is the person to choose for the next election. And, I am not promoting his son. Only time will tell there.
"Republicans will want to get a VP candidate that is not from a red state....."
True, but there are plenty of conservative politicians from blue states.
Would George Allen win in Virginia?
Against Mark Warner?
Probably considering he won his senate race and his governor race by bigger margins than warner. Warner snuck into the governors mansion like 51-48 i beleive, allen came in 59-41 going against a Mary Sue Terry who had a 30 point lead. Chuck Robb was a rising star of the democrat party who Allen then went on to beat 52-48 for the senate. He would beat warner.
How did the loss, by a really poor candidate for governor, tarnish Sen. George Allen ... in a state where the governorship has long gone to the party opposite the party holding the White House?
I think that is a bit of wishful thinking.
A good question, which no one can decisively answer.
But I am comfortable saying that George Allen is the only Republican that could carry Virginia if Warner is the Dem nominee.
Many others suffered unto death.
At least, McCain eventually returned home to a full life and career.
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.