Posted on 11/18/2005 3:30:15 PM PST by seastay
If the 2008 presidential election were held today, Republican Rudy Giuliani would beat Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton according to a nationwide poll conducted by Canisius College. Of the 455 respondents who volunteered an answer regarding the 2008 match-up, Giuliani received 54 percent of the vote to Clinton’s 38 percent.
Michael V. Haselswerdt, PhD, professor of political science at Canisius and co-director of the poll, notes “Clinton loses among voters in the red states, which is no surprise, but Giuliani breaks even in the blue states.”
The Canisius poll also shows that only 27 percent of Americans think the nation is going in the right direction, only 42 percent view President Bush favorably, and the Bush administration is having trouble getting a “gentleman’s C” on its performance.
While 27 percent think the nation is going in the right direction, 63 percent say it is on the wrong track, including six out of 10 of those who live in red states and four out of 10 Republicans. President Bush’s 42 percent favorability rating is countered by the 55 percent who view him unfavorably.
But despite this dissatisfaction, if a presidential recall election were possible, only 42 percent would vote to fire President Bush, while 53 percent would vote to have him remain in office.
“It is a good thing for President Bush that his support has always been personal rather than performance based,” says Haselswerdt. “In addition, among the people who are critical toward President Bush and his administration are some who do not think that a recall election is an appropriate mechanism.”
The Bush administration gets its best grade, a grade of C, for its performance on the war on terror. It gets grades of C- for its performance on the economy, the war in Iraq and energy policy, and it receives a D+ for its performance on improving health care. While the war in Iraq does not get the lowest overall grade, it gets the highest percentage of failing grades, with 36 percent of the public giving the Bush administration an F.
Other highlights from the Canisius College Poll include:
*Fifty-one percent (51 %) of the public believe that the U.S. should announce a timetable for the withdrawal of American troops, while 41 percent agree with President Bush that the United States should stay in Iraq “as long as it takes.”
*Former Majority Leader Tom DeLay is seen as favorable by 18 percent and unfavorable by 40 percent, while 43 percent do not know his name. Neither are other congressional leaders household names, with majorities polled not recognizing names including Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (52 percent), Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (58 percent) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (51 percent). Evaluations of these congressional leaders were split.
*Recent legal and ethical issues in Washington, DC, are seen as “business-as-usual” by 51 percent, including a strong majority of Republicans (67 percent), and a smaller majority of Independents (59 percent). These issues are seen as “more of a problem now than before” by 43 percent of the public, including 59 percent of Democrats.
*Almost two-thirds (65 percent) of the public and 58 percent of Republicans prefer the governmental system to be divided between Republicans and Democrats, while only two in 10 Americans favor one-party control.
*Sixty-two percent (62 %) would oppose amending the Constitution to allow foreign-born citizens such as Arnold Schwarzenegger or Madeline Albright to run for president, and 53 percent would oppose an amendment to provide for recall elections for the president and members of Congress.
The poll has a confidence level of 95 percent and a margin of error of +/-4.4 percent. Five hundred one (501) American citizens over the age of 18 from the continental U.S. were contacted between November 13-15, 2005. The poll was co-directed by Haselswerdt and Kevin R. Hardwick, PhD, associate professor of political science and utilized Canisius College students as interviewers.
In addition to providing excellent educational experiences for students, recent Canisius College polls have proved to be extremely accurate. The college’s survey of New York Democrats conducted on February 17-20, 2004 showed John Kerry leading John Edwards 57 percent – 16 percent in the state’s Democratic primary with a +/- 4.8 percent margin of error. Kerry eventually beat Edwards 61 percent – 20 percent two weeks later in the March 2 contest. A general election poll of Pennsylvania voters on October 17-18, 2004, also with a +/- 4.8 percent margin of error, gave Kerry a 53 percent – 45 percent lead. On November 2, Kerry did indeed win Pennsylvania with 50 percent of the vote to George Bush’s 48 percent.
To view complete results of the Canisius College poll, go to http://www.canisius.edu/poll.
Canisius College is one of 28 Jesuit colleges in the nation and the premier private college in Western New York. Canisius prepares leaders – intelligent, caring, faithful individuals – able to pursue and promote excellence in their professions, their communities and their service to humanity.
People like you said that about Arnold Schwarzenegger and what did we get? The most liberal non-Republican ever to claim to be Republican. More than half of his key appointments are not just Democrats but activist leftists. He has taken his administration policy on a leftward tilt worse that Gray Davis ever did. Moreover his so-called star appeal has proven useless in governing.
4-Your definition of a capable leader seems to be by definition someone with narrow appeal.
Your belief that conservative policies have narrow appeal is unfounded and demonstrably incorrect. I am sorry you feel the need to run from basic conservative principals.
The most important thing you are ignoring is voter motivation and turnout. It is a myth that the same bunch of people show up at the polls each time and calculate strategically which candidate is best for them. That only happens among political hacks.
There is vast majority in this country who may be registered with a party but don't consider themselves political or hold any loyalties to a party. They may or may not even show up. Politics is simply not a big part of their lives. Most of them are very conservative in their gut instincts. A lot of them are devoutly religious. The way to get them motivated is to nominate a candidate they AGREE WITH. Elections swing not on people changing their minds about who to vote for, but on WHICH people decide to show up or not show up.
When you put someone as liberal as Rudy on the ballot they are faced with choosing between Hillary and almost-Hillary. It's not a tantrum or a protest, as many liberal Republicans suggest, it is simply a lack of interest. "It doesn't matter what I do." Don't lecture me why that's a bad way of thinking (as moderates always do when I explain this dynamic) because I do vote every time. The only way to get those people up and out to the polls is to nominate someone with appeal.
You watch and read too much in the mainstream media. Conservatism and conservative candidates are not the pariah you think they are.
There is nothing wrong with your thinking during ordinary times. These are not ordinary times. We do not have the luxury of time or circumstance for another clinton. We will not survive another clinton. Indeed, we may yet not survive the first one.
Again I say this: for you to call Giuliani an "almost-hillary" exposes your narrow perspective.
If the CR elects hillary by default as you claim they will, i.e., by not showing up, they will have committed the most anti-life act imaginable.
I guess I give the CR more credit with valuing life than you do.
WOW! I like that.......*~*
1- That hillary would be devastating for our country is PRECISELY the point.
2- You are begging the question. The Republican base has free will. It will not vote only if it decides not to vote.
3- Actually, you would be sacrificing your deeply held beliefs. By placing a de facto vote for hillary clinton, you would be making the most anti-life vote imaginable. You would be putting all of our children at risk, the born and the unborn, alike.
BTW, if the CR does what you claim it will, it would be playing right into the clintons' hand. That is to say, the CR would effectively become the clintons' next Ross Perot. (The only way a clinton can win is to win by a plurality,)
And my argument doesn't apply only to Giuliani. It equally applies to any "less than adequate" candidate the GOP might field.
Hello????? McFLY????? Is anybody home????
I didn't say I'd be doing that. I said there are millions upon millions of Americans who don't think like we do about politics, or even care all that much about politics. They don't strategize about voting and politics. They go to vote when they see something/someone they like. Most of the time they don't vote. That's the way it is. I can't change it. You can't change it. No amount of lecturing will ever work, or even reach them becasue they don't read FR or pay much attention to political news and debate.
All we can do is continue to stick to our guns and nominate appealing candidates that draw out the silent conservative base, once known as the Silent Majority. It exists. We just haven't been doing much to get their attention lately.
As for mobilizing the Right, fear not. If hillary is their candidate, I think we'll see mobilization like we've never seen before.
As Chris Matthews said Friday, "I think Pee Wee Herman would give her a race."
I'll vote for him. Let me first say, I hate abortion and yes, I share the same concerns over Giuliani's abortion stance as many of you but lets be realistic, can any president stop abortion? No. The U.S. Supreme Court can't stop abortion. If Roe v. Wade were overturned tomorrow it would not outlaw abortion, it would just give the issue back to the states, where it was pre-Roe. And lets face it, while many of the red states, particularly those in the south, would outlaw abortion, the blue states wouldn't. Abortions would still be continue to occur. Now I believe Roe should be overturned. Its terrible consitituional law and with the right justices I believe it will be overturned. I believe and hope that with Harriet Miers we will have 4 justices that will vote to overturn Roe and I believe there's a decent chance Bush will be able replace Stevens with a conservative to hopefully give us 5 strong conservatives. Giuliani has said he agrees that the president is right to choose strict constructionist without a litmus test so I believe he would do the same if elected. So therefore, Giuliani might be helpful in getting Roe overturned. Of course we don't know if Bush will be helpful with his appointments because nobody ever knows how a Supreme Court justice will vote until they are on the court. As far as the gay issue, Rudy is AGAINST gay marriage. He is however for equal opportunity for gays without discrimination, which is fair. I truly hope you don't hate gays. Remember, hate the sin not the sinner. President Bush has the same position. As far as the gun issue, I don't believe Rudy will push for gun control. He knows better. Besides, a Republican Congress isn't going to pass any gun control legislation anyways. Giuliani has been extremely supportive of Bush in foreign policy and I believe he would continue those policies. He has been very supportive of Bush's economic polices and tax cuts so I have no problems there. Finally, I believe that Giuliani has leadership ability beyond equal and that's exactly what we will continue to need beyond 2008. He would make an excellent Commander in Chief. He will be as strong as Bush in foreign policy and on the WOT and that's the most important, overriding issue. Plus, who else realistically has a better shot at beating Hillary? Those who say they would vote third party and give the election to Hillary are losing it. Nobody can honestly say Hillary would be better or equal to Rudy as president. Reagan's big tent anyone? Or how about Reagan negoiating with Congressional Democrats over legislation, saying getting 75% is better than nothing. With Rudy you get 75%, with Hillary you get nothing. With all of this in mind, I will enthusatically support Giuliani for president. Giuliani/Jeb Bush 2008!
I don't know why I said Harriett Miers. I meant Samuel Alito.
Excellent re mind AND heart. Could not be said any better. bump.
Left wing dream election...
Why bother with this liberal hypothetical?
Through a rifle scope...
Target practice...
I don't hate them, I hate their sins against God and human nature. I sure as heck wouldn't do anything or support anyone who would facilitate all of that.
The question of Giuliani verses Clinton is a hypothetical that we will never see. The question is not whether any of us who are political hacks will make a calculating decision on voting one or the other. The question is whether setting up a situation of forcing people to hold their nose and pick one is a fatal decision. Some people will hold their nose. Others (not me) will say screw it all no one cares about the important things. They will stay home altogether. We will then lose.
;)
Right. Waste a vote on the Constitution party.
Constitution Party?
Don't know anything about them...
I have voted Republican all my life, supported George W. Bush for president before he even became governor of Texas.
I plan to elect a candidate in the primary that has more of the core Republican philosophical approach.
Rudolpho Giuliani is on the wrong side of too many issues and I won't vote for him because some liberal poll making scums say he can win. Same thing goes for McCain.
If Mr. Giuliani wants to prove himself of value to the Republicans, he can take Hitlery out of the senate first. If he doesn't, he is just window dressing and deserves no consideration...
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.