Posted on 05/23/2006 9:51:04 AM PDT by Blackirish
May 23, 2006 -- IN my new book ("Can She Be Stopped?"), I suggest that the Republican best suited to the challenge of preventing Hillary Clinton's ascension to the Oval Of fice in 2008 is Rudy Giuliani. A Fox News Opinion Dynamics poll released yesterday offers some strong ballast for the idea: In a head-to-head matchup, Rudy beats Hillary 49 percent to 40 percent, the best showing among all Republican contenders.
By contrast, John McCain has a 46-to-42 advantage over Hillary - besting her but not as decisively as Rudy does. Rudy is viewed favorably by 64 percent of those asked, McCain by 49 percent (Hillary: 50 percent).
And this is not a poll of Republicans alone: The respondents are 41 percent Democrat, 32 percent Republican and 21 percent independent.
It's probably not surprising that Rudy wins in a head-to-head contest for the presidency. After all, Hillary is a lightning rod - while he, once a hugely controversial figure, has become beloved.
But what about in a Republican primary? Can Rudy possibly win?
In surveys of Republican primary voters, two names top every list - Giuliani and McCain. Each gets support from around 30 percent, with every other possible contender hovering around 2 or 3 percent at most.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Man, I wish Mark Sanford would change his mind!
I still say he cannot win the support of social conservatives because of his positions on Abortion, same-sex marriange and gun control. I think he should have run for senator or Governor in NY.
This is not necessarily how I wish (or don't wish) it would be, just how I see it WILL be.
I wonder if somehow some will think here that "half a loaf" with Rudy is better than any Democrat. I can understand that argument also, especially in light of the immigration discussions we've had here.
Time will tell.
Rudy would not stand too well west of the Hudson River!
Just his anti-gun position alone will hurt him tremendously in the 'red states'.
Political polls dupe too many people, too often.
If Rudy is serious, he could end the Hildebeast threat by running against her for the U.S. Senate. The fact that he is making no moved to do so shows me that any talk of Rudi or Condi is nothing more than a pipe dream. Pipe dreams do not win presidencies, no matter what the polls say.
I will not vote for Giuliani. Period.
And that assessment will be proved correct when the southern and non-coastal western states hold their primaries.
As far as SCOTUS would be concerned, it's hard to believe that gains on Roe would be reversed because he would put L&O justices on the bench. That would be his litmus test. They would have a more conservative bent although it's possible that they might also be pro-abortion or pro-gay-marriage.
If nothing else, Rudy can suck the energy out of McCain's machine, which is A Good Thing.
"I still say he cannot win the support of social conservatives because of his positions on Abortion, same-sex marriange and gun control."
Maybe, maybe not. If he does get the nomination, I think moderates to conservatives will ultimately support him over a Dem option. And if he wins without the support of the social conservatives, that will mark a decline in their (perceived) power. That's what I call a "twofer". :)
What this says to me is that the Democrats only need to roll 2% of the vote illegally to beat McCain and they need to roll 4.5% fraud to beat Rudy.
That makes Rudy a better bet - we know the Democrats can find 2% fraud in any big city precinct in the US without breaking a sweat!
Rudy is probably smart enough to know that. I can see him 'moderating' his views to try to win over the majority of the party. Social Conservatives may be forced to get behind McCain to beat Rudy, although that will be a hard sell too. Too bad there is not a Mike Pense out there with more experience.
I thought he was discussing how Republicans would fare against Hillary? Not independent-maverick-let-me-see-which-liberal-democrat-I-can-get-to-co-sponsor-my-bill-this-month Senators.
Rudy would have a good chance of winning California - 50 some odd electoral votes. Probably the whole Left Coast.
Yu're right, and it makes Republicans look bad. Part of our message since 911 is for dems to put their social concerns on the backburner while we concentrate on the War on Islamic Terrorism.
Now we have a GOPer who is strong on the War on Terrorism, but wobbly on some conservative social issues. Now some Republicans are duplicitous - THEIR social agenda stuff is important, while the dem's social agenda stuff was to be sacrificed by them in the interest of the war.
They have no intent to compromise on their own social issues, while insisting their opponents compromise. They are talking out of their @ss, frankly. It stinks, they are phonies and clearly full of it.
They make all GOPers look bad.
I have indeed learned in life that one must choose the best choice available, not the perfect alternative (which usually does not exist).
I need to learn a lot more about all the potential candidates.
I wish Rudy would have run for Hillary's senate seat. He could have beat her there and given us another supporter in the war on terror -- and he's no worse than she was on the social issues.
Rudy couldn't win the job of dog catcher in my Area.
The article is wrong about "every other candidate hovering at 2-3 percent".
There's still time - I would expect the field to take shape after the November mid-terms.
Often enough, the ultimate nominee is a ralative "latecomer" - or someone not on the early name-recognition driven radar.
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.