Posted on 11/24/2006 8:29:23 AM PST by Milltownmalbay
Conventional wisdom indicates that if only Rudy Giuliani could clear the insurmountable hurdle of the Republican primaries and convention, he could be a formidable presidential candidate.
Polling data indicates that the opposite is true. Whether Republicans eager for a win after a bruising midterm election will reluctantly nominate Giuliani is one thing. The fact that he cannot win the general election is quite another.
Gallup polling prior to the 2004 presidential election confirms what many previous polls have indicated: a pro-life position helps Republicans. When factored into a close election, that help is the difference between winning and losing.
When asked by Gallup simply whether they regard themselves as pro-life or pro-choice, pro-choice wins by a margin of 52 – 41. When asked whether they would vote for a candidate who was pro-life, only 10% of pro-choicers said no. When asked the same question in reverse, 30% of pro-lifers said no.
In other words, while pro-choicers outnumbers pro-lifers, pro-lifers vote are three times as likely to vote the issue. When Gallup factored those numbers back into presidential categories, they found that 25% of the people who were planning to vote for Bush were self-described single issue pro-life voters. Only 11% of Kerry’s supporters were committed firmly to voting for a pro-choice candidate.
If we factor those numbers into the number of people who actually voted for Bush, it means that about fifteen million (out of sixty million) Republican voters have said that they would not vote for a pro-choice candidate. Admittedly, many when faced with the possibility of Hillary, might feel compelled to vote for Giuliani.
But when the President only won by four million votes, any Giuliani strategist needs to consider that his position on abortion will alienate fifteen million Republican voters. Add to that his positions on guns, gay marriage, and partial birth abortion, and you have a recipe for disaster.
In the 2004, Osama bin Ladin released a threatening video tape aimed at influencing the American elections the weekend before the election and the top concern of voters in election polls was moral issues.
Giuliani Republicans are counting on the fact that pro-lifers will reluctantly support Giuliani rather than allow another Clinton presidency. What they fail to realize is that many pro-lifers may just sit this one out, believing that they have no horse in the race.
Even worse for Giuliani, many pro-lifers may believe that it would be better to lose one presidential election than to end up with both major national parties supporting abortion on demand.
In any case, Giuliani has a problem with fifteen million of the voters he needs to win the in 2008.
Being realistic is not going to be an option. I would like abortion to be completely banned in every area of America. However, since we can't even get a ban in South Dakota than that will probably won't happen. However, I don't have to help the cause of abortion at the very least.
I know Duncan Hunter, I voted for Duncan Hunter,
Duncan Hunter is not Presidential material...he
would be torn to shreds before he got out of the
gate...Jake
The Republican Party should be more than the anti-abortion party. All you have to do is look at Santorum's demise to see the folly of focusing on that one trait.
For one..he was suspiciously felt to have manipulated
taxes on his property, although he took out a full
page ad...rebutting it, and seems that it has blown
over..he went public supporting Duke Cunningham as a
good friend, and other little morsels that have the
potential to sink him slowly, but surely... I think
he is a good guy..but the above and the millions to
raise just to compete is doubtful...Jake
I could actually vote for Duncan Hunter without holding my nose. A breath of fresh air.
I hope he comes out swinging.
If you want to see the Democrats in the White House in '08, listen to the single-issue voters and pick someone who can only win in the primaries.
If their daughter was raped by some gangsta, they would flip before they could flop.
He probably had no problem with her as a NY Senator--because his positions aren't all that different than hers.
Nuts!
Read the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. Social conservatives believe the right to life extends to ALL, including the unborn. Social conservatives support the RKBA. Social conservatives support marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Social conservatives oppose illegal aliens being granted special status, or amnesty. Social conservatives oppose special rights for homosexuals.
Upholding the Constitution is no small matter.
Let me rephrase that. Guiliani wouldn't carry NY against Hillary.
I'd be willing to bet that's why he didn't run against her this month. Take a look at the latest NY polls with Rudy against Hillary. If he wanted to do the country and NY (and the Republican Party) a great service--he should have ran against her and removed her from the Senate. THEN,,,,,he could have ran for Pres--and maybe even got support from some of us.
He can 'spare us' his efforts now that he passed that chance up. He will never get my vote since he wouldn't even take her on where they know him best,,,and love him. No way he will get nominated.
If the Republican Party can't nominate a candidate who agrees with the party's platform, we simply don't deserve to win the general election.
39.8% of Freepers don't care that Rudy is a pro-abort, anti-2A, pro-homo, New York liberal.
many freepers would vote for Satan himself even if he ran openly as the father of wickedness as long as he ran republican. Not much different than the communists of Russia doing whatever the party wanted no matter what personal principals had to be compromised
Blue States will elect Republican Governors a lot more readily than they will any Republican to Federal office. Arnold, were he able to run, would make a great Presidential candidate. He would not be able to beat Feinstein for Senate, nor would he be able to beat any Presidential candidate for California's electoral votes.
It would take a miracle for any Republican to carry states as blue as NY, MA, CA or IL.
I suppose the Duncan Hunter fans think that he could carry CA? Right.
>>>>Not only that the fact that they are champing at the bit to amend the Constitution over queers and flag burning.
Flag burning isn't the big deal you say it is. And there is nothing wrong with denying same sex marriage rights to homosexuals.
>>>>Well lets say we used to be able to be able to deride the dims for calling the constitution a "living breathing document".
The Dems are the ones who totally abused the commerce clause. Not Republicans, and definitely not conservatives. Thank you FDR!
The time to "care" about such things is during the primaries.
Come November, 2008, the wise voter goes to the polls and votes against the candidate that he fears the most even if he has to hold his nose to do it.
If he doesn't, then he helps his worst fears come true.
Tell that to the Dims...the huffington report bunch are already pushing for a return to the AWB..and Im afraid W will sign it if it gets on his desk.
The "living breathing document" phrase you are misapplying above is used only by liberals in their advocacy for an activist judiciary, not by social conservatives. The movements among many groups for amendments to define marriage, ban flag burning, and institute a national sales tax are all conservative responses to override this extra-constitutional judicial dictatorship. Far from fabricating new law from misinterpreted precedent, these conservatives are working within the original framework of Article V of the constitution exactly as our founding fathers had intended.
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.