Posted on 11/24/2006 8:29:23 AM PST by Milltownmalbay
Giuliani would lose Texas.
Call me a double issue voter, RKBA AND PROLIFE.
Add one more issue, I AM A REPUBLICAN.
How far do you think I'll have to go down the list, to find Rudy?
Why are we even considering RINOs? What good will it do to win, if we have become the opposition, to our own philosophy?
Depends on how much we the GOP has abandoned the Big Tent policy.
2008 is NOT about abortion, it's about keeping the country safe.
I don't vote for gun grabbers...ever.....
The place for Republicans to make their voices heard is primary election. Republicans who choose to "sit out" a general election have still made a choice...and a silly one at that. Conservatives who don't vote in general elections are out of their minds and hurt our party.
"Giuliani would lose Texas."
To Clinton? No.
The 9/11 effect has worn off. If using Osama Bin Ladin to get elected still worked, we'd have the House and the Senate. The electorate has "moved on".
You can say it is foolish, and it is, but that's just the way it is.
Interesting statement.
TO WHO?
Name which Democrat would beat him in Texas?
As Tevia said, looking to heaven,..."if I bend any more I'll break".
A Republican party with out deeply held beliefs and principals is nothing. Just Democrats without balls.
Great. Let's give up all principles to be "safe".
Bayh, Edwards, possibly Richardson.
15 million "one issue" voters would stay home?
that's highly unlikely.
1) Giuliani's ideal justice is Antonin Scalia
2) Giuliani said Roberts & Alito are "promises kept" by the GOP to appoint originalists to the court
based on the above, if Giuliani appointed judges like Scalia, Roberts, and Alito, what difference would his personal views make?
By the way, both Roberts and Alito said that Roe v Wade is "settled law" in their confirmation hearings. So how does adding conservative judges who pledge to leave Roe v. Wade alone help pro-lifers?
Additionally, S.D. had a chance to vote on banning abortions and it failed. If a ban on abortion can't succeed there, where could it?
What do the "fire-eaters" in the "one issue" social conservative movement propose as an electoral strategy in an almost evenly divided voter base, with the trend being towards going blue in key battleground states like :
Iowa
New Mexico
Ohio
Missouri
Colorado
New Hampshire
Virginia
Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Washington and Oregon appear to be permanently lost to the Democrats in presidential elections.
I live in Iowa, which not long ago had 2 Republican senators, 6 Republican congressman, a Republican governor, and both houses of the legislature securely in Republican hands. Today, there are 4 Democrats and 2 Republicans in the house, the Democrats have won the Governorship 3 times in a row by large margins, and both houses are in Democrat hands for the first time since the 1960's.
Again, what is the strategy of the fire-eaters to win any presidential election with those trends? And what is it they really want to do anyway. There is no way in hell they're going overturn Roe v. Wade through the Supreme Court. Forget it. Let alone a constitutional amendment. So what is the future strategy, practically speaking? Tilting at windmills like Don Quixote?
As for Iowa, the people voting Democrat are socially liberal soccer moms and Yuppies who are educated and vote in large numbers. They would vote Republican if they didn't think the party was being run by Pat Robertson. They are gennerally for limited government and low taxes.
The Democrats will easily win all the states Kerry won in 2004, and could add Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado and Ohio unless the GOP can come up with a candidate who appeals to the voters who have turned Iowa into another Minnesota/Wisconsin/Illinois.
If Giuliani brought N.Y.'s 31 electoral votes, there would be no way the Democrats could win the presidency.
I don't know where they get their 52-41 numbers, but all during the 2006 elections, they were padding the poll numbers by anywhere from 11% to 16% - so I don't believe their numbers.
Other polls taken by legit groups have always had a high number for pro-life than for pro-choice.
Stem cell research, a social conservative issue, hurt Republicans.
And the way the war is being fought, hurt Republicans.
The enemy is not going away. Whatever happens in Iraq in the next two years, and it can't be good, will damage Republicans further. And on that point only someone trusted to fight the war correctly, perceived to be Giuliani, would regain Republican credibility on the issue.
SurveyUSA does a fairly decent job with their polling. This interactive is entertaining, at least, in predicting the outcome. You can set the pairs and see how they think it might turn out.
http://www.surveyusa.com/
That is my experience as well.
These people are not voting FOR Democrats, they are voting AGAINST the "Religious Right".
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.