Posted on 12/21/2006 11:58:01 AM PST by areafiftyone
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) continues to hold a narrow lead over Senator Hillary Clinton (D) and former Vice President Al Gore (D) in early Election 2008 polling.
Giuliani leads Clinton 47% to 43% in the latest poll. That’s very similar to the 48% to 43% lead he enjoyed in late November. When matched against Gore, Giuliani now leads 46% to 43%. In November, he also enjoyed a three-point lead over the Democrats’ Election 2000 candidate.
Against either Democrat, Giuliani leads among men but trails among women. The two Democrats lead among voters under 30, but trail among other age groups.
Gore is now viewed favorably by 50% of Americans and unfavorably by 49%. That’s a bit better than in earlier surveys. For Clinton, the numbers are now 48% favorable and 50% unfavorable, a bit weaker than the last time we checked.
Neither Democrat comes close to Giuliani on the favorability scale. The man sometimes known as “America’s Mayor” is viewed favorably by seven out of ten Americans (71%).
Giuliani also does well in Republican primary polling. In fact, he is the top candidate in the early going. John McCain is second. McCain also leads Clinton and Gore in Election 2008 match-ups. In fact, Giuliani and McCain are ahead in every match-up no matter what Democrat we mention.
On the Democratic side, Clinton is the clear frontrunner. Gore has not made it clear whether he intends to run.
Check out the favorability ratings for all Republican candidates, Democratic candidates, Congressional Leaders and other Political leaders.
That is really not the case.
The McLaughlin & Associates poll from Nov7th ---- a well respected Republican pollster ---- is the ONLY poll reflecting the opinions of Republicans ONLY, at this early stage. Its like the first GOP primary poll. You don't like it. Okay. It crushes your belief that Rudy is the savior of the GOP. Since you're so infatuated with Giulinai, I can understand why. Just remember this. Giuliani led the field of Republicans by 12% in the same poll from McLaughlin & Associates following the 2004 general election. This time, Rudy is 6% points back of McCain. Conservative Republicans will not vote in the primaries for Rudy. Not gonna happen.
>> You have failed miserably, on all accounts.
I've heard that more than once today...
>> you are implying that I am an homosexual, and trying to be "cute".
I don't care if you're a homosexual or not, and I never suggested you're trying to be "cute".
Kidding aside, Rudy's a good man and he'll remain the best Mayor NYC ever had. I have strong reservations about electing him to the Presidency, however.
Well, darn. I have come to look forward to your nightly knockouts on these Rudy threads :) Merry Christmas.
It looks like the Free Republic "Rudy Wars" will make previous flame wars look like a Girl Scout campfire.
Mr. Reagan Man was challenged to name a conservative candidate he supports for 2008 and he claims it is too early. LOL!! It's apparently not too early to attack a candidate he claims has no chance.
It IS too early to say with any confidence what will happen, but the nomination in all probability will be decided by March 2008 due to the large number of early primaries.
That means candidates need 2007 to set up their campaigns, raise money, get volunteers, and get known. In other words, if they don't get in within two or three months, they are out.
Unless something changes within the next 2-3 months it looks like the early favorites are Rudy and John. Understandably there are conservatives here and elsewhere that do not like this unpleasant truth. The answer is to get another candidate VERY SOON or else accept the likelihood that we're not going to get a candidate as conservative as RWR elected in 2008.
IMHO the odds of having a President elected that is even as conservative as GWB are at least 3-1 against. There aren't any strong candidates now that fit that criterion, and in 2008 the electorate is likely to be wary of another conservative for many of the same reasons that hurt us in 2006.
If we could find another RWR out there I'd support him. I don't see any. I honestly believe Rudy is our best chance, even though he is not a conservative.
My own view is that influential conservative leaders should offer support in exchange for an understanding that Rudy would appoint more Justices like Alito and Roberts. Having Rudy at the top of the ticket will help most Republican candidates downticket.
Of course, we cannot be sure Rudy would honor such a bargain -- but I would trust his word more than McCain's.
Judges. Judges. Judges.
Especially since someone who has been married twice is out. People who are not Christians are out. People who were Democrat in their youth and changed to Republican are out. People who have homosexual children are out.
Clearly even Reagan would have been vetoed by some here.
I'm glad you're amused, but I don't understand your hostile post to me.
>>>So your statement that NYC is one of the few cities that have an income tax is completely ignorant.
There are a thousands of US cities. I don't have a list of what US cities impose an income tax on their residents, but my guess would be the numbers as an overall percentage are quite low. If you say certain Ohio cities have imposed city income taxes on you in the past, I'm not gonna argue with you. But I wouldn't be bragging about it either.
>>>>You should be careful not to be ignorant when you attack, because people will ignore your rants.
I attacked no one. I made a statement based on facts. I never said NYCity was the only city with an income tax. Feel free to ignore my posts in the future. In fact, I encourage you to ignore my posts.
However, I stand by what I posted:
As the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research said: "Even with the tax cuts of the last several years, New York remains by far the most heavily taxed big city in the country."
RWR was a great President who was a man, not a deity, and took some actions that could have been attacked:
- Appointed Sandra D. O'Connor, who recently wrote the Opinion for the five Justices who kept affimative action alive on college campuses (a very poorly written opinion BTW)
- Appointed Anthony Kennedy, who recently wrote the 5-4 Kelo decision (eminent domain)
- Cut-and-ran from Lebanon
- Allowed his wife to use an astrologer to set the Presidential Schedule
- Jacked up taxes in 1982
- Signed a law that gave amnesty to illegal immigrants
- Allowed budget and trade deficits to rise during his tenure
In addition, he didn't eliminate any Cabinet Departments as promised, he allowed loose cannons like Ollie North too much leeway to his own personal cost, and he was the man most responsible for elevating GHWB to the point that he won the nomination in 1988 (whose Presidency was most definitely reviled by many conservatives).
It's easy to be an attack dog. It's a lot less dramatic to be reasonable and fair.
RWR was a great President who, like all Presidents, was not perfect. Neither is GWB. I'm glad that we had them, and I fear that we won't be as well off in January 2009.
Just because you've made up your mind, doesn't mean the rest of us are as irrationally implusive as you are. If you keep track of my posts, one day you'll find out who I'll be supporting in 2008. It won't be some NYCity liberal named, Rudy Giulinai. Bank on it!
Objecting to statements that you make that are factually wrong is only hostile if you consider yourself above being challenged.
There are a thousands of US cities. I don't have a list of what US cities impose an income tax on their residents, but my guess would be the numbers as an overall percentage are quite low. If you say certain Ohio cities have imposed city income taxes on you in the past, I'm not gonna argue with you. But I wouldn't be bragging about it either.
I did not brag about it, and for you to claim I did is intellectually dishonest. Now you say that you are guessing. Perhaps you should have said that earlier, so that everyone would know your points are based on your guesses, not facts. The FACT is that in Ohio, most cities in the large urban counties have income taxes. Another poster indicated that is true in Michigan as well. I won't speak to other states, as unlike you I prefer to have some knowledge on a topic before making statements.
I made a statement based on facts. I never said NYCity was the only city with an income tax.
And I never claimed you said it was the only city. You did claim that it was one of the few that did, and you admitted above that you were guessing, not basing anything on facts.
You are far too careless about the words coming our of your computer to put words in mine or anyone else's.
And as far as your claim that Rudy had no chance, "Methinks thou doth protest too much".
You think I actually have nothing better to do than keep track of your posts to find out who you will support? Whatever.
As of now I support Rudy, but that does not mean I will vote for him in the primary. Perhaps you know my mind better than I.
That's a bit convoluted. I enjoy being challenged, but your response to me was not based on any legitimate context of my prior post to you. Truth is, city income taxes aren't the norm. The fact remains, New York is by far the most heavily taxed big city in America. Beyond that, you're being purposely argumentative.
>>>>I did not brag about it, and for you to claim I did is intellectually dishonest.
Its not being intellectually dishonest. With thousands of cities in the USA, very few have income taxes. Those are the facts.
>>>>Perhaps you should have said that earlier, so that everyone would know your points are based on your guesses, not facts.
Educated guesses, maybe. The fact remains, that most US cities don't have a city income tax. The fact remains, NYCity does have an income tax and its "remains by far the most heavily taxed big city in the country."
>>>>The FACT is that in Ohio, most cities in the large urban counties have income taxes.
Ohio is not the entire USA. Now is it? No.
>>>>You are far too careless about the words coming our of your computer to put words in mine or anyone else's.
LOL I'm not careless about my words. I choose my words wisely. You choose to take exception to one single sentence, so be it. One more time. Most US cities don't have an income tax. You deny that? I sure hope not.
>>>>And as far as your claim that Rudy had no chance, "Methinks thou doth protest too much".
Protest too much? Hardly. I stand by my statement: Rudy has no chance of securing the GOP nomination.
That's up to you. However, I won't be sending you any FReepMails.
>>>>>As of now I support Rudy, but that does not mean I will vote for him in the primary. Perhaps you know my mind better than I.
No, I can't keep up with your convoluted thought process. One minute you're defending the liberal Rudy Giuliani, the next minute you say you won't vote for him in the primary. Sounds like you don't know what you want.
yeah, sure - that's going to work. a group of POWs is going to lead an attack against McCain for "talking too much" while being beaten to a pulp by the north vietnamese, when the opponent's husband is a draft dodger and loathes the military.
but go ahead, let them launch that attack. the backlash will help McCain amongst independents. any conservative not voting for McCain in the general election over this issue, wasn't going to vote for him anyway.
One of the very positive things about Rudy here is that he has almost 100% name recognition and very very low negatives.
Hillary, OTOH, has 100% name recognition, and negatives almost as high as her positives.
Really disgusting. Really bad taste.
One can have dreams cant they? I dont see anyone else out there that I agree with on a conservative base.
Yup. I work at a large Midwestern Public University, and I run into that kind of attitude all the time. It's scary.
Yeah, duck the ISSUES... Symbolism over substance...
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.