Posted on 02/12/2007 6:43:36 AM PST by areafiftyone
MANCHESTER, N.H. - New Hampshire residents likely to vote in the Republican presidential primary a year from now think more highly of former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani than any of his rivals, a poll released Tuesday shows.
| ADVERTISEMENT |
Giuliani's net favorability rating — the proportion of people viewing him favorably minus the proportion viewing him unfavorably — was 56 percent, well ahead of Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), 32 percent, and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, 26 percent, in the University of New Hampshire poll for WMUR-TV in Manchester.
"He's the lesser-known candidate, but he has that rock star quality," poll director Andy Smith said of Giuliani. "He has a charisma that was built after 9-11."
This long before an election, political professionals pay more attention to favorability than voters' choices if they had to vote today. McCain and Giuliani were essentially tied at about 27 percent on that question among likely GOP primary voters, followed by Romney at 13 percent and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich at 9 percent.
The GOP portion of the telephone poll reached 311 likely voters from Thursday to Monday and had an error margin of plus or minus 5.6 percentage points.
Former Sen. John Edwards and Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record) had net favorability ratings ranging from 61 percent to 55 percent, too close to be statistically significant.
When asked for whom they would vote, 35 percent of likely Democratic voters picked Clinton, 21 percent Obama and 15 percent Edwards. Eight percent chose former Vice President Al Gore, who is not running.
The Democratic portion of the phone poll reached 353 likely voters and had an error margin of plus or minus 5.2 percentage points.
Independents may vote in either primary, and 68 percent of them indicated they planned to vote in the Democratic primary compared to 32 percent leaning toward the GOP contest.
"This will hurt Republican candidates who try to appeal to more moderate, independent voters," Smith said.
Any post with a nonsensical line such as that one is not worthy of further consideration. In addition, Spiff's chart covers core conservative values, not whether your kids like you or not.
"Actually, if social conservatives turn their back on Giuliani, it will be a disastrous outcome."
And it's a "lead pipe cinch" that they will... With that in mind, he shouldn't get the nomination. Unless we just want to loose.
Nothing nonsensical about it. The post wasn't an attempt to bash Reagan, it was an attempt to show how a variety of things taken out of context (context including noting that Reagan didn't have control of both houses of Context) could have been used to bash Reagan.
Thus, you clearly misunderstood the point of the post.
Reagan did admit to being an FDR Democrat and self-professed liberal during his early years. But after his conversion, Reagan was never considered a liberal or called a liberal by anyone that I know of. Maybe a few Birchers got carried away and would slam Reagan now and then. But the general political label most everyone hung on Reagan was, "conservative Republican".
Yep. You are 100% correct.
Context? I have yet to see ANYONE refute the core claims of Spiff's chart. And the items listed are core conservative values. You're fairly liberal yourself, so don't try and discuss context on a subject you don't partake of yourself.
The ping list is two pages already! They are getting turned off by all the hate and tell me so when they ask to be put on it.
And now we are being told that Rudy can win.
And Rudy has given the opposition plenty of hammers to hit him with.
"The mayor was down here many times during the campaign," said Katon Dawson, chairman of the South Carolina Republican Party. "And I would say the mayor is very popular in South Carolina right now."
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1782943/posts
Sure, he's polling well now, but wait until people learn more about him. He's not likely to go up in numbers when people learn the facts! [His positions are simply not that out of line with those of the majority of Americans. America is NOT that conservative which is something which you refuse to admit.] They already know his pro-WOT stance, and relative fisal conservativeness. Good points, yeah, but when they learn the baggage parts, they will run bigtime! [His "baggage" will not matter to those who understand the need to defeat this enemy. If it does then no party which counts on such voters has much of a chance. These are not dependable allies in a fight.]
He's polling in the top over there. He's popular and I think he will be going there this week.
That is your claim not mine.
Defending the Nation is the most significant issue facing us. Rudy will, Hillary will not. This is so simple it is remarkable that I have to repeat it on a site as knowledgeable as FR.
Thats fine by me. 9/11 was a defining moment in US history and Rudy was at the center of that historic period. I just have a serious problem with the mantle of lifetime hero being hung around Rudy`s neck because of his behavior in the immediate aftermath of 9-11. Rudy is getting more credit then he deserves. He stood up and spoke out. Okay. People saw Rudy on TV, day after day, remaining resolute in the face of death and destruction. Okay. Congrats! Fact is, the entire city pulled together. ALL New Yorkers found common ground. It was an extremely emotional time for everyone. Even for us ex-NewYawkers it was difficult to watch. However, take away those four months after 9/11, and Rudy is nothing in my book. Rudy reduced crime rates and I give him kudos for that. I just think when you look at Rudy`s entire record, I don't see someone who is presidential material. Main reason? Rudy is a liberal!
How many boneheaded plays by the "conservative movement" do you have to see to validate the truth of that statement. Illinois is a great example of conservatives not being able to unify and defeat moderates. This has produced viscious primaries where the conservatives rip each other to shreds generally producing a moderate (Topinka) who loses in the general. On occasion a conservative wins and is then slaughtered in the general.
This is as predictable as to say the desert will be dry. Here there is no candidate emerging with a chance of beating Guiliain except McCain. Only Newt has a chance of winning a primary against either one and he probably would not manage even one in the South.
Reagan wasn't quite as perfect on gun control as the myth-makers would like us to believe. He was a great president, but he was far from perfect.
Aside from giving us amnesty and two lousy Supreme Court judges, Reagan pushed a little gun control himself:
It was Governor Ronald Reagan of California who signed the Mulford Act in 1967, "prohibiting the carrying of firearms on one's person or in a vehicle, in any public place or on any public street." The law was aimed at stopping the Black Panthers, but affected all gun owners.
Twenty-four years later, Reagan was still pushing gun control. "I support the Brady Bill," he said in a March 28, 1991 speech, "and I urge the Congress to enact it without further delay."
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=3605
The import of some shotguns was prohibited by President Reagan?
The 1994 "assault weapons" ban will sunset in 2004 unless Congress re-authorizes it. All those firearms that were banned because of their appearance (and because they didn't meet arbitrary, bureaucratically defined, and highly changeable "sporting purpose" criteria) are scheduled to become legal to manufacture again. All those magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds will be legal to manufacture again. It will once again be legal to import the group of shotguns administratively banned by Ronald Reagan and the group of semi-automatic rifles similarly banned by the first President Bush. (Both of these executive bans were codified in the 1994 law.)
http://www.jpfo.org/alert20021007.htm
Since the KABA poll was released, additional information has resurfaced concerning President Reagan’s support for the 1994 “assault weapon” ban: “Kenneth J. Cooper & Ann Devroy, Backers of Assault Weapons Ban Make Final Push for Undecided Votes, WASH. POST, May 5, 1994, at A5. Former Presidents Gerald R. Ford, Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan announced their support of the ban in a letter.”
With this clear evidence of Mr. Reagan supporting the Brady Bill, a ban on shotguns and semiautos, and a ban on carrying firearms in public, it seems fair to ask:
Why is NRA republishing their 1983 resolution (issued, incidentally, 16 years after he signed the Mulford Act) where they proclaimed “President Reagan has forcefully stood by his convictions in support of the second amendment right of citizens to keep and bear arms for any legitimate purpose, including self-defense; and…vigorously rejects the myth that gun control is crime control…”?
http://keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=2955
Explains the Mulford Act:
http://publicola.mu.nu/archives/2004/06/16/who_can_gun_owners_trust.html
I don't see that. Just because he makes commercials and gets paid millions doesn't make him as ass.
The conservative movement taught the Rockefeller Republicans how to win national elections. They were content to be a pepetual minority party.
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.