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.
"The conservative movement taught the Rockefeller Republicans how to win national elections." Nice little myth but IN FACT Reagan won because he was running against one of the most incompetent presidents ever elected. AND because he was an EXPERT with the media thus neutralized all their dirty tricks and lies. He was the beloved granddad familiar to and welcome in our homes from his many tv shows.
His successors were either more moderate (GWHB), Democrat (Clinton) or a conservative excommunicated from conservativism by the Ultras.
Gingrich's Contract made a point not to sound like the most fanatical of the fanatics. Conservativism sold as commonsense wins but as extremism loses.
There is no candidate from either party who can lay a glove on Guiliani when it comes to public speaking and appeal to an audience. He is the ONLY real threat to Hillary. His destruction prior to the election is #1 on the Soros playlist.
Nope. Neither was Bush #1. Or Eisenhower.
Well I can definitely assure you that Joliet Catholic will NOT win the Super Bowl.
But you still face the HUGE problem of finding a candidate YOU can support who will have some appeal to the majority of the electorate. And you aren't even close.
Oh, that remains to be seen. A lot is going to happen between now and Iowa.
Typical of a lying skunk to try and make my words apply to one who have NEVER done what you do. Jim has never called me "craven" for expressing my views. He must also be getting pretty tired of you losers calling him in to fight your battles for you. Now THAT is craven.
"The same ones who drove the party off the cliff during the last election?" False. Republicans voted for Republicans last election. The losses came from the Independents and moderates frightened away from the "extremists" by the Treason Media's lies. Conservatives did not stay home.
Guiliani is the only candidate capable of taking on the media frustrating and defeating its influence.
"The GOP drifted leftward and lost." Truly funny. How does a "leftward" drift by the party (which changed not a word in its platform) cause the defeat of every solid conservative Senate candidate. How does such a drift cause the House conservative base to be annihilated and removed from leadership? Come on you can do better than this.
I don't give a shiite. Guiliani's views are NOT in accord with mine 100% of the time. But there is NO candidate acceptable to YOU who stands the slightest chance of winning even one primary. Why is that? Whose fault is that?
But he will pick up voters that are not so hard core conservative. He may even pick up democrats (i.e. Joe Lieberman democrats).
I personally know many democrats that would consider and will likely vote for Rudy, even in the Primaries because they are sick of their own party.
It may not be what the base would like to see, but it can happen that way. (IMO)
More power to him. It's just that if he loses, the social conservatives cannot be blamed, as they have their principles to uphold.
"Oh, that remains to be seen. A lot is going to happen between now and Iowa." 1 it is clear enough to those willing to do an objective analysis of the political situation. 2 that which will happen between now and Iowa is NOT going to make you any happier since what I have been saying will only be confirmed by events.
America will NOT elect a fringe candidate. This has been shown over and over. As unpopular as Guilian's views allegedly are to some they are not out of line with the the majority of voters. THIS is the important fact to consider in selecting a candidate.
For those who claim they will consider voting for Obama over Rudy, here's a few points from an Obama thread:
"Barack Hussein Obama voted for a bill that would allow abortionists to cover their "mistakes" in a most gruesome manner. According to the record, the bill would allow doctors to kill babies born alive after a botched abortion. Think about that. A baby is born in spite of a monster’s attempt to kill him/her in an abortion and the doctor can cover up this “mistake” by killing the baby there in the operating room. Once the “mistake” is erased the doctor is free go play a round of golf.
"Obama voted FOR that measure.
"Obama voted against allowing the option of self defense for homeowners if they use an illegal gun to protect themselves from an attacker in their own home.
"Obama sponsored a bill to expunge the records of felons and give them grants of taxpayer money as a gift upon returning to society."
How many Southern social conservatives are going to vote for this guy? Please.
So rudy being a part of a communist anti-war organization is OK with you?
We can't win if you siphon off the pro-life, pro-gun, and pro-marriage crowd. We've got to do better than Rudy if we have any intention of winning!
Did you decide to post this drivel on everything today?
Later in 1993, Reagan was contacted about supporting the Brady Bill by Jim and Sara Brady themselves. Some Reaganites have said, The Gipper wasn't in the best frame of mind at that time. Others have said that Reagan was simply standing with his good friend who was almost killed, after being shot in the head during the 1981 assassination attempt on Reagan`s life by John Hinckley. I'll accept the ladder. Jim Brady was his good friend.
As a private citizen, Reagan supported the 1994 assault weapons ban. As did Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford and Rudy Giuliani. George W.Bush has said he would sign an assault weapons ban extension into law, if passed by Congress back in 2004. Congress voted that extension down. No President has clean hands on this issue. But posting trashtalk about Reagan from several extremist websites, is stepping over the line in my opinion.
There are by some estimates 20,000-30,000 gun control laws on the books in America today. Most are local and state laws, but many are federal laws. The majority of those gun control measures directly infringe on the right of Americans to keep and bear arms, as stated in the 2nd amendment. Rudy Giuliani enforced existing gun control laws in NYCity. Now Rudy wants to add EVEN more gun control laws to what already exists in America today. That is the problem supporters of the 2nd amendment have with Rudy.
When Reagan was given the lifetime membership to the NRA ---- IIRC one of only 19 people to ever be given such an honor ---- they did it because the NRA firmly believed Reagan supported the 2nd amendment. OTOH, Rudy is no friend of the 2nd amendment and has even sued gun manufacturers in an effort to stop the free market production of legal firearms. Rudy is a gun grabber of the first order. If you think he will get the support of the NRA or other gun organizations, along with the millions of gun advocates in America, you're fooling yourself. Never gonna happen.
Then get behind Newt.
Newt's my second choice if he enters the race.
LOL! Hey, they will accept anyone as long as he has a (R) after his name. Principles, ethics, morals -- those don't matter.
Not really. The poster was said I was a "lying skunk". Them's fighting words were I come from, pilgrim.
Btw, I don't support Obama, Hillary or Rudy for that matter. I don't support any liberal for POTUS. And I don't believe by NOT voting for the Republican in 2008, specifically in this case Rudy Giuliani, is a vote for the Democrat candidate by default. Never really have thought that way. People have a right to vote for whoever they choose. I also believe, American's have a duty to vote. An obligation to vote.
I expect Democrats to vote for liberals, and I expect Republicans to vote for conservatives. In my world, however, conservatives don't vote for liberals under any circumstance.
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.