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.
I'm not campaiging for anyone. Only against Rudy Giuliani. Don't mistake my tag line as an endorsement for any single candidate. It's far too early for that.
Carry on, mister liberal.
Not at all. Rather it is an indication that I know EXACTLY what you are attempting.
You come from bizarro-world, I swear. You are really losing it. As a friend, i suggest you get help, real quick, too!
"Don't mistake my tag line as an endorsement for any single candidate. It's far too early for that." This is a clear statement that you have NO chance of electing anyone. It is too late to pull a candidate from obscurity into the National spotlight and expect anything but defeat. Given this admission of defeat linked to your saboteur role further convinces both of your lack of influence and willingness to destroy the GOP candidate.
When it comes to "sleazy statements" no one can hope to top the Saboteurs. No statement is too sleazy for you clowns.
You are saying this and Giuliani hasn't officially announced his candidacy? There is no admission to defeat, only if Giuliani is the candidate for the GOP. That is a certain loser.
"I think you are pushing Rudy as a stand-in for your real candidate, Hillary..." It isn't me throwing brickbats at the only candidate who could defeat Hillary.
"You don't care and make light of what anyone else thinks regarding who the candidate should be." You should learn the difference between "making light of" and ridiculing.
"But if, God forbid, Rudy got the nomination you would be horrified that some of us would vote for a third party." I would be horrified if real allies voted for a turd party. Nothing you Implacables do is horrifying since your threats and tantrums are commonplace now. One can count on you for NOTHING except hissyfits. When almost every real conservative gets on board and supports the nominee you will still be having hissys.
"If you can get "your" candidate elected without my vote, go for it. If you can't, I suggest you back somebody more acceptable to others whose votes will be needed to win." Knowing that you support a candidate is all the evidence I would need to know that his defeat is certain. Knowing that you are opposed to a candidate is a STRONG signal he could win.
Hey, all you have to do is support someone capable of winning a few primaries which would establish some degree of credibility. That obviously won't happen.
That "bizzaro-world" is called REALITY. You should visit sometime you might like it.
You flatter yourself excessively by claiming to be my friend.
Be gone, troll, your usefulness is gone.
Anyone but you guys claiming defeat would have me concerned but hearing such from you is like an endorsement by 90% of the electorate for those you attack.
You don't really believe you speak for most Americans do you?
I know.
The Rudy-Lovers get all bent out of shape when I call their "attempts to devalue traditional American conservatives" as "craven". Yet when JimRob calls Rudy evil for backing the Democratic Party platform, they have no problem whatsoever. Calling someones candidate evil, is the same as calling that candidates backers, evil.
You come on a Rudy thread and tell ME to begone because I don't follow your illogical nonsense? Delusions of grandeur are always amusing. Next we should see the Napoleon hat.
Earlier today I went back and looked at some old threads on controversial subjects, for example, the Harriet Miers threads. It's strange, but you always see the same posters promoting any cause that would move the party left. It's a veritable who's who of Giuliani supporters. Who woulda thunk it?
"Hey, all you have to do is support someone capable of winning a few primaries which would establish some degree of credibility. That obviously won't happen."
Here's the deal... I'm a boomer with more money than I'm going to need for the rest of my life. I'm going to live "high on the hog" no matter who wins the presidency.
I'm not going to hold my nose and vote for somebody. I'm going to vote on principal, even if the one I vote for "can't" win. I'm not going to vote for the lessor of two evils.
I did that when I voted for Bush (twice), now he thinks I support his foolishness. I'm not doing that again.
"I'm not going to hold my nose and vote for somebody. I'm going to vote on principal, even if the one I vote for "can't" win. I'm not going to vote for the lessor of two evils." LoL that only means you will vote for the lesser of THREE evils being that a turd party candidate will be a real nitwit. There is no "principle" in that.
Almost EVERY election is between the lesser of two evils that is the nature of the political process. NO one will be perfect.
Your complaining about having to vote for Bush should show you just how isolated your views are. Bush was the MOST conservative governor in the Nation and is the MOST conservative electable person we have had run since Reagan. He is from what is generally considered the "far" Right.
But you only confirmed what I already knew there is NO credible candidate you will support. Apparently you learned nothing from Nov.
"The Republican Party was bitten in 2006 by falling away from what got them elected." That is complete baloney. Republican CONSERVATIVES got smashed in Nov. How does that translate into the party moving too far Left? In the REAL world the winners should have been conservative if that is what the electorate wanted. It would have punished LIBERALS if that more conservatives were desired.
In FACT, the GOP lost because the electorate was convinced it was too "extreme" while the RATs were "reasonable". The Treason Media worked mighty hard to produce this idea in Independents and moderates. Conservatives did not desert the GOP and voted for it. Conservatives are REALISTS above all and commonsense tells them that they are not idicative of the voters as a whole.
I'd say for the most part, FR`s contingent of Bushies support Rudy`s candidacy for POTUS. Now don't get me wrong. Bush is a solid social conservative and that doesn't sit well with many of his backers. But Bush`s liberal domestic policy, is in-line with Rudy`s liberal agenda. I see no difference. Its called borrow and spend, AKA. big government Republicanism. Just like Arnold is doing in California.
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.