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 speak for most Christian Conservatives, the Religious Right, or whatever you want to call us. I think the latest is "Social Conservatives" but mostly those who are voters of conscience, who are genuinely concerned about abortion, partial birth abortion, homosexual unions, illegal border invaders, stem cell research and yes, gun control. Rudy Giuliani comes down on the wrong side of all those issues for us.
Bush is a social conservative but not a fiscal conservative
Rudy is a fiscal conservative but not a social conservative
Arnold promised us he was a fiscal conservative and not a social conservative. He's letting us down on the fiscal part these days.
I must say he put his referendums before the public and ALL ALL were voted down.
Good point. I wonder what percentage of the GOP is comprised of social conservatives? At any rate, the lessons of midterm 2006 seems to me that social conservatives alone cannot drive the GOP, let alone the entire electorate. Rinos and moderate GOP appear to me to be dissociating themselves from social conservatives. The point being is that the GOP is pulling in many directions at once. The solution, as I see it, is to go for the candidates that have a good showing of nationwide appeal.
The dems have their problems, but one them is not lack of energy (zeal, if you will) in their quest for the White House. Hilliary has a well-honed and well-financed campaign going with world wide name recognition.
Rudy and Mitt, from a social conservative point of view, have demonstrable shortcomings. Nevertheless, conservatives of all stripes do not have the luxury, in this particular election, to rigidly demand only the purist of the pure and still win the election.
You might ask George W. Bush if they had any driving ability. The 2006 and 2008 might very well be bloodbaths, but only because the GOP leadership decided to turn their backs on the social conservatives. They will get what they deserve in return.
Yeah, but we're the Siamese sibling to the GOP. If they get hurt---we get hurt. If an imperfect, but highly popular, GOP candidate wins the general in '08, we have a platform from which to work, from within so to speak. If the GOP gets defeated, then we're adrift, and Hilliary is President.
"social conservatives alone cannot drive the GOP"
So maybe the social conservatives need their own party... That would leave the republicans with about 10%.
Do you mean that social conservatives make up 90% of GOP? I don't have any idea, myself. Is this your best guess or hyperbole?
A third party makes good sense from an ideological point of view. But, from the view of pragmatic politics, it would be close to impossible to create one which is strong enough to win the 2008 general election. I guess it would be perceived from the outside as the right-wing equivalent of Move_on.org. (A group that told the dems: 'We bought you, we own you.')
Hey, it might work...we could call it Right_on.org.
hyperbole
I have seen statistics from 40% to 65%. Although supposedly people who are one issue abortion voters are around 10% of the total.
You're just not a PC Globalist---a difficult position to be in the modern world.
I myself choose as much isolation as I can obtain. The power of the political class overwhelms me. I write and use the net to reach out. I live in the middle of deep forest in center of nowhere on the edge of the Ohio River Valley. Four big dogs, a few guns for hunting, etc., and self-sufficiency equals peace and quiet.
We were sold out by the President and the so-called conservatives of the GOP Congress in '06. There's a lesson to found in there, somewhere.
"I speak for most Christian Conservatives, the Religious Right, or whatever you want to call us." TommyDale 2/11/2007
People have called me "arrogant" for good reason, yet all my arrogance is the purest HUMILITY compared to that statement.
I notice your litany of concerns and alleged Rudy sins LEFT OUT "National Security" which happens to trump them ALL combined.
YOU cannot elect anyone more conservative who has any more concern or ability wrt National Security and therein all your arguments are invalidated.
True Christian Conservatives understand the overwhelming importance of subordinating things to the struggle against teh Religion of Death, militant Mohammedanism. It is today as it was in the 8th century as city after city in the Christian world fell to these killers.
They also understand that the major struggle of the Right to Life movement is against the Religion of Death which ALL ACROSS the world is engaged in killing actual EXISTANT people walking around, talking and thinking. What good if distractions about the unborn weaken the struggle to protect those ACTUALLY BORN?
There are no borders within Islam so those concerned about Illegal Immigration should understand that defeating the Religion of No Borders is necessary for ANY national borders to exist.
We all agree that national security is of utmost concern. What makes anyone think that only Rudy Giuliani could fight the War on Terror? There are any number of qualified candidates who could do that.
Don't try to lecture people about Christianity and what we .should believe, especially if you support an abortionist.
Credible means someone with a 1 in 5 chance of getting the nomination. Not a sure fire winner but also not a sure fire loser. This must be someone who can win support in the Midwest and make portions of the East competitive.
I am not convinced that anyone can actually win enough primaries to have the votes locked up pre-convention. If that is the case it is particularly foolish for any faction to unnecessarily alienate another which might prevent working together for the common good.
"We were sold out by the President and the so-called conservatives of the GOP Congress in '06. There's a lesson to found in there, somewhere." The lesson from that statement is that you do not understand the meaning of "sold out". It is completely false to make such a ridiculous claim. It conclusively demonstrates my contention that NOTHING will satisfy some people here.
Ultra Leftists are generally the ones concerned about "globalism" and "globalists" [translated as "capitalism" and "capitalists"]. Those are the people one sees rioting in the streets when world leaders gather.
No I do not agree that we all agree that National Security is the prime concern not when there are concentrated, none stop fire on one who could actually led the War on Terrorists successfully because of his ability to communicate.
I don't think Guiliani is the only one who could lead that war just the only one we can ELECT because of the discernable shift to the Left the Nation has taken.
Rumsfeld, Cheney, Fred Thompson, Gingrich, Hunter, Babour, maybe Romney, Huckabee, and a few others but they are either totally unelectable, or not running. Personally if would prefer Rumsfeld and Cheney but Vlad the Impaler has gotten better press and would beat either. One's personal wishes must take a back seat to what is possible and what is good for the Nation.
I only lecture those pretending to speak for millions of people when they do not.
Don't think for one nanosecond that the social conservatives are going to overlook Giuliani's political positions. Millions will reject his liberal views.
Social conservatives are rational so I do not worry about them or their votes. Those who claim to speak for them have no authority to do so and represent only themselves in spite of their pretensions.
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.