Hmmmm...the ladies don't like McCain, and do like Rudy.
Posted on 02/14/2007 7:14:04 AM PST by meg88
Giuliani is Best GOP Hope in Florida February 12, 2007
(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - Republican Rudy Giuliani holds an early lead in the Sunshine State, according to a poll by the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.
47 per cent of respondents in Florida would vote for the former New York City mayor in the 2008 United States presidential election, while 44 per cent would support Democratic New York senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.
In other match-ups, Rodham Clinton leads Arizona senator John McCain by four points, and holds an 18-point advantage over former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney. McCain leads former North Carolina senator John Edwards by one point, and Illinois senator Barack Obama by two points.
In 2004, Republican George W. Bush carried Florida’s 27 electoral votes, with 52 per cent of all cast ballots. In 2000, weeks of recounts and court injunctions concluded in a 537-vote victory for Bush over Democrat Al Gore. Since 1972, the only Democrats to win the Sunshine State in a presidential election are Jimmy Carter in 1976 and Bill Clinton in 1996.
Bush is ineligible for a third term in office. The next United States presidential election is scheduled for November 2008.
Polling Data
If the 2008 election for President were being held today, and the candidates were (the Democrat) and (the Republican), for whom would you vote?
Rudy Giuliani (R) 47% - 44% Hillary Rodham Clinton (R) John McCain (R) 43% - 47% Hillary Rodham Clinton (R) Mitt Romney (R) 34% - 52% Hillary Rodham Clinton (R) John McCain (R) 43% - 42% John Edwards (R) John McCain (R) 42% - 40% Barack Obama (R)
Ran on Reagan's coattails. Lost in 1992 when he drifted leftward.
Dole in 1996?
Lost.
Bush in 2000?
He was pro-life and not a gun-grabber and held the party together.Ford in 1976?
Lost.
Nixon in 1968?
Won only because of a rift in the Dem party.
Nice job of showing the dangers of leftward drift in the GOP.
Please send me the crystal ball you are looking into so that I may also peer into the future!
You attacked my literary device but then made my point for me. Rather than seeing that the party is supposed to attract my vote instead of demanding my blind loyalty, you see anyone who wouldn't vote for a RINO as defective. Whether we get socialism at 55 mph or 35 mph, we're still getting socialism courtesy of BOTH parties.
And yes, we are desperately calling out... like a voice in the wilderness that doesn't want to see the end of our great experiment.
Hmmmm...the ladies don't like McCain, and do like Rudy.
Fixed it for you.
The post was about Nixon in 1968, not 1972. Please try to keep up.
robert.m'bugalooga@aol.com
"On Gun Control We need a federal law that bans all assault weapons, and if in fact you do need a handgun you should be subjected to at least the same restrictions-and really stronger ones-that exist for driving an automobile... Rudy Giuliani 1997"
In other words he out and out lied on Hannity's radio program the other day.
I have to tell you honestly that I don't know much about Mitt Romney. So has he changed positions to come off as a conservative? Wouldn't surprise me...
"Meanwhile the REAL party will go on, evaluate the reasons for the Conservative wipeout last fall and try for victory."
and as long as it continues to tout Rudy, Mcain and Romney as the only choices, it will remain the minority party.
I didnt hear him on Hannity....from what I understand he said something about protection of 'Hunting' rifles....if he said anything about the 2nd amendment, IE: for personal security...and to protect against a big brother type government...I never heard him say anything like that.....
I was answered the poster. He was the one who mentioned Nixon in 1968. Take up your gripes with him.
Concerning "Guiliani is a great candidate if you want to elect a Republican, and a poor candidate if you want to elect a conservative ..."
There is a tiny, little problem, with saying I don't like the realistic choices, I want an unrealistic choice.
During the 1990s, the Republicans gained a solid majority consisting of a mix of social conservatives, economic conservatives and security conservatives.
In 2000, G.W. Bush was elected president, defeating the candidate of the incumbent party in spite of peace and a vibrant economy, because the Republican Party's underlying majority and, of course, Bill Clinton's shortcomings as a man. In that year, I don't remember G.W. Bush saying he was going to get us into a protracted war in Iraq, or build a fence between us and Mexico, or ratchet the war on drugs up a notch.
I remember G.W. Bush saying we shouldn't get involved in nation-building, we should have comprehensive immigration reform, and we should respect state laws on medical marijuana.
I could get into a long list of other positions, such as privatizing social security, reforming our income tax code, parental choice in education, changing the culture so that we celebrate life instead of death, and defending traditional marriage while respecting the equal rights of all Americans.
I think the package of things had enough to appeal to all of the constituent factions of the Republican Party that each faction could accept what they didn't like in the package.
But, with the continuing war in Iraq, we have lost our majority; and, we haven't quite delivered enough of the package to our constituent groups. Some members of the coalition respond to this by saying, give me what is important to me, and forget about the other Republicans. This is the politics of the shrinking pie, and it will not work.
The politics of the expanding pie is that, if we can regain our majority (which I think is maybe 50-50), we can get into the business of strengthening our majority through constructive legislation whereby each of our groups gets a good chunk of what it wants.
On the other hand, some people think the election of Hillary Clinton and expanded Democratic majorities in the Congress and in our state governments would be a good thing because once the American people "learn their lesson," they'll turn to a (conservative-dominated) Republican Party.
But, if you look, for example, at Massachusetts, you don't actually see this. Middle-class people leave high tax-states, and the place becomes increasingly Democratic. If Massachusetts were a soveriegn country, it would proceed apace, like Zimbabwe, to hyper-inflation and ruin. I don't think it's a good idea that we gamble with the future of our country that way.
Conservatives don't think we should "cut and run" from Iraq. This is because they don't think the Iraqis will "learn their lesson" about Islamic extremism, and turn to moderate, democratic political leaders. They think a bad situation will turn into a worse situtation. Why, then, do any conservatives think we should "cut and run" from the United States, accepting defeat in 2008, on the basis that the American peple will "learn their lesson" about Democrats?
Is there more than one? Ping me please with whatever you come up woth.
I feel like the sorcerer's apprentice. They keep spewing them faster than I can compile them.
Basically what he said (I'm not quoting, just giving you my impression of his answer) was this.
New York has different requirements for gun control than say Kansas. Each state or municipality should be left to determine for themselves what level of restrictions should be in place.
He's a Liar in my opinion, plain and simple. He either lied when he made the comment about there needing to be a Federal Law, or he lied when he was on the Hannity show.
Either way the skunk is a liar.
Do you think a Democrat chad-reading challenger would allow a write-in vote for Rudi Gillani?
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.