Posted on 02/18/2007 2:31:51 PM PST by Spiff
Trying to read too much into any 2008 poll at this point, especially with respect to horserace numbers, is somewhat silly and a waste of time. But a recent FOX News poll does have some interesting tidbits in the internals asking about voters' general impressions on issues.
Are you more who are more or less likely to support a candidate who is pro-choice on the issue of abortion? Republicans only: More likely 22 percent (a lot more likely 12 percent, somewhat more likely 10 percent). Less likely 46 percent (a lot less likely 36 percent, somewhat less likely 10 percent). Not a major factor 30 percent. Are you more who are more or less likely to support a candidate who supports civil unions for gays and lesbians? Republicans only: More likely 8 percent (a lot more likely 5 percent, somewhat more likely 3 percent). Less likely 50 percent (a lot less likely 39 percent, somewhat less likely 11 percent). Not a major factor 38 percent. [snip]
The biggest red flag for Giuliani has to be that only 42 percent of Republicans surveyed correctly identified him as pro-choice. Twenty-one percent of Republican voters have it wrong and think Giuliani is pro-life, and another 36 percent of Republicans don't have a clue what his position on abortion. In other words, nearly six out of 10 registered Republican voters have yet to learn something about Giuliani which, we can infer from the first question on abortion, will make close to half of them either "somewhat" less likely or "a lot" less likely to vote for him. There's no doubt the same holds true of his position on civil unions for gays, and the Second Amendment as well.Running the Republican Numbers on Rudy
[snip]
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Unless Tancredo gets the nod (which isn't likely), I might be sitting this one out.
"That said, I also welcomed the exit of Allen and Santorum...."
Now THAT is a troll comment.
That's nice. I hope you're enjoying your democrat majority. And Casey is pro-life, that was one of the big reasons why he won. He took Santorum's influence among blue-collar suburban votes, who are mostly pro-life despite what you may want to believe.
The republicans can't win without the votes of social conservatives. Anyone denying that is a liar.
So are his most vocal supporters. Maybe it's just a matter of whose spams you like better.
"Newt isn't running and is a big longshot if he does."
Not in the primary, not in the primary......
Not if it involves public money...
"He's for civil unions."
And the difference is?
I live in NYC and lived here when Rudy was Mayor. I also followed his career in the Dept of Justice.
Rudy has always been known as a man of his word. He has no history of empty promises.
Williams and Baker (and quite a few other cases) are the Controlling precedent.
Baker is the definitive precedent on the issue, which is why homo-activists have tried so hard to hide it.
I don't agree with you. There is a core of conservative opposition to Giuliani, and their criticisms are perfectly legitimate. I don't expect them to "exit" the party; I expect them to battle for their position. But there is a vocal and repellent angry group whose immature tactics harm their own cause. Since I am rooting for Giuliani, I am thrilled at their increased shrillness and unattractiveness.
Allen was a terrible leader of the Virginia GOP, under whose leadership it lost 2 Gubernatorial elections. And as for your argument that Casey won because he is pro-life, that is nonsense.
Ridge and Specter won as pro-choice candidates. Fisher and Santorum ran as overtly pro-life candidates and lost.
..many have pointed this out recently
It's way too early for a coronation in the Kingdom of Rudy...
They believe they're going to pick up crossover Democrats to make up the difference.
Stop laughing at me, I'm serious.
Well, the vast majority of social conservatives will eventually support him, but the fringe that won't can and should leave the party.
The evidence, in Giuliani's increasing support, contradicts you.
Within a church setting it's a sacrament. Within the legal structure of a state it is a vital family relationship with extensive legal rights and obligations primarily ordered to ensure the procreation and welfare of children. It has been so from the beginning.
Gays can already get their "unions" blessed in a sacramental sense in any liberal church of their choosing. It should remain that way. None of the rest of us shouid be threatened with sanctions by the government because we refuse to accomodate the "sacrament" of gay marriage.
There is neither a moral nor a logical equivalence between gay marriage and a traditional marriage--even a childless traditional marriage. The latter is the backbone of our society; the former is the brokeback of our society.
We have a salamander running for president? :-)
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.