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 ...
So abortionists and pro-choicers are worse than terrorists and those who support them?
Thank you.
They aren't the same. A marriage is a sacrament recognized by the State. A holy union is a legal construct.
Look at the numbers. You tell me.
Thank you for the effort to explain your take on the various court rulings.
More telling is that 58% of these same GOPers expect word of discovery of Iraq's WMD's sometime soon. :-)
I can't imagine a true conservative,IN THIS DAY AND AGE, who would be pro-choice, and expect conservatives to vote for him in great numbers.
This is mostly irrelevant anyway.
We true conservatives are trying to get our fellow Freepers to see that voting for a LIBERAL (not the conservative you mentioned in your fictional scenario), abortion-supporting, gun-grabbing RINO, would be a HUGE mistake and would set a precedent that could spell disaster for our party for years to come.
Right, but it sure as hell says alot about the man.LIBERAL!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Can't get his license til he makes Eagle." Getting a license is something anyone can do. His Eagle reward should be something special, not something unremarkable. Now, rewarding him with a Ferrari......
No.
I can vote for who I choose to in the primaries, AND the general.
My principles and convictions will NOT allow me to vote for a liberal candidate who has no respect or real understanding of a Constitutional right as important as our 2nd Amendment, or for one that has so little value for innocent life that he thinks abortion, not to mention partial birth abortion, is merely a womans right to choose.
If hillary wins due to my vote, and others that vote as I will, then the Republican-powers-that-be (and the misguided Republicans and others that vote for a RINO) have no one to blame but themselves for at least 4 years of another clinton in the Whitehouse.
Let's hope it doesn't come to that.
Why is everything an either-or proposition with you?
Let's do BOTH (defeat terrorists and outlaw abortion) to end, or at least, minimize, SENSELESS violence and killing everywhere.
First off, Reagan, like Giuliani, supported abortion as the "law of the land," when he represented California.
Second, what record of appointing judges are you refering to? Do you honestly expect Giuliani to find pro-life judges to appoint as MAYOR of NEW YORK CITY?
Third, it wasn't Giuliani who brought up Guinsberg at all. The reporter spefically brought up Guinsberg trying to force Giuliani into either endorsing a leftist, or establishing a precedent for Democrats to reject Roberts strictly on ideological grounds. He replied by crediting Guinsberg on very minimal grounds.
However, I am dismayed that he stated opposition to the PBA in the Senate. Your buried your lede.
The sample is no less representative than any other poll.
I said it's low here.
It's higher in places where the debate has not yet begun.
See you in Saint Paul.
Actually, there aren't any places where the debate has not yet begun.
How Electable Is Rudy Giuliani Really?
One of the biggest selling points for Rudy Giuliani is supposed to be that he's "electable" because a lot of independents and Democrats will vote for him. The problem with that sort of thinking is that if he becomes the Republican nominee, the very liberal mainstream media will spend nine months relentlessly savaging him in an effort to help the Democrats. Because of that, Giuliani's sky high polling numbers with non-Republicans are 100% guaranteed to drop significantly before election time rolls around in 2008.
That is not necessarily a problem; after all the mainstream media is always against the Republican nominee, if -- and this is a big "if" -- the GOP nominee has strong support from the Republican base.
The big problem Rudy has is that he isn't going to be able to generate that kind of support. For one thing, as a candidate, he offers almost nothing to social conservatives, without whom a victory for George Bush in 2004 wouldn't have been possible. If the choice in 2008 comes down to a Democrat and a pro-abortion, soft on gay marriage, left-of-center candidate on social issues -- like Rudy -- you can be sure that millions of "moral values voters" will simply stay home and cost the GOP the election.
The other issue is in the South. George Bush swept every Southern state in 2000 and 2004, which is quite an impressive feat when you consider that the Democrats had Southerner Al Gore at the top of the ticket in 2000 and John Edwards as the veep in 2004. Unfortunately, a pro-abortion, soft on gay marriage, pro-gun control RINO from New York City just isn't going to be able to repeat that performance. Even against a carpetbagger like Hillary Clinton, it's entirely likely that you'll see at least 2 or 3 states in the South turn from red to blue if Rudy Giuliani is the nominee.
excerpt http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16762
I just created this U.S. map to help demonstrate my point. Imagine if terrorists were setting off nuclear weapons on U.S. soil and they were snuffing out over 1 million human lives per year. If you were still alive, wouldn't you want to put a stop to that? Wouldn't that be the most important issue?
Imagine if the terrorists targeted the western half of the United States and had wiped out nearly 50,000,000 human lives over the past 34 years. The map below shows that the entire human population of nearly all of the western states would have been killed to add up to 50,000,000 lives. I just looked up the census to make sure and I created this map.
By time the next president is inaugurated you can add another 2.5 million human lives ended by abortionists in the United States. That's almost the entire population of Arkansas which will be added to the map soon thereafter. It is morally wrong to insist that someone vote for a person who supported this holocaust - someone who even accepted awards as a "champion" of the butchers perpetrating it.
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.