Posted on 02/21/2007 11:03:00 AM PST by BunnySlippers
In a move to increase its relevance in the presidential selection process, the Golden State is set to jump up its primary from June of 2008 to February 5th, less than a year away.
This may benefit New York's presidential aspirants, and especially its Republican one.
Last week I noted Giuliani's electric support at the California Republican Party convention. A recent poll has resoundingly brought forth the same message. This morning, the Wall Street Journal's John Fund notes the following numbers:
With California moving its presidential primary to Feb. 5 of next year, what Golden State voters think about White House politics has actually begun to matter. A new poll of likely primary voters by San Diego-based Datamar, Inc. shows the two current frontrunners to be Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani. The poll shows Ms. Clinton with 34% of the vote, leading Barack Obama's 24% and John Edwards' 16%. Given Ms. Clinton's enormous name ID advantage, her lead is not compelling. On the GOP side, pundits were startled to see former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani with 41% support, John McCain with only 17% and Mitt Romney trailing with 11%.
It is early, and a great deal can happen in a year, but those are stunning numbers for the former Mayor. If present trends in California continue, the Golden State's primary move may just be Giuliani's golden ticket to the nomination.
Right you are - one thing for sure - our candidate will be
well tested - and I will fully and completely support the man we select.
No question about it.
Well,,,,, I do have this problem with McCain..........
Ok - I guess I hold my nose and pull for him if I have to.
Wow that would tough.
BTW....who is acceptable as a candidate to you and why?
But once they taste the cooking, how long will they stay there?
Wall Street does NOT like McCain and I am saying this is someone who actually KNOWS what she's talking about.
He would be hard for me to swallow as the candidate. He would have to do a lot of bridge building and prove he can keep his temper tantrums in check to prove he can win. If he were do do that successfully, I would look at him.
That being said, I would still vote for him over any Dem.
Sorry to get off subject here, but what's your take on what the Pats did in cutting loose their great receivers of past years? I get the impression they asked Tom to do the impossible when they did that. I think if they kept the old bunch, they would have won.
If you want a president who would do the same in D.C,; then RUDY is your guy!
The fact that YOU and your ilk has to LIE about Rudy ( the MSM hates him, BTW ), is quite telling.
Too much money to keep them over the long run. We'd have sacrificed the future for one year. Still they did pretty damn well without them.
Right now, all we have are polls, so that's what an unbiased, unemotional guesstimate has to be based on. And FR's polls don't count; FR is NOT a mirror of the whole American populace.
I know many people, in REAL LIFE and none of them, not a single one of them, agrees with your position on Rudy.
So you must not hang around any churches.
There are a number of candidates who are acceptable, but it is far too early to select one right now. That is why we have the primary elections. When I do select my choice, it will certainly be someone who is pro-life and pro-Second Amendment.
As a lurker, it appears that you missed quite a lot, back then!
Some of the DOG IN THE MANGER types, here, have posted that they are going to vote FOR Hillary. *shrugs*
There have been many articles that state that most socos WILL vote for Rudy.
Through the general election! So keep on posting replies that are making FR look worse than DU; they are doing exactly what you do NOT want them to do.
It is and it will be.
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.