Posted on 02/22/2007 7:09:41 AM PST by meg88
Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani got good and bad news from the Quinnipiac Poll.
The good news: He beats Senator Hillary Clinton, 48% to her 43% in a national poll conducted last week.
The bad news: It's still over 18 months to go until Election 2008.
Quinnipiac drilled down to the red, blue and purple state level: Giuliani beats Clinton 55-38 in states that voted Republican in the 2004 election.
Interestingly, he ties her 46-46 in the blue states, while it's close in "purple states" (where the "margin in 2004 was less than 7%) - Giuliani has 44% while Clinton has 45%. Here are some more matchups:
- Senator John McCain edges Clinton, 46 - 44 percent
- Clinton tops former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney 49 - 37 percent;
- Giuliani beats Illinois Sen. Barack Obama 47 - 40 percent;
- Giuliani tops 2004 vice presidential candidate John Edwards 48 - 40 percent;
- McCain ties Obama 43 - 43 percent;
- McCain gets 43 percent to Edward's 42 percent, a tie;
- Obama tops Romney 49 - 29 percent;
- Edwards beats Romney 48 - 32 percent.
Giuliani would win a Republican primary with 40% of Republican primary voters supporting him over McCain who would get just 18%, while Clinton would win a primary with 38% over Obama (23%). Furthermore, the Quinnipiac poll shows that Giuliani has the highest favorability rating of all candidates, with 57%, which Clinton has 46%, McCain has 51% and Obama has 44% (notably, 40% don't know enough about Obama to form an opinion.
Yesterday, Mayor Giuliani was campaigning in South Carolina. On the news last night, WNBC's Melissa Russo noted something unusual: While the crowds were very friendly to Giuliani, even reporters (from Southern papers) asked Giuliani to take pictures with him.
Another deliberately obtuse post. Santorum was able to win in PA twice precisely because he WAS able to draw them. Rudy will not be able to.
If Rudy has a very strong pro-life candidate on his ticket as veep, that will go a long way toward preventing any "split." Traditionally, balancing the ticket does have a positive effect. At least, pols seem to think so, because they do it all the time.
Even though I'm for a Constitutional amendment defining marriage, it will be unnecessary by 2008 because the referendum in Massachusetts will mark the final defeat of gay marriage.
His one act related to the WOT was to push a corrupt crony for the most important anti-terror job in the country. In addition, he also pushed to get 9-11 monies sent to a company he owned in order to hoover off a couple mil in administrative fees.
Once the Dems start hammering home those two details, any 9-11 goodwill Rudy has will evaporate.
Third time's a charm.
Veeps don't sign or veto bills.
For the Dems - they finally ran a pro-lifer against him.
Just goes to show how important the pro-life vote is in PA statewide elections.
We used to laugh at DU eating their own. Now we're doing it. Oh well. We seemed more united in '00 and '04. Lots of internal squabbling here before the '06 election, and we went down. More of the same for '08? I hope not.
Obama and Hillary are commies. They are anti-American. Rudy is liberal on a lot of stuff, but he's not a commie. If he is our candidate in '08, I will support him.
I'd love Gingrich, or Santorum. Hunter seems strong on conservative issues. And of course a lot can happen in 18 months. But if it's Rudy, I'll vote for him.
'Zat why PA hasn't gone for the Republican Presidential candidate since 1988?
Kerik did an outstanding job running Riker's Island - another institution considered ungovernable.
You don't win elections by making up electoral strategies unbound by facts and history. You also tend not to win just by running against the other side.
No. I was talking about the possibility of Giuliani winning the '08 election as president. If he has a strong pro-life runnng mate, that will ameliorate some of the conservative opposition to his candidacy.
He was corrupt and therefore not suited for the top anti-terror job. The media shot him down within a week. I guess Rudy never bothered vetting him.
It would have been far worse without the pro-life crossovers. That's the point. Rudy won't even get those.
No, it will not. Veeps don't sign or veto bills.
I'm not really sure what you would call "far worse" than losing a state's entire allotment of Electoral Votes...but....ummmmmm....okay...
Gee, to win the electoral vote, you have to attain a majority or plurality of the popular vote. The GOP cannot afford to lose the pro-life crossover vote and have a chance to win at all in PA.
Ah...I see you also have done graduate work in missing the point.
This election is shaping up to be a battle for the very definition of 'conservative'.
On one side, you have self-proclaimed "the only real conservatives" -- the social conservatives. They've boldly declared anyone who doesn't think like them to be liberal.
I wonder if that tactic has any chance of success . . .
No, but you have mastered circular logic. Otherwise known as chasing your own tail.
The point of discussion was Rudy putting PA into play. He cannot win the Pro-Life Dem vote. Therefore, he will not be able to count on that block to win either a majority or a plurality.
Should be a pretty simple concept, but two straight Rudy boosters can't seem to grasp it. I guess it explains how they became Rudy boosters in the first place.
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.