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.
If the pro-life crossovers won't vote for a conservative pro-choice candidate, then that's their choice.
But I can't believe that in the end, if Rudy wins, that most of the socials will hold the party hostage to their social demands.
Rudy isn't perfect. But he'd do a good job, based on his past job performance. We could do alot worse.
I am not talking about pubbies. I am talking about pro-life Catholic Dems and Indies. Folks who voted for Reagan twice. Key swing voters for Bush in Ohio during the 2004 race. And folks who voted for Santorum twice until the Dems ran a pro-lifer.
Hardly. You are stressing the importance of the pro-life vote in Pennsylvania.
I'm merely asking why they haven't delivered for a Presidential candidate since 1988? Heck, I'll even give you a pass on 1996 since Dole was less than inspiring.
Why is this so difficult to grasp? Having it does not mean the GOP wins in PA. But NOT HAVING it means the GOP gets trounced in PA, as happened to Santorum in 2006.
In addition to PA, Catholic pro-life Dems were a key swing vote for Bush in Ohio in 2004. You know, the state that put Bush over the top in the electoral college.
I swear, the Rudy boosters scare me more with each passing day. You can't even figure out basic pro-life crossever dynamics, yet you claim Rudy can win with swing votes? And that is before he deals with his NRA woes that are bound to happen.
For me? Not at all.
We'll wait for you to catch up.
Like I said, you guys are scary - you claim Rudy can win while standing in complete ignorance of the key swing voting blocs in battleground states.
You're suggesting that pro-life Ds won't vote for a pro-choice candidate?
Um -- they already vote for pro-choice Ds, don't they? Didn't they vote for Kerry?
As I understand it from talking to folks here, in Texas, by far most pro-life folks *will* vote for a pro-choice person, if they have the other qualifications.
It's a rare bird that makes pro-life a litmus test.
There are enough of us to sink your boat, and Giuliani's.
Gawd, why is this so hard to get Rudy boosters to understand?
Pro-life Catholic Dems and Indies were key components of the Reagan Dems. And Ohio pro-life-Catholic Dems were key swing voters for Bush in Ohio in 2004.
Having a pro-life pubbie is a key draw for getting voters from the other side to come over to the GOP. That is proven.
I can see why so many Rudy boosters believe that Rudy being pro-choice isn't a big deal - they have no understanding of pro-life crossover vote dynamics.
If you sink Giuliani's boat in the primary, you are a hero.
If you sink Giuliani's boat in the general, you are a villain.
Which, at the end of the day, is all that matters to you.
If Rudy wins the primary, the GOP is as good as toast anyway. The Dems will do the sinking just fine on their own. Rudy gives them a box full of hammers to use on him.
Yep. Unlike yourself, defeating liberals is what I'm all about.
Let me know when you win one. I'll spring for the R.C. Cola.
If you plan to hold the R party hostage to your pro-life stance, perhaps you can sink the hopes of the folks who want a Prez who is a strong leader who believes in a conservative use of federal power.
Perhaps.
But then again perhaps not. In the end, only the most extremist folks will use abortion as a litmus test.
No. Folks like you will be the villians. You will have destroyed the Reagan platform; the pact that has held the GOP coalition together for the last 30 years or so.
You can't ask people to violate their consciences and then blame them when they refuse to do it.
RINO "Republicans" are fast becoming little copies of Carville and Begala. No leadership, only threats and coercion. It's the Bush legacy.
Didn't these same folk vote for pro-choice candidates at other times?
I'm suggesting that these folks, while being pro-life, do not use pro-life as a litmus test. They *will* vote for pro-choice candidates. So your stating that Rudy loses all those votes no matter what is pure, unfounded speculation.
As seems to be suggested by their past voting patterns.
If you won't use the butchery of tiny babies as a "litmus test," what will you use as one?
The answer? Nothing.
You people have no principle you won't compromise in the pursuit of power.
"What does it profit a man to gain the whole world, only to lose his own soul?" - Jesus Christ
The basic tactic of "call everyone who doesn't agree with you a Liberal" is probably not going to work out very well.
Based on my conversations with folks I know, at least.
Pro-choice does not make one a liberal.
I see this takes some hand-holding for the average Rudy-booster.
If the GOP runs a pro-choice candidate and the Dems run a pro-choice candidate, there is no reason for a pro-life Dem to switch parties.
That should be obvious. It's scary that it isn't for so many Rudy boosters.
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.