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.
All of my candidates won in '06. How about yours, Senator Allen's buddy?
If you plan on turning this election into a referrendum over abortion, that will make *very* interesting dynamics!
Very interesting indeed.
Sure it does. It also makes them a ghoul with a thoroughly seared conscience.
Keep deluding yourself, despite the fact that pro-life Catholic Dems were a key swing vote in Ohio for Bush in 2004. Just pretend that Rudy's NARAL-award-winning pro-choice views won't cause problems bringing those voters over in 2008. It's all just a bunch of extremists who don't matter anyway. You've always been able to go home, Dorothy...
If the Ds run a flip-flopper like Hilly, and the Rs run 'Americas Mayor' who has a rep for doing a great job cleaning things up -- there are many, many Ds who will cross over.
You're pretending Rudy has *no* other plusses.
You're clearly dead wrong.
No proof of that in electoral history. Bush was can-do as Gulf War I showed. Clinton was a hick governor. But Bush drifted left and split his own party.
You're pretending Rudy has *no* other plusses.
What is his main plus that is being promoted by his followers? That he is pro-war. How will that pull in Dems and Indies when those groups get dramatically more anti-war the further left you go?
You're clearly dead wrong.
I'm the one pointing to facts and history. All you have is your opinion that is not supported by current reality.
You're the epitome of the political hack. You could care less about tiny defenseless babies being torn from the womb, their lives and the potential lives of their progeny, their posterity, wiped from the face of humanity and America's future, but "election dynamics" turn your crank.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." - Preamble, United States Constitution
Not if America's conscience is as seared as yours.
By the way, there are numerous reasons that this poll is worse than meaningless.
I am not saying this is a referendum on abortion. I'm saying that a fair number of key swing voters that a GOP nominee needs to win can be coaxed over by a pro-life candidate but not a pro-choice candidate. You only pull such voters by differentiation.
Well, exactly EV. It was voters of your persuasion that helped defeat Senator Allen, and in fact all of the Republicans that lost in '06.
If you recall correctly, we were emphasizing that '06 was not about the White House, that we had to win '06 first.
YOU spent a good portion of early 06 arguing with me about Senator Allen's pro-life "purity."
So, on behalf of a greatful nation, thank you for Senator James H. Webb.
And Newt is watching with a Mint Julep.. makeing jokes..
I'm about ready for G. Gordon Liddy to jump into the race..
It's past being funny..
Balancing the ticket is a time-honored practice throughout the political world, and is particularly noticeable in presidential elections. It has been used in successful
campaigns (for example, Kennedy-Johnson in '60), and in unsuccessful campaigns (Kerry-Edwards in '04).
If Giuliani wins the Republican nomination, it seems a good bet that he will choose a pro-life, pro-gun VP candidate to run with him - for the express purpose of inspiring conservatives who otherwise would not consider Giuliani to come out and support the ticket.
Will it work? I think it will.
You're ignoring facts and history.
This fact proves your assertion that they'll refuse to vote for Rudy based on pro-choice dead wrong.
You're ignoring that completely.
Good luck with that.
Agreed. The "love" for Rudy extends to the Democrat side knowing he cannot win a national election without the conservative vote.
"HE CAN'T WIN, DARN IT! HE CAN'T WIN! AREN'T YOU PEOPLE LISTENING TO ME!? HEY! OVER HERE! HE CAN'T WIN, I TELL YOU!!" (in my best winger voice)
Ticket balancing works best geographically. If Giuliani wins the Republican nomination, it seems a good bet that he will choose a pro-life, pro-gun VP candidate to run with him - for the express purpose of inspiring conservatives who otherwise would not consider Giuliani to come out and support the ticket.
It would mean little to me, because the Veep won't be the one sitting in the Oval Office with a pen or veto stamp at the ready.
And that's the point.
You folks are making pro-choice *the* issue here.
And you are aware that this would *not* be an electoral winner.
So you're running the risk of destroying the R party with this.
And you missed the point entirely. The only way to pull them over is with a pro-life pubbie. Why is that so hard to grasp? Is being impervious to fact, logic, reason and history required to be a Rudy booster? I'm slowly becoming convinced that is the case for many of you.
This fact proves your assertion that they'll refuse to vote for Rudy based on pro-choice dead wrong.
Only in your alternate universe that you seem to have entered.
Rudy's greatest asset amongst most people is the fact that he did a good job cleaning up NYC. He proved to be a good govt manager, strong on crime, etc.
And that has no bearing to most folks in this election. As it was, I keep being told that libs hated Rudy as mayor as some kind of proof of Rudy's conservatism, so I'm not sure how you guys can turn around and say that libs will be drawn to Rudy because of his tenure as mayor.
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.