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.
Funny to see the placement of your post ... right after one that said just that. :)
Leave it to RINOs like you to draw exactly the wrong conclusion from any and every event.
I had you, and Allen pegged, and your support of uber-leftist Giuliani is the proof of the pudding.
So you keep repeating, to the contrary of all evidence.
Again, good luck with that.
Tell me, do you at least recognize that Rudy is widely considered to have done a great job cleaning up NYC?
*yawn*
No, it is you and your RINO friends who are running the risk of destroying the Republican Party by supporting leftists like Giuliani or Romney. You've used the Hillary club to try and bludgeon principled conservatives to death politically, never realizing (because you're blind) that you have a political howitzer aimed at your face.
No. Pro-lifers won't sit still for being thrown a meaningless sop.
So you don't think that defining all pro-choice folks as 'liberals' is dividing, and risks destroying, the R party?
What?
I guess if it's Hillary v Giuliani, and pro-lifers stay home (or vote Third Party), then we'll have Madame President. Yecch.
You're a liar on top of everything else. Our "discussions" were strictly about George Allen running for President of the United States, and every one of them took place before the Senate election was even underway.
I supported Senator Allen's reelection to the Senate, in spite of you.
I can't help it he ran one of the worst campaigns ever, and let his hubris control his mouth.
"Most of Clinton's policies are very similar to most of mine." - Rudy Giuliani
Contrary to all evidence? Consistent with ALL evidence. And logic. And fact. And reason. And history. All of which you find inconvenient to remain convinced that Rudy can win.
Tell me, do you at least recognize that Rudy is widely considered to have done a great job cleaning up NYC?
Yep, and Ed Rendell did a fairly good job turning Philly around. Doesn't mean I'd want either to be president.
I don't think so, I think Rudy beats Hilly hands-down.
The average American thinks of Rudy as the man who cleaned up NYC, a great govt manager who's tough on crime and defense.
He's a great speaker, who rallies crowds of all stripes.
I think Rudy wins hands-down.
The God-given, unalienable right to life and liberty supercedes any and every party consideration.
1) Ds will vote for pro-choice candidates. And do.
2) Rudy is percieved as having skills and experiences that many Ds will prefer over Hillys. Therefore they will vote for Rudy.
The evidence just doesn't support you.
Yes EV those discussions were on Allen for President threads. But I don't recall talking to you before any time in 2006, when the "Senate election was underway."
But we were clear in our emphasis that it was first key to get Senator Allen reelected.
And you were then, as you are know, wrong about him.
As you are about Rudy Giuliani.
And I guess, if you "supported Senator Allen" then you really can't say all your candidates won in 2006.
Now can you?
Why don't you go join the Democrats? They agree with Giuliani on most everything, and they love killing babies. You can head up "Democrats for Rudy."
I was referring to the candidates' campaigns that I had a direct involvement in.
If you insist that only pro-life folks can be Rs, and you know that the majority of the country is pro-choice . . . then your insistence will destroy any chance of R victory.
Pretty clearly, if ya'll continue to make this a referrendum on abortion, that's not a winning idea.
Well, thanks for all your hard work in holding on to the House and Senate.
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.