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.
Okay then - but I'm not a liberal Republican either. But I can't convince you guys of that so I'm not even going to try to. And you are right I don't tattle tale to Jim. And the reason why I am supporting Rudy is that I have seen what Rudy did to NYC firsthand - I've seen him do more than the candidates that are running. He said he was going to do something and he did. I usually go by what a person has accomplished.
I said the 5th and 14th Amendments constrain government, not individuals. Your question is oxymoronic and has nothing to do with my comment. So what's your point?
It's simple. God-given, unalienable rights cannot be taken by the government or the indivdual, and you know it.
Things change.
Yes it *does* need to be amended. Claiming that prohibitions on government equal prohibitions on individuals -- which is what EV is doing -- distorts the whole meaning and purpose of the Constitution. Criminal law for the most part is a state matter.
After decades, I don't see a ban on PBA and two judges who haven't heard a case yet on it to be "getting things done".
All I'm saying is it seems silly to act like it's the most important issue out there when practically nothing ever happens on it. So I've decided not to base my vote on it.
History would tell us that the pendulum would ordinarily swing this election and a democrat would be expected to get elected. I'd hate to see that happen. Not with the CIC being VITAL to the war in Iraq being either a success or a waste. It's my most important issue.
No, I'm not a retread. I support W and worked in both campaigns. I find your redundancy rather archaic and boring. As for Rudy, I will not support him.
I used to agree.
Until we raised teenagers and saw the effect an immoral CIC has on popular culture.
Indifference to abortion feeds the worst threat to civilization and progress.
I asked you a couple of straightforward questions. You seem to be avoiding them.
And who are they polling? DEMOCRATS???
Of course. The death penalty, for example, is legal homicide in some states but not in all states.
Look up justifiable homicide. One state's murder is another state's justifiable homicide. It varies from state to state.
That's my point -- it's a state matter, not a Constitutional mandate.
Opinions are thoughts of others on a subject matter as for the Media... when did Conservatives start trusting the media??? No, don't answer that ..I already know where this is going. The "FACT" is the media is telling the GOP who their candidate is for 2008.
Maybe we need to back up, since you don't seem to be getting it.
Are the rights to life and liberty God-given, and therefore unalienable?
So you're selling your Ideology for a Liberal to be elected as a Republican? "shaking head in total amazement"
Now, I see why the GOP lost in 2006. The absolute division is amazing and the Democrats sit back and laugh knowing they are on the road to another victory.
So, go preach to someone who wants to vote for a Liberal. NOT Me!
You made the statement that the MSM is telling us who to support, then I gather that you believe that these poll numbers are fabricated.
Can you prove that?
Ah. A state could legalize murder. Okey dokey. So much for the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments. You do realize that the Bill of Rights does not agree with you, right?
The death penalty, for example, is legal homicide in some states but not in all states.
The death penalty is not murder.
Look up justifiable homicide. One state's murder is another state's justifiable homicide. It varies from state to state.
Justifiable homcide is not murder either.
That's my point -- it's a state matter, not a Constitutional mandate.
Could a state outlaw religion, the right to assemble peacably, or the right to free speech, and still be within the bounds of the Bill of Rights?
Can a person who has been deprived of their right to live ever enjoy any other right?
What are you talking about? Unalienable "rights" are violated all the time. Sometimes it's criminal, sometimes it's not. You, however, are claiming that the Constitution mandates that particular criminal laws must exist in every state. You're missing the whole point of federalism.
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.