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.
When you elect the right President at the time (unlike HillObama) they are smart enough to say, "Okay, I'll extend this ban if Congress votes for it."
Bush knew how to play 'em and Rudy would, too.
I'd rather vote for somebody electable...than somebody NOT....
One, disruptor. Nice try on a deceitful red herring, though.
Setting new tagline
Nuttin'. Whine and tattle all you like.
Constitutional Originalism. Our Founding Fathers defined it. True Conservativism conserves it. Upthread as I quoted you, you said we couldn't have a hundred per cent of it--and I just agreed.
However, I say Conservatives should *strive* for one hundred per cent--educating, advocating, persuading continually, particularly during Lame Duck Season before de facto primaries begin. Cultural Marxists are certainly striving in this giant tug-of-war. True Conservatives must do no less.
"There is no neutral ground in the universe--every square inch, every split second, is claimed by God and counterclaimed by Satan." -- C.S. Lewis
Cheers.
You're a hoot. You go stalking EV from thread to thread, and then lecture about credibility?
No, I used them because they went with your post. I don't live online like you seem to do. :)
As for Rudy, he is a LIBERAL.
No, I have no problem with comprehension. You are the one supporting a Liberal, not me. :)
Except that Rudy backed Bill Clinton's and Mary McCarthy's call for more federal gun laws after the 1997 Empire State Building shooting.
You just keep throwing hanging curveballs. Time for a topic change-up.
Jim, Rudy believes in decentralized government. Read Rudy's speech at the Reagan library. He praises Reagan for sending government powers back to the local governments as ws the intent of the Constituion.
See the section of the speech called "Reagan and Devolution". Link
Rudy has some problems. His opinion on decentralized government is not one of them.
Sometimes you just have to realize you can't get everything you want. Ronald Reagan realized this. Reagan said this about compromise in his autobiography An American Life: "When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn't like it. "Compromise" was a dirty word to them and they wouldn't face the fact that we couldn't get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don't get it all, some said, don't take anything. I'd learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: 'I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.' If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that's what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it."
Each of those causes. The more the wingnutz spin the more the middleground moves away from the right. You know, impotent rage has the counter-productive consequence of moving voters away from your position.
Uh, huh.
There is NOTHING in the Constitution, amendments and all, that particularly deals with our "culture"; though the now rescinded PROHIBITION on alcohol did. The abolitionists were not only concerned about the matter of slavery; they were also the original PROHIBITIONISTS and with good reason. America, until Prohibition, was THE most soused nation in the civilized world. Drunkenness was a scourge in this country.
Just WHAT exactly are you recommending? That proselytizing to FR will somehow make everyone here clones; get everyone here to agree on 90% of your interpretation of what is "ORIGINALIST CONSERVATISM"? Or that and that we all go out and "convert" people in the real world? Sorry, you aren't being clear and I don't understand what you are driving at. Please explain what you mean.
I do try and stay on message, thanks. Lurkers need to be frequently reminded that they should not judge all books by their covers nor should they believe all self-proclaimed wingnuts are for real.
""Electable" gave us Bob Dole as the Republican candidate. Supporting the conservative right-wing kook gave us President Reagan. I rest my case."
That's not the whole story. In 1996 things were reasonably well and Clinton had some decent approval ratings so there is really no surprise then that Clinton, has the incumbent in favorable conditions, won. In 1980 the country was in a mess and Carter's approval ratings were low. Its no surprise he lost. Bozo the Clown could have beat him. Unless Iraq turns 180 degrees in the next year we are going to be entering an election year with an unpopular incumbent Republican President which favors the Democrats big time. Its going to take a more than John Doe conservative to win next year. I believe Rudy is the only one that can win.
LOL :-)
Are cutting taxes, cutting the size of government, massively cutting welfare rolls, cutting crime, standing up to and winning against unions, standing up to the MSM, not allowing Arafat and Castro free reign, not only being for, but actually using/setting up vouchers and charter schools, defunding a museum over a show that features a disgusting, blasphemous "painting" of the Virgin Mary, smeared with ding and encircle with pictures cut from salacious magazines of female genitalia all "LIBERAL" things?
Hey listen, as we are frequently reminded, FR is a conservative site, not republican. What would be real nice if we could support Duncan Hunter as the conservative through the primary season. It'd be no skin off our nose, and so what if Rudy or one of the other chaps win, we will have done what we could as a group here at FR. The vitriol against republicans in general is, ah, counter-productive.
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.