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.
I certainly don't see a 3 way race though.
None of us saw a three-way race in February 1999 either.
There really does not appear to be that much common ground between Hunter and Giuliani. The socons are fed up to the point that a genuine party rift is looming. That means that the best candidate for the republican party is Hunter rather than Rudy. A lot more Rudy fans say they'll vote for whomever the nominee is. The republican party can afford a socon but cannot afford a split.
Oh, and why are you posting to me? Eventually you'll just stop answering the points and that will be that. If you're going to be selective about what you respond to, then select this: You've been called a liar by me regarding this included post.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1788691/posts?page=218#192
To: areafiftyone
Got to love the internet and the demise of the mainstream media.
191 posted on 02/21/2007 5:44:50 PM PST by Irish Eyes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
No, the people will be saying it all on election day.
fiesty aint ya :-)
Your understanding of political realities fall short. we have a pro-life President now but we are still having abortions.
***And we are close to being able to overturn Roe v Wade, undoing some of the damage done by liberal activist judges who legislated from the bench. If we elect Rudy, we won't move forward with that, and babies will die as a result.
No president has the power to stop abortion.
***Straw argument. The president has the power to nominate judges who would overturn this poorly conceived law. Which would put a big dent on abortion. Lives would be saved. I'd rather have a president who chooses to save lives than one who supports partial birth abortions.
Rudy has already said he supports strict constructionist judges like John Roberts.
***He also said he supports partial birth abortion. I do not trust him on this issue.
He constantly praised the President for appointing Roberts and Alito. On Hannity Rudy said “I think the appointment of judges that I would make would be very similar to, if not exactly the same as, the last two judges that were appointed. Chief Justice Roberts is somebody I work with, somebody I admire, Justice Alito someone I knew when he was U.S. attorney, also admire. If I had been president over the last four years, I can't think of any, you know, that I'd do anything different with that.”
***The man will say anything to spin the fact that he is pro-choice and when it comes down to it, he will allow someone as liberal as Ginsberg to be a justice.
Assuming Rudy gets elected President and appoints Roberts-like justices then maybe Roe v. Wade will get overturned.
***The problem here is that big maybe, and there's another big maybe that Rudy will simply not nominate someone who cherishes the sanctity of life. He simply does not value it. That's okay that he disagrees with us, but trying to pretend that he does is a political death wish.
But even if it does get overturned we know that this won’t stop all abortions.
***If it stops one abortion, then it's worth the effort. These are babies that are getting killed. I would love to stop all abortions, but I'll settle with saving millions of lives. As a nation, we grew up and extended the rights of personhood to slaves; now it's time for us to grow up further and extend the right of personhood to someone even more innocent. When a pregnant woman gets hit by a drunk driver & the baby gets killed, we extend the protection of law to that unborn child. The precedent for extending legal protection is already set. It's time we stopped pretending that the woman carrying that life is making a choice over her own body -- it's two bodies, not one.
The abortion issue would then revert back to the states and does anyone really think California would outlaw abortions?
***Eventually, even the heathens out here in caleefornia voted for proposition 187 to deal with illegal aliens, and they would instinctively vote for extending rights to innocent babies. Yes, there would be fewer abortions as a result, and lives would be saved. Would abortions be completely outlawed? Probably not, but if any lives are saved, it's worth the effort.
Thus being pragmatic in our thinking we all know we can't completely stop abortions.
***This is a straw argument. Who said anything about completely stopping abortions? We're trying to do as much as we can with what we have to save as many lives as possible. Rudy isn't. He fails that litmus test.
Therefore voting solely on this issue very unpragmatic.
***I am not voting solely on this issue, but there are probably millions who do. I don't care how pragmatic it is, those are dead babies. Hold one in your arms if you really want to get an idea of how little we value pragmatism on this issue.
I hate abortions like everyone else on here but I realize that regardless of how many pro-life presidents we elect, its just not going to stop.
***If you hate abortions, then support the guy who would do what he could to get rid of them. That's what we're doing, and we'd be pleased if you would join us. If you don't think you can join us because you don't agree with us, let us know so that we don't go round & round and waste each other's time. But if it's because you don't think Hunter is "electable", I'm not buying it. Rudy splits the base and didn't even win in a head-to-head poll against Hillary in his own state. He is not electable. Note that we're no longer talking about your baseball batting average analogy, because it fell apart.
Lay it on us. Right here. Right now.
Yes, that is an acknowledged challenge of the Hunter campaign. Of course he can raise the money. It pours in very fast when you start winning primaries. And he's been rubbing elbows with international kingmakers when he oversaw the $530BILLION military budget; that kind of money makes the frontrunners look cheesey.
It's my Irish blood. Why I even named my daughter Grace O'Malley, and if you know anything about Irish history you know that she was a "hellcat of the first order" -- according to Leon Uris in "Ireland, a Terrible Beauty".
That, and I really do think Hunter is a great candidate. He would be good for America.
I can agree with you there.
No more Bushes. No more Clintons.
There are more than two families in this country.
What has any of that, especially something I did not write, have to do with the post of yours I replied to?
Great name! She is an ancestor of ours:-)
There was a thread where we discussed the pirate queen. lots of irish floating around FR.
Are you eccentric too? Most of the O'malleys seem to a little quirky;)
Would you please write that so I understand what you're saying?
Of course I'm not eccentric! It's just everyone around me that's kinda weird. ;-)
That is kind of an interesting term. I heard an expression that was something like, "eccentric is just what you call wealthy people when they're weird."
Of course, anyone who's a socon in the SF bay area is going to be eccentric. That's just the way things are around here.
Take care O'Malley O'Malley. My sister says, "it sounds so nice you say it twice".
LOL
everyone around me is kinda weird too :-P
Night K O'Malley-keep up the fight:-)
Go Duncan Hunter!!
Your post quoted in 563 above.
Repeated here:
To: william clark
Either you are being disingenuous, or you're blind!
The antiRudy group has spent months spamming every single Rudy thread, from the beginning, hurling insults and spurious garbage at him and anyone and everyone who isn't marching in lockstep with them. That's a far cry from someone stating that Hunter has NO chance; which he hasn't.
AFAIK, not a single antiRudy person has been banned and most of the vile, putrid, over the top posts against Rudy and his supporters/people just "leaning" towards him and/or Romney, have been allowed to stand...in violation of every FR posting rule there is.
The facts, the REAL FACTS, are not allowed to be posted about Hunter and people who even get close to posting them have been condemned to the lowest reaches of hell and/or banned, with some of these posts deleted.
And unlike the Rudy threads ( and to some extent, Romney threads ) Hunter threads have NEVER been invaded by those against him, nor spammed within an inch of said thread's life.
I'm all for an insult/personal attack free discussion/debate about Hunter. But asking me to give you a point by point debate, can probably only be done via FREEPmail. Should you care to do that, I'm game.
This can NOT be done on a thread and you know it.
192 posted on 02/21/2007 6:01:37 PM PST by nopardons
I repeat.......WHAT are you demanding that I do? Spell it out.
Your assertion:
"The facts, the REAL FACTS, are not allowed to be posted about Hunter and people who even get close to posting them have been condemned to the lowest reaches of hell and/or banned, with some of these posts deleted."
And if I catch you lying I damn will ban your ass.
I was responding to a post that you wrote to me. If you're claiming you did not write it, you'll need to reexamine that claim. Because it's incorrect. So if you continue down that path, you're just lying, again. It's plain for all to see. Feel free to respond to the substance of it rather than trying to deflect it. You might want to respond to JimRob as well, before it's simply too late.
I'm selfish: I don't want to lose you on these threads because you're too valuable to the Hunter team.
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.