McCain's Campaign Collapses

FR's poll showed that 71% of FReepers would vote for Rudy over Hillary. THAT in no way translates to a loss of 20% of the overall GOP vote since FR is FAR to the Right of the party.

Rudy has something that is crucial to gaining new voters, LEADERSHIP. Leadership CREATES the issues people are drawn too. That is why Reagan was so successful. That is what has been missing.

Now you can take his record and exaggerate and distort the things you don't like and try and ignore the positive but it will not work for the voters as a whole. Most see those adamently opposed to Rudy as part of the reason they have rejected the GOP, the perception that it is too extreme right. Hence, the reaction of the Socials will only led to more GOP votes.

"And in 2006, even you're saying that the last election was a rejection of conservatism, likely on the part of folks who don't self-identify as conservatives." So how does running someone who is VERY conservative have a chance of success? Why is the appropriate course not a tactical retreat until Conservatism is cleansed of the "extremist" label? Why would anyone who really cares about politics suggest ramming one's head into that wall over and over?

I do overgeneralize so any remarks not applicable to you can be ignored. That does not mean they are not true for the most part though.

I have never seen any real evidence that Social Conservatives (at least as reflected by the comments of those claiming to be such around here) have any concern about winning.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

LOL. Conservatives know all about winning. They put wins together in the last two presidential elections. Or do you forget history, or are you all agaga with the propaganda the MSM is filling everyone?

I have had enough of this spamming of social conservatives. Every thread I see now has someone whining about social conservatives.

Piss off and be thankful you "might" have us in 2008, for there will be no win without us, and or without a good strategy to win, as soon as y'all stop shakin' like dogs $hitten' razor blades because of the opposition and their propaganda.

Your logic sucks:

Want to win?

Then stop being who you are

You have to change

You have to become more like democrats or they will win

Buahahahahahahah!

Get Real: Giulliani is a liberal of record

And he is a liberal by his own act: he left "party affiliation" blank when he filed his papers with the lection commission. YES TAKE A LOOK AT THAT FACT , DO NOT IGNORE IT, RUDY DID NOT DECLARE HIMSELF A REPUBLICAN FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS PRIMARY RACE. HE IS NO REPUBLICAN!

Dearest sitemap:

In no way, shape, or form have I ever said anything positive about Giuliani on this site or any other. I am not a "Rudybot", a term that you and so many others on this site relish using.

I would love nothing more than for Duncan Hunter to be inaugurated president in January, 2009. But, if he doesn't make it through the primaries, and that's a strong possibility, I have to think seriously about the alternatives. I absolutely do not want Hillary to be president, and would gladly accept Rudy in her stead.

People like you who throw your selfish tantrums and declare their allegiance to third parties to punish the people of this country or the Republican party are the reason why the Democrats control the Senate today.

I'm sorry that elections have come down to choosing between the least of multiple evils, but that's the way it is, pal.

A conservative third party vote in 2008, at least in states that are close, will be a vote for Hillary. Deal with it.

Dear justshutupandtakeit,

"FR's poll showed that 71% of FReepers would vote for Rudy over Hillary. THAT in no way translates to a loss of 20% of the overall GOP vote since FR is FAR to the Right of the party."

So says you.

I'm not sure that I agree with that. I see every type of self-described conservative and Republican here at FR. In large numbers.

However, there is a Gallup poll that indicates that once folks know that Mr. Giuliani is a left-wing pro-abort, gun-grabbing, homosexual agenda-pushing liberal, self-identified Republicans might defect at rates from 20% and up.

"'And in 2006, even you're saying that the last election was a rejection of conservatism, likely on the part of folks who don't self-identify as conservatives.'

"So how does running someone who is VERY conservative have a chance of success?"

It's your theory, not mine. I'm just pointing out the inconsistency of your competing theories.

My view is that in some cases, the Dems were able to beat us by TAKING AWAY the social issues, by running folks who at least appeared to be social conservatives. This was certainly the strategy in Pennsylvania, where, by running a "pro-life" Democrat, the Dems were able to defeat Sen. Santorum, who likely lost a huge amount of the pro-life and social conservative vote to Mr. Casey because, frankly, not all social conservatives are also pro-war, fiscal, or economic conservatives.

Mr. Webb, in Virginia, did something similar, by running hard on his association with Mr. Reagan, his attendance at the Naval Academy, and his service as a Marine. Ironically, Mr. Allen played into Mr. Webb's hands by denouncing Mr. Webb for once having been against admitting women to the Naval Academy. What a gift!

The evidence shows that Mr. Webb picked up a whole lot of veteran support. That these folks now feel hoodwinked will be beside the point until 2012.

Thus, if Dems can beat us by TAKING AWAY the social issues from us, it seems that we could beat ourselves by GIVING AWAY those same issues.

sitetest

Dear Fresh Wind,

"In no way, shape, or form have I ever said anything positive about Giuliani on this site or any other. I am not a 'Rudybot', a term that you and so many others on this site relish using."

I don't think that I claimed you said anything positive about Mr. Giuliani. I don't think that I referred to you as a rudybot.

You said that a third party vote was a vote for Hillary.

I disagreed with you.

I believe that was the extent of our conversation. If I missed something else, my apologies in advance.

"I absolutely do not want Hillary to be president, and would gladly accept Rudy in her stead."

I absolutely don't want Mrs. Clinton to be president, either, but we differ somewhat in that I wouldn't vote for Mr. Giuliani to avoid that possibility.

"People like you who throw your selfish tantrums and declare their allegiance to third parties to punish the people of this country or the Republican party are the reason why the Democrats control the Senate today."

I'm not throwing any temper tantrums. I'm letting folks know UP FRONT that if folks insist on voting for Mr. Giuliani, that's their right, but I'm not along for that ride.

Mr. Giuliani is absolutely unacceptable to me. And apparently, to a not-insignificant number of Republican voters. If we don't express our unwillingness to vote for him now, then the rudybots WILL have a legitimate complaint against us when he loses in November, 2008.

If, on the other hand, we make clear that we're not going to vote for him, and his supporters are then undeterred, they will have little room for complaint when we follow through in November, 2008, and as a result, Mr. Giuliani doesn't win election.

As for the control of the Senate, I contributed (very early on) to the campaign of, and voted for Michael Steele here in Maryland. In spite of his every misstep (and there were more than a couple), in spite of his distancing himself from the party and the president, I resolutely backed him. In spite of the fact that he soft-pedaled my issues, and took stands on other issues with which I (and many fiscal and economic conservatives) disagree, I supported him all the way through, and spoke with many of my friends, especially in the black community, about why they should vote for him.

He didn't lose because of me.

"I'm sorry that elections have come down to choosing between the least of multiple evils, but that's the way it is, pal."

Well, I don't usually view it that way. I was pretty positive about voting for George W. Bush, twice, even if I could see the areas about which I disagreed with him.

Ditto Bob Dole, and President George H.W. Bush. And Ronald Reagan.

Thus, I don't choose between greater and lesser evils.

One may not do evil to bring about good.

"A conservative third party vote in 2008, at least in states that are close, will be a vote for Hillary. Deal with it."

Only in your mind (and the minds of a certain number of other folks).

sitetest

"LOL. Conservatives know all about winning. They put wins together in the last two presidential elections. Or do you forget history, or are you all agaga with the propaganda the MSM is filling everyone?" Bush was not the choice of Socials in 2000 they were firmly behind Alan Keyes. Their complaints from DAY ONE was that Bush was being "annointed" by the Country Club Republicans. The same crap being spouted about Giuliani.

Bush won the last election ONLY because he drew significant Independent and Moderate Democrat votes. Left to the Socials he would have been clobbered.

Actually my beliefs are closer to those of the Socials than any other group but I do not pretend we are a majority capable of ignoring the FACTS that we are distrusted and demonized by the Treason Media.

Nor do I believe that I get to decide who is a Republican and who is not. And you do not get to determine who is a liberal and who is not.

"Piss off and be thankful you "might" have us in 2008, for there will be no win without us, and or without a good strategy to win, as soon as y'all stop shakin' like dogs $hitten' razor blades because of the opposition and their propaganda." Not sure what this foul-mouthed nonsense is supposed to mean. But anyone who ignores the power of the Treason Media is a fool. Especially after seeing the job of destruction it put over on the conservative cause last fall.

And you believe FR is representative of the GOP as a whole or the electorate as a whole?

Where is there any inconsistency between the view that the electorate was scared off from conservatives and the conclusion that that reality had to be accomodated?

Casey was an anomaly (he ran STRICTLY on name recognition) but even so was IN NO WAY more conservative than Santorum. Every Republican who lost was beated by a person to their LEFT. Even Chafee. NOT ONE Leftist incumbent was beaten by one to his right.

Webb did not win by campaigning to the Right of Allen no one did. He won by attacking the President and the Iraq war, standard Leftist tactics.

Dear justshutupandtakeit,

By the way, the FR poll that asked Giuliani vs. Clinton gave Mr. Giuliani less than 67%, not 71%.

As well, that's a somewhat older poll, and folks are still learning just how liberal Mr. Giuliani is on many issues. In recent weeks, I've seen lots of folks here at FR who were initially warm to Mr. Giuliani's candidacy become turned off to find out that he's a pro-abort, pro-homosexual agenda, anti-gun candidate.

The most recent poll pairing Mrs. Clinton against a pro-abortion, pro-homosexual agenda, anti-gun Republican (and Mr. Giuliani meets all those criteria in excess) shows the "social liberal with the big 'R'" getting less than a third of the vote, and a substantial portion, nearly 40%, staying home or voting third party, with 25% with the jury still out.

Then there is another FR poll, more recent than the one you (mis)quoted, that shows that nearly 58% of folks do NOT want Mr. Giuliani as the nominee of our party.

sitetest

FR's poll showed that 71% of FReepers would vote for Rudy over Hillary.

I hope that wasn't scientific, but judging by the response, it might just be accurate, or even optimistic. Can it be true that more than 1 in 4 FReepers would either not vote, vote for Hillary, or vote for a third party candidate if Giuliani is the nominee? That's insane.

Look, I'm not voting for Rudy in the primary, but I'm not nuts enough to sit out the general election if he's nominated. Rudy might not be the best President for social conservatives, but did anyone stop to think what sort HILLARY CLINTON would be?!

It's very simple. Two conservative votes not cast or cast for a third party candidate is EXACTLY THE SAME as a conservative vote for the Democratic nominee. Electors are chosen through plurality vote, and there's no prize for second place, so there ain't gonna be a third party President. There are only two choices in November, the Republican or the Democrat. Staying home when you would normally vote Republican is effectively a vote for the Democrat. Get used to the idea.

Dear justshutupandtakeit,

"And you believe FR is representative of the GOP as a whole..."

I'm unaware of any specific data that says one way or other, but I believe that Free Republic is roughly representative of how Republicans will ultimately vote.

The primary difference between Free Republic and Republicans in general is that folks at FR are often much more aware of what's going on, politically, than Republicans at large. This is especially true at a time like right now, nearly a year before the first primary or caucus.

However, as the election nears, folks generally will increase their knowledge of the candidates, the issues, etc. And as that happens, I think that the views of Republicans generally will more closely look like the range of views here at Free Republic.

"Casey was an anomaly (he ran STRICTLY on name recognition) but even so was IN NO WAY more conservative than Santorum. Every Republican who lost was beated by a person to their LEFT."

In fact, I agree, but in terms of perception, I don't agree. Mr. Casey's campaign took away the social issues from Mr. Santorum. Even though he is likely to help pro-lifers specifically, or social conservatives generally, he certainly did nothing at all to relieve voters of their misperceptions.

"Webb did not win by campaigning to the Right of Allen no one did. He won by attacking the President and the Iraq war, standard Leftist tactics."

That's true as far as it goes. But it leaves unsaid the fact that Mr. Allen ran to the left of Mr. Webb on the social issue of just what is appropriate participation of women in our armed forces. Mr. Webb waited a very, very long time before responding to these "attacks," and his reply was little more than pro-forma. I'm sure that Mr. Webb's campaign folks were laughing up their sleeves at the whole thing.

However, even if everyone in the United States decided to become a left-wing communist, that isn't going to get me to vote for a social liberal for president.

sitetest

The poll has changed a bit since I looked at it last week. Now it shows that 69.3% of Freepers whould vote for Rudy vs. Hillary.

Please don't expect me to take any poll seriously which describes a candidate in terms guaranteed to produce a specific outcome. I hope you really did not take that one seriously. IT was more dishonest than the Lamestream media polls. A similiar question would be "Would you marry a hideously ugly woman with the personality of Hillary Clinton and the morals of Madonna?"

FR is far less representative of the views of the GOP as a whole than are those of DU wrt the Democrat Party. There have been very FEW poll results taken here which get even close to the truth of political appeal.

There is a large minority of FReepers without a clue regarding anything substantial and I find that is where much of the nonsense and inflexibility come in. People who believe the South was right to fight the Civil War are not representative of Republicans. People who do not understand the role of the Courts are not representative either. Those who believed that the law be damned Terri must be "saved" are not either.

SOME Freepers are much more aware that the average America others are bordering on irrationality with paranoid views shaping what they see out there. Still yet there are the Libertarians who get <2% of the vote yet are at least 10% of Freepers. Much, if not most, of what is posted here is sheer tripe. It is only because of the 20% or so which is posted that is superb that the site has such great value.

I know of no candidate who ran as incompetent a campaign as Allen did. But it was no surprise since he had been doing incredibly dumb things for a year prior leading me to cross him off as a viable Presidential candidate. Very sad.

Your attitude is "Well I can't put out the whole fire at one time so I won't bother with saving what I can."

Dear justshutupandtakeit,

"Now it shows that 69.3% of Freepers whould vote for Rudy vs. Hillary."

Actually, it shows a composite vote of 66.9% of folks willing to vote for Mr. Giuliani.

I'm unwilling to guess whether "non-members" are more or less representative of Republicans generally than "members."

I note that in the Hunter vs. Giuliani poll currently running, Mr. Giuliani actually does better with non-members than members.

To me, the most worthwhile number is the composite number.

"Please don't expect me to take any poll seriously which describes a candidate in terms guaranteed to produce a specific outcome. I hope you really did not take that one seriously."

I take it quite seriously, in that I think it may have opened the eyes of a lot of folks who previously voted for social liberal Mr. Giuliani. Upon reflecting that they were voting for a pro-abortion, pro-homosexual agenda, anti-gun social liberal, they repented of their evil, and withdrew their support of Mr. Giuliani.

The poll's value wasn't merely, or even primarily descriptive, but rather educative.

"FR is far less representative of the views of the GOP as a whole..."

I think that when we're far from a general election, you're right. But I think as we close in on a general election, it roughly approximates the motivated base of the party.

Part of the problem is that it may not at all accurately represent those folks who are at the edges of the party, and are easily disaffected.

These are the folks who self-identify as "Republicans" when the Republicans are popular, but as something else when not.

But Mr. Giuliani is unlikely to get many of those votes, either.

In any event, YOU cited the FR poll initially, not me, and real NON-FR polls show Mr. Giuliani losing easily a fifth of the self-identified Republican vote.

That's really ugly, and could get worse as the roughly half of Republicans who don't realize that he's a social liberal learn that he's pro-abort, pro-homosexual agenda, anti-gun, etc.

sitetest

Dear justshutupandtakeit,

"There is a large minority of FReepers without a clue regarding anything substantial and I find that is where much of the nonsense and inflexibility come in."

I agree: the rudybots.

Heck, if you want to insult those of us who won't vote for Mr. Giuliani, it seems that turnabout is fair play.

;-)

"Your attitude is 'Well I can't put out the whole fire at one time so I won't bother with saving what I can.'"

I think that my attitude toward Giuliani vs. Clinton is, "This fire is going to get a whole lot worse before it gets better, no matter WHAT I do. I'm not going to do something that burns down the firehouse."

To me, electing Mr. Giuliani burns down the firehouse, in that it destroys the Republican Party as a party that will push the fundamental human rights issues that are key to social conservatism.

sitetest

I think Dick Morris is under-estimating Romney's staying power. McCain is fading because the base doesn't like him AND he can't raise money. Romney, on the other hand, will have the most cash on hand when First Quarter declaration of funds is made in March. What will the Media say when it shows that Romney has 20 million in the back and his closest competitor will only have 5 million? Also, the most telling factoid, even with all the hits Romney is taking, he is still polling at 11% in California ahead of Newt. I think Romney is in a great position, but I still think Newt's moves will be the game-changer in this campaign for Romney or for any of the other 2nd tier candidates.

Lot of the Rudy supporters here rant that if we don't elect him, we get stuck with Hillary or another liberal dim. I don't see a whole lot of difference between her or him. Their views are almost the same. So, which evil do you pick. His tenure as a prez will not be different than hers.

Well, if the only issues that matter to you are social ones, and you don't mind living under the thumb of a socialist nanny state that's one step from being forced to adopt Sharia so long as abortion is illegal and gays can't marry, then I guess it makes perfect sense.

To me, it seems to me they have very different ideas on the role of government and on the war. I also think, divorce aside, Giuliani has shown just a little more character than Clinton. Check my tagline. I'm not supporting Rudy for the nomination, but will I vote for him in November if he is nominated? You bet your ass I will.

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.