Giuliani Top Choice Among Both Moderate and Conservative Republicans (New Gallup Poll)

Gallup ^ | 3/20/07

[areafiftyone]

March 20, 2007 Giuliani Top Choice Among Both Moderate, Conservative Republicans Gingrich, Romney do better among conservatives than moderates by Jeffrey M. Jones

GALLUP NEWS SERVICE

PRINCETON, NJ -- With the 2008 Republican presidential field beginning to come into shape, there are still questions and apparent opportunities for a favorite "conservative" candidate to emerge. The three leading announced contenders -- Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Mitt Romney -- have taken stances in the past that are out of step, if not unpopular, with conservative voters, although all have taken recent steps to try to reassure conservatives. The key question is whether conservatives will be able to look past any differences they may have with these candidates and support one of them for the nomination -- or hope that a more solidly conservative candidate emerges from the back of the pack or enters the race.

An analysis of Republicans' primary nomination preferences in recent Gallup Polls show that while conservative Republicans are less likely to support Rudy Giuliani than liberal or moderate Republicans, the former New York City mayor is the clear leader among both groups. John McCain, who is in second among both groups, also fares slightly better among moderates than conservatives. Though well behind the two leaders, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney are much more likely to be supported by conservatives than moderates and liberals. At the same time, conservative and moderate Republicans' basic favorable ratings of Giuliani are highly positive and similar between the two groups, as are their ratings of McCain. Romney's favorable ratings are better among conservatives than moderate and liberal Republicans.

Nomination Preference by Ideology

Gallup combined data from its last two Republican nomination trial heats, conducted Feb. 9-11, 2007, and Mar. 2-4, 2007, to get a better sense of how the candidates fare among ideological groups. Both polls showed Giuliani leading among all Republicans over McCain by a healthy margin, with Gingrich third.

Since relatively few Republicans identify as liberals, the responses of liberals and moderates are combined into one group. Republicans are about twice as likely to identify as conservative when asked about their ideological leanings than as either moderate or liberal.

The analysis shows that Giuliani is the top choice among both conservative Republicans and liberal and moderate Republicans, though he has greater support among the latter group. McCain finishes second among both groups, and also polling slightly better among moderates and liberal Republicans.

Preference for 2008 Republican Presidential Nomination, Results by Ideology Aggregated Data From Feb. 9-11, 2007, and March 2-4, 2007, Surveys
Moderate/ Liberal Republicans	%	Conservative Republicans	%
Rudy Giuliani	48	Rudy Giuliani	38
John McCain	26	John McCain	20
Mitt Romney	3	Newt Gingrich	14
George Pataki	2	Mitt Romney	8
Sam Brownback	2	Tommy Thompson	2
Newt Gingrich	2
Tommy Thompson	2
All others	3	All others	9
No preference	11	No preference	9

Giuliani and McCain are the only candidates with any significant support among moderate and liberal Republicans, with everyone else at 3% or less. On the other hand, Gingrich (14%) and Romney (8%) get higher support among conservative Republicans than liberal or moderate Republicans, but both trail the leading candidates by substantial margins among conservatives.

Gingrich has yet to make his presidential intentions known, saying he will decide whether to formally enter the race later this year. His showing among conservative Republicans indicates he could be a factor in the race, particularly since Republican primary and caucus voters are mostly conservative in their ideological orientation.

If Gingrich does not enter the race, Romney and Giuliani may benefit more than the other Republican candidates among conservatives. When the data are re-calculated by substituting Gingrich supporters' second choice for the nomination in place of their Gingrich vote, Giuliani's support among conservative Republicans increases to 43% (from 38%) and Romney pushes into the double digits at 11%. McCain's support is generally unchanged (21% compared to 20%) with Gingrich in the race. No other candidate gains more than a point in support among conservatives.

Preference for 2008 Republican Presidential Nomination, Results by Ideology (Without Gingrich) Aggregated Data From Feb. 9-11, 2007, and March 2-4, 2007, Surveys
Moderate/ Liberal Republicans	%	Conservative Republicans	%
Rudy Giuliani	49%	Rudy Giuliani	43%
John McCain	27%	John McCain	21%
Mitt Romney	3%	Mitt Romney	11%
George Pataki	3%	Sam Brownback	2%
Sam Brownback	2%	Duncan Hunter	2%
Tommy Thompson	2%	Tommy Thompson	2%
		Tom Tancredo	2%
All others	4%	All others	7%
No preference	11%	No preference	10%

Favorable Ratings of Candidates

In addition to measuring the candidates' current support for the nomination, Gallup has also asked Republicans for their overall opinions (favorable or unfavorable) of the leading contenders in the last two months. In general, Giuliani (80%) is viewed more favorably than McCain (68%) by Republicans regardless of their ideology. Eighty percent of both conservative and moderate Republicans have a favorable opinion of Giuliani. McCain's favorable ratings are 66% among moderate and liberal Republicans and 69% among conservative Republicans.

While Republicans' opinions of both Giuliani and McCain are similar by ideology, there is more variation in views of Romney, though the difference is largely due to conservatives being more familiar with him than moderates and liberals. Among conservative Republicans, 38% view Romney favorably, 13% unfavorably, and 49% do not know him well enough to give a rating. Among moderate and liberal Republicans, 23% have a favorable view, 11% an unfavorable one, and 66% cannot rate him.

Favorable Ratings for 2008 Republican Presidential Nomination, Results by Ideology Aggregated Data From Feb. 9-11, 2007, and March 2-4, 2007, Surveys
	Favorable	Un- favorable	No opinion
	%	%	%
Rudy Giuliani
All Republicans	80	11	10
Moderate/Liberal	80	7	13
Conservative	80	13	8
John McCain
All Republicans	68	19	13
Moderate/Liberal	66	17	17
Conservative	69	21	10
Mitt Romney
All Republicans	32	12	56
Moderate/Liberal	23	11	66
Conservative	38	13	49

Gingrich's favorable ratings were asked in just one poll, the March 2-4, 2007, poll. Fifty-four percent of Republicans viewed him favorably and 30% unfavorably in that poll, with 16% not having an opinion. Thus, Republicans give Gingrich the highest negative rating among the leading candidates. The data suggest that he is viewed much more favorably by conservative Republicans than by moderate and liberal Republicans so he may not be quite as vulnerable in the primaries as the overall data suggest. Gingrich would have a much harder time in the general election, though, as he is the only leading contender of either party who has a net negative favorable rating (29% favorable and 49% unfavorable) among all Americans.

The favorable ratings show that conservative Republicans are apparently quite comfortable with both Giuliani and McCain -- both are given positive reviews by more than two-thirds of conservative Republicans. That would indicate that there may not be a substantial push to draft a conservative candidate among the Republican rank and file. However, that is not to say that if one emerges in the next several months that the candidate could not be competitive with the current group of frontrunners.

Survey Methods

These results are based on telephone interviews with a randomly selected national sample of 849 Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, aged 18 and older, conducted Feb. 9-11, 2007, and Mar. 2-4, 2007. For results based on this sample, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of error attributable to sampling and other random effects is ±4 percentage points.

Results based on the sample of 552 conservative Republicans have a maximum margin of sampling error of ±5 percentage points.

Results based on the sample of 289 moderate or liberal Republicans have a maximum margin of sampling error of ±6 percentage points.In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

[bushfamfan]

At least your comment isn't as derisive as the others. I'm still angry at the way Hunter is being treated by the RNC or conservative organizations like CPAC-how they put him up first thing in the morning when the audience is barely half full and only 20 minutes compared to the other candidates 40-60 min. and the GOP sending me a survey and at the end asking which candidate I'll be supporting and having EVERY candidate possible EXCEPT Duncan Hunter. My hope is that people wake up at the debates because I think my candidate is the best there is but the best man does not always win.

[bushfamfan]

"Duncan Hunter is an "*" in this election and he is getting no traction in the polls."

To the GOP's detriment. But that's nothing new. The GOP has been going downhill for some time now. And though Fred is an acceptable conservative, he is going to be the same old, same old in regards to taking from the Demonrats and media. NOTHING stands out about him except he has the glitz of being an actor. I will enjoy watching Hunter in next months debate to show real substance compared to the others but obviously the best man does not always win.

[Element187]

Not with this conservative Republican.

and then keep practicing over and over again "President Hillary Clinton" .. it will be useful come Jan. 2009

[Element187]

Free Republic has been out of touch with the American voting public since the 2006 elections.

Amen!

Double amen... Hildabeast will tear up any other candidate in 2008.. Rudy will hold the independent vote, the libertarian vote and quite a few democrat voters (some democrats despise hillary).. huge chance for Rudy taking Florida and NY easily.. I see Mitt Romney losing FL and Texas.

[bushfamfan]

Your bias talks as well as mine but I am most encouraged to know that the vast majority that see Hunter come away impressed and liking the guy. He's a man's man and when people inevitably look at "did they or their child serve?" as that IS the question especially in these times when the Republican candidate has to sell the war, they clearly see that his image matches his Airborne Army Ranger service and his son's Marine service in Iraq. And, yes, I continue to compare Hunter's looks and REAL persona to that of John Wayne with the reality of his service record as you deride him as being 'sloppy'. The only comparison to Thompson is that they are both actors. Thompson doesn't even come close to Wayne there as he is limited in being recognized as a very obscure actor or near the stature.

"Only one of 435 Congressman" hit doesn't have any standing to truth as being CHAIRMAN of the Armed Services Committee is more than just your average, noninfluential Congressman. Hunter has made defense and border/illegal immigration issues his major causes and had impact. Thompson was briefly a Senator and really the only thing that would stand out about him is that he showed a lack of going after the Clintoon administration on their improprieties and he is an actor. He was not particularly memorable or as influential and stand out, other than being the actor. It's odd you'd want to point out he was on the Watergate Commission when he showed more vigor in going after a scandal about breaking in to DNC headquarters than for US weapons going off to China!

You just pointed out that the main attraction you people have to Fred Thompson is that he is on Law and Order. As a female, I'll continue to say he is ugly and even with Law and Order, in a country of about 300 million people now that is nothing and people are going to ask more if they have served their country than if they are on a tv show at this time.

Thompson has the height issue, I'll still take the Airborne Army Ranger anyday.

As for leading actors, Thompson is NOWHERE NEAR being a George Clooney in looks. And he is NOWHERE NEAR attracting the people because he is on Law and Order.

And obviously Thompson is acceptable over Rudy but I don't think he's going to be strong to the general population in bringing over voters because he's an actor. People really don't give a damn about that, especially now with this war. Hunter is the FAR BETTER candidate in the way he is able to communicate and get to the heart of the issue and his and his son's service will do more than their part to pick up more votes than Thompson with his acting.

[bushfamfan]

Hunter communicates more effectively than Thompson. Fred Thompson did not stand out in his brief term as Senator even though he is an acceptable conservative. My problem with him is that he IS NOT so well at communicating the issues or getting to the point as Hunter is. He showed a lack of being able to take on the Clintoons as Senator and he is going to fail on the inevitable question of military service. THE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE is going to have to answer the questions with selling the war. I don't think Thompson is anywhere near Hunter on credibility. And you people are kidding yourselves if you think Fred Thompson is going to sell to the public because he is an actor who is on Law and Order.

[bushfamfan]

"That will only carry Hunter so far. Most voters look first and foremost for someone who aptly articulates what they are looking for. In a war-weary nation (and you can disagree with this war-weariness, but it is very real), being a defense committee chairman won't carry him very far. Having a son in the military will certainly engender respect, but it does not automatically lead to anyone's vote."

Yeah, what am I thinking on substance? Especially with the vast majority of Republicans nowadays! It is more important to stand out as an actor than to have been an Airborne Army Ranger. Yes, the actor will attract more votes, you say! Hell, THAT should make him a sure thing for 'electability'. And you will find NO ONE better at articulating the positions than Duncan Hunter. How many Republicans do we hear call out the Demonrats and the media on their propaganda? Hunter stands nearly alone. And Fred Thompson doesn't get it done. Thompson's lack of service would be an issue, count on it. He would have to sell a war in which the Republican is going to have to answer for service.

"Let's grant this for the sake of argument. I personally disagree (I myself am inclined towards Guiliani and Romney, given their history turning around lost causes), but will grant this for discussion. Even if Hunter is the best possible choice, even if he would make the best President, that doesn't mean that the American voter will agree. America, as a nation, isn't especially conservative. It can be cajoled into conservatism if the candidate is able to communicate it in a compelling manner (e.g. Reagan), but at the end of the day, they will vote for the guy who promises what they most want. In 2006, the promise was to get us out of Iraq. That may not be wise - and may not even be possible - but it is what the Country wants. When the Democratic nominee will run on a drawdown strategy, the Republican has got to be someone who can articulate that he has experience turning around lost causes. Being Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee won't be enough. Especially for someone who simply is not very charismatic and who has no name recognition."

I repeat, Hunter is a master at articulating and getting to the heart of an issue. If you want to go with popular opinion on the war and pull out-go with Brownback, Paul, to a degree Huckabee-but as the Republican is going to have to sell this war, it is important to have the strongest possible candidate to break through and communicate well what we are facing and have CREDIBILITY. And, yes, Hunter has it.

[bushfamfan]

"No money and no capability to raise the needed money. With the primaries front-loaded the way they are, a candidate needs $20-40 million just to be in the game. Hunter can't get there from here. He can't buy a big enough megaphone, no matter how compelling his message."

Fair enough. Obviously Hunter faces an uphill battle and it happens to be in the GOP PRIMARY! My point is, REPUBLICANS are not even wanting to give him a chance because they say he is 'unelectable'(they said that about Reagan too you know!) but the only way he is 'unelectable' is that GOP primary voters don't even want to give him a chance. In a general election I see him as the strongest possible candidate with the way he communicates on issues and is no nonsense. For all the griping about how weak Republicans are on message and taking Demonrats to task, Hunter has shown he is clearly capable in taking the propaganda on. If he got the nomination, 'name recognition' would come and he'd have his megaphone and he would use it extremely well. It's a shame his problems are coming from the GOP! But the GOP seems to be hellbent on turning more liberal or same old, same old new tone.

[bushfamfan]

"You were being sarcastic, but you actually have something.

If he had a part on something like Law and Order and had become good at it, he would have gained two things that he lacks. Name recognition and polish. He has the substance, but he does not make a good first impression, or at least that is how it seems to me."

Yeah, name recognition enough for the GOP!! Being on Law and Order isn't going to matter in a general election. What is Thompson going to say in trying to sell the war and if he served? How is Thompson going to communicate the issues? I don't think he comes even near to Hunter in wit or ability. Thompson isn't a big actor and most won't even know he is one. It will have to be pointed out to them. Tom Cruise he is not!

[jude24]

It is more important to stand out as an actor than to have been an Airborne Army Ranger. Yes, the actor will attract more votes, you say!

Hey, I'm no fan of Fred Thompson's either. I'm more a Giuliani or Romney guy. I think most of his supporters are following him because of lingering memories of Reagan, so they subconsciously equate Thompson with Reagan. The problem with this approach is that it neglects that Reagan was an active governor before he was President, and he was president of the Screen Actor's Guild union before he was governor.

And you will find NO ONE better at articulating the positions than Duncan Hunter. How many Republicans do we hear call out the Demonrats and the media on their propaganda?

I haven't heard Hunter much either, and what I have heard seems to be underwhelming. It appeals to the asterisk base, but how much broad appeal will he have?

I'll go out on a limb - if Hunter were the nominee, prepare for a shellacking on the scale of Dukakis. For better or for worse, hardline candidates (whether conservative or liberal) cannot win national elections. Bush is pretty much as hardline a candidate as can win a national election, and that is because the Democrats ran uninspiring candidates and because Rove's machine was designed to maximize the Republican base turnout. You saw how close those elections were.

In an election where the Democratic nominee will be either Clinton or Obama (both of whom are fairly charismatic and will do well to turn out their respective bases), we will not win by running a hard-line candidate. The Republicans will only win if they run someone perceived to be able to turn around the war. That pretty much means Giuliani, or to a lesser extent, Romney.

[MACVSOG68]

Very good and this one is a keeper....

Thanks. Feel free to use it to turn it right back on these goofballs any time they use it.

[MACVSOG68]

Double amen... Hildabeast will tear up any other candidate in 2008.. Rudy will hold the independent vote, the libertarian vote and quite a few democrat voters (some democrats despise hillary).. huge chance for Rudy taking Florida and NY easily.. I see Mitt Romney losing FL and Texas.

Good analysis. Rudy and McCain are the only two who can dip heavily into the independents and some Democrats. And I certainly don't want to think about McCain in charge.

[massadvj]

There is a tendency for people to think that everyone else would do what they would do in a given situation. You say you would not vote for Rudy and you are upper middle class secular. Therefore, no one else would either. That is not evidence. It is a sample size of one.

Evidence is solid polling data that establishes your premise. The public polling data that are available (Quinnipiac, Rasmussen, Gallup, Zogby, etc.) show that Rudy already gets about half the vote to Hillary's 42 percent. It also shows Rudy with very low negatives and Hillary with very high negatives, which means that the 8 percent undecided are more likely to go Giuliani's way (or, like you, would not vote for either candidate, which doesn't hurt Rudy). Landslide Giuliani in the general election. That is what the data says today.

Yes, it might change. But someone will have to dramatically increase Rudy's negatives to accomplish it, and attacks from the right are not likely to do that, at least in a general election. No one else, Republican or Demoncrat, comes anywhere close to this level electability. No one else has the money, or the capability to raise the money to beat Giuliani in the primary, except McCain. So Giuliani is going to be the nominee.

You'd better get used to it.

[Pox]

There is a tendency for people to think that everyone else would do what they would do in a given situation. You say you would not vote for Rudy and you are upper middle class secular. Therefore, no one else would either. That is not evidence. It is a sample size of one.

Nonsense again. I made no such claim or extrapolation, I merely pointed out that your condescending stereotyping of myself was nowhere near accurate, and in fact your statements seem to say that you want to attract such voters as myself, but don't even realize that the group you think you are after may not actually think as you believe. I certainly do not, and others who think along the same lines as I (that I have discussed this with) do not share your enthusiasm in the least. That certainly does not translate into "everyone in my sect believes as I do", but it should give you pause in your flawed (IMO) analysis.

Evidence is solid polling data that establishes your premise. The public polling data that are available (Quinnipiac, Rasmussen, Gallup, Zogby, etc.) show that Rudy already gets about half the vote to Hillary's 42 percent. It also shows Rudy with very low negatives and Hillary with very high negatives, which means that the 8 percent undecided are more likely to go Giuliani's way (or, like you, would not vote for either candidate, which doesn't hurt Rudy). Landslide Giuliani in the general election. That is what the data says today.

Once again, those polls do not include Mr. Thompson and are irrelevant if Mr. Thompson decides to run. Polls this early do not take into account the fierce battles that will begin in earnest come primary season, and although Clintoon looks like the obvious dim candidate, that also in not engraved in stone. Giuliani does not have to be saddled with high negatives (although in time he most certainly will be when his track record is exposed to an interested electorate in the summer of 08, which admittedly may be too late for Mr. Thompson at that point in time) in order to be bumped from front runner status.

If Giuliani is the nominee, you better get used to a permanent socialist government and the eventuality of a second American Civil war, which is what I believe will eventually happen, and not at all because of the 08 election, which will simply be another ongoing symptom of the larger illness which is afflicting our country.

You seem to want the RNC to become an offshoot of the Democrat Party, conservatives be damned as long as you win. That is pitiful, IMO.

[MeanWestTexan]

You are very welcome.

I've met Fred at some too-expensive-per-plate Republican things. I tend to judge a man by his handshake, which I know is stupid. But Fred has calloused hands, gives you a full hand shake, and meets your eye. I liked him immediately.

[Gop1040]

"I chose to point out his glaring defects in hopes that some would shake off his spell and jump on the Mitt bandwagon or help pressure Fred."

Sorry to say but it's a wasted effort.

[justshutupandtakeit]

But "links" are correct? LoL yeah sure.

[justshutupandtakeit]

It is your opinion as to who the "good" guys are and what I should be doing.

There is no one the Liberal media is ignoring. It would be happy to showcase a far right winger and has NO fear of them whatsoever. Why would it? Such a view is just a rationalization of the fact that there is NO hardline conservative capable of gaining any real interest. After the asskicking the media gave conservatives last fall nothing would please it more than to have the GOP nominate someone who would be steamrolled in 08. And that ain't Rudy and they know it.

If anything the media would like nothing better than to be able to constrast Rudy with someone to his right for several reasons: they like a good fight, and they could make the rightist look like a loon which they LOVE to do.

But the facts of the matter are there are no candidates capable of putting up a significant challenge so I will not be tilting at those windmills. This "annointment" talk is both silly and a testimony to the impotence of those working against Rudy.

[justshutupandtakeit]

"People aren't looking for theatrics, they are looking for a President capable of showing good judgment instead of taking advantage of one situation, which they really screwed up, to look like a savior of the people." This was garbled in transmission, who is "they"?

I keep hearing these warning about Rudy's imminent implosion and right after another poll comes out showing his support is growing stronger. So you will pardon me if I don't believe that to be a problem.

[justshutupandtakeit]

It is the Savior for a Day phenomenon.