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.

[dforest]

They, is Rudy and his minions.

We are not going to agree, but I respect your opinion.

You are just there to make me reaffirm my own beliefs.

You can't make me in a bad mood today!

Have a good one, justshutupandtakeit!

[justshutupandtakeit]

There is no reason for me to be derisive of Hunter. He is a fine man and I TOTALLY agree about the positioning for him at the CPAC and said the same thing about people being half-asleep and wandering around. Even with that his speech was good. I was stunned by his poll numbers there figuring that he would be almost as popular there as here.

But I am rather unusual since I don't hate any of the candidates not even McCain (though I do think Tancredo and Paul are loons). My choice is heavily pragmatic and determined most by who can beat Hillary in the election. While I think that is Rudy I may not even vote for him in the Illinois primary.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Why in the world would I want to put you in a bad mood? I only do that to an enemy.

[massadvj]

If Giuliani is the nominee, you better get used to a permanent socialist government

I have already reconciled myself to this. I am 54 years old, and the government has gotten progressively more socialist with every election in my lifetime, including Reagan's. It will continue to do so whether a conservative or moderate or liberal is elected. In a few years 40 percent of the public will be on the public till. So long as we are a democracy, there is no hope that any elected official will succeed in reducing the size of government. Slowing down the growth of government is the best we can hope for.

Perhaps the only difference between us is that I have come to accept certain realities in my old age, whereas you have hope to change things. My father told me that the one political constant in his lifetime was that the size and scope of government grew with each passing year. It will be a constant in ours as well, until the system ultimately collapses of its own weight. But no election will reverse the trend.

[MEGoody]

and then keep practicing over and over again "President Hillary Clinton"

Sweetheart, I never said that I wouldn't vote for Rudy if he wins the nomination. But I cannot support him in the primary and, in fact, will do what I can to see that he doesn't get the nomination.

[InfraRed]

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

I cannot speak for all conservatives any more than you can, but it's pretty obvious to a great many of us that Rudy is not one of the 'good guys'. He is the absolute worst candidate in the party, with McCain being the only exception.

Most around here do not define 'good guy' as:
someone who sues gun manufacturers
someone who provides sanctuary to illegal immigrants
someone who wants tax payers to pay for abortions
someone who disrespects their wife on broadcast television
etc., etc., etc.

You are free to do as you wish. I think you are wasting your time trying to sell Rudy the Divisive RINO to conservatives, and you come across as a used car salesman while trying to do so. Conservatives aren't buying it, and liberals are going to vote Dim O'cRAT anyway.

The only votes the Republican party stands to lose by running a conservative candidate are perhaps a few that have changed their minds about the war. That is one of the very few issues that Rudy gets right, so he is not going to recover those votes.

By the way, gun grabbing and providing sanctuary to illegal aliens have little to do with "social issues". Those are national security issues. Rudy is no more a conservative on "national security issues" than he is on "social issues". All the money in the world will not make conservatives vote for a liberal, and Rudy is a liberal.

The Republican party is in for a rude awakening in 2008 if it chooses to foist Rudy upon the voters. You would think something could have been learned from the 2006 election, but perhaps a spanking with a more crystal clear meaning will finally clear the fog. Hopefully our country can survive another Dimwit in the White House, because that appears to be exactly where we are headed unless the party can get behind someone less divisive and liberal.

It would be happy to showcase a far right winger and has NO fear of them whatsoever. Why would it?

Yes, the liberal media can't get enough of the right-wing conservative message. They live for getting the conservative message out there. Please. You are insulting the intelligence of most on this site.

...they could make the rightist look like a loon which they LOVE to do.

Yep. The 'rightists' are loons. That's why we should all vote for Rudy the Divisive RINO.

[Pox]

I am still of the opinion that nothing is impossible nor inevitable, and will always refuse the injustice of a socialist government. I actually don't believe that our society will function in that mode, once we've reached a certain plateau, for very long before armed 'resistance' begins. If that time arrives in my lifespan, I will never be old enough to lay my life on the line to remove such tyranny from our soil in any way necessary.

If you and yours believe that socialist perversion is inevitable, I am more than prepared to go you one better: Perhaps having Clintoon elected will advance the timetable for the eventual revolt against our coming tyrannical government. You choose slow bleed, I choose let's slug it out as soon as possible and get it over with once and for all. Once again, I see no point in voting for RINO Rudy. However, I'm of the opinion that the Republicans will more likely alienate those who actually account for the most significant chunk of their base voters and that alienation will result in Clintoon being elected over your RINO in 08.

RINO Rudy or HRC in 08 is a lose/lose proposition for America.

If our government is allowed to continue on this path, it will eventually have to be destroyed (I prefer not to wait for a collapse) and we will be wise to move back to our constitutional roots. Furthering the conservative agenda is still an attempt to reverse course on almost a century of socialist progress, and failure of that effort is also not inevitable.

Your scenario makes the eradication of that tyranny all that much more difficult to erase as time allows that perversion to embed itself even further into our culture, and I disagree with that approach. I do more than just hope for change, I actively work within my means to further the agenda of those who think along the same lines I do. If the Republicans are going to capitulate to that insanity, I will no longer support them, and neither will many other Americans.

History tells me that Americans are slow to anger, but when the tipping point arrives, we are ruthless towards our perceived enemies. If bloodshed begins in earnest, I will bet on the side that the bulk of our veterans 'choose'.

[massadvj]

Perhaps having Clintoon elected will advance the timetable for the eventual revolt against our coming tyrannical government. You choose slow bleed, I choose let's slug it out as soon as possible and get it over with once and for all. Once again, I see no point in voting for RINO Rudy. However, I'm of the opinion that the Republicans will more likely alienate those who actually account for the most significant chunk of their base voters and that alienation will result in Clintoon being elected over your RINO in 08.

I have a paleocon friend who makes this point all the time. I can't really refute it, except to say that life under a progressively declining nanny managerial state is not all that bad. If I were unhappy, I would leave for Bermuda or some other tax haven.

I have prosperred in this America, and I have done so because I do not let my political orientation get in the way of my pragmatism. Sure, I can't smoke in restaurants, but I don't smoke anyway. I get frisked by federal agents when I want to travel, but I am reasonably assured that my flight will not be terrorized. I pay over 30 percent of my income in taxes, but I have a very good income and not a great appetite for the things that money can buy, so the tax burden does not really affect the lifestyle I would lead one way or the other.

Revolution may be beneficial as far as preserving or even restoring liberty in this country, what precious little of it remains. But I would never support a liberal in the hope of bringing about societal chaos in order to make it happen.

The liberals root for a bad economy because, being opportunists, they see that a bad economy and failure in the WOT is something they can exploit. I just think that if someone promotes the worst for America, that makes them no better than the leftists.

I am trained in business and will thrive in just about any political environment, because I assume the macro environment is beyond my ability to change but within my ability to predict. But I totally understand and do not blame you for the above point of view.

No matter how bad things get, I just will not root for my country to fail.

[philman_36]

After your actions of yesterday your words are useless. You've shown what you're about. I'm gonna throw 'em in your face and rub salt in your wound.
And I'm gonna keep on proving you to be full of BS and a blowhard, just like I did yesterday, every chance I get.
And no, it's not on this thread. You know all too well where it happened. I can direct you if you'd like.
In fact, I'll go ping you now.

[Pox]

No matter how bad things get, I just will not root for my country to fail.

Supporting RINO Rudy is doing precisely that. Allowing the other side of the same coin to assume the presidency is not rooting for their side, it is allowing the inevitable to arrive much faster than your scenario as I explained above.

except to say that life under a progressively declining nanny managerial state is not all that bad.

This attitude is the root of the problem. As long as those such as yourself are comfortable and happy, there is no reason to rock the boat. That is precisely what liberals/progressives/socialists/communists in this country count on to further their agenda.

It's a damned good thing our founders who fought and sacrificed to give this country it's freedom did not share your apathy and selfishness. My point of view is encompassed by an unalterable desire to continue that vision for that which our forebears sacrificed, and is the primary reason I joined the U.S. Army for a four year tour back in the mid 80's. I'm well off currently and also comfortable but I am prepared to lay my life on the line in whatever fashion is necessary to keep this country from falling into the abyss of socialism. The fight is still more of a stalemate than anything else, IMO. Allowing RINO Rudy to become the POTUS is a step in the wrong direction, albeit not as severe as having her heinous ascend to her throne, but the wrong direction nonetheless.

[justshutupandtakeit]

"I cannot speak for all conservatives any more than you can..." That is the first admission of that Truth that I have ever seen from a Rudyphobe.

Dividing the far right from the GOP is not a bad thing since it is the caricature of the party as being the captive of extremists which has been so damaging as evidenced in the crushing of conservatives last fall.

NO party can be successful courting the most extreme two percent. Not the Democrat not the GOP. This is something you cannot accept. Nor does that 2% get to define "liberal" or "conservative". Since Rudy's positions on most issues are FAR closer to those of the electorate in general than are yours I don't see a problem.
People who share your views don't get elected to even Statewide offices much less National as even you should be able to see.

You apparently are clueless wrt the 06 election. An election in which EVERY conservative running for re-election to the Senate was defeated EVERY ONE was not a sign that the party had to become MORE conservative but had to address an electorate which believes conservatives to be "extremists". You don't run more extremists and hope to win.

The other huge defeat for conservativism last fall was in the House. This was the ONLY institution controlled by conservatives to the extent that it refused to go along with the President's immigration bill. NOW it has been removed from conservative control and will stand against it no more. EVERY republican who lost office was defeated by someone to his LEFT.

Now if you are foolish enough to claim that these defeats occurred because conservatives "stayed home" then you are only saying that conservatives cannot be depended on. Conservatives did NOT stay home but Independents and MOderates, without whom we can NOT win, were convinced that the GOP was too "extreme" to be trusted anymore.

Those who do not understand what the electorate is telling us cannot win.

There is nothing the media likes more than to portray the GOP as being controlled by Right Wing Religious fanatics as it has been doing for a decade or more. It does not shrink from publicizing those views because it knows that the vast majority of voters are NOT conservative. At best 35% is.

[justshutupandtakeit]

"After your actions of yesterday your words are useless." Actions? You know nothing of my actions yesterday or any day unless I chose to tell you.

Rub all the salt you wish it washes off easy enough and clearly does not effect me.

Your delusions of grandeur and competence are amusing when not pathetic.

[massadvj]

This attitude is the root of the problem. As long as those such as yourself are comfortable and happy, there is no reason to rock the boat. That is precisely what liberals/progressives/socialists/communists in this country count on to further their agenda.

For the last six years, our party had the presidency, both houses of congress and the supreme court. The liberal agenda was advanced nonetheless. Why? The advancement of the liberal agenda is beyond the control of politicians.

I have more faith in Giuliani than you do. I assume the country is a cesspool of decadence. Having successfully managed NYC, Rudy has demonstrated his capability to turn a cesspool into a reasonably good place to live, and I think that is what qualifies him above all else to be president.

I am sorry if you harbor ill will toward me. I hold none toward you and have enjoyed this discourse.

[Pox]

RINO's in Congress are also part of the problem, which goes directly back to the basis of my issues with Giuliani and the direction of the Republican party.

Rudy's track record does not impress me at all, and his own statements are why I will have no part in supporting him in any way.

I'm not harboring ill will towards you, I'm discouraged by the thought processes that lead you towards your convictions and simply do not subscribe to that mentality.

[MEGoody]

I would venture to guess that over half the population has some "dirty laundry" and will vote for whomever they feel can keep the country safe in a war against Islamofascist's who want to kill every American on the planet.

Some have more dirty laundry than others, and some have dirtier laundry than others. Rudy is in the 'more' column on both counts. It's going to hurt him.

As to 'keep the country safe', there are others who are running who can and would do that.

[InfraRed]

Now if you are foolish enough to claim that these defeats occurred because conservatives "stayed home" then you are only saying that conservatives cannot be depended on.

If you do not believe voters stayed home after placing Republicans in charge of all three branches of government, only to watch millions of illegal invaders stream across our border while the Republicans "protected the homeland" by burning through money like a brush fire, then it is you wearing the foolish label.

If the people of New York actually believe the Republican constituency throughout these United States will line up to vote for a liberal such as Rudy, then they have been inhaling fumes from far too many buses. Such a fantasy is no more likely to happen than voters lining up in 2006 to vote for more of the same spending, open borders, and constitutional assaults such as CFR.

I already stated my willingness to return to this thread and eat my words if Rudy wins. I have no fear, whatsoever, that I will be required to do so.

Call conservatives foolish, undependable, malcontents, unappeasables, or whatever derogatory name you wish to throw out, but you will not win the White House by fragmenting the party. Rudy is divisive!

[oldenuff2no]

I've lost track of how many gun grabbing anti 2nd amendment legal actions that Rudy personally signed on to. Any one of these would cause me to vote against him.
We now have a true conservative stepping up to the plate who doesn't have to hide or explain away his past liberal positions. Rudy will fade away as people begin to draw their comparisons. I do not know how any conservative could support Rudy after taking a careful look at his political record. I think he is a nice guy. I think he is honest. I even think he is an effective politician. I think he did a tremendous job after 9/11, but after doing a black and white analysis of his political positions in the past it is obvious that he does not fit the bill as even a moderate Republican. Rudy is a liberal! I respect and like Rudy but he is not the person who reflects the position of the conservative right and the gun owners of America.

[Ol' Sparky]

Rumors out that Fred will run as VP with Rudy on top of ticket.

What good would that do unless Rudy died in office?

[Element187]

Sweetheart, I never said that I wouldn't vote for Rudy if he wins the nomination. But I cannot support him in the primary and, in fact, will do what I can to see that he doesn't get the nomination.

And thats how its supposed to work... But Rudy losing the nomination, out goes a lot of support from libertarians, democrats, independents... I can't honestly seeing another social conservative winning over the independent and libertarian votes after the disaster of Bush (IE: Spending and growing the federal government like a socialist)

[Ol' Sparky]

It appears that the pockets of negativity about these three is limited to impotent members of public internet forums.

Well, given that a poll released last week stated 57% of Republicans wanted more choices than current crop of GOP candidates, I'd say you're wrong.

And, we'd just love to know why you think it would be good for conservatism to elect someone that supports or has supported the following:

Gun-control laws The idea of man-made global warming

Guest worker programs for illegals while filing lawsuits as mayor of New York in favor of illegals

Taxpayer-funded abortion while donating money to pro-abortion groups like NARAL

Hate crime legislation

The appointment of leftist judges as mayor of New York

The homosexual agenda (he marched in every single gay pride parades in New York, even in one including NAMBLA, and has even offered to cross-dress to raise money for militant homosexual groups

With conservatives that are stupid enough to vote someone that supports all that, who needs liberals?