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.

[supercat]

Oh and before you think I am crazy because most jealous anti-Senator McCain guys are...

I refuse to vote for either of the named sponsors of the McCain-Feingold abomination.

[supercat]

Well, he's number one with THIS conservative Republican because he can win the election...

Rudy Giuliani will do a good job, at this stage in the game, of winning nominal support from moderate Democrats. The number of conservative Republicans he loses as a result of his liberalism will probably be less than the number of moderate Democrats he nominally "picks up".

What's going to happen when the Democrats start campaigning, though? If Rudy initially picks up three moderate Democrats for every two conservative Republicans he abandons, but then loses half of that new-found "support" once the Democrats enter the race, suddenly his leftward run won't seem like such a good idea. Of course, by then it will be too late to do anything about it.

[supercat]

You can go to Tradesports.com and buy Thompson futures for 8 cents on the dollar.

So in your opinion, should one go long or short at that price?

If the price is even remotely indicative of his probability of success, I'd say it's way too soon to bow out. Sure a 12:1 may not be a favorite to win, but a one in twelve shot is nothing to sneeze at.

[supercat]

And my point is that the only group I can think of off hand that will not particularly benefit politically from either of those two is the social right. And for me, that's a good thing, as many parts of their agenda do not belong in the campaign, nor in the law.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" may be part of the agenda you don't like, but it not only belongs in the law--IT IS THE LAW. Too bad liberals like Giuliani don't care to follow it.

[MACVSOG68]

In the 1998 Illinois gubernatorial race, I voted for the pro-gun, pro-life, small-government candidate. I did not vote for the anti-gun, pro-choice, big-government candidate. Since the former had a (D) next to his name and the latter an (R), does that make me a RINO?

When you can show that distinction between the two candidates for president in 2008, then I'll withdraw my RINO designation for those who will not support the Republican candidate. BTW, it's interesting that the term is used mostly by the far right who says they won't vote Republican. Crazy, huh?

Incidentally, the latter candidate won very narrowly, proceeded within his first year to force through anti-gun legislation (calling legislators repeatedly back from break until they passed it!), and has since been convicted on corruption charges.

Well, just look at the 109th Congress to see all the sleaze and corruption. But if the 2d Amendment is your main concern, you will be disappointed in all of the candidates who I believe would support reasonable restrictions.

But the main concern of most Americans should be looking for a strong leader who will relentlessly fight the war on terror, and secure the Nation. Kinda leaves Hillary out.

[MACVSOG68]

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" may be part of the agenda you don't like, but it not only belongs in the law--IT IS THE LAW. Too bad liberals like Giuliani don't care to follow it.

And you have a candidate who believes you have a right to a F-18 in your driveway? Who? Actually, reasonable restrictions on every right we have are necessary to the continuance of a safe and secure Nation. They are nothing new. The first duty of our government is to secure the rights of its citizens, and to to ensure the security of our Nation. No right is absolute. Each carries with it responsibilities to use it so as not to harm or threaten harm to others. The 2d is no exception.

The court ruled correctly in the recent DC case that it is an individual right. But by the same token, no court will ever rule that right is without some reasonable restrictions.

[supercat]

...who I believe would support reasonable restrictions.

I am unfamiliar with any legal usage of the term "reasonable" that would seem appropriate here. Perhaps you can help me out.

A "reasonable" person is one capable of sound judgment and common sense. If a reasonable person "would not" do something, that means the action would demonstrate a lack of judgment or common sense. If a reasonable person "would" do something, that means failure to do so would likewise demonstrate lack of judgment. If a reasonable person "might" do something, that means that sound judgment could allow either action or inaction.

A "reasonable" belief is one that a person of sound judgment and common sense could hold. A "reasonable doubt" exists when a such a person could believe that an accusation could plausibly be false. In some contexts, "reasonable" restrictions may exist when there are clearly defined parameters specifying both (1) what the restrictions are supposed to accomplish, and (2) what they must avoid. I see no such parameters in the Constitution, though.

[MACVSOG68]

You're quite hung up on this 2d Amendment thing, aren't you? As I said, the courts will look at the issue of reasonable restrictions when 2A issues come before them. Just as with the 14th Amendment, even though a complaint makes a prima facie case of discrimination, which means a violation of the right to due process or equal protection of the law, the court will look to the state to articulate a compelling interest in the act or law. So these things are not absolute, either with the 2d Amendment or any of the other amendments that provide the state with an opportunity to explain the need for the restriction.

[supercat]

And you have a candidate who believes you have a right to a F-18 in your driveway?

The Second Amendment protects all such arms as would be suitable for use in a well-functioning citizen army. Can F-18's be used in such fashion? Why do you keep shifting the attention away from things like the infantry rifles the government has largely banned (in gross defiance of the Second Amendment)?

Each carries with it responsibilities to use it so as not to harm or threaten harm to others. The 2d is no exception.

I would fully grant that I would not have a right to land an F-18 on my driveway in such fashion as to damage my neighbor's property, even if I had a long enough driveway and a secure enough cable system to allow such a short-runway landing. On the other hand, I can't see how mere ownership and possession of a firearm harms anyone. To be sure, I could harm someone if I handle a firearm negligently or recklessly, but there are already laws against that (the right to "keep" and "bear" does not imply any right to "discharge recklessly").

So why is it necessary to restrict the rights of free persons to keep and bear such citizen-army-suitable weapons as they see fit?

[supercat]

You're quite hung up on this 2d Amendment thing, aren't you?

Is the government the servant of the people, or are the people servants of the government?

If a master is disarmed by his servants, how long can he remain master?

Even if obeying the Second Amendment would mean that the government was occasionally outgunned by crooks, those crooks would still be outgunned 100:1 by law-abiding citizens. What would be the problem?

[MACVSOG68]

The Second Amendment protects all such arms as would be suitable for use in a well-functioning citizen army. Can F-18's be used in such fashion? Why do you keep shifting the attention away from things like the infantry rifles the government has largely banned (in gross defiance of the Second Amendment)?

Somehow, I doubt you will ever find a court agreeing with you, but hey, take a shot. But, my question to you is why are you shifting the argument away from the topic of the thread, which is why most moderates and conservatives are looking to Rudy. Could it be they are a little more into the real needs of this Nation at this time, which is a strong leader who will aggressively fight the war on terror and secure the Nation?

would fully grant that I would not have a right to land an F-18 on my driveway in such fashion as to damage my neighbor's property, even if I had a long enough driveway and a secure enough cable system to allow such a short-runway landing.

I don't know. We have some pretty long driveways here in South Carolina. Also, I might get you a clearance to land it on the golf course here. Would be kinda interesting.

On the other hand, I can't see how mere ownership and possession of a firearm harms anyone. To be sure, I could harm someone if I handle a firearm negligently or recklessly, but there are already laws against that (the right to "keep" and "bear" does not imply any right to "discharge recklessly").

Well, I believe the God given right is one of self defense. To that end, I have sufficient weaponry to defend me, my family and my property.

So why is it necessary to restrict the rights of free persons to keep and bear such citizen-army-suitable weapons as they see fit?

One need only look at Baghdad and see what can happen when hundreds of little militias are armed to the teeth. Here we would likely have several hundred local militias geographically formed, several large ethnic groups such as the Black Panthers, the Nation of Islam, and several Hispanic groups who believe California and Arizona are theirs anyway. Then of course, the thousands of gangs across the Nation will be able to comfortably arm and voila: We have Baghdad.

[supercat]

Somehow, I doubt you will ever find a court agreeing with you, but hey, take a shot.

If you look at what the Miller opinion itself says (as opposed to the syllabus) it does not contradict what I wrote; indeed, interpreting it as saying anything other than what I described would have required a meaningless extra trip to the Supreme Court (the Supreme Court's ruling did not uphold a conviction, but merely allowed a case to proceed to trial court). The government dropped the case against co-defendant Layton (Miller was dead), claiming victory, rather than push on to what would have been certain defeat.

Some people argue that the Court didn't really say the right of free people to own all militarily-useful weapons was protected, but if that were true Layton's case would have gone to trial without his lawyers being allowed to present any evidence of such usefulness. The case would have been appealed and ended upon in the Supreme Court again, still with no evidence of a shotgun's military usefulness but instead with the defendant having tried to present such evidence but having been refused. The case before the Court would thus be the same as what had been presented earlier except for the defendant's disallowed efforts to present evidence of his shotgun's military utility. The court would have then had to either rule that military utility didn't really matter after all (rendering its immediately-previous ruling silly), or that it did matter and the defendant should have been allowed to present his evidence (thus reinforcing the point that military utility is what mattered). Can you think of any reason the Court might have wanted the case to bounce back to it in such fashion?

[MACVSOG68]

Even if obeying the Second Amendment would mean that the government was occasionally outgunned by crooks, those crooks would still be outgunned 100:1 by law-abiding citizens. What would be the problem?

You're serious? What you are describing is exactly what we pay our police forces, our national guard units and finally our military to do. But they operate under laws and regulations. We don't want to have to depend on some militia group that will eventually want to do a tad more than just protect our local law enforcement. They will want to create the law. It's human nature. Our Nation was created out of the power of the gun, but has sufficient checks and balances in it to give every citizen the right to change those laws he doesn't like, and make any changes to the Constitution and those in government without having to resort to life and death to do it. It's called a social order. The idea of law abiding citizens would soon die.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

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

So why do you post on here then?

[supercat]

One need only look at Baghdad and see what can happen when hundreds of little militias are armed to the teeth.

The people in this country for the most part have a level of allegiance to their government which far exceeds that of the little militias in Baghdad. Such allegiance would be stronger if people felt that the government viewed them as a partner and ally in maintaining the peace, rather than as an adversary.

[supercat]

What you are describing is exactly what we pay our police forces, our national guard units and finally our military to do.

It's also how things used to work in many parts of this country. While there are some advantages to the more "modern" approach, there are some severe problems as well.

Among other things, there's not really such a thing as an "average crime day". On some days keeping the peace and catching crooks will require dozens of people. On other days, one or two. It is far more efficient to have ordinary people live ordinary lives on the days when a sheriff and a deputy or two can keep the peace, and have those people help the sheriff on those days when more people are required, than it would be to hire enough police officers to handle the bad days. The latter course of action will generally mean that even though there's not enough strength to handle the really bad days, it will be necessary to pay every day for police officers who most of the time have little to do.

You are correct that some time ago people got lazy and figured it would be easier to pay someone else for their protection than worry about it themselves. But that doesn't mean such action was wise.

[MACVSOG68]

I'm not too familiar with the Miller case (too old), but did take note that the DC Circuit seemed to clarify an individual right rather than a collective right that I think Miller found. I'm just not sure. But I would think the recent one is a good step, if the USSC agrees with it. In any case, it seems that something definitive will come out of the appeal. I really don't know how much the fringe issues will be covered, such as licensing, carrying, military grade, registration, etc. So I'm sure we'll see more in the future. I cannot envision any court agreeing to substantially cut back on the reasonable restriction concept.

[MACVSOG68]

The people in this country for the most part have a level of allegiance to their government which far exceeds that of the little militias in Baghdad. Such allegiance would be stronger if people felt that the government viewed them as a partner and ally in maintaining the peace, rather than as an adversary.

Some do, and hopefully it's many, but right here on FR I have seen many posters who, because they don't like certain USSC decisions claim it to be time to take matters into their own hands. And then, of course, the other groups I mentioned with no allegiance to either the US or the Constitution would continually provide constant threats to the local police. And if you tell me that no problem, the militias will come in and help out, what do we then have? The group with the most toys wins. And it would merely provoke thousands of mini-arms races across the Nation. Does that sound like what our Founding Fathers had in mind?

[MACVSOG68]

It's also how things used to work in many parts of this country. While there are some advantages to the more "modern" approach, there are some severe problems as well.

Well, the Whiskey Rebellion comes to mind. It was the first real threat from a group of freedom loving Americans who didn't want the government making any laws or collect any taxes from them. A safe and secure Nation where freedom for all exists was not garnered from the local militias, but from the Constitution, and our military when necessary.

You are correct that some time ago people got lazy and figured it would be easier to pay someone else for their protection than worry about it themselves. But that doesn't mean such action was wise.

Far more than that, the established police and guard must operate within the law and utilizing specific procedures and be subject to oversight. You can see the constant issues that develop even with all those controls. We have police corruption and abuse of power. What do you think we would have if there were no such controls? I know, there would still be laws, but who guards the guards? After all, these local militia groups would act in accordance with their basic interests and desires for power, with no one to stop them, other than going to outside militias and contracting.

Our Western history is rife with exactly what you describe. And the citizens could hardly wait until territorial status was achieved so that real law and order could be brought in.

People are what they are, and their basic desire for power would constantly outweigh their public service desires.

[supercat]

Well, the Whiskey Rebellion comes to mind. It was the first real threat from a group of freedom loving Americans who didn't want the government making any laws or collect any taxes from them. A safe and secure Nation where freedom for all exists was not garnered from the local militias, but from the Constitution, and our military when necessary.

My understanding is that the participants in the Whiskey Rebellion were pardoned, which would seem an indication that their actions can't have been seen as particularly heinous by those in power.

Almost nobody particularly likes having to take up arms, but the Founding Fathers clearly expected citizens to both (1) take up arms against criminals, when the government was legitimately acting against them, and (2) take up arms against rogue government agents, as necessary, when they exceeded their authority.