Posted on 07/03/2007 12:03:04 PM PDT by Neville72
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
After weeks of turmoil and change, the race for the Republican Presidential nomination has stabilized.
Former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson remains on top in Rasmussen Reports national polling with 27% support. That’s unchanged from a week ago. Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani is three points behind at 24%.
Thompson has a 16-point advantage over Giuliani among conservatives while Giuliani holds an even larger edge among moderate voters. However, in the race for the Republican Presidential nomination, there are always more conservative voters than moderates.
A separate survey found that Thompson is currently viewed as the most conservative of all GOP candidates. Giuliani remains the best liked candidate. Seventy-four percent (74%) of Republicans now have a favorable opinion of America’s Mayor. Thompson’s numbers among the GOP faithful have been moving in the opposite direction. Sixty-four percent (64%) of GOP voters have a favorable opinion of the actor while just 12% have an unfavorable view.
This week’s national GOP poll also finds former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney with a one-point edge over Arizona Senator John McCain for the fourth time in six weeks. Romney and McCain were tied during the other two weeks. Now, the numbers are 13% for Romney and 12% for McCain.
Romney is viewed favorably by 58% of Republican voters while 30% have a less flattering opinion. McCain is viewed favorably by 55% and unfavorably by 40% of Republicans.
Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee is atop the second tier at 3%. Six other candidates--Senator Sam Brownback, Congressman Ron Paul, Congressman Tom Tancredo, former Governor Tommy Thompson, Congressman Duncan Hunter, and former Governor Jim Gilmore—split 4% of the vote. Eighteen percent (18%) are not sure.
The current survey is based upon national telephone interviews with 624 Likely Republican Primary Voters conducted June 25-28, 2007. The margin of sampling error is +/- 4 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. The Rasmussen Reports sample includes not only Republicans, but also independents who say they are likely to vote in a Republican Primary.
Romney has not been able to gain traction in national polling, but he is on top in New Hampshire. The first Rasmussen Reports poll in that state finds the former Massachusetts Governor with a nine-point lead in his neighboring state.
McCain’s campaign is in serious trouble. The man once considered the dominant frontrunner had struggled for months. Over the past six weeks, his fervent support for the unpopular immigration reform bill may have been the final straw that doomed his campaign. His poll numbers are now closer to Huckabee and Brownback rather than Thompson and Giuliani. Media reports say the Arizona Senator is running very low on cash and has dramatically reduced his campaign staff. Last week, the Senator himself had to deny reports that he’d be out of the race by September.
While the Senate immigration bill hurt McCain and drove President Bush’s Job Approval to new lows, the number of people identifying themselves as Republicans increased last month. That’s the first monthly increase in Republican identification this year. Democrats continue to be trusted more than Republicans on most key issues, but the GOP has regained parity on national security. Among unaffiliated voters, Republicans are preferred on both national security and immigration.
Senator Hillary Clinton is the frontrunner for the Democratic Presidential nomination. She leads both the national and New Hampshire polls.
Rasmussen Reports releases updated polling data on the Republican nominating contest every Tuesday. Results for the Democrats are updated on Mondays.
That's most likely what I will do if it comes down to Rudy vs. any dem.
We seem to be in the minority, at least on this thread.
#41 was supposed to be addressed to you.
It’s what I’ll do as well given those circumstances. Rudy is a bridge I’m not crossing, ever. Best of luck.
What makes you think the most liberal candidate calling himself a Republican would appoint conservative justices?
Because he said he would? That's laughable. Rudy is a dyed in the wool liberal.
What in the world makes Fred Thompson qualified to be President? The fact that he played a President in a movie? Is the electorate truly that ignorant?
Also, Fred cannot hide his bimbette forever. Moderate female voters will turn away in droves.
It seems more likely the GOP nomination will become a fight between Thompson and Giuliani. That's fine. Giuliani doesn't have a chance in a GOP primary. Not after 2007.
I'd really love to see Hunter's star rising somewhat. Not that I'd choose him over Thompson, but it'd be nice to see a real conservative candidate 'shine' over someone like Romney. A cabinet position would be great.
OTOH, Hunter's supporters have been so anti-social, I just might have to rethink that last comment. Sheesh, get a life!
ping
What in the world qualifies Obama or Hillary for the office of President? Obama’s a one term congressman. Hill was married to Bill and has one senate term under her belt. Fred was a senator for 8 years, and before that, a distinguished lawyer. He worked as a lobbyist and an actor. Neither disqualifies him for the office of President. The whole point is that anyone can run for the Presidency, as long as they were born here and are...46 or something. The electorate has a year to look the field over and make a choice.
I tend to agree in general; but the presidential campaign tends to be a slightly different category of beast than GOP vs. Dems. Congress will probably stay Dem, maybe even consolidate some more seats (unless the GOP rode in on the coattails of a highly-successful presidential campaign) but it’s hard to imagine losing the executive contest with a strong candidate, even in the midsts of a backlash against conservatism.
The Dem’s are going to put Clinton on their ticket. Just the name “Clinton” practically has them hypnotized. A moderate would do much better, of course, and Obama is already a star candidate in the eyes of independents, but as Gore, Dean, Kerry, et al., demonstrated, moderates are not well-represented in the Democratic base.
I think we would really have to botch things to lose against Clinton. True, whoever our candidate ends up being will have to be very careful about being too closely assosciated with GW to avoid getting shot down by people who “are voting against Bush III”, but if there’s one candidate who can drive away the independent and republican voters in hordes, it is Miss Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Spoken like a true ignorant, crass, jerk.
“If Giuliani happens to win the nomination, I don’t have a clue what I’ll do in the general election. I cannot vote for a democrat and I cannot vote for Giuliani.”
“For the first time since I’ve been old enough to vote I might have to leave that space blank.”
What you said is exactly how I feel. So, I thought you worth quoting a second time. I fully agree. Go Fred Go!
I guess you do not deem the Supreme Court very important.
What in the world makes Fred Thompson qualified to be President?
You have a myopic, ignorant, and simple minded view of the political landscape.
None of the above. So how do you evaluate the political climate?
Hide his "bimbette"? His lovely wife is traveling with him. I met her in New Hampshire last week. Very friendly, shaking hands with folks who met them at the airport. Women loved her.
No, quite clearly it is all of the above. Either that or you’re a rat troll. Which is it? Shall we ask the mods to check on it? Your posting history of doom and glooming conservatives while boosting liberal Republicans might be interesting to the powers that be around here.
It is a little less than a year and a half until the next election. To be predicting as you are at the current time, you are either ignorant or you have an agenda.
I evaluate the political climate, which is always changing, based on experience, history, and a healthy dose of communication and observation.
Right now, you have to be blind, deaf, and dumb to miss the anger and helplessness that people are feeling towards Washington. The Democrat controlled congress has it’s lowest approval rating since they’ve been keeping records of the congressional approval rating. Bush’s approval rating is in the toilet. The population at large wasn’t really sold on the idea of electing Democrats to solve problems in 2006, as was evidenced by the large number of very close races. The Democrats have done nothing to move things in their direction.
Now, after putting the Democrats in charge and watching as they do nothing and watching as our politicans try and enact a much more radical agenda than promised and then shove amnesty down our throats, people are, quite rightly, disillusioned with Washington.
Anyone who wants to win is going to need to use that anti-Washington sentiment. Who is going to exploit that? Hillary Clinton? Barak Obama? John Edwards? How? With promises of tax raises and bigger government? Yeah, that’s going to go over really big when it comes down to the wire. With promises of having that same government control our health care?
I don’t know whether or not you do have ulterior motive, but if you don’t and you are honestly so mired in conventional wisdom and so stuck in the 2006 election and the 2000 electoral map that you can’t think beyond it, then you would be well suited to stay out of the predictions business. It just ain’t for you.
Threatening to get the mods to look into my posting history is silly. I have been on FR longer than you have and have a good posting history since then. That childishness speaks volumes for you, and it isn’t flattering.
I supported Dubya in 2000 and 2004, and predicted victories for him in both races. Look it up. In fact, I overstated Dubya’s appeal in 2004 - he won by fewed Electoral Votes than I expected.
That’s not a doom & gloomer, nor a troll, unless you have a pathological need to oversimplify things so that they agree with your delicate worldview. I’m sorry it’s so fragile.
Clarity first. And I strive for clarity. That doesn’t mean I;m always right. It does mean I try not to put partisan blinders on. I evaluate the political climate as of now. Of course things can change and likely will - thing is, it’s immature to think they will necessarily change for the better.
Through the latter half of 2005 and all of 2006, the conventional wisdom on FR was wrong. Things important to FR were seen as alienating to the general electorate. The result was that even though the election was a while away, or the requisite snarky remark that Bush won’t win reelection, things didn’t get better and steadily grew worse.
We had Freepers insist that Katherine Harris was going to win, when it was clear to anybody with a little bit of clarity that she would be an early casualty in what was going to be a long night for the GOP.
And those that said that were right, and the snarky types joined the denial types in the losers circle. Well, I’m not happy it happened. It would be a profound misread to think that.
But I call it like I see it. If I see it wrong, fine, but that doesn’t make me a troll or a democrat. Disagreeing with the conventional wisdom on FR doesn’t make someone an enemy, no matter how that kind of simplistic worldview is comforting to some.
In 2006, almost every race that could have broken in our direction broke in the other direction. Any way you cut it, that’s not a good sign. It demonstrated a lack of confidence in GOP and conservative leadership. Despite massive self-hypnosis around some pockets on FR, many conservatives were rejected by the electorate in 2006. It wasn’t all RINOs.
And the polls, on balance, were right. They predicted a big night for the dems, and the dems had a big night. They now enjoy about a 30 seat margin in the House and a close ideological margin in the Senate.
I don’t doubt that the polls showing remarkable disapproval of the president and Congress are accurate. I never suggested otherwise. Not so important for now - we have a GOP president who has alienated a lot of people, and is stick in the low to mid 30s in approval. He also enjoys disapproval around 60%. The country has no confidence in his ability to win the war in Iraq. The conventional wisdom now is that it is lost. As that perception solidifies, his stature diminishes.
That has nothing to do with how well the public perceives congress. His fortunes do not inexorably rise as Congress’ stature diminishes.
A lot can change in 16 months, but like I said a year before election 2006, there are no signs of movement so far. As it stands now, odds are strong the country will elect a democrat in 2008.
What’s the point in writing otherwise if that’s how I evaluate things? and I’m not alone. Rush is beloved on this forum and he frankly has said there is an 80% chance the dems win the WH in 2008. I suppose he is a troll? A liberal? The enemy?
Type what you want. As the circumstances change, I’ll evaluate and acknowledge. But I won’t deny polls in order to feed some shallow, immature worldview.
Sometimes things just don’t go your way. And pretending that they are going your way doesn’t help.
Many of the other RudyBoosters were here longer than this username has been registered too. Considering the lack of general respect in your post for the people here at FreeRepublic, I’m surprised you even bother to grace us with your presence.
Thank you for a prime example of exactly the myopia, simple mindedness, and ignorance that I previously pointed out.
You’re stuck in 2006. You get so mired down in punditry that you don’t even see that most of the GOP faithful are very much against Bush too. You think that because something is said on FR that it’s conventional wisdom here.
You’re not disagreeing with any FR conventional wisdom. You’re the myopic one, not me. You seem to think that if someone types it on FR, it must be incorrect because someone supported Katherine Harris once, therefore the opposite must be true.
You’re conveniently ignoring any positives in an effort to convince others to be more negative. You are the one denying things that don’t fit your world view, not me. It always amuses me when people use a tongue in cheek Rush remark to justify their closed mindedness.
By the way, I could see you taking this attitude if I was saying that someone like Duncan Hunter was going to sweep the primary states and win the general by 20 points.
I’m not doing that, nor am I saying that the landscape is perfect or even very good for Republicans. There is, however, quite a lot more to it than what you are pointing out. Nothing is set in stone and there are some encouraging indicators. There are some discouraging ones too. Time will tell how those things play out. But you’re one of the people trying to call the game over at this early date. That just smacks of an agenda, plain and simple.
Sometimes things just aren’t as crappy as you would like everyone to think. Pretending that they are doesn’t help you convince anyone.
Where is my lack of respect to Freepers? I have been a Freeper for a long time. I’m critical sometimes, yes. That doesn’t make me an enemy. And it doesn’t make me wrong.
I’m not stuck in 2006. I just haven’t seen any meaningful change in the political landscape. If you see some meaningful, positive change, fine.
We just disagree.
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.