Posted on 11/25/2009 5:29:42 PM PST by Clintonfatigued
In what could be one of the most hotly contested Senate races in 2010, former New York City Mayor and failed Presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani is in a statistical dead heat with New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, a new Zogby IVR poll finds. Forty-five percent prefer Giuliani and 43% side with the incumbent Gillibrand, well within the poll's 3.2% margin of error. 'IVR' or Interactive Voice Response is a polling methodology that uses a recorded human voice to administer a survey to participants who respond via a telephone touchpad.
In another potential match-up Senator Gillibrand holds a slight lead over former Governor George Pataki, 43% to 38%. When asked whether first-term Senator Gillibrand deserves another term as Senator from New York, 32% of likely voters say she should, and 43% say that it is time for someone new. Twenty-six percent were not sure.
(Excerpt) Read more at zogby.com ...
It never occured to me that Rudy Guuliani would be interested in being a legislator, but he clearly would be the favorite if he ran.
New Yorkers don’t have great options, so the question is, whose elections would benefit conservatives in indirect way, like empowering other conservative Senators by adding to their majority?
We have to remember the main objective and the bigger picture is to cockblock the sop in the whitehouse in 2010.
New Yorkers don’t have great options, so the question is, whose elections would benefit conservatives in indirect way, like empowering other conservative Senators by adding to their majority?
From your lips to God’s ears.
You may have a point but I've sworn off voting for the lesser of two evils. I voted for McCain primarily because Palin was on the ticket. What a waste, even if McCain had won Sarah would still be just the V.P. and the V.P. position isn't worth a warm bucket of spit.
I can't spend too much time fretting about the N.Y. race, I live in Illinois and may be faced with my own dilemma if Mark Kirk wins the republican nomination for the Senate. In a race between Kirk and a self admitted democrat, I'd vote for neither.
BTW, for Zogby to call Gillibrand a "first-term Senator" is misleading. She is merely an interim senator appointed earlier this year by the Dem governor to fill Her Royal Thighness' seat.
Would anyone have a chance against Chuckie Schumer?
Look at the word “ conservative”.
When your state is Billions in the red and being run by the same jokers EVERY year how is it that that word does not sound sensible to them?
CONSERVATIVE......Get it?
I would say so. He is supporting terror trials in NYC.
Well, I do, and we'll take Rudy in a heartbeat. I'd prefer he ran for governor -- it would be our only hope for breaking the SEIU's grip on power.
True, plus at least Rudy is Honest (even if you don’t agree with him on some-or most issues), and at least he is conservative on somethings which Gillibrand clearly isnt!
For all his RINO-ness, he's the most conservative person who could actually win such an election here.
Purists like you failed to nominate Rudy—who was polling 5 or 6 pts. ahead of Obama and Hillary in all the national polls. But the purists wanted a fake like Huckabee—who knew and cared little about the economy—or a fake like Romney who had recently found out he was pro-life—once he discovered he needed the conservative vote to win the nomination.
Yet Rudy was the only real Reaganite running under the aegis of the GOP. He was fiscally conservative. He was a law and order conservative. He was conservative on issues of defense and on foreign policy. And he was a strict constructionist—which should have satisfied people like you who worried about abortion and gun laws. But it didn’t. You wanted purity of soul as well. What you got was Obama instead.
How’s that workin’ out for ya?
Hillary.
It makes more sense to take on Gillibrand if he’s interested in trying for the presidency again. He’d be running for the unexpired part of Hillary’s second term—which she reliquished to become Sec’y of State. It expires in two years. So he wouldn’t be abandoning his Senate seat should he choose to run for the top spot in 2012. I hope he does. He’s the only one with the credentials to lead us out of the present mess. Rudy is a do-er, not a talker—though he can talk, too.
And before you got here, "purists", "Wankers for Rudy" like you were banned en mass from F.R.
Yet Rudy was the only real Reaganite
Tell me how I’m wrong, not how I might be banned. If I could be banned—for voicing an opinion that’s well within the parameters of conservative thought—then what’s the point of these threads? Is it only to tell one another what we like to hear? I’m a conservative. That should be qualification enough for me to freely express what I think here. Otherwise what’s the point?
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.