Posted on 02/14/2007 7:14:04 AM PST by meg88
Giuliani is Best GOP Hope in Florida February 12, 2007
(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - Republican Rudy Giuliani holds an early lead in the Sunshine State, according to a poll by the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.
47 per cent of respondents in Florida would vote for the former New York City mayor in the 2008 United States presidential election, while 44 per cent would support Democratic New York senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.
In other match-ups, Rodham Clinton leads Arizona senator John McCain by four points, and holds an 18-point advantage over former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney. McCain leads former North Carolina senator John Edwards by one point, and Illinois senator Barack Obama by two points.
In 2004, Republican George W. Bush carried Florida’s 27 electoral votes, with 52 per cent of all cast ballots. In 2000, weeks of recounts and court injunctions concluded in a 537-vote victory for Bush over Democrat Al Gore. Since 1972, the only Democrats to win the Sunshine State in a presidential election are Jimmy Carter in 1976 and Bill Clinton in 1996.
Bush is ineligible for a third term in office. The next United States presidential election is scheduled for November 2008.
Polling Data
If the 2008 election for President were being held today, and the candidates were (the Democrat) and (the Republican), for whom would you vote?
Rudy Giuliani (R) 47% - 44% Hillary Rodham Clinton (R) John McCain (R) 43% - 47% Hillary Rodham Clinton (R) Mitt Romney (R) 34% - 52% Hillary Rodham Clinton (R) John McCain (R) 43% - 42% John Edwards (R) John McCain (R) 42% - 40% Barack Obama (R)
Even if they are "worthless", that doesn't help support your point that Giuliani would lose. If polls are worthless, that means we just don't know how he would do. It doesn't give you a factual basis for predicting that he would lose.
I was responding to your statement.
am just pointing out that the hatred some seem to have for him is unwarranted,
Rudy talking point #1 - call his opponents haters.
I don't hate Rudy. I just think he or McCain would be horrible choices for the GOP nominee and would split the party. I guess you'd rather relive 1992 than avoid a repeat. That history thingy.
Since polls are worthless, best to look at history. You know, the stuff you are ignoring.
Right, and in the course of doing so, you completely ignored its context, which I clarified for you.
I don't hate Rudy. I just think he or McCain would be horrible choices for the GOP nominee
Fair enough. Don't vote for Giuliani then.
and would split the party.
I don't agree that he would "split the party" and again, you have no factual basis for this... prediction (or threat, or whatever it is).
If you are right that Giuliani's nomination would "split the party", then those people who would "split" upon Giuliani's nomination are idiots.
That's all I'm saying. You're either wrong, or if you're right, then a goodly fraction of (R)s are idiots. Take it for what it's worth but those are the two choices.
I guess you'd rather relive 1992 than avoid a repeat.
What happened in 1992? A lot of conservatives defected to Perot, is that what you're saying? What was the result of that? President Clinton for 8 years. What does this make those 1992 defectors?
That's right, say it with me: idiots.
That's all I'm saying.
If we have to have a bush on the ticket to win Florida, I suggest it'd better be Janice Rogers Brown.
Other than 1992, when Bush the Elder drifted left and it split the party. That history thingy ... yet again.
What happened in 1992? A lot of conservatives defected to Perot, is that what you're saying?
It's always the fault of the voters. Never the fault of the Rockefeller wing of the party who keeps trying to yank the steering wheel to the left, even though that manuever is shown to be bad for the party.
Don't forget Bill Clinton's two terms, which gave us the mess we have now. I have children and grandchildren to think about, not only my own, but all the others out there, who need to be able to grow up in a non-Islamic country. Too many people can't see beyond the end of their nose.
Just so you know, I don't agree that your stretched reading of "history" gives a rational reason to think Giuliani would lose to Hillary in 2008.
For one thing, you have to pretend that Bush was the "conservative" candidate in 2000, to fit your supposed pattern. But if you were around FR back then you might recall that this is far from the truth: actually, Bush was the "electable" candidate and considered too wishy-washy (remember "compassionate conservatism"?), and tons of Freepers were griping and grumbling (just exactly as you are now) that we should instead nominate a real conservative (with no chance in h*** of winning) like Alan Keyes or Bob Smith. (Remember?) Bush's defenders (of which I was one!) were accused of "holding their nose" and pushing "partial socialism", and dire predictions were made that it would split the party, and all that.
How'd the 2000 election turn out by the way?
In other words, George W. Bush was the 2000 version of Giuliani, not the 2000 version of, oh, Duncan Hunter or whoever. Sounds like you're the one who's forgotten history.
No, they didn't. The GOP lost because it failed to give moderates and swing votes a reason to keep it in power. You squander moral authority when you attach earmarks to Iraq War appropriations bills.
Beware of who's shouting that only Rudy Giulliani can beat Hillary Clinton. This "theory" is a deliberate fabrication of the MSM. It is in their best political interest to push a candidate now that they can destroy later. And, that, my friend, is Rudy.
You're falling for spin and a media creation. I wouldn't really care except you risk taking a GOP victory in 2008 with you when you crash land.
Voters who make dumb choices are dumb. I see no point in pretending otherwise.
Fair enough. I see what you are getting at.
However, I never said we should nominate him because of that. It was more of a political observation that he'd win and that would be a factor. I'm a Gingrich guy myself.
BTW...my Italian family is mostly staunchly conservative Republican with just a few Democrats. Historically, Italians were Dems but registrationwise it's about a 50/50 split now.
Repubicans who run left for national office are dumb. History shows what lies down that path.
I agree that it's not true that "only" Giuliani can beat Hillary. I happen to think he's got the best chance of doing so, and that a fair reading of today's political climate bears this out, but reasonable people can disagree with me about that, and in any event by no means is he our only shot.
However, to suggest the exact opposite (that he would be a "train wreck" for the party because he would "split" it) is completely lacking in any factual basis whatsoever.
You're falling for spin and a media creation.
You assume way too much.
I wouldn't really care except you risk taking a GOP victory in 2008 with you when you crash land.
You have no factual basis for this prediction of a "crash land".
Oh, that's truly funny. Bush is solidly pro-life, is not a gun-grabber and isn't pushing gay rights.
There is enough there to keep the party together. Rudy will not be able to.
Only history. Which is far more than what you have to support your opinions.
True.
Of course, a wise person would keep in mind that there can be issues they "deem important" in a general sense, but which have little or marginal relevance to the actual office being sought, and therefore, need not be factored in either way.
The example I gave earlier - do you care about your dog-catcher's position on abortion?
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.