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)
Then you shall help (or at least lose the opportunity of preventing) the (D) nominee, presumably Hillary Clinton, become President. That's just a fact, and I'm just pointing it out; there's no sense in being in denial about this fact. If you're going to insist upon this "conscience vote", at least be honest with yourself about the effects, that's all I ask.
No. Those who would foist a Giuliani or other left-leaning candidate on the GOP are the idiots.
Nobody's "foisting" him on anyone, where do you guys come up with this stuff? Giuliani actually leads in most polls. This makes him what a plurality of people prefer, at least, at this stage (though it's very early, of course, as others have correctly pointed out). How do you characterize someone leading in polls as being "foisted" upon us?
We scraped by by the skin of our teeth. How'd our last election with a real conservative on the ticket work out?
So, by not voting for someone who holds views totally opposite of what I believe, I am in fact voting for someone who holds views totally opposite of what I believe. I should just check my morals at the voting booth door and blindly follow the party.
Since you didn't get my earlier point, I will ask again. If Rudy suddenly decided to be anti war, and got the nomination, would you vote for him? Especially since not voting for Rudy would be a vote for Hillary (according your logic).
... and this has worked well in advancing conservatism?
I agree that the President affects both issues, just not equally. As I said earlier, not all single-issues are created equal.
We have had a (fairly outspoken and deep-seated) pro-life President since 2000; we had one from 1980-1988; we (kinda-sorta?) had one from 1988-1992. Somehow, abortions still take place. This belies the notion that who sits in the Oval Office somehow has a huge effect on whether/how many abortions take place; thus, it seriously undermines the case for using abortion as one's "single-issue" when forming a Presidential preference.
But the case for using foreign policy as a "single-issue", or at least a dominant issue, when forming a Presidential preference, is solid as a rock, as you seem to agree.
Political parties who gravitate toward unacceptable products deserve to lose market share... and are dumb(er).
Then it would be considered an honorable malign. If the GOP is abandoning its established, published principle for that of the leftist liberal Democrat party - and it will have done so with RinoRudy, then RNC ought to come out and say so.
I will NOT "vote for the lesser of two evils" when voting for the lesser would trample my own conscious objections I hold for abortion, SSM, gun control, and federal nannyism.
When this life is over, whether we've stood firm upon sound principle will matter far much more to the Judge than who was elected and some cheap and temporary, false sense of "winning".
Which was actually better than expected, given the previous President's popularity and the good economy. All I'm pointing out is that 2000 undermines the point the other poster was trying to make, which was that not nominating "real" conservatives somehow dooms the party in the general election.
How'd our last election with a real conservative on the ticket work out?
I reckon that would be 1984, when Reagan won as a popular incumbent over a guy who promised to raise taxes. This easy, predictable victory doesn't really help build a case that you need to run a "real" conservative in all elections otherwise the party will be destroyed, sorry.
Does it? Or is is shameless pandering to the gay voters?
I don't think there's ever been a case where compromised principles have led to anything less than trouble and further compromise of principle until nothing but trouble remains and a man devoid of principle is like a ship in a troubled sea without a compass.
No, you are not "voting for" her, you are simply forfeiting your only ability to influence the election against her. In other words, you may as well not be voting at all; in an election involving Hillary Clinton, you will have decided to make your voice count for precisely zero.
I should just check my morals at the voting booth door and blindly follow the party.
No. "Morals"? No. What you should do, as a rational voter, is recognize the reality of winner-take-all elections and calibrate your vote such that your voice has a maximal influence (instead of zero influence) in the direction you deem best for the country. If you deem that a Giuliani Presidency would be better than a Clinton Presidency for the country, this would mean that (if rational) you'd cast your vote for Giuliani, even if you don't particularly like him.
If you don't think it matters, of course, then go ahead and vote 3rd party (or don't vote, same difference).
Since you didn't get my earlier point, I will ask again. If Rudy suddenly decided to be anti war, and got the nomination, would you vote for him?
It would depend on his opponent, and what this switch really meant re: Rudy's personality and makeup. Possibly, possibly not.
I reckon it was better for advancing conservative causes than if we had had President Gore for the past 8 years.
True; what I am doing here is questioning the wisdom of those who find Giuliani "unacceptable".
Some would consider that an oxymoron, but if it makes you feel better....
If the GOP is abandoning its established, published principle for that of the leftist liberal Democrat party
You guys really really hate Giuliani, don't you? "leftist"? The hyperbole here is overflowing.
I will NOT "vote for the lesser of two evils" when voting for the lesser would trample my own conscious objections I hold for abortion, SSM, gun control, and federal nannyism.
Very well. You may as well not vote then.
When this life is over, whether we've stood firm upon sound principle will matter far much more to the Judge than who was elected and some cheap and temporary, false sense of "winning".
So God decides whether we go to heaven or hell on the basis of how we vote in Presidential elections?
I would love Newt or Jeb to be on the ticket. That will not happen . Rudy G will still have to pick a South-SW conserv to help him win the Red States and pick off a blue state or two. Who knows who that would be?
Polls at this point of the primary process measure nothing more than name recognition. With 95+% of MSM pieces focusing on Giuliani and McCain and the current "leadership" putting their names out there as well... they are being foisted upon us. There's very little oxygen left in the room for more conservative candidates to gain name-recognition points in this gale.
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.