Churchgoers less likely to support Giuliani (but he is LEADING among them too)

Baptist Press ^ | March 15, 2007 | Michael Foust

[FairOpinion]

Although the former New York mayor leads U.S. Sen. John McCain among all categories, his lead is only seven points (31-24) among weekly churchgoers, compared to 28 points (47-19) among those who attend church nearly weekly or monthly, and 27 points (49-22) among those who seldom or never attend church.

The data, released March 15, combined two polls of Republican voters and Republican-leaning independents -- one conducted Feb. 9-11, the other March 2-4.

[OldPossum]

I hate to say this, but If Thompson runs the party will split and Hillary will win.

I really, really doubt that you "hate to say" that.

[mdmathis6]

95 per cent of them women!

[mdmathis6]

95 per cent of them women!

[CommerceComet]

there were many people I know who were committed Christians reluctantly saying they would support Rudy.

I think the lukewarm support of the evangelical community will actually help Rudy in the general election. The key to the 2008 election is the moderate independents. These people tend to be conservative on economic and security issues but liberal or libertarian in social issues. They tend to be very suspicious of any candidate too enthusiastically supported by the Evangelical Christians. I think for every hardline conservative vote that Rudy loses, he picks up 2 from the moderate independents.

I have a "George Allen" concern about Fred Thompson. Prior to the elections of 2006, I was an enthusiastic Allen supporter thinking this is our guy for 2008. I have this nagging doubt that Thompsom might not be ready for primetime just like Allen wasn't.

I weekly attend a conservative, reformed, evangelical church. Our pastor and his family definitely would NOT support Rudy but most of the congregation would even though Rudy is not anyone's first choice.

[LS]

I'm not distrusting them at all: they say they support Rudy. What I question is the interpretation that they "don't know." Usually, what that means is, "I don't care, I'm supporting him anyway." But it's irrelevant if poll after poll (including poll after poll of Christians) has Rudy leading, and by significant margins.

The only way we'll know for sure is if a pollster ever asks a question like, "Even if Candidate X (or Rudy) is pro-choice, if the alternative is Hillary Clinton, would you vote for him?" Watch THOSE numbers!

[LS]

Good point on Fred, and I think the only way to tell will be for him to come out and be tested by fire. One of the wonderful tihngs about our system---one that people always misinterpret or disparage---is that politicians MUST be tested and prove that they can a) attract, usually in private, financial backers; b) in the smaller universe of like-minded people, attract grass roots supporters and establish an organization; and in the larger universe, appeal to SOME "independents" or Democrats.

One of the main reasons Brownback and Hunter are where they are at 1% is their inability to attract a and b.

[Steel Wolf]

The key to the 2008 election is the moderate independents. These people tend to be conservative on economic and security issues but liberal or libertarian in social issues. They tend to be very suspicious of any candidate too enthusiastically supported by the Evangelical Christians. I think for every hardline conservative vote that Rudy loses, he picks up 2 from the moderate independents.

That's precisely the calculus that has Rudy where he is in the polls. Evangelicals and hardline conservatives (FR included) are influential, but often mistake influence for raw numbers. Simply put, we don't have the raw numbers that we often think we do, especially in comparison to the "fiscally conservative/socially liberal" independents. These moderates float back and forth, but can easily be scared away by extremists of either side.

The harder that evangelicals scream at Rudy, the more moderates will get on board with him. It de-stigmatizes voting Republican, if you will, among certain segments of society. It may sacrifice 15% of the hard right, but it will, as you noted, gain 30% of the center in exchange.

[Ol' Sparky]

The REAL and only question is: 1. WHO CAN BEAT HILLARY.

Beating Hillary is meaningless and even detrimental if it results in eight years of a liberal in office, which electing Giuliani would do.

What is the point of defeating Hillary results in someone nearly as liberal as Hillary in office?

It's no wonder conservatism can't make any gains in this nation when we have conservatives as brain-dead as you are.

[Tarheel]

I'm not perfect. Neither is Rudy. But I'm not voting for a pastor, I'm voting for someone who can navigate the waters through the most important issue our country faces right now. If we're all dead, none of the other ones matter.

Well said! The WOT/ Iraq et al/national security are the pertinent issues in this election. Most of the rest should probably left up to the states.

[freedomfiter2]

Well said! The WOT/ Iraq et al/national security are the pertinent issues in this election. Most of the rest should probably left up to the states.


You can't leave something up to the states that has been already taken from the states.

[George W. Bush]

I hate to say this, but If Thompson runs the party will split and Hillary will win.

I think this is dubious if not silly. You're promoting the only GOP candidate who actually can split the party.

To insist this is true is willfully desire liberalism in the GOP.

[OldPossum]

Most of the rest should probably left up to the states.

That's nice, most of the rest left up to the states. Except it doesn't work that way, my friend. Perhaps you haven't noticed but it's the federal government which increasingly is directing your life.

Perhaps you will come back and whine about it when President Rudy signs the federal legislation that effectively takes away your gun rights and the troopers arrive to come pick up your guns. Then it will have occurred to you that President Thompson would have vetoed such legislation.

Some people are just not paying attention.

[Halgr]

To me the WOT is not the top issue...and I am not convinced that Rudy would do the right things anyway.

I worry about the slow disassembly of the Constitution by liberal activist judges, the daily deepening gap between the left and the right....the lack of quality communication between the Executive Branch and the People....(which was Bush's biggest fault)

To me its not about who can beat Hillary, its about conservatives getting some courage and fighting the left as hard as they are out to destroy us conservatives....if this keeps up, the Republican Party and its conservative base are being painted into a corner from which there is no escape....and I don't see Rudy as being on our side....

[OldPossum]

I see that you immediately pointed out to Tarheel in your post 110 that I did in my post 112.

With people like Tarheel watching out for our civil liberties, we are sunk. They truly have no idea of what they are getting into with this would-be tyrant Rudy.

But they will if they remain so brain-dead as to support him and he wins. Then they'll get the strong liberal government they do desperately unconsciously seek. And I hope they get it hard, real hard.

[freedomfiter2]

But they will if they remain so brain-dead as to support him and he wins. Then they'll get the strong liberal government they do desperately unconsciously seek. And I hope they get it hard, real hard.


I'm afraid things are going to get much worse before they get better. I can understand the God haters following Rudy, but others are selling the whole future of the republic to possibly win one election.

[micheknows]

What about every single poll saying Bush had absolutely no chance whatsoever of winning his second term? Were those polls accurate?

[micheknows]

You are in denial of the polls, which we saw in 2006 were dead on. I learned not to doubt them---they aren't infallible, but when ALL of them say the same thing, they most likely are telling us something.

Didn't all of them say the same thing when they said that Bush would have no chance at all of getting elected for his second term? Yeah, I remember people at work telling me there was no chance because every poll said there wasn't. I also remember the morning after when I was able to say to them, "Wasn't I telling you not to believe those polls?"

[Ciexyz]

I'll support whoever the Republican candidate turns out to be, but my opinion on Fred Thompson at the moment: snore

[Spyder]

Fred Thompson

I'd go with Fred except he's shown himself to be rather wishy-washy with some of the issues, bending over backwards at times to play along with McCain. One thing Rudy wouldn't do is sit back and let Chuckie Schumer run all over him without not only speaking out in defense but also turning it around to an offensive position.

[LS]

No, and we did go over this in the 2006 election. The polls were basically split, with half picking Bush 50-49, and the other half picking Kerry by about the same margin. Unfortunately, the polls were pretty correct in 2004's senate races (I was too, that year, missing only the Colorado race).

The problem for me and many in the "72-hour" campaign was that we relied on a "turnout" model, which said based on 2002 and 2004, if we got the GOP vote out, we would win, because the registration #s were in our favor. Well, we did, but we lost, because a lot of GOP voted Dem.

At any rate, I think when you have this many polls with consistent double digit leads, you're not looking at an aberration or an upset. You're looking, right now, at Rudy winning easily.