Posted on 03/29/2007 2:41:13 PM PDT by pissant
A new Time Magazine poll out Thursday has a lot of interesting (and not terribly surprising) numbers. They include low levels of support for President Bush, a big majority favoring withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq before September 2008, and a majority believing Bush is trying to "cover up" what happenned in the firing of U.S. Attorneys.
We draw you attention to the Presidential race, though, and the strong bump John Edwards has gotten since the attention surrounding his wife's cancer recurred. Time finds the Democratic Primary race this way:
Clinton at 38%, Obama at 30% and Edwards at 28%.
On the Republican side, Time shows Rudy Giuliani's Republican Primary numbers sinking back to reality after he ran 20 points ahead of John McCain. Following the drip, drip, drip of details about him including his son not talking to him and his third wife being on her third husband, Giuliani stills leads McCain, but now it's 35%-22%.
Keep in mind, however, it is only March, 2007
I said it weeks ago.
Rudy has peaked.
So did I.
Sounds like Rudy's campaign may have sprung a slow leak.
It's hard to hold on to supporters who are only there because he's the front runner. The more he sags, the more his supporters will reconsider.
"Rudy has peaked."
Perhaps this front-loaded primary will serve a good purpose after all....
That's not the way I see it, and perhaps you can correct my logic.
Rudy is leading in every national poll of GOP voters, and he's leading in every state poll except one that I saw here. I think that was a New Hampshire poll, but I don't recall.
If he wins the vast majority of GOP primary elections, then he will be the GOP nominee. I don't think you can argue with that.
He also wins every poll against any Democrat candidate. Rather decisively, I might add.
Now, I've explained why I think he'll be the GOP nominee, and why I think he'll win in November 2008.
The party isn't going to dump him. The party didn't put him in the race in the first place. GOP voters will choose their favorite among all those who want to be in the race.
If you don't want him to be your nominee, promote a candidate who can win instead of him. It's not that complicated.
I haven't seen a poll that indicates that Giuliani can't win the whole shootin' match. But I'd be interested for you to logically debunk the way I reached my conclusion.
I'm not saying Rudy will win. I'm saying that right now it looks like he will.
More details from the poll above:
Giuliani: 50, Hillary: 41
Hillary 51: Thompson: 34
Not bad for a guy who last week hinted that he might think about it in good time but wasn't sure.
Heh heh...well, I've always wanted to do that. In fact, my college buddies and I used to go out on occasion (when we were supposed to be studying) to various swamp locations and see if we could find one. We never did, but it was still a lot of fun.
I noticed you're in Georgia, which is where I'm from originally (moved to NC about 2 years ago). I went to school at Middle Georgia College, which is just South of Macon...I actually lived close to Atlanta, but went to school much further South. Most of the area surrounding my college was flatlands, cotton fields, and swamps. We would have thought it was a *perfect* place for a Bigfoot sighting so we equipped ourselves with alleged "recordings" on tapes and searchlights. To be honest, if we'd ever actually seen one, we'd have probably needed to change our pants.
*Sigh*...sorry, went on a memory trip there.
Gee, just this morning you Rudy toots were posting his mug on the front of Time Mag, now its a liberal piece of crap. Are you pom pom rudy boosters starting to get crazy?
There is one difference between the Rudyfolk and you and I. We base our rejection of Rudy based on historical FACTS.
Well I communicate with literally thousands of gun owners from rich sport shooters to lower income hunters to pure gun collectors to people who just want a pistol to keep the bad guy' away. It is a pretty good cross section of gun owners in this country and most have stated that there is no way they will vote for Rudy. You add those numbers to the Right to Life voters added to the voters you do not support gay marriage and that totals a loss for Rudy in Nov. You can choose to ignore the warnings and believe the evening news that tell you Rudy is a shoo-in or you can pick someone who can win. Rudy don't sell in the South and he don't sell in the Heartland. Rudy only has to lose one state that G.W. Bush won and the Dem's win.
Right on Al, Rudy is rabidly against the 2nd Amendment, pro-abortion and is pro-gay rights movement, why any "conservative" thinks he has a chance in hell to get votes is beyond me. If Rudy gets the nomination, whoever is the Democrat nominee will win the Presidency and the GOP as a whole will go down in a historic defeat. Heck, Hillary might just win even Texas.
And where is your evidence of that or is it just another bit of make-believe fiction?
Truth be told, none of us have any real evidence about anything concerning the numbers. People keeping wagging the 1 percenter finger at Duncan Hunter, but in the straw polls Duncan won in Arizona and was 6 points behind the leader in the South Carolina poll. Now how the hell is that possible if he is only a 1 percenter in the media polls? It certainly isn't because he has a big bag of money or because he campaigned any harder than the other folks for these straw polls.
What do the liberals always say when a conservative wins? - "But, he was behind in the polls and noone I know voted for him!!"
It's true about the polls. I will say this, however, some of the polls citing Rudy's number one front runner status have been conducted by conservative organizations or his support has been observed by conservative columnists of long-standing.
I can't account for the straw polls but will mention that in 1999, if I remember correctly, this web site was pulling for Alan Keyes and we all know how that turned out.
A better indicator of the mood of the country aren't little enclaves of people where there is group think going on but a more broad sampling of voters.
So, I guess you wouldn't have voted for President Reagan, because he sure was estranged from Patti and not getting along too well with Ron and Michael when he ran for President. I am not necessarily a Rudy supporter, but I could care less what his son thinks of him. I would never have voted for Reagan if I let his kids determine my vote.
That's a straw man argument because all the people that were here in 1999 are not the same people that are here now. I've noticed that a good many of the Rudy supporters were here in 1999, so what does that prove?
Amazing how character matters when it is a Democrat like Clinton but it doesn't matter when it is a Republican.
Amazing how character matters when it is a Democrat like Clinton but it doesn't matter when it is a Republican.
I somehow think that I saw a great deal of character on 911.
The fact remains, that when President Reagan was running for office, his children except Maureen did not support him. I don't know if you remember or not. Reagan had also supported abortion at one time (while governor, if fact)and he was divorced. But you know I refuse to play that old democrats game of using everything the person ever did to destroy him. Guiliani however flawed would be far better than anything the democrats would throw at us. National Security is more important than anything else. Yeah, I would like to see someone with the perfect conservative profile, but as Reagan showed us, sometimes people actually do change as they mature.
Not even gonna try, I guess?
Oh well, the primaries are still a long ways away.
It doesn't matter whether you disprove me now or I disprove you.
The votes don't get counted until next year.
I just wanted to find out whether you had any thing other than passion.
"LOL! Yeah, I'm only 22. Still a young fresh-faced conservative."
Good for you. When I was 21 I was a liberal who "proudly" voted for Dukakis. It took me to the age of 25-26 before I realized what democrats/liberals really are. Now I can forgive youthful "ignorance" for a person being a young liberal, but there's nothing more pathetic than an OLD one.
"Rudy is a no-sale. He will never get the conservative vote. If he gets the GOP nod look for a third party candidate to pull in 15%-20%. Bill's wife will get in the same way he did.
You apparently haven't kept up with the polling among Evangelicals and other conservatives. They are going for Rudy over the other candidates. He will win the nomination by a good margin"
Ford was a liberal Republican and had he not pardoned Nixon probably would have won against Carter. I was a kid so I'm not sure how powerful the "Religious Right" was back then, but apparently they supported Ford in pretty high numbers. The "Evangelicals" are not completely stupid, as some here believe. As much I hate Rudy's liberalism, he is infinitely superior to the literal hell that would be a Clinton presidency.
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.