Rudy has a goal.
Posted on 08/16/2007 6:15:38 PM PDT by bnelson44
Rudy Giuliani got good news earlier this week from a CBS poll that most people have learned to mistrust -- for good reason -- but Rasmussen may provide some corroboration today. According to the normally reliable pollster, Rudy has his first significant lead in head-to-head polling against Hillary Clinton, and the crosstabs show some surprising depth (via Instapundit):
After being virtually tied with Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton for several months, Republican contender Rudy Giuliani now leads Clinton up 47% to 40% in the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.
In the match-up of the frontrunners, this result marks a significant shift. For the last three months the two frontrunners have never been further apart than three percentage points. Last month, Giuliani and Clinton were separated by just a single point.
Senator Clinton fares modestly better against former Senator Fred Thompson. Clinton now has a three point edge over him, 46% to 43%. All four previous Clinton-Thomas have also been toss-ups.
It's significant that neither top 50% in the poll. Eight percent insist on voting for another candidate, even when the question gets posed as a two-choice affair. Five percent are unsure. We'll come back to them in a moment.
Rudy has some surprising strength in the demographics, especially women. While pundits believe that Hillary would motivate women to flock to her banner, Giuliani actually edges Hillary 44%-42% in this poll -- within the margin of error, to be sure, but much closer than most would imagine. Giuliani has a majority of those between 30-39 years of age (54-36) while Hillary has a slimmer majority in the 40-49 range (50-44). Despite Democratic claims on the youth vote, Hillary only gets a single percentage point lead on Rudy on the 18-29 demo (38-37), and Giuliani has significant leads among those 50 and older.
Otherwise, the only other surprise among the demographics are black voters. Hillary has a lead on Giuliani there, but Rasmussen shows the split 48-41 Hillary. I'd guess this to be a typo. The "Others" category is split 55-11 for Hillary, and I'd wager that they have the two turned around. Even so, only getting 55% of the black vote in a two-way race (18% unsure) looks like a huge problem for the Democrats.
As to those who are unsure, the most significant demographics for the undecided are those that favor Giuliani. That means that we could expect them to break more towards Rudy than Hillary when push comes to shove. All in all, this seems like the kind of boost that Rudy can use to make the case that he provides the best chance for Republicans to beat Hillary next November. John Podhoretz should be dancing over at The Corner with this news.
Good post, Chunga.
Please, let’s remember that a Clinton II presidency would not be a linear continuation of a pre-9/11 Clinton I presidency. So many critical things have happened since then, and I believe that a Clinton II rule would be exponentially worse than BJ’s rule.
The stakes for the security and freedom for our wonderful nation - and the free world - are too high to close our eyes to that possibility, and all that it entails.
Umm...’your’ heading is disgusting and untrue.
LOL...how about the person who was ahead of Rino Bush?
I believe the thread heading started off without the parenthetical.
Fawn, I like your home page. It’s amazing how blind the Islamist-excusers are... “This alligator won’t eat me.” Evil is like a tornado - it is totally uncaring of who or what’s in the way.
I thank God every day that my teen son (Freeper bauerpauer) *gets it*. He truly does. When he’s up, out, married and employed, his wife and children (God willing!) will be blessed to have a man like him looking out for them, and not turning an ignorant eye to the evil that would destroy the free.
Right. I'd rather endure four years of Hillary than eight years of a RINO and/or another Democrat.
And this helps our country *how*? You lived through the Clinton years, round one (and I pray the ONLY round they will ever get). I'm quite sure that you must then be aware of the real, irreversible destruction that will inevitably ensue - a weakened national security, letting the Bush tax cuts expire, raising taxes on top of that, installment of the Fairness Doctrine II, license over the next appointments to the Supreme Court.
Shall I go on?
Well, let's see. Republicans GAINED 500 seats during the Clinton years nationwide and took over Congress for the first time in 40 years. We actually achieved a balanced budget during the Clinton years. Things certainly weren't all bad.
It is BETTER to endure four years of Hillary than EIGHT years of a liberal Republican and/or another Democrat. The damage done in the latter scenario is unstoppable as Republicans won't oppose legislation pushed for by a RINO. Further, a Hillary Presidency could pave the way for a REAL conservative revolution.
A Giuliani Presidency turns the clock back to the Nixon years where a liberal Republican presided over a shrinking minority in Congress.
Hopefully, conservatives will be smart enough to avoid either a Hillary or Giuliani Presidency by nominating and electing a conservative.
Giulaini appointed liberal judges by an 8-1 margin in New York and has been trying to redefine what a strict contructionalist is..
The only chance of getting another conservative on the court is to nominate and elect someone other than Giuliani as the GOP nominee.
Those things may be true. And while those things occurred, the seeds of 9-11 grew. Every attack on us (WTC 1) or our interests (Khobar Towers, the African embassies, the Cole and probably Oklohoma City) was ignored or treated as a criminal act - not an act of war - and enabled and emboldened the Islamists.
This is a different world now. The post-Clinton years gave us the first attack on our soil on non-military installations. The Clintons' inaction and indifference allowed AQ to see the United States of America as a toothless old tiger. I thank God that President Bush did not respond as the Clintons did.
I say again - this would not be the linear continuation, or even return to the past, of Clinton I. There is no guarantee that those benign results of Clinton I would reoccur without the exceedingly dangerous handmaidens that would accompany it.
is BETTER to endure four years of Hillary than EIGHT years of a liberal Republican and/or another Democrat.
Only four years? I'm sure you can't guarantee that. And I disagree with your premise on the face of it. That's the political equivalent of lying down on the train track.
Further, a Hillary Presidency could pave the way for a REAL conservative revolution.
Then vote for her if you think it would be such a good thing for the country and American conservatism. I am not willing to bring our country so close to the fire on the come.
Hopefully, conservatives will be smart enough to avoid either a Hillary or Giuliani Presidency by nominating and electing a conservative.
I hope so, too. But if Giuliani is the nominee of the Republican Party, I will not vote third party and I will not vote for Hillary. People who voted for Perot, including some close and respected friends of mine, did so with good intentions at the time. The unintended consequence was eight years of Bill and Hillary.
That's not a trap I will walk into willingly ever again. I would hope we would learn after the first time. best to you...
There were some series disagreements here on FR about "W."
I don't recall back in 2000 who was pro and who was anti.
Finding a single FReeper to name "head of the Bush supporters" would be a hugh research project.
I'm not going to try, if you want to do so, I wish you luck.
Even should you be lucky and could discover one freeper to hang that title on, I doubt he/she would be leftist enough to want the position of "Head RinoRudyBot."
That's difficult to say. Supreme Court nominees sometimes don't end up the way you expect. I'm sure that there were higher hopes for Justice O'Connor at the time of her nomination. To hear Sandra Day O'Connor advocate for integrating international law and opinion into SCOTUS' deliberations made me sick, but I am 100% confident that President Reagan did not believe for a minute that she would ever take that stance.
I am confident that Hillary would never allow a pro-life Supreme Court Justice on the bench.
Those events would not have occurred if president Carter had responded to the 9/4/1979 act of war by Iran as a President should have.
I agree completely.
I also believe that at each turning point during Carter's and Clinton's terms, there were multiple opportunities to respond to each act of war appropriately. It's just like the accident chain: it starts with one thing, and if it stops with appropriate and positive act, you will break the chain. Neither Carter nor Clinton kept us three mistakes above the ground.
So, I wonder how the Clintons view Carter? Think he'd have some "traitor emeritus" position in her administration?
I think he would, and I also believe that would be a deliberate blow from within to our troops.
I would recommend reading "Unlimited Access," written some time ago by Gary Aldrich, the FBI agent assigned to the Clinton White House. I know you've probably read it - but I wanted to put that title out there.
People are worried about the turn to being pro-life by Romney? I'm glad he changed his mind for the better. Hillary will never object to PBA. She is without honor.
Oh God! I'd forgotten about that part of it! Such disrespect. My son really wants to join the FBI. I pray there is not a second Clinton FBI.
“Anyone claiming they’re the same is blind...that being said, it’s important to try to nominate a more conservative candidate than Giuliani in the primaries. He is not conservative enough for my tastes, but he is conservative enough to get my vote if he’s running against HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON. For crying out loud.”
We survived a Clinton presidency once, we can survive another - she is not the big buggaboo she is painted. Plus, the first Clinton presidency lead to the Republican Revolution of 1994 (which we blew of course). I’m not blind, my “vision” is 20/20. I WILL NOT accept a flawed candidate just because he is nominally a republican. To do so would be to sell out....I can understand pragmatism, but not a complete sellout. Plus, you conveinently ignore his anti 2nd ammendment views plus his blatant support of the legitimazation of Homosexuality.
Regardless of what he calls it (the current conflict), he has no business being the CinC of the Armed Forces that is mainly populated by southerners. He will be hated by the Joes. Clinton is already hated by most except for the whiners (yes sadly there are still many in uniform) that want to cut and run. The strong disdain the military has for her will force her to compromise. Guilani is arrogant and won’t.
Once again, I don’t see Guilani and any better than Clinton, and it may well be that Clinton might do better (heresy I know). Regardless, I won’t vote for either in a General Election. If the party wants my support they will ditch Rudi the Rumpranger.
Plus, you conveinently ignore his anti 2nd ammendment views plus his blatant support of the legitimazation of Homosexuality.
What is Hillary's stance on these two issues, especially vis a vis your following statement:
"...and it may well be that Clinton might do better..."
What I CAN guarantee you is that conservatives will have a chance to run and elect a conservative candidate against Hillary in four years. If RINO Rudy reaches office, it will guarantee a liberal in office for eight years.
What I can also guarantee is significant losses in Congress by Republicans if Giuliani is elected and significant gains in Congress if Hillary is elected.
Giuliani's social liberalism will drive conservatives in the South back to blue-dog Democrats in Congress.
Combine that with the fact that Giuliani has a history of appointing left-wing judges in New York and you can see why I don't think it makes any difference if he or Hillary ends up nominating the judges to SCOTUS.
If care about that issue, you should be opposing Giuliani in the primaries with every ounce of your being.
A conservative voting for a liberal is what in unintelligent and guaranteed to result in the advancement of liberalism.
I'd much rather have Hillary in office for four years with a chance of electing a conservative in 2012 and with the an increasing number of Republicans in Congress than be stuck with a liberal Republican or Democrat for eight years and shrinking Republican minority in Congress.
Rudy has a goal.
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.