Posted on 08/21/2006 6:16:02 AM PDT by areafiftyone
Dear justshutupandtakeit,
The numbers that I cite speak to hardcore pro-lifers who actually vote in presidential elections. These folks vote overwhelmingly (around 90%) for Republican presidential candidates.
"The FR poll is a joke."
Tell Jim Robinson that.
"Who in their right mind does not know that FReepers are the extreme right in NO way representative of the rest of the GOP or electorate."
Frankly, my experience is that posters here at FR are usually moderately conservative, but are spread over a pretty wide range, politically. There certainly are extreme right-wingers, here, but there's also plenty of moderates and even a few folks that I'd say are closer to the RINO part of the spectrum (hint hint).
"Most FReepers did not even vote."
Can you validate that assertion?
My own view is that posters at Free Republic are usually more politically involved than most, more politically knowledgeable than most, and have a greater familiarity with a wider array of Republican politicians than most. I suspect that FR posters are also more likely to understand where different politicians stand on different issues, and thus, are better able, at this point in the election cycle, to form informed opinions about potential candidates.
Thus, a presidential poll of posters at Free Republic is liable to reduce the effect of Mr. Giuliani's and Sen. McCain's overwhelming name recognition advantage and give a truer measure of real popularity.
But then again, perhaps you're right, and FReepers are predominantly a bunch of whiners who don't even vote.
LOL.
sitetest
Dear justshutupandtakeit,
"Think of all the Imaginary People who haven't been born."
You reveal your true colors here. * shudder *
The 40 million who have been aborted aren't imaginery. They're dead. Killed in a society that permits their murder up to and throughout nearly the entire process of birth. I suppose because you can't see them, to you, they're imaginery. "Out of sight, out of mind."
"Anti-abortion is not the prime issue and never will be."
Not for most folks. However, it's a non-negotiable issue (even if not the most important issue) for enough folks that it means that Mr. Giuliani would likely lose 6% - 10% or more of the vote that Mr. Bush received.
"Even Hitler was anti-abortion would the social conservatives vote for him rather than Guiliani."
I wouldn't vote for either man. Nor would I vote for either Mr. Giuliani or Mrs. Clinton if they were the nominees of their respective parties. If these are the two choices, then the system has failed to nominate any candidate fit to hold the office of the presidency.
I'll do my best to help avoid that circumstance. If it comes to that, then it won't be because I didn't try.
sitetest
I don't see your analysis as being any different from what I called judgement.
After all, every one of those elections was unique. Each time the circumstances were different. Reagan was a great candidate, but he would have lost if Jimmy Carter had not failed as a President.
I am not denying the truth of what you say. I am just saying that the next election will have its own unique circumstances. We can estimate what they will be, but factors which have yet to emerge will be critical: Iraq and the economy are the most obvious. There will probably be other, less obvious ones, which perhaps neither of us has anticipated.
I have enjoyed this, but I think we are exhausting it. I think that if Giuliani wins the nomination (which I agree that he probably won't) he would (probably) easily win the subsequent election. You think he would probably lose.
Dear qlangley,
"I don't see your analysis as being any different from what I called judgement."
It's the application of one of your attributes - judgment - to the one that I added - history.
"Reagan was a great candidate, but he would have lost if Jimmy Carter had not failed as a President."
Maybe. But he wouldn't have won without social conservative backing.
"I am just saying that the next election will have its own unique circumstances."
I agree. I haven't said that it's impossible for Mr. Giuliani to win. Only that historically, social conservatives have been necessary for Republican wins for several decades.
"You think he would probably lose."
Yes, and it would be very bad for the Republican coalition.
But not as bad for the party or the country than if he won.
sitetest
True with democrats and RINOs....
Real republicans already know Giuliani is a cross dressing liberal..
And you would think you would be wondering as to why the
http://whois.domaintools.com/vvaw.org went ACTIVE again on June 2001?
Yes. I also Concoct the Vietnam war, David Mixner, the Clintons and I made Rudy a go-go boy at the Stonewall Inn.
It was all me. You caught me.
Jim knows exactly what that poll means I don't have to tell him anything about it.
HE is the one who saids he would "crawl over broken glass" to prevent any RAT from getting to the White House. Too bad you don't have his insight.
Geez keep up. Most Freepers didn't vote in that POLL. We were talking abou the poll. You can't really be so obtuse that you didn't know exactly what was being discussed.
Though I would like to see exactly what percentage of Freepers voted in 04 or in every election as I do.
I don't pretend potential people are the same as REAL people. How beastly of me.
Guililani would win NY, IL, MI, NJ, CN, CA, PA, WS as well as every state that Bush won. He would win in a landslide while you sulk and pretend to be righteous.
VVAW had nothing to do with Guiliani nor was there a war for it to oppose in 2001. No doubt that if there had been one it would have opposed it but that has no significance if one is not trying to slander Guiliani.
Dear justshutupandtakeit,
"HE is the one who saids he would 'crawl over broken glass' to prevent any RAT from getting to the White House."
Me, too. However, if Mr. Giuliani is nominated, then we're guaranteed that a Democrat will get into the White House, no matter which candidate wins.
Putting an "R" on the back of a liberal who endorsed Mario Cuomo doesn't make him a real Republican.
" Most Freepers didn't vote in that POLL."
Okay.
I don't know how many active folks there are at Free Republic. I know that there are several hundred thousand registered, but I don't think that any but a small percentage actually post on a regular basis.
sitetest
Jim included Guiliani as one who would be preferable to Hillary.
That is not true!
It will get to the point where Islamist terrorists will come at you in the most
personal way like those two sniper wackos in VA, Muhammad and Malvo.
The personal weapon will be the last most important defense. You see the terrorist, you give him a dirt nap.
Police protection is a myth believed by each last dead fool... You can quote me.
"Character is higher than intellect... A great soul will be strong to live, as well as to think." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Even though I posted the links several time, I have concocted all of that.
And you are accusing me of slander, yet you are slandering me?
Yuppers.
Is this, or is this not an antiwar action?
Is this or is this not the creators of the Vietnam Antiwar actions?
New York City Stonewall chapter LGBT veterans’ convention
David Mixner, Clintons, HRC
Is this or is this not Stonewall's Antiwar group FUNDED by International A.N.S.W.A.R????
Man, I have great concoctions!
Dear justshutupandtakeit,
"I don't pretend potential people are the same as REAL people."
I see the problem. You're one of those folks who denies the humanity of those who haven't yet been born. All this time, I thought I was conversing with a Republican and a conservative. My error.
I think that perhaps you're in the wrong party. The Party of Satan can be found at DemocraticUnderground.
"How beastly of me."
Indeed. It's good that you have at least that much insight into the problem. ;-)
"Guililani would win NY, IL, MI, NJ, CN, CA, PA, WS as well as every state that Bush won."
I don't think so. For example, Pennsylvania is a tough nut to crack for Republicans. You've got a lot of old union and Catholic Democrats who are nearly Democrat genetically. But a lot of these ethnic white Democrats, union and Catholic, are also social conservatives. Pro-life, pro-guns, anti-homosexualist agenda. Lots of them are iffy on "tax cuts for the wealthy," "war for oil," etc. But many of them also feel uncomfortable voting for pro-abort Democrats, as well.
Run a pro-abort Republican, and you've assuaged their consciences when they vote Democrat.
The analysis isn't quite as straightforward as you suggest.
sitetest
Dear justshutupandtakeit,
I like Jim, but I don't agree with everything he thinks or says.
I'm pretty sure he doesn't have a problem with that.
sitetest
There is nothing there of any note to destroy. whining won't make him a serious candidate, and neither will hyperbolic fluff threads like this one. His highest (and only elected) office has been mayor. His military credentials are lacking for this time of war we are now in. He is pretty much a non - issue.
The people with the resume to be creditable in prosecuting the war are not harmed by not throwing their hat into the ring this early, and they know it. Do not cry foul! no fair! or anything else when the 2008 Republican nominee is some one who never showed up on the scene until mid 2007. They have no need to step in now. Money isn't as much the name of the game in a war-time candidacy.
People are not the same as potential people. All potential people are not even born even without an abortionist's intervention.
PA would not be a "tough nut" for Guiliani. It would be a cakewalk.
Don't criticize my analysis when yours is just your wishes.
No one implied he would. The conflict is using him to support your view when he has expressed diametrically opposed views.
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.