Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Giuliani Would Defeat Hillary in New Jersey (Quinnipiac alert)
angus-reid.com ^ | 1/31/2007 | Staff

Posted on 01/31/2007 5:46:06 PM PST by Dark Skies

Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani is the favourite Republican United States presidential contender for voters in the Garden State, according to a poll by the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. 48 per cent of respondents in New Jersey would vote for Giuliani in a head-to-head contest against Democratic New York senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

In other match-ups, Rodham Clinton holds a one-point edge over Arizona senator John McCain, and a 24-point advantage over former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney. McCain leads former North Carolina senator John Edwards by six points, and Illinois senator Barack Obama by three points.

In 2004, Democratic nominee John Kerry carried New Jersey’s 15 electoral votes, with 53 per cent of the vote. No Republican has won the Garden State since George H. Bush in 1988.

Incumbent George W. 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) 48% - 41% Hillary Rodham Clinton (R)
John McCain (R) 43% - 44% Hillary Rodham Clinton (R)
Mitt Romney (R) 29% - 53% Hillary Rodham Clinton (R)
John McCain (R) 45% - 39% John Edwards (R)
John McCain (R) 42% - 39% Barack Obama (R)

(sic) re: all the erroneous "(R)" designations.

Source: Quinnipiac University Polling Institute Methodology: Telephone interviews to 1,310 registered Ohio voters, conducted from Jan. 16 to Jan. 22, 2006. Margin of error is 2.7 per cent.


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: New Jersey; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 2008election; corrupt; elections; giuliani; goombah; medialies; rudy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340341-359 next last
To: nopardons; PhiKapMom

Someone mention Frank Keating?

301 posted on 01/31/2007 10:00:45 PM PST by PhilDragoo (Hitlery: das Butch von Buchenvald)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 294 | View Replies]

To: jmc813

Okay, if you say so.


302 posted on 01/31/2007 10:05:51 PM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies]

To: You Dirty Rats

Spot on!


303 posted on 01/31/2007 10:08:20 PM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 296 | View Replies]

To: PhilDragoo
Yes, we did! :-)

What do you think of him?

304 posted on 01/31/2007 10:09:14 PM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 301 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
I like Keating but in the electoral vote game, I think the nominee might want to choose his running mate more strategically.
305 posted on 01/31/2007 10:33:03 PM PST by Dolphy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies]

To: Dolphy
Big Electoral College states, in no particular order, are: N.Y., Texas, Florida, and California. Not a VEEP candidate to be found in a one of those states, for a GOPer.

Ohio and Pa. are states we need to win. Zippo, nada, bupkiss there.

Personally, I love Haley Barbour. He will NOT run for president this time around and I don't have any idea IF he would take the V.P. spot.

Can YOU think or anyone who would suit?

306 posted on 01/31/2007 10:41:34 PM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 305 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
Unfortunately, no. Barbour would be great though and would be of great help in Florida and the south in general. From what I know of him, I like Cornyn from Texas and I especially like him over Hutchison, whose name I have seen come up.

Maybe I shouldn't be so quick to question Keating :)
307 posted on 01/31/2007 11:10:13 PM PST by Dolphy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 306 | View Replies]

To: laweeks

I just have to say if a Democrat gets in the White House we are in trouble. I really believe this.


308 posted on 01/31/2007 11:13:26 PM PST by lndrvr1972
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Dolphy; PhiKapMom
See?

I couldn't think of a single person, who actually TAKE THE POSITION, IF OFFERED, but PKM said "how about Frank Keating" and it makes a LOT of sense. :-)

309 posted on 01/31/2007 11:13:51 PM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 307 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
Yes, it's a sad state of affairs. Keating though, as I remember, had something in his background that I thought sunk his possible nomination as AG.

I'm going to sleep, maybe the right person will appear in a dream :)
310 posted on 01/31/2007 11:19:20 PM PST by Dolphy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 309 | View Replies]

To: Dolphy
I'm off too...................

Nighty night and pleasant dreams.

311 posted on 01/31/2007 11:32:44 PM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 310 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom

IMO the reason Rudy is doing so well across the board, is that people are growing more and more alarmed in their gut about the threats posed by radical islam. Even though GWB has not led adequately, people know that the dims would lead us down the path of disaster. The candidate who leads and inspires confidence to fight the WOT (and also against uncontrolled immigration) will get elected.


312 posted on 02/01/2007 2:22:47 AM PST by tkathy (Sectarian violence? Or genocidal racists? Which is a better description of islamists?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 288 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom

Rudy/Keating would be a GREAT ticket!


313 posted on 02/01/2007 3:22:43 AM PST by bamabaseballmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
I think any honest, decent conservative that has a track record of standing tall for America and for the conservative platform can beat Hillary

Sad to say, I don't think as you do.

A conservative can beat Hillary only if he goes on the offensive against her MSM allies, calls them out and confronts them.

Republicans - all the way up to the White House - failed to do this in 2004-2006, and paid the price.

314 posted on 02/01/2007 4:06:16 AM PST by Doghouse Riley (No war unless it's total war for total victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
Okay, YOU tell us HOW you rescue 1,000s of people above where the planes went through the buildings, with flames and thick smoke roaring upwards.

First, you have to engineer a plan. There was none. There was no consultation or attempt to enlist the expertise of people like Dr. Bill Wattenberg in developing one after the first attack on the World Trade Center several years previous to 9-11.

And I will bet that every large liberal city in this country where the bureaucrats are busy stealing the tax money, there is still no plan other than if you are above floor # x, you are screwed. (That is why I hate big cities. Nobody gives a damn beyond their next quarter's earnings.)

Secondly, the disaster protocols for first responders were not followed like they were at the Pentagon and many others who would have survived did not.

New York is not the only place where people died that day. We still have security leaks and treason coming right out of New York, Washington D.C. and American universities. Nobody is saying a word or doing anything about it.

To top it all off, the people of New York, despite the failures of the Clinton crowd to combat terrorism, reelected that idiot to the U.S. Senate. Who lead the charge to oppose her? Nobody. Now, if that is leadership, no wonder we have the bunch in power we do today. Electing more of the same is not going to win this war.

More polite conversation on the talking head traitor television programs, droll newspaper editorializing, useless commissions, blue ribbon panels and symposiums sniping at our Judeo-Christian culture, our military, and our president without a rigourous voice of opposition from the candidates isn't going to help anything.

315 posted on 02/01/2007 5:08:02 AM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: Doghouse Riley
A conservative can beat Hillary only if he goes on the offensive against her MSM allies, calls them out and confronts them.

Republicans - all the way up to the White House - failed to do this in 2004-2006, and paid the price.

Despite the failures of the Clinton administration to fight terrorism, the people of New York reelected her to the Senate with nothing but token opposition. I do not want that same crowd from either party giving us a fancy Madison Avenue labeled president and claiming they have "leadership." Let them keep it in New York...

Polite conversation and warm, fuzzy media blather in Rockefeller Plaza, lying seditious editorials, security leaks and outright treason from the media and elected officials unanswered and unconfronted will not help us win the election or the war.

316 posted on 02/01/2007 5:19:53 AM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 314 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
". But I believe he's going to be much weaker in solid Red states where the voters tend to be pro-life, pro-family conservatives."

- On your list of possible candidates and their positions, you could have added, "BUSH - pro life, pro war, anti gay agenda, some baggage". As President for six years now, where did he get advancing that agenda? Nowhere.
As President, Guiliani would get no further than Bush did on these issues (even if he wished to push them, which I doubt).
The truth is that Congress and the Courts controls what happens in these areas. I'm more concerned with taxes, the education system and in having a strong leader in defense and foreign affairs. In these matters, Guiliani has a strong track record of proven results that is second to none.
317 posted on 02/01/2007 5:31:54 AM PST by finnigan2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
Only because you and your pals have spammed it so many times that it's become a joke; not to mention the fact that it is incorrect.

You keep saying it incorrect, but you refuse to point out where it is incorrect. And even if you could quibble about 1 or 2 items on the chart, which you probably can't, the chart would still show that Giuliani disagrees with the Republican Party on the majority of issues. It puts to a lie the contention that with Giuliani you get most of what you want as a Republican. You hardly get any of what you want if you're a Republican who supports the party's actual ideology.

318 posted on 02/01/2007 5:40:16 AM PST by Spiff (Rudy Giuliani Quote (NY Post, 1996) "Most of Clinton's policies are very similar to most of mine.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Do not repeat the now obvious mistakes made in '92, '96 and '06 and barely avoided in '00 and '04. Be sure the candidate we choose actually walks and talks the conservative platform! Motivate the base. Win elections!

Amen. The Rudy-Rooters seem committed to repeating the same failed strategies which would ultimately result in a Democrat being elected in 2008.

319 posted on 02/01/2007 5:42:26 AM PST by Spiff (Rudy Giuliani Quote (NY Post, 1996) "Most of Clinton's policies are very similar to most of mine.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 290 | View Replies]

To: oceanview; Extremely Extreme Extremist
gay civil union is going to be an issue left to the states

States vote to ratify Amendments.

It was landmark U.S. Supreme Court precedent Reynolds v. United States in 1878 that made “separation of church and state” a dubiously legitimate point of case law, but more importantly; it confirmed the Constitutionality in statutory regulation of marriage practices.

The U.S. Constitution says this:

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress;...

320 posted on 02/01/2007 5:47:45 AM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340341-359 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson