Skip to comments.Liberals : why is the GOP still heading for '08 ?
Posted on 03/29/2007 9:02:28 AM PDT by drzz
Why, in poll after poll, including the new TIME poll, does that advantage seem to disappear whenever voters are asked to pick a president in hypothetical head-to-head match-ups among front-runners with solid name recognition. In our poll, Hillary Clinton loses to John McCain, 42-48%, and to Rudy Giuliani 41-50%. Even though Clinton maintains a 7% edge over Obama among Democratic respondents, Obama fares better in the general election match-ups. It's so close that it's a statistical dead-heat, but Obama still loses: 43-45% to McCain, 44-45% to Giuliani.
It's hard to know exactly why respondents who are generally unhappy towards and in many cases fed up with the GOP might still prefer a Republican for president over a Democrat. Much of it has to do with the individual candidates involved. In Clinton's case, as TIME pollster Mark Schulman points out, "with Hillary the Democratic front-runner, most voters have made up their minds about her, both pro and con. She may have limited upward potential against Republicans. The emerging anti-Hillaries, Obama and Edwards, suffer from low awareness at this point."
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
A vote for Rudy is a vote for liberals.
Because people like conservative executives and liberal legislatures. And oh ya, PEOPLE LOVE RUDY, or as I like to call him, Reagan 2.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
"or as I like to call him, Reagan 2"
Thanks for the laugh!
Despite the efforts of the MSM and the Clinton Inc. publicity machine, people still know she sucks.
It's because the vast majority of the respondents are going on name recognition and vague impressions this far out. The cross tabs and all the other small details from presidential polls right now are close to meaningless.
might it be because Hillary Clinton is unlikeable? I know people who will hold their noses and vote for her, but I don't know anyone enthusiastic about her.
You have GOT to be kidding.
A vote against him is a vote for Clinton, or worse Obama. Your logic is backwords, you are an appeaser of the Democrats, if you choose to sit out the election if Rudy wins our nomination fair and square you are setting back conservatism more than any politican ever could. Giving the Democrats all 3 branches DURING A WAR somehow is true conservative thing to do.
Just wait, people said he was a liberal and too Hollywood and glitzy to be President. He was, wait for it, wait for it, DIVORVCED......Oh the terror. The other side wanted him to run because they thought it would split the GOP. Keep hating, you will see.
Rudy could win.
Do you prefer Rudy in the White House, or Hillary because you put another candidate in the primary ???
You underestimate the Ameirican people and the amount of TV they watch, they know the candidates, its all they talk about on the tube these days, I think your argument is probably coming from a positon of backing a candidate with no traction and hoping for some sort of change in the months before the election.
Fred is more conservative and has less baggage and therefore is more electable.
Besides, I do not think a draft dodger will get many military votes, especially in a time of war.
Fred is more conservative and has less baggage and therefore is more electable. Isn't that all that matters?
I prefer a conservative. Neither of those qualify. Besides, it's not a Rudy or hillary choice anyway!
Yes. But Reagan:
-wasn't married to his cousin
-wasn't REPEATEDLY unfaithful to his wives
-was pro-life at the time he was President
-had an overall disdain for government, Rudy embraces it
-supported tax reform, Rudy just gives lip service
-wasn't a gun grabber
Bashing Reagan is not a very intelligent way to make conservatives bend over for your candidate.
Nitpicking, but that should read "big government"
Im sorry, I dont think anyone can say anything about Fred Thompson yet. Because nobody knows any of his positions. The baggage claim could also be bad for Thompson, who apparantly was quite the ladys man in his younger days. I think Thompson entering is just a poke in the ass from the establisment towards McCain.
Because Hillary really makes Americans uneasy, and Obama doesn't have the experience.
You underestimate the people who disagree with you. This is what I do for a living. I have been following and working with polls for nearly 20 years. I have helped draft polls and I have seen polls and focus groups that you have not seen nor will ever see.
I am not backing any candidate at this time though I do have some favorites.
As for the depth of interest by the public at this point, you are clearly living in an echo chamber. Go to your local mall and stop total strangers and ask them DETAILS about the presidential candidates and their policies. If you do that, you will come back agreeing with me.
Could it be that just the mention of Mrs. Clinton's name, after her husband's presidency, causes a gut, finger-nails-on-a-blackboard response in a great number of people?
So now you are threatening people who want to be in the PRIMARY? What exactly do YOU think the primaries are for, anyway?
LOL! They are out there, and those of us who know politics have already researched them.
Besides, if you were really concerned about issues, you would never back Rudy! He's all wrong.
Please back up the Thompson baggage claim. Posts get pulled for these sorts of empty claims, just ask Odfriend who made a really wild and spurious claim yesterday.
Actually I thought I typed "big" in there. Ah, well.
My tagline spells it out.
Too early in the contest for these numbers to mean that much.
Thanks for the laugh!
Why not "Clinton 2" or maybe "Clinton in a dress"?
These Rudyites either don't understand Rudy or they didn't understand Reagan, because Rudy is far closer to ANY Democrat than he will ever be to Reagan.
Are the editors at Time distressing over this poll? Sounds like it. Let them squirm.
Whos bashing Reagan. I love the man. Im comparing my favorite candidate to him. I wish he could have served 3 terms. I was simply stating he had personal failings that today we say cant be our nominee. Reagan, the greatest conservative since Churchill, was divorced, a Hollywood actor and one time supporter of abortion, is the conservative icon and gave us Scalia on the high court.
"PEOPLE LOVE RUDY, or as I like to call him, Reagan 2."
Don't respond, just call 911. Do it quickly before you are completely overcome by the fumes.
Comparing the not-worthy Giuliani to reagan is bashing. Giuliani doesn't have the class to wash reagans underwear.
Reagan was a great leader of this nation who truly believed that America was good .
I have seen & watched Rudy for several years & get the impression that he is first & foremost a prosecutor & the kind that thinks that everybody is a perp that ain't been convicted yet.Instead of honest productive citizens. That kind of politician has as a default setting that people must be ruled with an mailed fist & at bayonet point.
I'd like that alot better if it read liberal as opposed to democrat.
Time Magazin does not understand why their readership is plunging to zero. They are hardly competent to answer this question.
(hint to time: It is not because there IS an internet, it is because of what information is ON the internet)
Maybe he was talking about Ron Reagan, Jr.
Democrats have gone way beyond being liberals.
I heard that Life magazine just printed its final issue.
"A vote for Rudy is a vote for liberals."
Let's say Rudy is like having the flu and Hillary is like having cancer.
Which would you pick?
My goodness, why the vitrol? You dont agree with him, but you are treating him like a Democrat.
Being healthy! LOL!
Yeah, both Giuliani and clinton are diseases. The political scenario right now is not as neat as you define. Besides, Fred Thompson is more electable than Giuliani or Clinton. Isn't that all that matters?
To me, this demonstrates a serious misunderstanding of conservatism. Beyond question, Churchill was an incredible leader, one of the best EVER. But that DOES NOT make him a conservative. The UK has only ever had one true conservative leader and that was Margaret Thatcher, and when you get right down to it Reagan was our only one.
I can't help but laugh when Reagan's momentary support of abortion is brought up. Reagan signed one bill PRIOR to Roe v. Wade that made abortion more accessible in California. However, once he saw the carnage of abortion, he spent the remainder of his life fighting to end it. Rudy was once pro-life and then (I suppose he liked what he saw after Roe v. Wade) he became pro-abortion. THERE IS NO COMPARISON. Trying to compare Rudy to Reagan on abortion, would be like trying to compare Osama bin Laden to Saint Paul on Christianity.
Vitriol? LOL, no, more like truth. I just express things as they are.
You are welcome to disagree with me. You'd be wrong, but that's your right, too.
This is the Thompson piece I was refering to about his character issue, and this shows hes a complete fake. This is from the New Repubic blog.
"REALLY LOVELY WOMEN JUST SEEM TO LIKE FRED":
"Color me extremely skeptical of the "Fred Thompson for president" boomlet currently sending shivers down conservative spines. A Hollywood actor, high-priced attorney, and lobbyist (for Toyota and the S&Ls, among others), who ran for Senate as a pro-choicer and had a reputation as a considerable ladies man before marrying his second (much younger) wife doesn't seem to me to quite fit the profile of white knight for the political right. Still, those interested in the good and bad of ol' Fred may want to take a look at this piece Michelle wrote for the Washington Monthly back in 1996, the last time there was a wave of buzz for a Thompson presidential candidacy. The intro alone, capturing Thompson's faux folksiness, is worth the price of admission:
True story: it is a warm evening in the summer of 1995. A crowd has gathered in the auditorium of a suburban high school in Knoxville, Tennessee. Seated in the audience is a childhood friend of mine who now teaches at the school. On stage is Republican Sen. Fred Dalton Thompson, the lawyer/actor elected in 1994 to serve out the remainder of Vice President Al Gore's Senate term (when Gore's appointed successor retired after just two years). The local TV stations are on hand as Thompson wraps up his presentation on tax reform, in the plain-spoken, down-to-earth style so familiar to those who have seen him in any of his numerous film and television performances.
Finishing his talk, Thompson shakes a few hands, then walks out with the rest of the crowd to the red pickup truck he made famous during his 1994 Senate campaign. My friend stands talking with her colleagues as the senator is driven away by a blond, all-American staffer. A few minutes later, my friend gets into her car to head home. As she pulls up to the stop sign at the parking lot exit, rolling up to the intersection is Senator Thompson, now behind the wheel of a sweet silver luxury sedan. He gives my friend a slight nod as he drives past. Turning onto the main road, my friend passes the school's small, side parking area. Lo and behold: There sits the abandoned red pickup, along with the all-American staffer."
The man is all hat and no cattle. I think thats the pharse in the South isnt it?
This is from the New Repubic blog.
Interesting source, btw.
Americans, left and right do not want either a Clinton or a Bush in the White House in '08! Other than that, anything is possible.
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.