Skip to comments.The Back Story: Edwards Surges - Rudy Slumps
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
It seems like McCain has been locked at 22% for a while.
He is steady. The infatuation with the lib will be coming to a abrupt halt soon.
But, the '04 election was the first one I really followed closely, and if there's anything it taught me, it's that a LOT can change in a period of time. I really don't know what's going to happen between now and the primaries...will be something to watch.
Convenient, wasn't it. Now, what tricks can Shrillary pull to get her numbers up? Bubba having little flings certainly won't bring in the votes.
"Now, what tricks can Shrillary pull to get her numbers up?"
Watch south park tonight, you can see her strategery in action.
Time Magazine is a rag. A Liberal Rag.
I've been told by Rudy fans that his 'dirty laundry' doesn't impact his electability. Therefore, this poll must be wrong.
Monica saved the Clintons' dirty laundry and look who might get back in the WH.
LOL. Rudy still defeats Shrillary and Obama in the trial match-ups.
Some slumper he is.
Yes. His poll numbers are at least 15 points higher than that of congress right now.
Time is way oversampling liberal dems and the Edwards numbers.
Rudy will be in single digets when F.T. announces.
Dammit! I guess I'm older than you, the first one I followed was Eisenhower/Stevenson. (Not Lincoln/Douglas as some might think.)
Not much different than some people voting based on looks. Old A. Lincoln wouldn't have a chance nowadays.
I agree 100 percent, but since most of the pro-Rudy Polls/News articles come from most of the liberal rags, it's only fair.
Some constantly used the ABC/Washington post polls as a sign of Rudy's popularity until they were smacked down.
Well, so far the Rudy fans here are more pro rudy than the population. Nothing can convince them he has 429 liberal positions versus 4 conservative ones.
Agreed. Why would anyone here care what their "polls" reveal? Their polls are always structured as Good news for the Surrender-crats.
I think Giuliani is going to prevail when all is said and done. This forum will be suicidal, but we'll just have to deal with that then.
And getting worse weekly. On a good note, someone posting spam was suspended. Of course, it was pro-Rudy spam but hope springs eternal that eventually the forum will return to its former days when all spam was forbidden.
I'm rather amused that so many freepers on this thread have told me that polls don't matter this far out. Of course, that's when the news was good for Rudy :-)
That's right. This is from the Times. Who believes anything written by these people. The next thing you know people will believe whats in the new york times.
They don't matter. But since so many Rudy fans sited them as evidence that only Rudy can win, might as well document him on the way down too.
LOL! Yeah, I'm only 22. Still a young fresh-faced conservative.
Actually, at the tender age of 16, I did follow the 2000 election just a little bit. I didn't know much about politics at the time, but I just knew one simple fact: Al Gore must NEVER be president. And that kept me interested enough...following the travesty that came after election night was quite an experience. It taught me another simple fact: liberals are whiny, immature, self-sniffling little twerps.
And I went from there.
well we will just have to wait and see won't we? in the meantime, those of us who figure we don't need to support a RINO in the primary are optimistic that we won't have to go to the general election with a barf bag in hand to vote for Rudy, someone unlikely to prevail against the dem candidate. i think the rudyfans have a distorted view of those of us who oppose Rudy, and why we oppose him. i know you'd like to think that we are melting down and hysterical, but it simply is not the case. we see rudy as a flawed candidate with liberal positions and excessive baggage, unlikely to prevail. rudyfans don't see him the same way. it is a difference of opinion. we are just as sane as you are, only we are right and you are wrong : )
Someone remind me, what is the number of the affair that Hillary's husband is currently having? I'll bet is tops Guiliani and his wife's spousal numbers combined.
Someone remind me, how did President Reagan and his children get along while he was President? Didn't Patti write a book?
As he should be in a GOP primary.
When you realize the consquences of Giuliani victory would be, you're the one that is going to be suicidal, assuming you're not a liberal that wants Hillary to win anyway or wants to see the Republican party self-destruct.
I'm not on the Rudy bandwagon, although I do think it's likely he'll win.
Perhaps if Fred Thompson enters, it will be a horserace, but Romney isn't gaining any steam despite being well-funded and organized. McCain is McCain, and Newt, despite being the most intellectual conservative of the bunch, has high negatives even among Republicans. Among Democrats, it's off the charts.
The 1 percenters like Paul and Hunter will not even get 1% of the delegates needed to win the nomination. Rudy has some strong points and he has weak points, so I think we could do worse, and I wish that we'd do better.
I'm more inclined to support Newt, although it's not even clear he'll run. I don't have to decide who's my second choice for quite a long time.
The bill to move the Texas primary to February 5 is moving pretty swiftly through the state legislature, by the way.
Let's get this right. We're supposed to feel better about Giuliani's character because he has cheated on his wife/wives as much as Bill Clinton has?
the only way he wins is if Fred doesn't jump. fred is a conservative, has less baggage of all sorts and has a better shot at beating whoever the dems settle on. i agree with you on the prospects of the other candidates.
And where is your evidence of that or is it just another bit of make-believe fiction?
A victory by Hillary would make me suicidal. That much I know.
A victory by Giuliani, even as the GOP nominee, will greatly disenchant a segment of the GOP. But I find it interesting that Giuliani still draws a lot of support from evangelicals and social conservatives in the polls that measure that.
It's been argued that it's because people don't really know his positions on social issues, and that may be true. But unless it's true, and unless someone else emerges who isn't in the race right now, it's his to lose.
That's just my honest assessment, and I'm not advocating for him.
You sound so logical and reasonable, Doggie...are you sure you belong on this forum? :-)
Indeed, in one recent poll, majorities of Republicans who were informed of Giulianis views on social issues said that they were either minor issues or no issues at all; only 16% said that they wouldn't vote for him after being informed of these views.
In the online GOP Bloggers poll, Giuliani is consistently one of the few candidates to end up with a net positive acceptability rating. These internet denizens are well-informed, and overwhelmingly self-describe as conservative (78% self-describe as 7 or higher on a 10-scale of conservatism). If these people can support Rudy, anyone can.
Human Events, Is Giuliani the Republican Peyton Manning,
LOL. Doesn't he, though?
it's refreshing isn't it, to have someone logically discuss rudy in an objective way? i appreciate you, doggone : )
I've said that Edwards would be the Democratic nominee before, and nothing has led me to change that opinion. As soon as they have their first debate, Edwards charisma will sweep the shrill shrew from the democratic field.
Keep on clicking those ruby slippers, Dorothy. Time is a LIBERAL piece of crap, not worth the paper it's written on. Rudy is doing extremely well in all national polls.
You missed the whole point. Why is the media reporting on Rudy's spouse, but not Hillary's spouse? Seems that if Rudy's wife number of spouses was important to be reported, well then so should old Bill's affairs should reported since they are of a much more current nature.
I must say I am surprised that the Edwards thing was so effective for him. Turned out to be the political genius move of the campaign so far. Of course the only problem is that his wife is 80% likely to be dead five years from now, and the family wont have so much as a single night together for 2 of those 5 years. Other than that, brilliant move.
It's so early in the game...trying to trash all of our own candidates seems pretty silly to me. I have my choices but I will vote for the GOP man, whoever that is. Even more so if bill clinton's wife is on the ballot!
You're just a baby! Are you sure you're old enough to handle the responsibility of the "Bigfoot" ping list? :)
I was picturing you as some old geezer, actually.
Hmm. I might make you come back down to GA to marry my daughter in 10 years. Any objections to younger women? Hehehee
I always enjoy reading Dog Gone's posts. He is never hysterical or rude. A very even-tempered person, it seems to me. Are ya gettin' these compliments, Dog? He-he!
Judy Nathan is personally fairly impressive. Before she met Giuliani, she was one of of Bristol-Myers' top sales managers