Posted on 10/28/2007 6:32:12 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The fact that Julie-Annie's polling this well in the South doen't sit well with me... lotta' people got their heads up their a$$.
The Rudy they know is two things, a Republican (with the penciled in R) and he looked good after 9/11.
They have not seen his feminine side yet...
“And don’t give me this “don’t understand the south.” I lived there for many years, playing a circuit from NO to Pascagoula to Baton Rouge to Tampa. What perhaps you don’t understand is that the south is changing and isn’t nearly as “red” as it used to be, esp. in FL, VA, and NC.”
“Umm, honesty? For Fred to ONLY have a 19 point lead over a northeasterner in Georgia is pretty sad.”
A 39% to 20% lead is huge anywhere. If you think 39 to 20 is not a strong lead in the South, you don’t understand it. Republicans typically win southern states with around 55% - 60% of the vote. It’s no surprise that Giuliani’s 9/11 appeal would attract half as many votes as Fred, among Republicans or all voters.
And, Florida’s not changing so much as it’s always been up for grabs. Clinton won it, then the 2000 separation of a few hundred votes, then W won it by a much wider margin in 2004. Let’s not forget the personal appeal of individual candidates is still a factor. Virginia might be changing, but that’s not certain yet. Robb was a Democrat, and both parties have elected governors and senators over the past couple of decades, almost alternately.
North Carolina still elected John Edwards not so long ago, but now has two Republican senators. It might still be tilting more conservative. Many of those who move to the South are trying to get away from ultra-liberal states. They don’t all vote Dem.
I’m not at all concerned about these polls matching Republican candidates against Hillary. Many voters haven’t focused much on the primaries yet, and the general election is still more than a year away. Remember President Dukakis’ 17 point lead after his nominating convention? Those polls are some of the most useless around at this stage. When people actually do focus on two nominated candidates, and watch the two debate, we’ll be beyond early impressions and dealing with more considered opinions of only two candidates, one of whom will actually become the president. Right now these polls are as much name recognition as anything else, and Rudy is the best known Republican candidate because of 9/11.
The plunge in W’s popularity and his insulting and divisive amnesty for illegals push has divided the party and alienated many voters. Once voters are focusing on a new Republican presidential candidate, hopefully the damage done by Bush and Rove will not attach to that new candidate, but it’s hurting all Republicans in those Republican/Hillary polls.
Thanks. Good info. I wonder if Michael Barone has written on this subject yet. He’s usually the guru of this sort of thing.
If it’s winner take all, yes, a 19 point lead is insurmountable. But if it’s proportional, my point is that even winning 30% of a state’s delegates in GA is huge for Rudy, considering that Fred isn’t going to win 10% of, say, NY’s or CA’s delegates. It’s the total numbers, not the size of the win, that’s important.
The only thing I’ve seen from Barone was a piece last week in which he said that 2008 wasn’t going to be as bad for Republicans as people think. But I haven’t seen him weigh in on the primaries yet.
CA isn't a winner-take-all state this time around. While Rudy polls well here, he won't take the whole pie. With 173 delegates, it is the big fish of super Tuesday. I also note you call CT (30), NJ (52), and PA (in April with 74) as telling states. There are several states with as many or more delegates than those. How do you see NV (34), AL (48), AK (29), AR (34), CO (46), GA (72), IL (70), etc.
It isn't such a lock for Guiliani on Feb. 5 as conventional wisdom would have it.
Huckabee is from Arkansas.
PA is not a Feb 5 state. It votes on Apr. 22.
It's like the electoral college where you have to find a way to reach, what? 271?
The magic number is 1230. Wiki has a pretty good breakdown.
Also, are you sure you aren't counting in "super delegates?" I'm not certain on this, but my impression was that they were awarded differently than the regular delegates---later? Dunno. Otherwise, there is no way that PA has fewer delegates than AL or AK.
I'd have to check out the superdelegate award process to know.
In the early ones, I forgot to add, I’d bet ME will go Rudy or Mitt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate
PA, doesn't. But PA isn't until April 22, so I doubt it will figure. It'll be decided before that.
Also, are you sure you aren't counting in "super delegates?"
Republicans didn't use super delegates in 2004, and I can't find reference to them for this time. It appears that states are awarded bonus delegates depending on several factors dealing with party strength in the state. Solid red states are awarded more. I can find nothing that indicates that they are awarded at any other time than the primary in that state, except WY, which splits its delegates to two dates.
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.