Posted on 11/06/2007 6:55:52 AM PST by Brices Crossroads
In Texas, the home state of President Bush, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani leads New York Senator Hillary Clinton by eleven percentage points, 50% to 39% (see crosstabs).
The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey finds Arizona Senator John McCain also enjoying a double digit lead over the former First Lady, 50% to 39%.
It’s a bit closer with former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson in the mix, but Thompson leads Clinton 47% to 41%. However, Clinton does manage a statistically insignificant one point lead over former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. It's Clinton 43% Romney 42%.
(Excerpt) Read more at rasmussenreports.com ...
I think it’s more indicative of Romney’s religion. Texas and Alabama are in the middle of the Bible Belt and the LDS religion is not very big here.
"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
Ping!
Yeah and Michigan, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey cancel out our electorate votes.
It’s not Romney’s religion. It’s Romney’s lack of name recognition. I would bet that 30% of this country couldn’t correctly even identify him in a line-up of candidates right now.
Matched up against each candidate, Hillary gets only 39-43% of the vote. Against Romney, she gets 43% and Romney gets 42%. What about the other 15%? They’re “undecided”? Maybe. Or maybe they’re undecided because they don’t know who the heck Mitt Romney is.
In the states where Romney has campaigned hard in (Iowa and NH), he is leading.
I don’t think a Massachusetts Governor could ever win all the Red states and I don’t believe he could win any of the Blue states against Hillary. I have been saying it for a long time, Romney is a liberal who is trying to sell himself as a conservative.
This is more indicative of name ID than anything else.
Against Thompson, Clinton gets 41%, against Romney, 43%, not much different. The larger undecideds are simply people who dont know Romney yet, but they are *NOT* voting for Hillary. Hillary will stay under 45%.
Texas will go at least 55/45 for Cornyn for Senate and for Republican for President, whoever it is.
And if electability a year out is the #1 criteria, it shows that Rudy is your man.
“If either of these two is nominated, the South is definitely in jeopardy. “ Idiotic statement. This is a year out. Bush trailed Dukakis in the summer of 1988 in southern states. How long did that last?
When they see Romney’s wife, kids and grandkids and have the former venture capitalist tell Americans that we cannot afford an inexperienced “intern in the White House” who wants gays openly in the military, he will win the south.
Well, you are wrong on both counts.
Romney is only where he is because of lack of name ID.
Wishful thinking. He’s like all Mass. candidates ...”Flip Flopper”.
“No Democrat will win Texas next November. And you can take to the bank.”
Probably true, if it is a one on one race. Romney’s weakness gives me pause though. He might so depress turnout that she could sneak through. And Rudy’s lead will certainly evaporate if there is a socially conservative, including tough border security, third party. She could win Texas with a plurality against Giuliani.
Nice spin, but Romney has shown weakness in other southern states as well. His lower total indicates people will not vote for him, not that they do not know him. The fact that she is ahead of him in Texas is astonishing. Dukakis was never ahead of Bush in any southern state.
Hillary is well known. A “potted plant” should be able to defeat her in Texas and Alabama no matter how far in advance of the election. The fact that Romney cannot shows that people know him and don’t like him, especially in the south..
Thank you. I am a died in the wool conservative and I live in South Alabama and I DON’T LIKE ROMNEY. With the esception of Ron Paul, I would vote for any of the other Republican candidates before I would vote for Romney.
Who are you kidding?
It is Romney’s phonyness. And partly his religion.
He will never beat Hillary.
This TEXAN agrees with you.
Romney is leading in those states becuase he is the only one on TV.
Wait until the others get in.
Romney is unelectable.
“Nice spin, but Romney has shown weakness in other southern states as well.”
Duh, because polls show *nationally* that his real name ID is still under 50%. More than 50% of voters don’t know who he is.
The Liberal MSM has done twice the number of stories on the Democrats and has been twice as positive to them.
So if you see polls that show Romney 42%, Clinton 43%, that’s not a bad thing. People are undecided because they dont know Romney yet. They DO know Hillary and only 43% will vote for her even against an unknown “anyone but Hillary”.
This is one reason why polls a year from an election mean so little. The campaign hasnt happened.
“The fact that Romney cannot shows that people know him and don’t like him” That’s a completely false statement, at odds with actual polling data. Romney’s name ID is about 40%.
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.