   |
Posted on 04/15/2007 9:02:17 AM PDT by Torie
"According to a new CBS News poll, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) continues to lead the Democratic presidential field, garnering 39% of the vote. Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) comes in second with 24% and former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) places third with 21%.
"On the Republican side, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) continues to enjoy a comfortable lead over the pack with 47% of the vote. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) trail with 25% and 10%, respectively."
This poll is a three way matchup, but including a "none" choice. Here is a question about other candiadates getting into the race:
q21 What other Republican would you like to see run? REP. PRIMARY VOTERS WHO WANT MORE CHOICES % Fred Thompson 11 Newt Gingrich 8 George H.W. Bush (former president) 2 Ralph Nader 2 Condoleezza Rice 2 Other 13 DK/NA 62
May you find comfort and hope in your interpretation of the numbers. All the best.
What kind of sad person would be looking for comfort and hope in poll numbers?
What will come, will come. But if a person was posting numbers and wanted those numbers to give them comfort and hope, they should be pretty scared if their candidate is winning a race where over half of his party wished someone else was running instead.
For comparison, after Kerry had sealed his party’s nomination, but right before his party nomination, a poll showed that Democrats favored Hillary Clinton over Kerry by 2% points. I said at the time that a democrat should be pretty scared if their own party’s nominee wasn’t the first choice of a majority of his own party.
The GOP will win next year when they have a nominee, whoever it is, that is actually supported by most of the GOP. You don’t win elections by forcing over half your party to “settle” for a nominee they don’t like. Becuase while some people will show up in the rain to vote for a candidate they don’t like just because there is an “R” by their name, they won’t ALL show up. They’ll have their excuses, like they had to work late, or their car wouldn’t start, or they lost track of time, or the kids had a ball game.
See, when you like your candidate, you make time, you make the effort. When you don’t like your candidate, you make excuses.
Thus in 2006 the democrats won even though they didn’t get substantially more votes than they did in 2004. It’s just a lot of other people didn’t show up.
I like and admire both men. I don't do a checklist issue thingy, when it comes to POTUS. I do it a bit differently.
You think that a candidate that has “half the GOP electorate”, and about a “quarter more”, has any chance at all of beating the democrat, who will most certainly have 90% of the democrats?
Are you counting on Rudy being so liberal that he’ll pick up enough independents to make up a 15% GOP deficit?
That’s pretty wishful thinking. Especially since a good number of independents are actually principled conservatives who simply don’t call themselves “republicans” because they vote principle and not party, and who will not show up to vote for Rudy.
About 13% if GOP voters are very hostile to Rudy when informed of his views, as to the primary. Rudy will get about 85%-90% of the GOP vote in the General Election, if he gets the nomination, a bit less than Bush. The CW is that he will more than offset that, with some voters who voted for Kerry. Rudy viability will be more about whether he can continue to hold the “beyond Bush” voters, while trying to appeal to GOP voters in the primary, and of course events, and his presentation. It will be much less about the size of the erosion of the GOP “base.” JMO.
Make that 18% as totally hostile in a primary; that was a typo. I stand by my other numbers however.
the republican base can’t elect anyone on their own, we need independents.
take florida as a sample state - the republican base, plus these “principled independents” you refer to - got katherine harris 38% of the vote. can you win with that? no. people on FR demanded that Harris be the nominee, even though they were told 10000 times that she couldn’t win.
we’ll take the votes of “unprincipled independents” (code word for, independents for whom abortion is not an overriding issue) too.
LOL. “It takes a village” - to accommodate a village idiot.
True! Think I missed an earlier ping of yours Milhous. I’ve been working on something and they got away from me!
Wish I could put more quotes but the file size is large already.
| |
Wow, pretty post devolve. All the stars are twinkling.
Thankfully there’s not one shining through one of her eyes, lol.
Queen Tut-Tut
LOL!
Would that she was King Tut!
http://www.freerepublic.com/~sturmruger/
A bunch of links there for you to read up on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqqpILUAvEo
A great video to watch.
http://www.washingtonspeakers.com/speakers/speaker.cfm?SpeakerId=3996#
also a few great videos there.
Whoops!
An idea.....
The Sphinx, lol.
And Beagle8U replied:
Judges.
Perhaps G.W. Bush's most important (and one of his more conservative) court picks was no less than John G. Roberts, Jr., for Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.
Beagle8U, do you recall what Mr. Roberts said when he was asked, during his confirmation hearings, about Roe v. Wade?
He replied that in his opinion, it is "settled law".
So much for "conservative" judicial picks!
I strongly suggest you consult the definition of the legal concept known as "stare decisis". This, more than anything else, determines the future of Roe. v. Wade in American jurisprudence.
- John
I LIKE it!
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.