Skip to comments.2008 Republican Presidential Primary -Giuliani 33% McCain 19% Thompson 13% (New Rasmussen)
Posted on 04/17/2007 7:01:30 AM PDT by areafiftyone
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Arizona Senator John McCain both gained support this week in the race for the GOP nomination. Former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney held steady and remain the only other Republicans earning double digit support.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of the Republican Presidential Primary competition finds Giuliani at 33%, fourteen points ahead of McCain’s 19%. Thompson is still in third at 13% slightly ahead of Romney at 11%. For Giuliani, that’s his highest level of support in three weeks. It’s McCain’s best showing since early March. Last week, it was Giuliani 27% McCain 16% Thompson 14% and Romney 12%.
Rasmussen Reports releases updated polling data on the Republican nominating contest every Tuesday. Results for the Democrats are updated on Mondays. The current survey is based upon national telephone interviews with 824 Likely Republican Primary Voters conducted April 9-12, 2007. The margin of sampling error is +/- 4 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich was consistently in third place before Thompson’s name was thrown into the ring. He is now in fifth place as and is the top choice for just 8% of those likely to vote in a Republican Primary. (More Below)
A separate survey found that 29% of all voters say they would definitely vote for Giuliani if he is on the ballot in November 2008. Thirty-four percent (34%) would definitely vote against him. Those numbers are a bit weaker for Giuliani than they were a month ago, but they are still the best of any Republican Presidential hopeful. For McCain, the numbers are 23% definitely for and 35% definitely against. Those figures have changed little over the past month.
Illinois Senator Barack Obama (D) draws the best overall numbers of any candidate at this time—33% definitely for and 33% definitely against.
Rasmussen Reports continuously updates favorability ratings and general election match-ups for all Democratic and Republican candidates. Also available are continuously updated ratings for Members of Congress, Other Political Figures, and Journalists.
Huh? What area codes?
The Anti-Rudys are on another thread touting a poll that shows him losing ground. That poll must be the accurate one, don’t you think?
GOOD! Let them stay there and have fun.
Ask Rasmussen. This is not a state poll.
I've got my eyes on Romney; he's going to make a move.
I think so too. I’ve been watching him. And tomorrow when Fred Thompson is in Washington D.C. Romney will be there too with his list of Congresscritters. He’s not letting anything slide.
I’m anti-Rudy, and I expect him to lead in many polls. He’s the least conservative candidate, causing the conservative vote to split. That will probably happen in about half of the primaires, and he’ll win them with 30%-45% of the vote. During the Republican National Convention, a candidate must win the votes of the majority of delegates to receive the nomination. The majority won’t vote for a candidate who is pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, and pro-gun control.
so much for the claims Rudy is in trouble
Fred Thompson has 13% support and he hasn’t even entered the race - This will be good if does enter.
If wishes were fishes......comes to mind.
Fred Thompson has the least “definitely against” of all the republicans, at 29%, and overall the second least “definitely against”, with Bill Richardson winning that fight with 28% against.
Fred Thompson is the 3rd-best on ratio of definitely for/against, at -10, behind Rudy at -5 and Obama at 0.
But for a person with less name recognition, it’s hard to say if either number is all that interesting.
Romney has the 3rd-best “definitely against” number, at 33% (2nd best republican), matching up with Obama’s 33% against numbers, and better than Rudy’s 34% against.
I seriously believe the “definitely against” number is the most useful number to look at in a poll. It is unlikely that a person, once they are DEFINITELY AGAINST someone, will later be for that person. Because there is some REASON to be against, and that reason won’t go away.
It is more likely that a person who is “definetely for” a candidate to switch. A new fact can come to light to change the opinion, or a new candidate can win the hearts of those previously committed.
On the other hand, if you aren’t well-known, your definitely-against numbers could well go up as more people learn about you and find things they dislike.
My point being that “definitely against” is likely the FLOOR for that number for candidates, while the “definitely for” can easily move up and down.
Guiliani! Yes, I recognize that name...
Some of us cannot continue to sit here and indulge in our own personal stupidity in a public place. Rush has said, and I do not believe he says this lightly, that there is an 80% chance of Mrs. Clinton being elected president in ‘08, that Obama is no threat to her and that she is using his presence to enhance herself. And you can bet your butt that the members of the democrat party will vote for whatever is presented to them as a candidate. The sulkers and threatened voting abstainers are a real threat. ANd, please, no more twaddle about third parties. We all know how well that turns out. And if you REALLY want three parties, look north to canada and see it in action. Not good.
Many of the state delegations are made up of establishment liberals. They'll be happy to vote for Rudy.
No, he'll have to be beaten in the primaries.
Rudy is stuck below where he was 4 weeks ago 35%) before Thompson’s name was added. Oddly though, when Thompson first was added, it LOOKED like he took from McCain and Rudy. But since then, McCain and Rudy are both back up, but Thompson is unchanged.
So even if the dip in Rudy and McCain was from Thompson, the support they got back must be from undecideds or the low-level candidates.
I’m hearing that Thompson can’t get support from more people without actually running. People don’t want to support someone if they won’t commit. I guess that makes sense. If anybody is hurt now from Thompson, it’s Gingrich, and that’s in my mind a good thing.
Giuliani would easily get the delegates at the RNC.
Rush was absolutely right yesterday. He sees the writing on wall. For the others who don’t see it- it seems to be written in invisible ink!
Count me in for Fred. 13% and he is not even running yet. Once he declares and begins campaigning, watch his numbers soar. I am tired of holding my nose when I vote. Work to nominate Fred in the primaries, then everyone can decide if voting for him makes them hold their nose.
Fred Thompson is electable AND conservative, a winning combination
The same scenario as they counseled in 06. It’s obvious that could care less about us, our soldiers, or the WOT.
It seems its every man for himself now, so be it.
Unfortunately that's something the Rudy boosters don't want. They want a New York sue-me liberal. Why? They think he's tough on terror but yet he hasn't done anything about terror other than shoot off his mouth. Giuliani is all dress and carries an empty purse.
STUPID STATEMENT OF THE DAY.
“Count me in for Fred. 13% and he is not even running yet. Once he declares and begins campaigning, watch his numbers soar.”
What difference would “announcing” make? He’s still listed in the poll—and his numbers remain weak—as are Gingrich’s.
Rudy could have had a great chance to gain some support by insisting that the Va. Tech shootings were enabled by gun control, but again missed an opportunity.
Remember, it's all about being perceived as a "fighter" and the issue right now is gun-grabbing.
“Ive read about many Conservative ‘leaders’ in the press, in Christian leadership, and commentators saying they will vote for Hillary, if Rudy is the nominee.”
If you give the victory to your enemies, how does this support your principles? On the other hand, supporting Rudy would translate into such support. Right now Rudy is ahead in many blue and purple states. Together with the mountain states and the South, hed win in a landslide. That would return the Congress to the GOP, with Boehner and McConnell at the helm instead of Pelosi or Reid. For any so-called “conservative” too dense to realize it, a winner at the head of the ticket, whether he leans to the left or the right, would mean a BIG WIN for conservative values in the long run. Only the politically naive dont understand this or resent it. Politics is a game of the possible. No matter how much conservatives may prefer a Hunter or a Thompson or a Gingrich, the name of the game is victory at the pollsor else you lose everything, the legislature, Supreme Court nominees, the Dept. of Justice, the war on terroryou name it. The stakes are too high to risk supporting losers.
...”During the Republican National Convention, a candidate must win the votes of the majority of delegates to receive the nomination. The majority wont vote for a candidate who is pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, and pro-gun control.”
I agree. There will 2488 delegates to the 2008 convention. Some States are winner-take-all; others are proportional to population or Congressional District. IMHO, withdrawing candidates will release their delegates to the most conservative likely to win. Hint: That’s not Rudy or McCain.
Actually it's the last refuge "It's unpatriotic not to support America's Mayor "
Its not the proper time for anything like that. Even the NRA is not going to comment on that.
Perhaps you're the "dense" one. You can't advance conservativism with a liberal at the helm whether it be Hillary or Rudy.
Go, Fred! Go!
Oh come on, politicalwit. You’re going to rule-out Hillary just because you dont’ agree with her 100% of the time. It’s purists like you that’ll never be satisfied.
Of course she’ll advance Conservatism. She says she opposes activist judges, and she supported Welfare reform when Rudy was suing to stop it. She also supported a ban on Partial Birth Abortions, even without the exceptions Rudy demands. Plus, she never sued gun manufacturers, insurance companies, or tobacco companies.
If you’re going to be a purist, Rudy Giuliani will wind-up winning the election. Then we’re all screwed.
LOL, I would never participate in electing the un-American Hillary or Obama to the Presidency, that is a fact.
Yes, voting for Hillary is stupid, I agree.
McCain stupidly did comment on gun rights already. It will hurt him.
Yes, I’m looking forward to the debates, and voting for whomever is furthest right politically.
And will do the same in the general.
It’s very simple really, as long as one keeps their emotions out of it, drama tends to rule the right these days. (not as bad as the left, yet!)
Who, exactly, are some of these "many" you are referring to?
“Of course shell advance Conservatism. She says she opposes activist judges, and she supported Welfare reform when Rudy was suing to stop it.”
Would Hillary also usher-in a Republican Congress and get rid of Pelosi and Reid? If not, Rudy alone makes sense. Conservatives like myself want somebody who can win elections and pursue the war on terror, not losers who turn off the general electorate. I personally am sick and tired of so-called “conservatives” who have no loyalty to the party and threaten to stay home at the drop of a hat—or do worse and vote for Hillary. The Republican Party delivered two fine Supreme Ct. judgeships for the religious rightand still it shows scant loyalty. To hell with that kind of attitude.
Well, you know that’s not the reason. This issue hurts Rudy bad.
Incorrect. Actually, the only individual "in Christian leadership" who supposedly said such a thing is Richard Land, and today the Washington Times has issued a correction - the paper says their report was in error, and Land did not say it.
So apart from about a dozen posters on FR that I've seen with my own eyes who say they'll vote for Hillary as opposed to Rudy, this is a very tiny contingent of idiots.
All are saying they will vote for the Dem nominee or stay home, which of course is one in the same.
Of course, as a political junkie, you all know the score, its the same tone as 06.
I say OK, so be it. (altho I will not participate in it)
It’s every man for himself now.
You libs just can't hide behind an "R". Here's a clue -------- Ruuuuudy is unelectable. The "drag" pics will do him in.(Think mushroom cloud.) Especially in a general election with the hildabeast. Sorry,a New York popularity contest for POTUS is unacceptable to any conservative with the courage of their convictions.
-—”The Republican Party delivered two fine Supreme Ct. judgeships for the religious right...”-—
The Republican Party delivered two fine Supreme Court justices for the RIGHT, period.
And it was because the so-called religious right brought them record votes and turnout - just ask Rove, who said as much.
So where is the loyalty to the religious right now, eh?
Oh that’s right - “screw you, you’re polarizing!”
Don't confuse conservatism with Rudy Republicanism....there is a BIG difference. BTW...I noticed your a newbie here on FR. I highly suggest you read how the founder/owner of FR defines conservatism. This is a CONSERVATIVE forum.
Sorry Charlie...Rudy IS NOT A CONSERVATIVE.
“The Republican Party delivered two fine Supreme Court justices for the RIGHT, period. And it was because the so-called religious right brought them record votes and turnout - just ask Rove, who said as much.”
They turned out in record numbes ‘04, before the judges were appointed. Their vote was way down in ‘06 after they were appointed. Look at Santorum’s loss in PA—the pro-life vote split between him and a pro-life Democrat. In other words, there was no party loyalty whatsoever. Even now the attitude with a great many right on these threads is it’s their way or the highway.
He’s a heck of a lot more conservative than Hillary, Obama or Edwards! And he’s the only Republican who can win the big electoral states, IMO. Any Republican is better than a Dem in the White House.
“Don’t confuse conservatism with Rudy Republicanism....there is a BIG difference. BTW...I noticed your a newbie here on FR. I highly suggest you read how the founder/owner of FR defines conservatism. This is a CONSERVATIVE forum.”
I suggest instead that you try reading my summary of Rudy’s actual record to get better informed. And while you’re at it, show me how you one-issue fanatics intend to win an election with somebody like Gingrich or Hunter or Thompson at the top of the ticket. Show me how any one of them can win a single blue or purple state without first moving to the center—then maybe I’ll take you guys more seriously.
“I like how Jim Gilmore said ‘Rudy McRommney is not a conservative...’ in Iowa last week. lol!”
Translation—why isn’t anybody paying attention to ME?
It’s pointless. God Himself could come down and tell you to your face that Rudy would lose and one of these guys would win. Your response would be to call Him “crazy,” a “liar,” or a “one-issue fanatic.”
Freepers are well aware of Rudy’s record - that’s why we all know he’s nothing near a Conservative and quite to the left of GOP Moderates. That’s why he’s so adamantly opposed at FR, and why he polls so miserably here. that’s why so many of us consider him an enemy to the Conservative movement, and those who support him enablers to Liberalism.
We’ve read the talking points from the Rudophiles like yourself. We know that we could prove them all wrong and it still won’t change your mind. Instead, you would just assume credit him for more rainy days in NY - proof he’s the heir to Reagan’s rainy day policies. You continue to propogate the INSANE idea that Rudy Giuliani might EVER someday appoint a Supreme Court justice who would even CONSIDER overturning Roe v. Wade, despite Rudy’s own clearly stated positions otherwise. The problem isn’t that we haven’t read your talking points - the problem is that we know they are utter nonsense.
It is your Liberal guy who is unelectable, you just refuse to see it. You remind me a lot of the folks who said that Bush would beat Gore in a Reaganesque landslide because Bush was polling 19 points ahead of him until Gore's convention speech. How could he possibly lose - you’re all idiots for thinking otherwise - look at his poll numbers!!!!!!
It is better to lose the 2008 election than have Rudy run the GOP - get used to it, there are many of us who know this to be true. If it gives you some sort of self-righteous encouragement to say “damn the SoCons and Gun Conservatives,” as you continue to do in thread after thread, fine. But you don’t belong here at Free Republic; you’re just one in a small but vocal group of imposing salesmen taking advantage of the fact that the owner of the house is too classy to throw you out, and using that as justification to keep trying to get us to sign up for your Amway pyramid.
Sell Liberalism somewhere else - it's not selling here.