Free Republic

That is ridiculous! I've lived in the west for the last 31 years. You act as though the Republican Party is filled with libertarians. Its not. Within the GOP, libertarians are a blip on the political radar screen.

No, I don't. Western Republicans tend to be more libertarian than Southern Republicans. That was my point in response to a poster who claimed libertarian Republicans would defect from Giuliani. Apparently, you don't think their defection would be much of an issue.

Btw, I see your still making THE case for Rooty`s candidacy.

You must have me confused with someone else. Being realistic about a candidate's viability is hardly making THE case for anyone's candidacy.

I take it that you haven’t been reading Jim Robinson’s posts on Giuliani, then. And he’s not only talking about abortion...

Yes I have. Jim Robinson speaks for Jim Robinson. Many FReepers agree with Jim Robinson. But Jim Robinson doesn't speak for the 87%-91% of the electorate who don't think a candidate's opinion on abortion is a deal breaker, or the many self-professed conservatives in recent polls who claim they would vote for Giuliani in the primary or general election despite knowing his positions on social issues.

So, you admit that Giuliani is a gun grabber.

I don't think I ever said Giuliani wasn't for gun control. His record speaks for itself.

But you seem to want to tailor our candidates to appeal to the typical, liberal brainwashed suburban female who thinks that guns are "icky". If you do that, then you'll be running liberal candidates. And what will that get you?

I don't want to tailor "our" candidates to appeal to anyone. I am merely pointing out the facts - suburban female voters tend to support gun control. And in states like Pennsylvania, suburban female voters are the ultimate swing voters. Pennsylvania elections are won or lost in the Philadelpia suburbs.

Of course not -- but many social conservatives and libertarian conservatives aren't thinking in binary. They'll vote third party or stay home.

I have factored that in. In many Southern and Western states, 10-20% of those who voted for Bush in 2004 could stay home or vote third party without affecting the outcome.I think you're overly optimistic about Giuliani's chances.

I am not optimistic - I am realistic. If you ask me, many FReepers are far too pessimistic on Giuliani's chances. Most recent polls show he COULD win in the general election - or that it would be close. I'm not saying that he WOULD win. But he COULD.

And once again the gun rights’ supporters are totally ignored. The gun rights’ groups are going to completely sink him.

This article isn't about Giuliani's very questionable stand on gun rights. In the primary, it should hurt him, no question. In a general election again you have to ask whether the Democrat would be any better on gun rights, and where the one-issue gun rights voters would go.

I can tell you this - your typical suburban female swing voter in places like the Philadelphia suburbs supports some form of gun control. Despite the prevalent view on Free Republic, thanks to years of liberal brainwashing on gun control, guns are icky to a large portion of the public, especially suburban female swing voters.

Many libertarians don’t like him either, because of his hostility to private property, presumption of innocence, trial by jury, personal liberty and the Constitution. There goes another, say, 10%. So who is going to make up for that 20% loss of traditional GOP constituents?

Southern Republicans tend to be social conservatives. Western Republicans tend to be more libertarian. The two often don't overlap. Nevertheless, there are some Southern and Western states where Giuliani could lose 15% or even 20% to a third-party candidate and still win.

Do you think libertarians would like Hillary! more, were she to become the Democrat candidate? Remember Waco?

Pennsylvania? This is pro-life country here.

Even in the Philadelphia suburbs, where any statewide election is won or lost? Where there are a lot of Italian-American voters?

Only a fraction of pro-life voters absolutely refuse to vote for a candidate based on his or her abortion stand when it comes down to choosing between 2 mainstream pro-choice candidates or voting third party.

I'm not saying Giuliani or a pro-choice Republican candidate would win. But I wouldn't rule it out as quickly as most FReepers. Most of the rest of the country simply doesn't think like us.

If he is, the Republicans lose for sure...

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Abortion is a very important to 9%-13% of the electorate - on both sides (but mostly on the pro-life side). It is an issue, but not a dealbreaker, for the rest of the electorate. Even a 10-percentage point defection to a third party candidate isn't going to change the result in most Southern states. On the other hand, Giuliani could put more moderate states like New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin in play.

The 2004 November 2, 2004 Marist poll was within the margin of error (+/-3) for the actual outcome.

Giuliani's lead in the current poll is statistically significant - barely (MOE +/- 4.5 or 5). That matches most other national polls.

These polls mean absolutely nothing.

These polls mean what they say they mean - were the election held around now, Giuliani would win a plurality of votes in California. His lead in California is statistically significant. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Does Survey USA's recent poll showing Giuliani trailing Romney in New Hampshire also mean "absolutely nothing"?

We haven't heard much about this.

We haven't heard much about this because there is effectively a gag order on the parties in the case. And you're not going to hear about grand jury testimony unless the person testifying or their lawyer talk to the press about it (which they are entitled to do). The prosecution and the grand jurors themselves are sworn to secrecy.

We can argue about whether run-of-the-mill state predatory pricing laws are beneficial to consumers in the long run (probably not). But we're specifically talking about Wisconsin's Unfair Sales Act here, which FORCES gas stations to jack up prices under penalty of fine. As you admit, Wisconsin's Unfair Sales Act is a minimum markup law, not your typical predatory pricing law that prohibits below-cost sales of gasoline. The Federal Trade Commission believes that Wisconsin's Unfair Sales Act most likely harms consumers by significantly raising prices to consumers.

Do you honestly believe that a gas station's non-fuel related costs increase by 50% when the terminal price of gas rises from $2 to $3? Under Wisconsin's law, that's essentially how much a gas station's take MUST increase. 9.18% of $2 is about 18.4 cents per gallon. 9.18% of $3 is about 27.5 cents per gallon. Those extra pennies add up.

Sounds like about 130 of those interviewed, who professed an intention to vote in a Republican primary, were, in fact, Democrats.

Your logic doesn't follow if there was an undercount of Republicans. There are Republicans who are union members, especially in union shop states like California. For example, police and firefighters are union members who generally vote Republican. And there are even Republicans who support same-sex marriage, believe it or not. I'm not sure what passport status has to do with being a Republican or Democrat.

As to your claim of an undercount, California has a modified closed primary system, under which independents can show up on primary election day and vote in a party's primary if the party's rules allow. In 2006, the Republican and Democrats allowed it, and they probably will again in 2008. It's perfectly possible that more independents think they will vote in the Democrat primary than the Republican one. That would match the swing of independents to the Democrats in the 2006 election. And, unfortunately, there are also more registered Democrats than Republicans in states like California.

I wouldn't question Survey USA's methodology just because I don't like their results. They were one of the 3 most accurate state-by-state pollsters in 2004.

This law is worse than a law that says you can't sell below actual cost because it assumes that actual cost is at least 9.18% above invoice.

If gas goes up 50% from $2 to $3 per gallon over 4 months, do you think that a gas station's other relatively fixed costs are going up 50% as well? The employees will be paid about the same, rent/mortgage should be about the same (unless partially based on revenues) and insurance should be about the same. The only things that might go up proportionately are sales taxes (which are borne by the buyer, anyway) and credit card charges.

If you think Wisconsin is the only state that prohibits below-cost gasoline sales, you're wrong. As far as I know, the none of the other state's statutes guarantee a 9% markup over cost, though.

More from Wausau, Wisconsin's Gannette Snoozepaper that dare not be quoted here:
State stops gas discounts at Merrill service station

It’s a disaster for FRED!

Hardly. Running in a tie for third before you are even an official candidate isn't a disaster. And if Gingrich doesn't run (as most expect), the 9% that say they will vote for Newt would most likely go to Thompson.

and Duncan Hunter.

Well, Hunter should be polling better in his home state. But he wasn't mentioned by name by the pollsters. 8% said they would vote for "Other". Some of those votes should go to him.

Nor is this poll a disaster for Giuliani. His lead is down, but he's still ahead by a lot in California.

Typical Survey USA methodology.

The actual poll with crosstabs is here.

Although it is not in the article, Newt Gingrich is polling at 9% in California, according to Survey USA. That's down slightly from 10% in the April poll.

Compare Survey USA NH 5/7:

Survey USA NH 1/29:


On the other hand:
Survey USA CA 5/7: