Rasmussen: Rudy 52, Hillary 43
posted at 7:24 pm on February 23, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Bad week for the Glacier. A payola scandal’s brewing, her spokesman’s throwing spotlights on the arguments against her, and just today saintly terrorist apologist Jimmy Carter threw his great moral weight behind his successor as the conscience of the free world.
And now here comes Rasmussen to tell us that, head to head with Giuliani, she’s easily the weakest of the Democratic big three. Rudy beats Obama and Edwards, too, but only 46-40 and 46-44(!), respectively. (In fact, he’s the only Republican candidate who beats Edwards, and the only one with a favorable rating above 54%. His is 70%.) What explains his big lead over Hillary? Simple: independents hate her.
Clinton is viewed favorably by 50% and unfavorably by 48%. The last four times that Rasmussen Reports has polled on a Giuliani-Clinton race, Clinton’s support has remained unchanged at 43%.
While both candidates draw reasonable levels of support from within their own party, Giuliani has an enormous 64% to 27% advantage over Clinton among unaffiliated voters.
Even McCain, who’s a point behind Edwards and tied with Obama head to head, beats her (by a point).
Exit question: Is Ace right? Is she done?
Bonus exit question: Are Rudy, McCain, and Romney also done, thereby creating a power vacuum into which comes a man…
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
I wouldn’t count the Hildebeast out, she has an uncanny way of being the last standing devil .All of this early stuff will be forgotten in six months and who knows what kind of ammo she’s packing.
bbz123 on February 23, 2007 at 7:37 PM
Tancredo as King Arthur? Isn’t he more like Don Quixote?
lorien1973 on February 23, 2007 at 7:38 PM
It’s too early. AQiI, Iran and the Norks haven’t had their say in the election yet. I’m telling you, 2008 is not going to be decided in 2007 like everyone seems to be saying. The primaries, maybe, but even those not as much as has been intimated. 2008 is going to be at least as active as 2004, and I’m betting it’s going to turn on a dime close to the election.
spmat on February 23, 2007 at 7:38 PM
At the AFSCME forum this week, Hillary promised to eliminate 500k government contractors. She did not promise to replace them with union labor, she cited the cost savings associated with it. What kind of Dem candidate promises to make 500k people unemployed and still expects to get the nomination?
rw on February 23, 2007 at 7:39 PM
I never thought I’d see the famous photoshops here while Google News still lists the site as a news source. I know it didn’t hurt Reuters any, but I assume Google looks for excuses to revoke your status.
Typewriter King on February 23, 2007 at 7:47 PM
Recall how just before Saddam hanged, someone said, “Muqtada, Muqtada, Muqrada.” Now think, “Tancredo, Tancredo, Tancredo.”
Question: who should then hang?
laelaps on February 23, 2007 at 7:58 PM
Rudy, Hillary
Tomato, Tomato
God help us if Rudy, McCain or Romney is the GOP candidate, I know I won’t be voting. We need true conservatives and none of these guys are. Rudy is a as good as a liberal and both McCain and Romney are nothing but political whores.
jeffersonschild on February 23, 2007 at 8:00 PM
Duncan Hunter, he’s my guy right now
http://www.gohunter08.com/
lorien1973 on February 23, 2007 at 8:05 PM
I’m a moderate Republican. I’ve voted for guys who are more conservative than I because I trust the Republicans more than the Democrats – even if I don’t agree with those guys on everything.
Is it too much to ask that those who are more conservative suck it up and do the same?
Slublog on February 23, 2007 at 8:10 PM
I may not have said it specifically here before, but have believed for at least a month now and would like to go on record as predicting: It will be Hillary vs. Rudy, and Rudy will win.
First of all, I think it’s impossible for Hillary to overcome the “will never vote for Hillary” numbers that come in just shy of 50 percent. Not that just over 50 will vote for, just that barely over 50 would even consider, though most probably still wouldn’t go here way. But when you’ve got almost half of the country saying they definitely won’t vote for you, you’re screwed.
I acknowledge that we’re a long way off still, but I think the smart money is one my prediction at this point. The left thinks they need to prove something by making Hillary their nominee. They are all about the “it’s time for a woman president” line, which is obnoxious because I think “it’s time for the most qualified and best candidate”… But this is how the left operates. It’s a type of affirmative action. They don’t care about what’s right, they care about being able to pat themselves on the back for voting in the first woman. Luckily for us, Hillary can’t win the general election.
What’s odd about this is, is I think Hillary must know she can’t win. The Clintons aren’t stupid. So either she’s part of the vast right-wing conspiracy and wants us to win, or they’re going to pull some serious stuff out of their sleeves… but nothing short of proving the Truthers right would give her the general election victory, and because the Truthers are total BS, she can’t go that route… Instead it will be a total knock down drag out vicious personal attack campaign… Though probably most of the attacks will come from Hillary on Rudy.
One other interesting point… how can they attack eachothers morals? Their personal lives/marriages are both messes. I suppose she thinks that she can attack Rudy for ruining his marriage and pretend she’s some kind of strong woman for sticking with Bill. The problem with that is that I think even the uninformed, and dare I say stupid American public doesn’t buy it and can see through their political marriage. There are very few who actually honestly look at her and praise her for staying with Bill.
RightWinged on February 23, 2007 at 8:11 PM
Maybe we should register as Democrats, just for the primaries, and help them out…
Slublog on February 23, 2007 at 8:14 PM
It’s all hanging on whether or not Newt gets in the race. It’s his to take if he wants it. The polls show this to be true, but it’s not getting reported. They just conveniently leave his name out of the stories.
As for those other Democratic candidates (Giuliani, McCain, and Romney) … they would be history after the first debate that includes Gingrich.
(No, that wasn’t a mistake labeling them Democrats)
Gregor on February 23, 2007 at 8:14 PM
I’d vote for someone less conservative than me. But these three are not conservative in any degree. They are liberal on almost every issue. There’s absolutely nothing conservative about Giuliani, unless you want to give him that label simply because he supports the war on terror. So does Lieberman. Is he conservative? I’d actually vote for Lieberman before I’d vote for Giuliani.
Gregor on February 23, 2007 at 8:18 PM
With almost two years ’til election day, no one is in or out. Except possibly Gore, with that kiss of death from Ole Liver Lips.
R D on February 23, 2007 at 8:20 PM
R W, if only Rudy wasn’t so anti-gun, I might consider him. Right now, No.
R D on February 23, 2007 at 8:28 PM
That’s what all of us Conservatives have been doing. It is exactly what exacerbates Conservatives about their representatives.
Why is it that Democrats are allowed and even expected to go for the throat, but Republicans need to figure out how to get along.
That mentality is nonsense — if the Republicans need to lose enough times to wake up, then so be it, that’s how we got Reagan. Voting for these other jokers only gives us Liberal policies and political correctness anyway, so why validate their presence in the party??
Domestically, Bush has promoted more Liberalism than Clinton could have ever dreamed.
jeffersonschild on February 23, 2007 at 8:31 PM
I think you’re probably right, which is unfortunate. But the only reason that’s the case is because conservatives are insisting on voting based on who they think can win, rather than who they think will fight for what we believe.
That’s sad.
And then there’s the fact that the media won’t even mention the two candidates who stand for conservative issues. We’ll see if that changes when Newt jumps in.
Gregor on February 23, 2007 at 8:32 PM
O’bama Bobby Kennedy sure has the base excited. I really didn’t think he had a shot at first but Billary better pull a rabbit out of her pink pants suit pretty quick. The more anti-war the party trends the harder it is going to be for the Carpetbagger to stay in the race.
I too am waiting for Newt. If Rudy gets the nod I will vote for him but Newt is my first choice. McCain/Romney might was well decide who they are going to endorse.
Limerick on February 23, 2007 at 8:53 PM
You’ve got the contrast way low on your Tancredo image. I fixed it for you. Tancredo: American Patriot, or man sent from on high to save the nation? That’s a tough call, but the photo offers some insight.
It’s ridiculous to think he could win the presidency, but a man can dream, can’t he? Besides, my father said that there was no way Reagan could ever win in the 70’s…
Kevin M on February 23, 2007 at 9:07 PM
To clarify guys, I’m not some big Rudy fan… I’m just making what I believe to be a pretty sound prediction based on Dem primary polls and the “definitely won’t vote for Hillary” general polls. Though I would definitely vote for Rudy over virtually every Democrat because they are almost all evil to the core and I’m sick to my stomach thinking of what they’ve done to the country throughout Bush’s presidency.
I feel like I’d never vote for McCain though for the same reason as Rudy I probably still would. Though I agree, Newt would be the way to go, he’d probably get killed in the general election. You guys have to consider what the media will do… The media dictates public opinion and the media hates conservatives and conservative policies, etc. We’ve seen what they’ve done to the war making it all but unwinnable at this point, they’ve lied about the economy leaving extreme majorities of the public rating their own finances very well, yet ranking the economy negatively. This is one of the most perfect and simple examples of liberal bias. Most people aren’t economists so they should rate the economy based on their own finances.. but they aren’t because they rate their own finances very highly… the only conclusion one can draw is that the media has been telling them that the economy sucks, leaving them to believe they are the exception rather than the rule. This goes across all areas, but it’s most easily explained with the economy. Hell, a strong majority of the public either thinks we are in a recession or is unsure. WTF?! Again, while a vast majority rate their own finances positively!
All I’m saying is I don’t know if we can afford to put up the conservative candidate if in the long run it will mean President Hillary Clinton. It sucks that it has to be this way, but given the state of the media, what are our options? Sure Newt would destroy her in debates, etc. but that would never be enough.
RightWinged on February 23, 2007 at 9:08 PM
Concervative candidates get trashed by the media and not elected. Thus RINOs are elected like Guiliani and Mccain and you guys complain about this. What is the solution? How about a concervative with an actual record of overcoming a hostile media and running circles around a liberal legislature and getting some concervative agenda passed even by ballot initative if necessary?
I have no idea why Romney is being grouped with Mccain and Guiliani it doesnt make sense based on the record.
Resolute on February 23, 2007 at 9:18 PM
I with you RightWinged:
All issues except the war take a back seat. Anything but Billary/Obama is fine by me.
Limerick on February 23, 2007 at 9:22 PM
I don’t think Hillary would have a chance in hell of winning an election against anyone other than McCain. I’m going to sound like a liberal here, but the only way Hillary can win is to fix the election. How do they fix an election?
ILLEGAL ALIENS
Everyone ought to think seriously about what’s at stake with this immigration debate. If this amnesty thing goes through … Republicans might not ever win another election. Fix it now, or you may never get another chance. Think about that as you’re deciding who to support in the primaries. Think about that the next time you vote in any straw polls.
Straw polls are much more important than you might think. The results dictate the confidence level in voters. They also dictate where the money goes. Donors don’t support candidates who they feel can’t win.
These polls also dictate in some degree which way current Congressmen vote on various issues, such as the amnesty bill. If they see the polls shifting toward people like Tancredo or Gingrich, they might think twice before supporting a pro-illegal move.
Conservatives are arguing to vote for Giuliani based on these polls showing he would beat Hillary. If you all voted for Gingrich, or even Tancredo in the straw polls … the confidence level would shift and suddenly we’d be talking about Giuliani not having a shot.
But instead, too many say … “I’d love to vote for Gingrich (or Tancredo) but I just don’t think he can win” so they vote for Giuliani in the straw poll, the media publishes the results, and it starts to multiply.
Try voting for the right candidate the next time you get the chance. If you all do this, you might see things start to change.
Gregor on February 23, 2007 at 9:27 PM
Heh.
Honestly, though, I never expected Hillary! to attack Obama so quickly.
Slublog on February 23, 2007 at 9:37 PM
Wisely you speak, man of Long Island. Let’s see if anyone listens. My take on 2008 is that the Prez election is the Republicans to lose.
–So, yes, Ace is right–
All you Gun Guys need to get over what Rudy was required to say as mayor of NEW YORK CITY. Their gun laws are the worst / strictest in the nation ( or tied with D.C. ) and have become part of the Canon Law there. He’s a good man, he’s got guts, he can articulate conservative ideas far better than Bush, and he can kick The Pantsuit’s fat ass
What more could any reasonable person want–and expect?
Janos Hunyadi on February 23, 2007 at 9:49 PM
You all have convinced me, I am not going to vote for Rudy because if he is elected he will gladly acknowledge he has no power to make abortion illegal rather than grudgingly admit it.
Has this whole fucking country lost its damn mind?
B Moe on February 23, 2007 at 10:03 PM
Plus, the dude took on the mob.
And won.
Slublog on February 23, 2007 at 10:04 PM
Does anyone here think that politics are static?
If so, think again. Rudy can ‘move to the right’–and unlike The Pantsuit, Rudy’s Move will be more than tactical.
you Gun Guys can get Charleton Heston to run as his VP…..
Janos Hunyadi on February 23, 2007 at 10:15 PM
LMAO! Classic.
So let’s see if I’ve got this straight.
He’s got guts, but he was so cowardly he “said what he had to say” rather than stand up for the U.S. Constitution? He’s got guts, but he stands for abortion, no guns, no parental notification, illegal immigration, and … pretty much everything Hillary stands for other than talking tough on Iraq. Oh wait. Hillary does that too. Is that pretty much right?
Makes sense to me. That’s the man for the job!
How about a man who’s actually a man, who will stand up and say what he believes, and then act accordingly?
How about that?
That would rule out Romney and McCain, and based on your quote above … it would rule out Giuliani too.
Good work.
Gregor on February 23, 2007 at 10:17 PM
Gregor – if Giuliani is the nominee, running against Hillary, will you vote for him?
Slublog on February 23, 2007 at 10:20 PM
Right. We’ll just take your word on that. Except that Rudy is currently running around doing interviews reinforcing his liberal views on pretty much everything.
So much for that. But maybe we should just vote for him, just in case he changes his mind. There’s always that chance.
Gregor on February 23, 2007 at 10:20 PM
Hell yes. But the country would be basically Mexico in 20 years anyway, so I’m not sure it would make a difference.
Giuliani is not going to give us ANYTHING that conservatives claim to want. It’s just pathetic that conservatives would allow themselves to be forced to make that choice.
Gregor on February 23, 2007 at 10:23 PM
She can attack him all she wants, but Obama will spank her pink during debates.
- The Cat
MirCat on February 23, 2007 at 10:24 PM
My prediction ….
None of the announced candidates thusfar will be the nominee, for either party. This cycle has started way to soon and the current players will either burnout, run out of funds, self-destruct or be crucified by one another by next spring – leaving the door wide open for some sly fox to jump in late. The smart candidate is lying back in wait, not wasting time or precious campaign funds in this premature clash of candidates.
fogw on February 23, 2007 at 10:27 PM
Well, look on the bright side. Mexican food rules.
I think he’ll have to have a conservative running mate, such as Romney or (pleasepleaseplease) Gingrich. And I think he’s got no choice but to move right on abortion other issues. There will be a cost for Republican support, and I think he’s savvy enough to pay it.
Slublog on February 23, 2007 at 10:29 PM
It might not matter anyway. By the time 2008 rolls around, the 30 million illegals who are here now will be citizens and eligible to vote, there will be another 30 million illegals who came in when they saw how rewarding it would be, and all of their relatives will be in the process of arriving behind them.
And who will these 30 million new voters pick for their new President? A Republican? LOL! Uh huh.
If this amnesty thing goes through, Hillary will be the next President.
Gregor on February 23, 2007 at 10:30 PM
I’m actually interested to see how that turns out. I’ve yet to see Obama actually say anything of substance. Everything he says consists of nothing but vague visions of hope.
I find it hard to imagine him doing well in a debate. But maybe he’ll surprise me.
Gregor on February 23, 2007 at 10:33 PM
Newt
Gregor on February 23, 2007 at 10:33 PM
“Moving right” during a campaign does not equal moving right philosophically. He’s still a liberal, no matter what he says, and that’s what we’ll be getting.
And Romney is not conservative. He’s got the same problems as Giuliani, so that would be suicide. Gingrich would almost assure him the nomination, but I’d rather see it the other way around. Gingrich/Giuliani. Gingrich would be what we’re looking for, and Giuliani would bring in the liberal vote.
Might as well swear them in now.
Gregor on February 23, 2007 at 10:38 PM
Okay, Gregor, you’re Over the Limit on posts, and must subside….
Maybe you can try your luck on the ‘I live in fear of the Hispanic invasion’ site. Meanwhile, because of people who share your views, we’ll end up with President Pantsuit.
Maybe we can share a duplex somewhere in Sunny South America.
Janos Hunyadi on February 23, 2007 at 10:53 PM
“Gregor – if Giuliani is the nominee, running against Hillary, will you vote for him?”
If Ahmedinijihad was running against hillary, it would be a tough decision. What kind of one-sided question are you asking? Don’t shoot for mediocre (i.e. Guliani, Romney). Guliani is last ditch. Aim for Newt or Tancredo. Someone who will make our nation better, not just slow its demise.
Kevin M on February 23, 2007 at 11:01 PM
Kevin M, have you seen the polls showing almost two-thirds of Americans say that they WON’T vote for Newt under any circumstances? His ‘negs’ are even higher than The Pantsuit’s….
Janos Hunyadi on February 23, 2007 at 11:08 PM
My $0.02……….
The “Pant Suit”’s War Room will never close…… we have seen nothing yet. The amount of money, spin, lawyering, stuffing documents in pants, hit pieces, private investigators, abuse of power, illegal contributions from China, has not even begun.
These, “shots across the bow”, I believe, are to expose the “Benedict Arnolds” according to the “Party”, run by, and for, “the Pant Suit”, and the “Stainer of Dresses”…
There is no other reality, and all who cross them, seem to meet with……. let us say, a change in will.
Watch, over the next two years, no matter who it is that seems to gain traction, there will be a “leaked” story, by an “un-named source, due to the level of importance”, that will expose a scandal, with half-truth’s enough, to change the polls. The person named will have to spend valuable time and capital defending themselves, and this will never stop.
And that’s all that matters, besides cold hard cash, will be the polls. And the MSM will be on the payroll, no doubt.
The only way a Republican canidate/team can win, is to forget about abortion, and all the talking points of from the left that they want you to respond to, then have a “clever” sound bite as a response, is to stick to the issues that ALL Americans …………..
“Secure the damn Border, Deport the Illigal Aliens in the Jails, on Probation, or are roaming the Streets of America in the form of Gangs, and let the Military “Take the Gloves OFF!”, and alow us to win the war! As a bonus point, prosecution for leaking intelligence practices that has hurt our efforts to protect American citizens, just for political means, should start immediately. Any one who does not want to cooperate or has “lost” the file, can join in the punishment.”
Come from the point of Strength…. and Victory, NOT nuance, and eagerness to get along!
Again, it will be a long two years…… keep your powder dry, the landscape will change on a daily basis.
What will win us Victory, is a day to day assesment of the battle, and our engagement in it!
PinkyBigglesworth on February 23, 2007 at 11:08 PM
No I hadn’t, and you made me sad :(.
Kevin M on February 23, 2007 at 11:10 PM
A final note……. the “Polls” at this stage are meaningless! Anyone who basis their decision on them at this time is a fool. Yes, they are the popular tool in the media, they run a poll, that is scewed to their position, then run it as “news”.
Don’t believe them, don’t trust them , educate yourself on the facts, and NEVER give up hope….
PinkyBigglesworth on February 23, 2007 at 11:18 PM
Indeed, didn’t we have Hillary and Ted Kennedy promising voting rights at a couple illegal rallies last summer?
Further, isn’t Hillary one of those supporters of voting rights for felons?
As for your second part, I would just repeat my last post… to sum up, we’d all love to vote on principal, but I just don’t think the media would allow Newt to win. I explained how powerful the media is earlier, and despite the “new media”, I just think there’s to much to overcome with the liberal MSM. There’s blood in the water.
RightWinged on February 23, 2007 at 11:25 PM
Yet another meaningless comment by another troll.
Gregor on February 23, 2007 at 11:43 PM
What more could any reasonable person want–and expect?
Maybe. But it does rule out every democrat in the nation. Cowards all. It gets a little tough and all we hear from the dhemocrats is cut and run.
R D on February 23, 2007 at 11:47 PM
Did a turnip truck overturn and dump a bunch of people and they found their way to this board?
Romney isn’t a conservative? That statement just shows how little attention some people pay to what the man actually says and does.
csdeven on February 23, 2007 at 11:47 PM
Is that the poll you conducted in your own head? How about a link Mr. Troll? Show us this mighty poll of yours.
Or are you talking about polls such as this one done just last week, which are pretty much the norm?
Gregor on February 23, 2007 at 11:50 PM
As for the endorsement scandal in SC (my home state, although I don’t live there anymore), Darrell Jackson is also the preacher at a very large black mega-church in Columbia, SC. If I were running against La Hillary, I would ask for a Federal Investigation of the church’s coiffers.
Always, always, always follow the money. This is the same man that told his congregation if they didn’t like the Lexus he drives to give MORE in the offering and the Lord would bless them! LMAO!
SouthernGent on February 23, 2007 at 11:53 PM
Right, Gregor, and you are a source of wisdom and maturity. I give my opinion of Rudy, and your response is a useful and perceptive “LMAO”. You cannot organize your ‘thoughts’, such as they are, so you engage in serial posts.
I’ll give this One Last Try, even though I doubt that any name-calling half-educated clown is worth the effort. Guliani has proved his ability in elected executive office, as has Romney. Guliani is much more electable, whether you like or realize that or not
Was Bush your first choice in 1999? Of all the possible Republican candidates? In politics, it’s rare to get everything you want if you want to actually win office
The only hope the Dems have is to split and / or demoralize Republicans and conservatives–and to use people like you
Janos Hunyadi on February 23, 2007 at 11:54 PM
I’m bowing out of this thread. Too much lucent, perceptive insight here to compete with…..
Janos Hunyadi on February 23, 2007 at 11:57 PM
It also shows that the primaries are just popularity contests. It’s sad to hear people call Guliani and McCain Republicans. Even sadder, is the fact that we’ll probably have to vote for one of them to keep the Cut and Run Cowards out of the Whitehouse.
R D on February 23, 2007 at 11:58 PM
Would you like to expand on that? A candidate must be judged on his actions rather than his words. I like what he says about education, taxes, and the war on terror, but he’s shown that he makes a habit of saying exactly what he thinks people want to hear. He’s also made a habit of contradicting himself, depending on his audience.
He’s pro choice, based on his actions. Yes, he says he is pro life, but he also says he doesn’t agree with interfering with a woman’s choice and that he has no intention of
He’s for “increasing immigration” although he “says” that he wants to “change the laws to reduce illegal immigration.”
Translated, this can only mean “change the laws so that all illegals are suddenly legal” … otherwise known as “comprehensive immigration reform.”
Do we need to “change our laws” to reduce illegal immigration, or would simply “ENFORCING” the laws we have do the trick?
Romney is a master of words. He is a pure politician who will play with your head to make you believe he’s agreeing with you. How about this one, straight from his website:
Of course, try getting him to explain how he would manage to do this without increasing taxes or implementing socialist healthcare.
Gregor on February 24, 2007 at 12:18 AM
You’re right. As much as we would all love to stick to our principles, the realities are that presidential elections are, in the final judgement, about which republican can win in the general election. When conservatives start getting all activist-like (just like the activist moonbats) and sticking to hard lines out of principle, well that’s when the party splits and we get 8 years of slick willie..
csdeven on February 24, 2007 at 12:25 AM
You mean “lucent, perceptive insight” like this?
Still waiting for the link to that poll you quoted. Guess this would be a good time for you to “bow out” after all.
Gregor on February 24, 2007 at 12:26 AM
csdeven, pretty sad isn’t it? But, you’ve got to take the lessor of two evils, and I think we know which that is….
R D on February 24, 2007 at 12:30 AM
You have judged his words correctly, but have come to the wrong conclusion. His proposal is unique in that it hasn’t been attempted and the details are not worked out. But plans start with ideas and people work together to hammer out the details. This issue is normally divided into two camps and nothing ever gets done. Mitt is presenting a plan that will encourage participation by both sides for the first time. That is not waffling, that’s leadership.
csdeven on February 24, 2007 at 12:36 AM
Gregor, you were quite unjustifiably disrespectful to Janos Hunyadi, because he (she?) is ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. I almost forgot about the poll numbers he (she?) is talking about. It even trumps my point about the media prepared to defeat Newt.
Ah, don’t go Janos! I’m about to redeem you!
Your wait is over Gregor. 9 days ago a Fox News poll asked the “definitely” “might” or “definitely not” vote for question. 64% said they’d NEVER vote for Gingrich, while 44% said they’d NEVER vote for Hillary. That Hillary number (though slightly lower than in other similar polls) is still terrible, and makes me feel justified in saying she can’t win the general election.
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/021507_release_web.pdf
Whether we like it or not, Newt is unelectable. Not based on reality, but based on the idiotic public who is still controlled by the MSM. So the FACT, Janos was 100% right when saying:
Game. Set. Match.
RightWinged on February 24, 2007 at 12:41 AM
If I had a choice between cutting and running from Iraq, and securing our border and ridding ourselves of illegal aliens … I’d cut and run tomorrow.
We pull out of Iraq and the result is a disaster in Iraq and a few more terrorist attacks to look forward to.
We elect Giuliani, McCain, Romney, or any other candidate who will give amnesty and increase immigration levels … and the result is a disaster IN THE United States. We’re talking implosion from within.
Securing our borders and ridding ourselves of the terrorists who are already within our borders is far more important than worrying about what happens in Iraq.
Choose.
Save Iraq, or save the U.S.?
Gregor on February 24, 2007 at 12:43 AM
Gee, thanks alot, lol.
Well, that’s what I asked for. At least someone can actually do some research.
That sucks.
As for the poll … it’s interesting that it conflicts with most other polls which show Gingrich up at the top for first choice, although most of those negative votes come from Democrats.
It doesn’t surprise me though, as I think Giuliani is going to be the next President, like it or not.
Gregor on February 24, 2007 at 12:57 AM
It’s painful to see Newt disrespectd so much by the populace, Rightwinged. It’s sad that so many people don’t understand him (I don’t believe so many disagree with him). But I take issue with Janos when he says things like “Maybe you can try your luck on the ‘I live in fear of the Hispanic invasion’ site.”
I am not afraid of getting polio, yet I support every measure adopted to eradicate it. It’s a bad thing, and we should try to stop it. Likewise, I’m not afraid of being invaded by hispanics, but I support every measure made to end it. It’s a bad thing, and we should try to stop it. Yup, I’m equating invasion of the body with invasion of the country. Have a problem with that? You’ll get over it.
It’s reasons like this that we need a Gingrich or a Tancredo. No one cares what skin tone a person has, but who wants to become a big Mexico? Plz visit Mexico City before you answer. The place makes Cuba look like a good idea.
Kevin M on February 24, 2007 at 12:57 AM
So just Which candidate is saying that? NONE! And to cut and run is to tell the terrorists that Bin Laden was right, we are cowards that will fold when the going gets a little tough. This has not even begun to get tough and the cowards are already scared. You don’t get to choose, you do what is right. If we leave Iraq, they will follow.
R D on February 24, 2007 at 1:10 AM
W’s heir must be, more than anything else, a kickass Commander In Chief. Anyone out there looking better than Giuliani in that regard? I don’t think so. Plus, he’d sweep the floor with Hillary (whose weaknesses are being exposed far earlier than I thought would happen). When it comes to the “social conservative” agenda that the purists complain about with Giuliani, I observe that the GOP is already far from united on those issues – the marriage amendment flopped and there is no real effort to overturn Roe (despite the talk). It’s the jihad, stupid, and I want a president willing to pull the trigger.
Halley on February 24, 2007 at 1:14 AM
Halley
But he must be willing to leave us with our triggers.
R D on February 24, 2007 at 1:17 AM
Okay, Kevin M, even though Gregor ( who seems to have a crush on me ) has outed me as a troll, I will try to clarify one thing before crawling back under my bridge. Big Greg, in his spew of posts, does have a point, and so do you–I see your point and don’t disagree with you.
I would like to see a Gingrich / Tancredo ticket, but that is not going to happen. I believe that Guliani is the Next Best Electable Thing. I stated my approval of Rudy, and Gregor’s mature and thoughtful response was a “LMAO” and the troll business.
Here’s the obvious: Rudy is a Flawed Man; Rudy is not a True Conservative; Rudy is suspect on several issues, especially Guns and the Border.
I hope and believe that he will change his position: “clarify” them: ‘move’ somewhere rightward. If he doesn’t, he and we are in danger of having The Pantsuit in control of the executive branch
One-issue voters will kill either the Dems or the Republicans let it be Them
Gregor, I appreciate how attracted you are to me: I do feel the love, G-man, but cannot return it. Find someone else to be the Object of your Tortured Love, okay?
Janos Hunyadi on February 24, 2007 at 1:37 AM
thanks, Rtghtwinged, that was the poll I was referring to. I am posting through a link via my older son’s e mail home page or whatever, and cannot do links because of my foreign location–or because I am too dense to figure it out
Janos Hunyadi on February 24, 2007 at 1:43 AM
Gregor, if I wake up on Nov. 5th, 2008, with this results, much as you might not like it, I will send you a big e-kiss. I’m a lady and hope that will be ok. It’s figurative anyway and the result, much as you might not like it, would be millions of times better than the idealistic European socialism nanny-everything, which might include our triggers. Rudy will not touch those. I agree with the few who focused on the single-issue of fighting terrorism. It is the ONLY issue and goes way beyond Iraq.
RightWinged you are a very fair and reasonable man. Even though a Giuliani seams far from your ideal, you see so clearly what matters most. I thank you profusely for defending our friend Janos, who is a not-so-technically-savvy man. Thank you for providing the link – not everyone is link/html-savvy, which can easily be forgiven.
My Hungarian friend and old-Europe neighbor Janos, and I claim him that with great pride, is a highly intelligent America-loving man, and definitely not a troll. He’s probably to the right of many on this thread but has tried in his own way to ring the ALARM bell of pragmatism. He, and many of us, the country and the world would be terribly hurt by an Obama/Clinton/Edwards win.
Not everyone who disagrees with any of us is a troll and too many of us are way too dogmatic, even for an exchange of ideas on something we all mean well on.
Gentlemen, I respect you all – consider wisely between now and Nov. 4th, 2008. Much will happen and our nerves will be strained often. It’s waaaaay too early to lose our cool.
Respectfully,
Entelechy on February 24, 2007 at 2:04 AM
I have no problem with you reporting the facts, Janos (I’m not happy about them, but it’s a mistake to argue with a fact). I doubt you are a troll, since trolls don’t usually offer factual data. Nevertheless, all i’m saying is that we should throw some kind of backing to true conservatives like Gingrich and Tancredo. Sure, allahpundit is no fan of them, but most of us agree he is only moderately conservative, in the Guliani vein (possibly fiscally conservative, completely non-socially conservative). But we still love him for his ability to read the wires.
Sadly, I’m libertarian, so can’t speak for our party. But I WILL say that Reagan was like a God, and Tancredo may prove to be like one as well. We’ve got two problems: Jihadis, and invaders. A few are addressing the the jihadi problem. Who is addressing both? Tancredo. Gingrich. We don’t have more options.
Kevin M on February 24, 2007 at 2:13 AM
I’m a little cautious with the “troll” tag, when someone posts here all the time, with more than a one post run.I may not agree with what someone says, but if it’s not a one hit and run comment and that person stays and comments, that’s not a “troll”. Just saying, I don’t see many trolls here.
R D on February 24, 2007 at 2:48 AM
I do “like it”, however I think you’re delusional if you truly believe that. Again, I and I think most of us here would like to see President Gingrich, but come on… Two thirds of the country say they will never vote for him, and that’s without the liberal MSM treatment he’d get if he were the nominee.
Anyway, I think you’re confusing a couple things… Where you see Gingrich polling well isn’t in general election polls, it’s in Republican primary polls where he’s pitted against Romney, McCain, and Giuliani. Of course Newt is going to poll well among conservatives when you’re choosing between him and those guys… but that has nothing to do with electability. This is Hillary’s problem, again she’s unelectable, but she’s a hero in her own party. But as bad as Hillary has it in the general election, it would appear that Newt has it that much worse.
RightWinged on February 24, 2007 at 3:10 AM
Sorry, my bad in my first part of this last response… In skimming over your post I thought you said that you think GINGRICH was going to be the next prez… I see now that you said GIULIANI…. Sorry, two names, the same length that start with Gs and have too many Is. At least you’re not delusional like I thought… I was really shocked when I thought you said Gingrich.
But my other point stands about the primary poll vs. general election polls.
RightWinged on February 24, 2007 at 3:13 AM
Ok ok, maybe it’s time to give up on Newt for prez. How about Mary Katharine Ham?
Joke she’s probably heard a thousand times: What would her name be if she married Sandy Burger? Seriously, I’d vote for a Ham-Burger, even if it turned out to be a liberal.
Kevin M on February 24, 2007 at 8:05 AM
I have looked and I can’t find anything substantial from Romney that would lead anyone to believe a vote for him is a choice between protecting Iraq or protecting the USA.
csdeven on February 24, 2007 at 8:09 AM
On the upside, at least she’s leading Chuck Hagel.
JammieWearingFool on February 24, 2007 at 9:37 AM
There’s a somewhat sick joke there :)
I could only think of one thing that could completely and totally energize Hitlery’s chances of election, and that would be if (God forbid) Obama were killed during the Primaries. That would give her the opportunity to pin it on the VRWC, get 100% if the black vote and coast to victory.
For me, I’ll vote for the most conservative Republican in the primaries, then support whomever comes out of that primary. In no way will I vote third party or Dim.
geekrunner on February 24, 2007 at 10:41 AM
Social conservatism is not my beef with the guy. Is he fiscally conservative? Will he veto new taxes? Will he stop any new entitlements or increases in current ones? will he stop the illegal alien invasion? The answer to all of these appears to be ‘no’.
He was pretty tough on criminals, which leads us to believe he would be equally tough on terrorists. And that’s great, but if he saves the world from terrorism while allowing America to continue it’s steady decline, what have we won? I’m still hoping we find a politician willing to cover both fronts: international and domestic. Also, I guess he has to be electable :(.
Kevin M on February 24, 2007 at 12:44 PM
The Republican base will push for a “true conservative”, probably talking suit Mitt Romney, who will be soundly defeated by Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.
Sigh…
modifiedcontent on February 24, 2007 at 1:01 PM
BTW, I see an ad for Romney on the right side of this screen. That guy is just a disaster. He has that wholesome 1950s aura about him that I’m sure the Republican base loves, but will never win a 2008 election. Romney will never win over urban, young or black voters.
modifiedcontent on February 24, 2007 at 1:09 PM
Also…Giuliani has already made some smart “concessions” on social issues. He’s against gay marriage and vowed to defend the constitution, including the right to bear arms and the possibility of a gradual rollback of Roe vs Wade by a more conservative Supreme Court. Conservatives have nothing to fear from Giuliani. They should give him a chance.
modifiedcontent on February 24, 2007 at 1:18 PM
geekrunner: I really didn’t mean to reference Bobby Kennedy via L.A……..God forbid that scenario. I was more a reference to the love child/rock star status he had…..paisleys….bell bottoms….feed the world kinda guy
Limerick on February 24, 2007 at 2:10 PM
Is Ace kidding? There is no way she is done. Expect a video sooner or later of Obama smoking or bobbing up and down hundreds of times in a Jakarta madrassa.
Barack Hussein Obama has way too many negatives that Clinton can exploit. Even if he did get the nomination, the fact that Muslims consider him Muslim will do him in.
januarius on February 24, 2007 at 2:11 PM
“He’s against gay marriage and vowed to defend the constitution, including the right to bear arms…
-modifiedcontent on February 24, 2007 at 1:18 PM”
Link plz. I don’t believe you. He’s as anti ‘gun-freedom’ as McGovern. This is number one of his 20+ sticking points. He’s no more than a liberal who wants to acheive victory abroad. One part of that is great (victory), the other… not so much (liberal hell). And I don’t think he’s a Frank Warner liberal. He’s Kennedy/Johnson style. Great for a minute, horrible for a decade. He’d get my vote against any Democrat running, but I’ll be damned if I’d vote for him in a primary. Republicans shouldn’t have to vote for liberals.
Kevin M on February 24, 2007 at 5:45 PM
SorMRVB (single or married republican voter base) ISO a real conservative candidate for ‘08.
Must be pro-life, pro-family, pro-military, spiritual, pro-border enforcement, articulate, and who won’t run from a fight. Walks along the beach are a plus.
Mojave Mark on February 24, 2007 at 6:05 PM
the only thing I have found on Mitt regarding gun control is his 1994 support of the AWB.
Do you have any other data that supports your claim that he is anti-gun?
csdeven on February 24, 2007 at 9:24 PM
Sorry my post was not clear csdeven. My claim was that Guliani is anti-gun. I don’t know anything about Romney. Here’s the full quote of what I requested a link to backup the claims.
Kevin M on February 25, 2007 at 3:47 AM
Ok. Yeah, I didn’t read your quoted link.
csdeven on February 25, 2007 at 9:26 AM
Comment pages: