Rasmussen: Fred! 44, Hillary 43
posted at 3:25 pm on March 23, 2007 by Allahpundit
Now don’t get too excited. As the crosstabs show, that’s not so much Fred-love as Hillary-hate at work. Head to head with Obama he trails by 12 points, which I guess answers the theological question of who would win if the Messiah took on God.
Still, for Hillary to be down a point to a guy who isn’t even the race must be … of concern to her team, I’d imagine. She’s seven and eight points behind McCain and Giuliani, respectively, too. Obama fares better against both of them. Fred, meanwhile, already is ahead of Romney in Iowa, although Ryan Sager says he’s drawing more votes away from another guy who’s not in the race (yet) than from Mitt.
Rudy’s people are confident notwithstanding the revelation that he and the missus have fully five marriages between them. “Strong and growing” reads the Hotline description for his stategy director’s memo, which is nonsense given how unrealistically large his lead is right now. This is interesting, though:
Mayor Giuliani has a wider lead among social conservatives than he does among Republicans in general. Social conservatives already know who Rudy Giuliani is. In fact, more than 70% say they know “some or a lot” about him – these numbers are almost identical or better than other candidates in the race.
“Some” doesn’t mean much given that Rudy’s best known for his hawkishness, not his domestic liberalism. Social cons aren’t going to be thrilled when this headline starts to trickle out, either. Which leaves hizzoner with little choice but to toss them some red meat by coming to Jesus on gun rights:
[A]s a presidential candidate, Mr. Giuliani now talks very differently about guns as he tries to allay the concerns of Republican primary voters. He says he supports the right of individuals to bear arms, and that states — and generally not the federal government — should decide whether to put some limits on that right. He also spoke in favor of a federal appeals court ruling this month that struck down a District of Columbia ordinance barring people from keeping handguns in their homes.
Perhaps most striking, Mr. Giuliani’s campaign says it is not clear that he would support a measure he once championed, an assault weapons ban. In explaining his past positions, he and his aides say they were about fighting crime in New York City when he was mayor, adding that restrictions that make sense there can be wrong for other parts of the country.
Exit question: Is Karol right? Is Fred!’s dream over before it’s begun?
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: « Previous 1 2
Why would you ask Allah to confirm or deny? Does it surprise you that there are entities that monitor the political blogs to gauge the sentiment of the readership? I’m certain there are a lot of folks being paid to do what I do, inside the government and outside it as well. CIA? Me? Not likely.
cmdrsubfleet on March 23, 2007 at 9:10 PM
Boy you are a heavy one, cmdrsubfleet.
spmat on March 23, 2007 at 9:21 PM
That would be just dandy, if it were only true. Unfortunately, you buried yourself with the following comment just a few minutes ago …
Obviously, this pretty much mutes the first part of your argument.
Again, that’s just not true. I compared only the fact that both are religions and both will influence voters based on that religion. Like it or not, it’s the Mormon religion that will influence voters, regardless of who they “associate with.” Most conservatives know that Islam is in fact a violent ideology, and yes … just being Muslim gives people pause. That’s not to say all Muslims are bad, because it’s obvious that they are not. But I doubt your sincerity when you say that Ellison’s religion would not effect your vote, even if you knew nothing of his associations.
You’ve already said yourself that Romney’s faith WILL effect your vote. So I’m not sure why we’re even having this debate.
Now you’re saying that your vote would be effected by someone being Mormon, but not by being Muslim.
That seems a little bizarre to me.
Gregor on March 23, 2007 at 9:32 PM
Bottom line: I’m happy to have so many I could support… Fred, Rudy, Newt, Condi, Mitt… (but NOT McCain).
As for Mitt, I’m not sure I trust him to be the conservative he says he’s become. When he transitions himself toward the right, it smacks of pandering.
The comparison to Rudy is interesting. When Rudy address the right, it sounds like clarification. What’s the diff? I’m not sure. But whatever it is, the perception is that Rudy is forthright, tough, and reasonably consistent, but Mitt is weaseling. I would expect that pattern of perceptions to persist into a presidential campaign, much to Rudy’s advantage.
An earlier poster commented that Mitt’s softening on his Mormonism diminished his stature. I couldn’t agree more. He would stand taller had he stood more proudly for his faith.
Most of my community is religious right. Believe me, while the religious right may have issues with Mormonism, they’d choose Mitt in a heartbeat to any secular progressive the left might offer up! That much, at least, is a no-brainer.
petefrt on March 23, 2007 at 9:39 PM
Because I never once said it wouldn’t. This whole conversation started because someone said Mitt’s problem in the south were the Baptists, in that Baptists have some special problem with Mitt’s Mormonism. My whole bloody point was that his Mormonism would not be a decisive factor among social conservatives, Baptist or otherwise. There exists no proof (i.e. polling data) that Baptists or evangelicals have a special problem with his Mormonism, and I think it would be better to err on the side of thinking better of them.
Ding! We have a winner. That is why Mitt has a problem in the South, and Rudy doesn’t.
spmat on March 23, 2007 at 9:48 PM
It doesn’t surprise me in the least. Everyone knows it takes place. I suppose you “entities” have as much right to register as anyone else, though not necessary to monitor our “sentiments”. You can be rather harsh at times for an entity. With that said, more power to ya.
Buck Turgidson on March 23, 2007 at 9:55 PM
Perhaps I’m not being clear. My problem with Ellison is not his religion. It is his expression of his religion through his association with disreputable organizations. If Romney were associated with Warren Jeffs, I would have the same kind of problem with him.
I do agree, however, that on a sliding scale of religious legitimacy, Islam is certainly straining credibility at times. The Muslim I linked above is an example of one whose religion would play a minor role in a political decision of mine, but site-unseen, I would look more closely at a Muslim candidate on account of his religion than, say, a Methodist.
I would say that most folks’ problems with Mormons come not from substantive disagreements over religious doctrine or practices, but the Mormon church’s history of insularity. In the end, it is non-religious people that will have a greater problem with Mitt’s Mormonism than evangelicals.
spmat on March 23, 2007 at 9:58 PM
Romney doesn’t stand snows ball chance of getting the nomination. His term as Governor in MA was not the greatest. Some of it wasn’t his fault. The Dhimmy’s control the legislature and went out of their way to prevent his legislation from being passed.
Mitt was able to get talk radio involved and got the Dhimmy’s to add teeth to a number of bills which were important to him, primarily being Melanie’s Law which put teeth in drunk driving cases.
He was wimpy with not firing Matt Amorello, head of the Mass Turnpike Authority. He asked the SJC for an opinion and we all heard crickets. He should have fired Fat Matt and then taken out to the mattress and fight it out.
I voted for Mitt in 2002 only because the alternative was too scary. He will not get my vote for President. I’m leaning towards Fred Thompson, Duncan Hunter, and Tom Tancredo.
Mooseman
Mooseman on March 23, 2007 at 10:08 PM
spmat, what’s often overlooked about the Christian right is that while it’s core values may emanate largely from theology and dogma, core values (ethics) trump theology almost every time when push comes to shove. That is to say, most on the Christian right would naturally prefer a candidate with similar religious beliefs, other things being equal. But if the contest is between competing values or competing world views, they’ll side with similar values and world views every time.
Take, for example, the Christian right’s steadfast support of Israel.
petefrt on March 23, 2007 at 10:18 PM
Exactly.
petefrt on March 23, 2007 at 10:23 PM
Okay, Okay I am not tarring and feathering anyone either but I KNOW IT FOR A FACT! that baptist churches show movies about Mormons that put them in a bad light.
…At least they did last time I attended one in the south and in the west…
so with that said I can see a point to whats been said.
-Wastelan Man.
WastelandMan on March 23, 2007 at 10:30 PM
Exactly. This is overlooked to the peril of any party that wishes to court them. I would go further and mention that the Christian right, at least some of them, are not so averse to political pragmatism as some might think. They aren’t the wild-eyed zealots demanding ideological purity that most on the left and many on the right make them out to be. I’ve had a number of highly productive discussions with folks about Rudy.
For example, on the abortion issue, Rudy is really no different from Fred Thompson or Duncan Hunter, given that Rudy has promised judges on the order of Thomas and Scalia. Replacing JPS or Ginsburg with another Thomas or Alito is enough to walk back from Roe in 10 years. That he does not share a deep personal aversion for the practice of abortion isn’t really relevant.
Once you explain it in those terms, and show that he’s a de facto pro-lifer, they no longer have a problem with him.
spmat on March 23, 2007 at 10:32 PM
Can you please give a link or some form of reference for this? Not saying he never said it, but if he did … I sure missed it. And his record in appointing judges does not back this up.
Gregor on March 23, 2007 at 10:47 PM
My experience is the Christian right understands, as we do, that this is a fight for America, as we know it. In that sense, they are pragmatic, just as we’re pragmatic. Each of us might prefer a look-alike candidate, but all of us support the one who stands for traditional American values, when the contest is against a secular progressive ideologue.
I know I need not remind you the portrait the left would paint of ‘wild-eyed zealots’ and religious purists is no more than Gramscian BS.
petefrt on March 23, 2007 at 10:53 PM
I put up the link earlier but in case you missed it: here
This article, and the endorsement of Ted Olson helped bring me around to Rudy.
Not completely mind you, just closer.
billy on March 23, 2007 at 11:00 PM
Sorry billy, I read each one of your posts and respect your view but my vote will never go to a candidate that supports illegal immigration even a little bit. I’m also solid on small government and State’s rights except for the 2nd Amendment which is part of our Federal constitution and is not a State’s right to restrict. To me, Rudy is just another NeoCon and that is not the direction I’m ready to go after getting kicked in the teeth by NeoCons for the last 6 years. If he gets the nod in the primaries I’ll join the conservative exodus from the GOP and look for somewhere else to call home.
Buzzy on March 24, 2007 at 12:12 AM
I’m afraid we’ve lost this issue on the national level. Thompson may come around, but I think our (those of us who care) best hope is in focusing on the House and gubernatorial races.
Even Democrats, in the right regions, are open to persuasion on this.
billy on March 24, 2007 at 12:40 AM
Billy, I’ve read that article twice now and I can’t find anything relating to your claim regarding future judicial nominations. Maybe I’m just tired, but I don’t think there’s anything there supporting your claim.
Gregor on March 24, 2007 at 1:04 AM
Gregor, if you saw nothing in that article to suggest Rudy is not the pinko you’re convinced he is, nothing short of time travel and viewing his face added to mount rushmore will change your mind. Even that would be a maybe. It seems you’re holding out for some perfect ideal. My point is, clearly by your standards, with the benefit of hindsight, Reagan was a failure in conservative terms. I wish we had the luxury of your standards.
Buck Turgidson on March 24, 2007 at 2:27 AM
Did I say that? I stated that I could not find anything relating to this comment by spmat …
My request would be found here …
Gregor on March 24, 2007 at 11:10 AM
Gregor, I think billy was referring to this article. I stand by my impression that nothing will change your mind. My mind’s not totally made up, though I think Rudy would make a better president than you do. It’s still early in the game. We’ll see.
Buck Turgidson on March 24, 2007 at 11:55 AM
Google helps.
spmat on March 24, 2007 at 1:19 PM
Yes, my mind is made up as far as hoping we are given a better choice than Rudy. Obviously, if Rudy wins the nomination … I’ll be voting for him over anyone the libs would throw on the table. But I feel that many of the issues I believe to be important would be lost.
I understand there are some who feel he would make a good President, but I’m guessing you have a different opinion on what the most important issues of our time would be. I feel illegal immigration and border security is the most important issue of our time, even topping the war on terror. If we’re able to secure our borders and control who we let into our country, terrorism will be kept to a small threat. If we do not take care of our border and fail to stop illegal immigration, it really doesn’t matter what we do in Iraq. There will ALWAYS be those who hate us, and the priority should be making sure they don’t get into this country. Not only is it a threat from a security standpoint, but economical as well. There’s absolutely no way we can just continue to allow millions upon millions to pour in and somehow think our taxes will continue to cover the costs.
Giuliani is on the complete opposite side on this issue.
I also feel that the 2nd Amendment is extremely important, both for our personal defense, and for our national defense.
Giuliani feels he can ignore the Constitution if it benefits him. And that makes his comments in the article you linked even more ironic …
So, if Rudy feels that as Governor, he can ignore or rewrite the constitution in certain situations, why would we even begin to believe that he feels a Judge should not? And why should we believe his statements now, when his actions as Governor clearly showed a desire to appoint liberal judges?
And here’s one final thought. Why would any of you insist on taking this man’s word that he’s not the person his actions have shown him to be, when you have other options who are clearly the real deal? And for those who like Rudy simply because of his stance on Iraq and the war on terror … are you saying that Thompson is not every bit as tough as Rudy on this issue? I don’t believe there’s any question as to Thompson’s toughness on the war or on terror, so it simply doesn’t make sense to me to purposely choose a man who has so many flaws in other conservative areas.
Gregor on March 24, 2007 at 2:36 PM
It’s good to know you’re not planning to bail with Buzzy if Rudy wins the nomination. I wasn’t sure. I assume you meant mayor above not gov? I agree with your immigration stance. (Not bringing up Reagan again.)
Buck Turgidson on March 24, 2007 at 3:26 PM
I was floored to learn to that many of my friends and acquaintances have never heard of Mitt Romney. I guess Josephine Average, who doesn’t spend her life on political blogs, would not necessarily be aware of his campaign yet. Actually, I don’t have to guess, it appears to be true.
Tomi on March 25, 2007 at 2:14 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2