Hillary Gets Stronger, Rudy Doubles Up
The Washington Post/ABC News poll shows the national frontrunners remaining strong with just three months to go before the primaries, if we're lucky. Hillary Clinton has now attracted a majority of Democratic voters and has commanding leads on all issues over her Democratic opponents. Rudy Giuliani has not yet reached those heights, but he has double the support of his nearest rival, Fred Thompson.
Clinton seems to be solidifying the perception of her inevitability:
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has consolidated her place as the front-runner in the contest for the Democratic presidential nomination, outpacing her main rivals in fundraising in the most recent quarter and widening her lead in a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.For the first time, Clinton (N.Y.) is drawing support from a majority of Democrats -- and has opened up a lead of 33 percentage points over Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.). Her popularity, the poll suggests, is being driven by her strength on key issues and a growing perception among voters that she would best represent change.
The new numbers come on the heels of an aggressive push by Clinton to dominate the political landscape. She unveiled her health-care proposal and then appeared on all five Sunday news shows on the same day -- all while her husband, former president Bill Clinton, went on tour to promote a new book. Within the past month, at least one Clinton has appeared on television virtually every day, increasing the campaign's exposure among millions of Americans.
That's an interesting analysis, except it's somewhat misleading. The polling took place between September 27-30, which one only finds out by reading the small print on the Giuliani analysis. If her appearances on the Sunday circuit affected the polling, it would only have affected the final day of the four-day poll. (see update below)
It's more likely that Democrats have finally tired of Barack Obama and John Edwards. Clinton picked up twelve points in this poll, and seven of those came from Obama. The Illinois Senator had drawn as much as 30% in July, and in last month's poll still had 27%. Now he has dropped to 20% as his campaign gaffes have increased. John Edwards lost a point from last month and four since April, when he still seemed to have some momentum. Now he's taking federal assistance while Hillary piles $27 million into her coffers.
Rudy, on the other hand, may not be inevitable but still shows more staying power than anyone would have guessed at the beginning of the race:
Rudolph W. Giuliani leads the race for the GOP presidential nomination, with Republican voters describing him as the field's strongest leader and most electable candidate in the 2008 general election, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll.But the Republican contest remains unsettled just three months before the first votes will be cast, and in comparison with fellow New York politician Hillary Rodham Clinton, Giuliani is a far less solid front-runner. He has double the support of his nearest rival, but a majority of those who support him do so only "somewhat." At the same time, his advantages on key attributes are smaller today than they were earlier in the campaign, reflecting continued uncertainty among Republicans about their choices in the presidential race. ...
Giuliani topped the Republican field with 34 percent, with Thompson at 17 percent and Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) at 12 percent in the new poll. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney was in fourth with 11 percent but has continued to make strong showings in polls testing the crucial early contests in Iowa and New Hampshire.
Giuliani rebounds six points from the September poll, which showed him with only a nine-point lead over Fred Thompson. In this closer race, the internals tell an interesting story. Rudy leads in most of the qualitative measures, including a 50% rating on electability. For a man who has a reputation as combative, Republicans give him a plurality on his ability to reduce partisanship. Oddly, Mitt Romney trails with only 9% on this score despite his successful work in Massachussetts.
Even more interestingly, Giuliani gets a 41% trust level on handling social issues among Republicans polled on the subject. That is 23 points higher than his closest rival, Fred Thompson, and a shocker considering that social issues supposedly are Giuliani's weak point among conservatives. He also gets a 34% plurality on immigration, and John McCain comes in second at 21%, while Romney comes in last at 10% despite his harder line on immigration. Giuliani's politics are seen as "about right" by 61% of Republicans, and "too liberal" by 23%.
The Post did not publish its entire methodology for this poll. They note that the sample included 398 Republicans out of 1114 total respondents, which counts about 35%. That seems like a reasonable sample, and especially since they're only reporting primary information, reliable enough. Larger samples of likely voters would probably be more accurate. When the Post reports on overall political issues, this sample will be more reliable than those we have seen from CBS in the past, as an obvious example.
UPDATE: I'm told in the comments that Hillary's Sunday-show blitz came on the 23rd, not the 30th, which I believe is correct. That would make the Post correct in its analysis, and I offer my apologies.
Posted by Ed Morrissey on October 3, 2007 6:55 AM | Comments (48) | TrackBacks (0)
Comments (48)
Posted by james23 | October 3, 2007 8:14 AM
The Fredhead proposition--that Republicans are yearning for a folksy, uninformed duffer to run the war against radical Islam--is polling rather poorly, as one would expect. Just about everybody can identify issues where they disagree with Rudy, but a concensus is emerging that his sharp mind and no-BS demeanor is a better fit for the job of Commander in Chief.
Posted by Cybrludite | October 3, 2007 8:30 AM
Folksy,yes. Uninformed, not so much. The problem with Rudy is most of the issues that folks disagree with him are issues that keep people home on election day. I know folks who consider Hillary to effectively be the Antichrist who will not vote Republican for pres if it's Rudy because of his previous stands on gun control. There's just not enough difference between what he's said & done on the subject in the past, and what Hillary supports.
Posted by syn | October 3, 2007 8:34 AM
Why do social conservative Christians continue to vote for pro-abortion politicans?
And why did America's first black president enact the "don't ask, don't tell" and "Defense of Marriage Act"? I'm under the impression that Democrats are the party of 'gay' rights.
What about those social Conservative Christians supporting anti-Semitism such as Jimmy Carter who have nothing against Jews just that he would like to see Israel wiped off the palent.
What about the social conservative Christians in the Church of Christ, Methodist Church, Unification Church(sp?) aligning with moveon.org antiwar movement to "End War" while Christians around the world are having their heads hacked off or bodies blown up by Islamic-Jihad terrorists?
And what's up with the social conservative Christians who harbored formerly deported illegal immigrant inside their Church then use that to bash Bush and Republicans as nativist, racist, bigots. Wonder how much money the Methodist Church received from Soro for that performace.
Perhaps those social conservative Christians who continue to vote Democrat are what's tearing the Christian Church apart.
I mean how many eldery will vote for Hillary Clinton on the belief that she will protect their Social Security yet Hillary will end up nominating to the Supreme Court justice those who believe euthanasia will be the best way to deal with an aging population. Instead of elderly receiving their Social Security, the Democrats plan to save their beloved SS platform by simply putting old people out of their misery by pulling the plug.
Whatever a social conservative is, the Christian Church need to get its own house in order, define its Ethical Codes and stick by them; as it stand now social conservative Christains are all over the place.
It appears to me that those social conservatives who continue to vote for Democrat platform are what's tearing the Christian Church apart.
Posted by syn | October 3, 2007 8:37 AM
Forget Rudy for a moment, how come there are many social conservative Christians who are eager to nominate Obama when he voted against banning 'partial birth abortion'?
Posted by Robert A. George | October 3, 2007 8:45 AM
Ed: Hillary's Sunday talk-show blitz occured the Sunday before the polling range -- the 23rd, not the 30th.
Posted by opditch | October 3, 2007 8:45 AM
Syn, you're onto something about this "phony poll", I hope Rush doesn't mind me borrowing his line.
MILITARY VETERANS are flocking to Fred at:
http://Vets4Fred.net
Posted by flenser | October 3, 2007 9:27 AM
For a man who has a reputation as combative, Republicans give him a plurality on his ability to reduce partisanship.
Rudy Giuliani makes John McCain seem like a rabid Republican pit bull. This is a man who endorsed Mario Cuomo for governor of New York because he thought George Pataki was too right wing!
Posted by NoDonkey | October 3, 2007 9:28 AM
"but a concensus is emerging that his sharp mind and no-BS demeanor is a better fit for the job of Commander in Chief."
Agreed.
And he actually has a resume, unlike the "what I did on my summer vacation", half-page resumes of the Democrat candidates.
Rudy defeated hard core, NYC liberals and union members. He's not afraid of them and he can achieve with them or without them.
And he can win without the so-called "social conservatives" who seem to always have a million reasons to stamp their feet and stay home on election day. The only candidate that we're told will get them to the polls, is our savior. But I don't believe he's going to run in '08.
Rudy can ride the votes of the independents, the "of this earth" conservatives and the many people who can't stand Frau(d) Hillary, to the White House.
Posted by flenser | October 3, 2007 9:30 AM
a concensus is emerging that his sharp mind and no-BS demeanor is a better fit for the job of Commander in Chief.
Hillary has a sharp mind and a no-BS demeanor, if those are the only criteria you care about. I'm sure she'll be happy to run on the R line as well as the D if that will make you happy.
Posted by flenser | October 3, 2007 9:33 AM
Rudy defeated hard core, NYC liberals and union members. He's not afraid of them and he can achieve with them or without them.
Rudy was elected by hard core NYC liberals and union members and he's not afraid of them because he loves them.
The only candidate that we're told will get them to the polls, is our savior.
What about any conservative? Or failing that, any non-liberal?
Posted by syn | October 3, 2007 9:58 AM
Actually Rudy denied funding Liberal bastion Brooklyn Museum because of their crappy "Christ Piss" art, then the loving NYC Liberals declared him a Nazi Hilter. For this alone I find his candidacy supportable. That said, if the choice is between between Rudy or Fred I'm okay with either candidate.
What I fear about Rudy is all the inside stuff his NYC Liberal friends may have on him and when will they come out of the closet to betray their friendship?
Living in NYC I have learned that Liberals will stab their own family and friends in the back so long as it maintains their position of appearing like they're the good guys.
Rudy managed to do some miraculous things surounded by so many back-stabbers, liars and duplicious Liberal 'friends'.
Posted by Fox Noose | October 3, 2007 10:05 AM
Oh for heaven's sake! To read syn's far-fetched screed about how social conservative christians are tearing the christian church apart by "aligning with moveon.org antiwar movement to "End War," and that perhaps "the Methodist Church received (money) from Soro," or that social conservatives who may vote democrat are "simply putting old people out of their misery by pulling the plug" -- was truly telling.
The republican party is a disorganized mess. Even sadder, is the idea that if you don't vote republican, you're effectively "tearing the christian church apart." This just reeks of desperation. It's no wonder the GOP is basically DOA next year.
Posted by filistro | October 3, 2007 10:20 AM
Just like the neocons' pet project (Iraq) the GOP has now slipped fully into a disastrous civil war. Instead of Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites, we have fiscal conservatives who want small government, low taxes and efficient budgets. We have social conservatives who care only about God, guns and gays. And of course the delightful neoconservatives who want all war, all the time.
These three groups are so busy trying to kill each other, they can't even comprehend the huge Dem army that's quietly massing and organizing on their borders.
Just as in Iraq, the next few years will not be pretty for GOP-land.... and the damage will be with us for decades.
Posted by NoDonkey | October 3, 2007 10:30 AM
"What about any conservative?"
Depends on what you define as a "conservative".
I'm a conservative. I don't care about social legislation issues, because I'm conservative enough to know you cannot end abortion with a law and you cannot use the law to make people moral.
I believe in small government, which includes not expecting some clown from the DOJ, to enforce morality laws drawn up by 24 year old Congressional staffers.
It's a waste of time. You can pass a law banning abortions tomorrow and it will not be enforced and it will not be effective. "Conservatives" who believe it will, are chasing their tail. They think there's a magic button they're going to push, which substitutes from doing actual work in persuading people what a butchering, evil practice is abortion.
What I care about is a record of achievement. Rudy got results. He was instrumental in turning around NYC and he effectively defanged the mob.
No one else in the field even comes close to his achievements. The last thing I want from any "conservative" is a bunch of talk of what they're going to do. I want to hear about what their record of results and how they are going to continue it in office. The Presidency is not OJT. Talkers talk. Doers do.
I've worked in government long enough to know that for every leader who can actually get things done, we have 10,000 ambitious blowhards who talk a lot and spin their wheels. We've filled the Capitol with them.
I like Fred Thompson, but his resume is pretty much as light as Hillary's. That's not good enough.
Posted by flenser | October 3, 2007 10:41 AM
He also gets a 34% plurality on immigration, and John McCain comes in second at 21%, while Romney comes in last at 10% despite his harder line on immigration.
How many people know about Rudy's record on immigration? Given that the majority of Republicans don't even know the man is pro-Roe, I think it's safe to assume that practically none of them do. I bump into people all the time online who believe that Rudy is "strong on law-and-order" and that this makes him against illegal immigration.
And they will not find out differently by reading the "right wing" blogs.
The reality is that Rudy has a long history of being as big an open borders proponent as McCain or Bush or Kennedy. But those are facts which even the blogs don't find fit to print.
Posted by flenser | October 3, 2007 10:48 AM
I believe in small government
And you support Rudy Giuliani?
New York City is the closest place on earth to the socialist dream. Government is tightly woven into everyones everyday life there.
because I'm conservative enough to know you cannot end abortion with a law and you cannot use the law to make people moral.
Great. Lets scrap all laws then, since none of them are complied with 100%.
Posted by flenser | October 3, 2007 10:56 AM
..we have fiscal conservatives who want small government, low taxes and efficient budgets. We have social conservatives who care only about God, guns and gays. And of course the delightful neoconservatives who want all war, all the time.
The majority of "fiscal conservatives" I've encountered have no interest at all in small government. Being "fiscal conservative" is a fig leaf for these people. They obsess about things like earmarks to demonstrate that they have some vaguely conservative credentials, but they are very comfortable with the growth in the size of government.
The vast majority of conservatives are both conservative in the true fiscal sense, AND conservative in the social sense.
The party has unfortunately seen an influx of liberals who support the war but who still detest the conservative positions on fiscal and social policy. And they have influence all out of proportion to their numbers.
Posted by NoDonkey | October 3, 2007 11:03 AM
"New York City is the closest place on earth to the socialist dream."
Yes, he was responsible for creating NYC. I forgot he and the Dutch founded New Amsterdam in the 17th Century.
But he got rid of 23 city taxes and turned a $2.3 billion budget deficit into a multi-billion dollar surplus. NYC created 423,000 private sector jobs during his eight years. Is that "socialism".
What did your candidate do, flenser? Or do you just have a "dream" candidate? We need actual candidates, not "dream" candidates from checklist "conservatives", who will probably get in a snit over some silly, irrelevant issue and sit home on election day anyway.
"Great. Lets scrap all laws then, since none of them are complied with 100%."
Being "conservative" includes making choices on the effective use of law enforcement resources. I'm for scrapping laws that will not and cannot be enforced. If you really believe it would be possible to enforce abortion laws given the climate in America, you are delusional. What needs to be changed are attitudes and the culture, which aren't going to be changed in eight years.
And, the President has almost no power to make abortion legal or illegal. It's not a matter on which he should be spending his time.
In 2009, we need a man with a record of achievement in the White House. Not someone who is going to promise a lot of things he/she won't get done.
Posted by filistro | October 3, 2007 11:14 AM
Flenser says: The vast majority of conservatives are both conservative in the true fiscal sense, AND conservative in the social sense.
I think that's largely true. This was, of course, the basis of the Rove plan for generations of Republican ascendancy... getting those two mules to pull together. And nobody can deny it worked brilliantly... for a while.
My theory is that the rise of the neocons was a fatally disruptive factor. Once the party started fighting with itself over unpopular neocon policies, all the other divisions became more sharply defined as well. Now it's moving to open warfare, particularly between social cons and the other factions.
This often happens within political movements in times of weakness or outside pressure. But it's not much fun to watch when it's YOUR party undergoing a sea change.
Posted by flenser | October 3, 2007 11:40 AM
But he got rid of 23 city taxes and turned a $2.3 billion budget deficit into a multi-billion dollar surplus.
No, he did not. He claimed credit after the fact for 23 taxes which were cut. This includes many which were cut over his strenous objections.
And he left the city with a bigger deficit than when he came in.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/giulianis_tax_puffery.html
Why do Giuliani supporters know so little about the man they support?
The only person I see here obsessing about abortion is you.
In 2009, we need a man with a record of achievement in the White House.
Not if it means electing a liberal. I notice the Rudy supporters never respond to points made about the man. As I said above, Rudy endorsed Mario Cuomo because he felt that George Pataki was too right wing. I guess that's an "achievment" too.
Posted by james23 | October 3, 2007 11:40 AM
Flenser will post 'Rudy is a liberal' all day long, but will never tell you who his candidate is. He claims that the influence of 'liberals' (ie, people he doesn't agree with) within the party is disproportionate to their actual numbers. But the polls and the polling places are the acid test of a group's influence within the party, no? And so the q. posed by NO Donk above--whose your candidate, and how's he polling--is key. My bet--his guy is Ron Paul.
Posted by Carol Herman | October 3, 2007 11:40 AM
While I can see a Hillary versus Rudy contest as the "biggest" bonanza for media delivery ...
I think it's foolish to put all your chips in Hillary's "chicken coop."
What Hillary represents, here?
Her negatives are so high that it keeps people tuned in. And, it gives the most money to Rudy's coffers.
Sure. Hillary wants the "inevitability" factor.
Sure, the Bonkeys ran with McGovern, in 1972. Then, after the fluke Jimmah Carter Victory in 1976, (where Ford had "promised" he wouldn't run); you get to 1980. And, Carter lost. Nope. He hasn't recovered.
Then? Well, we got Mondale in 1984. And, let's not forget the "lively" Dukakis.
Of course, Bubba won in 1992. Lost congress in 1994. And, had to deal with his haridan of a wife for 8 years. And, his Monica "scandal." Though I think Monica actually saved his presidential arse.
Shows ya. The most ungrateful people in the world on the GRIFTERS. Will they be back?
I think IF the Bonkeys could, they'd have Hillary exiting stage left, before the "big show" hits the road.
Plus? There's this odd sentiment expressed by Obama's wife: IF Obama doesn't come in FIRST, in IOWA, He's "going home." (Well, he's got a treasure chest of funds, already.)
Oh, and so, too, does Hillary.
Meanwhile, her winning the nomination is just a guess. How good are guesses? McCain was in this boat, early in 2000. So what?
Hopefully? Geez. I don't want to be responsible for throwing Hillary off the bus.
As I said, I'd love it if Hillary and Rudy held debates, together. Where she thinks Rudy would pull "Rick Lazio's?" Well, Rudy has way more smarts than that. And, at some point Hillary is gonna get shrill!
Let alone how she'd love to run as RODHAM. She can't even stand Bubba! Heck, half the "mystery" deals with this woman's agenda. So far? Well hidden behind her hips. Go ahead. Let her run. It would make my day!
Posted by flenser | October 3, 2007 12:04 PM
Flenser will post 'Rudy is a liberal' all day long, but will never tell you who his candidate is.
And james will tell you how wonderful Rudy is all day long, but hell will freeze over before he makes an effort to respond to what I am saying. Because he cannot.
My bet--his guy is Ron Paul.
No. My guy is any half-way conservative Republican. John McCain is a rabid rightwinger by comparision.
And the Rudy supporters make the Paul supporters appear thoughtful and intelligent. Look at their comments on this thread.
Here is Giuliani explaning his endorsement of Mario Cuomo.
Interviewer: - “Broadly, what is Mr. Pataki’s consummate flaw?”
Giuliani: - “He has plans to reduce taxes, that are so ambitious, and so inconsistent with the performance of the economy of this state …. “
Interviewer: - “In your mind that’s a no-no?”
Giuliani: - “It would be a disaster. It would be an absolute disaster. It would be the kind of tax shift that substitutes for sound management.”
That is your so-called tax cutting fiscal conservative explaning why he endorsed Mario Cuomo. Because George Pataki was too much of a tax-cutting right-winger for his taste.
Many of the tax cuts Giuliani takes credit for today were actually cut by Pataki over Rudy's objections. This information is all in the public record, if anyone cares to look it up.
Posted by NoDonkey | October 3, 2007 12:39 PM
flenser, the article you posted says this: "Overall, did taxpayers in Giuliani's New York see their tax burden fall? "It's fair to say the tax burden declined."
"Initiated" vs. "supported" amounts to splitting hairs.
james thinks you are a Republican. I think you're a Democrat troll, who doesn't want to name your candidate - Hillary Clinton.
I've responded to your cut and paste "points".
How about responding with a candidate whom you feel would be better than Rudy?
I can be persuaded. Fact is, I will be 100% on board with any Republican who wins the nomination, because I loathe and despise each and every politician in the Democrat party.
You tell me, flenser, who is better and maybe I'll go out and vote for them in the Virginia Primary.
Posted by JAF | October 3, 2007 12:49 PM
The sooner that the GOP realizes our ONE AND ONLY shot at stopping the Clintons is to nominate Rudy Giuliani- the sooner we can begin to fight their attempts to take over our beloved Republic.
Rudy is the man who can put NY, NJ, CT, PA, Oregon, MN, and Washington state into play for the GOP. If we nominate Thompson or Romney we can automatically scratch off about 20 states we would have no chance to win.
Nominate Rudy though, and 45 states will see an election campaign. That is just the fact and the reality. The GOP voters who ignore this are handing the White House to Hillary!
Posted by NoDonkey | October 3, 2007 1:04 PM
I agree JAF.
I cannot see Romney or Thompson being remotely electable in the current political climate.
Part of being "conservative" is in not believing in harebrained schemes that have no chances of fruition.
Another part of being "conservative" is being responsible and aware enough to get the best result possible in a given circumstance.
Is Rudy perfect? Of course not. Is he better than Hillary, which is the only question that really matters?
Of course he is. Light years better. He beats her soundly on anything and everything that matters.
Hillary is an unaccomplished, unqualified, shewish little woman who is in the position she is, because of her husband. She has done nothing at all on her own. She has a half-page resume, consisting of "accomplishments" where she was only along for the ride.
Moreover, she will bring to the table similarly unqualified, unaccomplished jackasses into her administration. Her cabinet will be made up of pure ideologues, with no concept of what it takes to put the federal government onto the right track and to most importantly, defend the nation.
This is not the time to support some fringe protest candidate, who will get nobly trounced in 49 states.
Posted by flenser | October 3, 2007 1:36 PM
The sooner that the GOP realizes our ONE AND ONLY shot at stopping the Clintons is to nominate Rudy Giuliani- the sooner we can begin to fight their attempts to take over our beloved Republic.
There is ZERO evidence to back up the absurd contention that Giuliani and only Giuliani can win in 2008.
Those who are willing to sacrifice principle for power tend to end up with neither one.
Rudy is the man who can put NY, NJ, CT, PA, Oregon, MN, and Washington state into play for the GOP.
This is ridiculous. These claims have as much truth to them as the claims that Giuliani "cut 23 taxes as Mayor." They are total fabrications. Giuliani is losing to Clinton in NY, his home state, by a large margin.
He is also losing Virginia to her. He puts states in play all right. He puts our states in play for the Democrats.
Posted by NoDonkey | October 3, 2007 1:41 PM
flenser,
You are tiresome.
OK, you don't like Rudy. We get it.
Why is your candidate a big secret?
I mean, once your irrefutable facts torpedo Rudy, where are we supposed to go?
"Giuliani is losing to Clinton in NY"
In what? Some rigged poll, over a year out from the election? Besides, is it actually news that a Democrat is ahead in New York?
"He is also losing Virginia to her."
How is your candidate doing against her? Or is it her?
Posted by flenser | October 3, 2007 1:51 PM
flenser, the article you posted says this: "Overall, did taxpayers in Giuliani's New York see their tax burden fall? "It's fair to say the tax burden declined."
Donkey, the article I cited specifically refuted the claims you made. Giuliani did not cut 23 taxes and he did not leave the city with a surplus. Any response?
How can you keep twisting and dodging like this?
"It's fair to say the tax burden declined." Yeah, and its fair to say that Giuliani had his arm twisted to go along with many tax cuts.
I think you're a Democrat troll
I think that you resort to calling people names instead of citing facts because the facts are not on your side. So by all means, call me whatever you like. And I'll continue to tell you the facts about your beloved liberal candidate.
I can be persuaded.
Given your stubborn refusal to admit the facts I'm shoving before your eyes, no, I don't think you can.
You tell me, flenser, who is better
I keep telling you that EVERY other Republican candidate is better. For some reason you refuse to listen. But let me tell you again. EVERY other Republican candidate is better.
You tell me. Why would you support Giuliani over Romney or Mccain?
Of course he is. Light years better. He beats her soundly on anything and everything that matters.
What do you think matters? Because I can give you a long list of things on which he does not beat her at all. Starting with the First and Second amendments.
Posted by flenser | October 3, 2007 2:02 PM
NoDonkey
You are childish. I'm telling you the facts. Don't get all snippy with me just because you don't like them.
In what? Some rigged poll, over a year out from the election? Besides, is it actually news that a Democrat is ahead in New York?
You feeble minded fool, if you read up the thread you will see JAF claiming that Rudy puts NY in play.
As for which poll, Rasmussen shows Hillary beating Rudy in NY like a rented mule.
As for "over a year out from the election", congratulations - you finally have a point. But the entire rationale behind the "We must nominate Rudy!" frenzy is based on polls, so I don't feel bad about citing polls to you.
If you are willing to toss the polls out we could have a rational debate about the pros and cons of the different candidates. But then you'd lose your own "single issue", the myth that Rudy is "electable.
If people like you were calling the shots in 1980 Reagan would never have been nominated.
Posted by NoDonkey | October 3, 2007 2:15 PM
flenser,
I believe you are a Democrat, because you use the exact same tactics - bash the President, and then suddenly get mute when it comes to extolling the virtues of your candidate.
"the article I cited specifically refuted the claims you made. Giuliani did not cut 23 taxes"
Actually, it didn't. It stated that he didn't initiate all of the 23 tax cuts, so because of that, he (himself) didn't cut all 23. But he supported those he didn't initiate and I know the article doesn't agree with that, but that's he said, she said and it's splitting hairs.
What I do know is that NYC was a hell hole when he took over and it progressed significantly during his stewardship. Please explain to me how he had nothing to do with that and also what your candidate has done that compares to it.
"I keep telling you that EVERY other Republican candidate is better."
Why? I don't really think they are. What have they individually accomplished? Not what they've talked about, not what they say they're going to do, what they've done?
Because the candidate we're up against doesn't have a resume, she has a well worn side car, at best. She's a camp follower and not a very good one.
I like John McCain and will support him if he gets the nomination. I don't think he will. I think Guiliani is more articulate at explaining his positions and can defeat the rhetoric the Democrats are going to throw at him. And John McCain isn't exactly seen as flawless by so-called "conservatives" either.
Thompson actually had to do something to get the nomination. His heart doesn't appear to be in it. To me, he seems like a talker, not a doer and his resume reflects that - just like Hillary's.
Posted by syn | October 3, 2007 2:30 PM
Of course Fox Noose it's only the 'Religious Right' which is destorying America not the Christians who vote Democrat!
That said, I beleive in God but not in any specific church becasue I can't tell which one is preaching the word of God or which one is preaching the word of Marx! How come Christian Jimmy Carter is perceived a saint while Geroge W. Bush is is evil when Jimmy Carter wants to see Israel wiped off the planet while Goerge W Bush does not?
It isn't that I am defending the Republican Party, I used to be a Liberal until 9/11/2001 came along and have since change my outlook on the world.
What I am attacking, in case you haven't noticed, is the dreadful evil called Socialism which has invaded every aspect of our American spirit politically, religiously and culturally.
Upon reflection I look back and now recognize that what I considered to be the ideals of Liberalism had been eroded by the invasion of cultural Marxism just after JFK was shot dead and I now acknowledge its desire to crush capitalism and with it truth, justice and the American way.
Posted by syn | October 3, 2007 2:30 PM
Of course Fox Noose it's only the 'Religious Right' which is destorying America not the Christians who vote Democrat!
That said, I beleive in God but not in any specific church becasue I can't tell which one is preaching the word of God or which one is preaching the word of Marx! How come Christian Jimmy Carter is perceived a saint while Geroge W. Bush is is evil when Jimmy Carter wants to see Israel wiped off the planet while Goerge W Bush does not?
It isn't that I am defending the Republican Party, I used to be a Liberal until 9/11/2001 came along and have since change my outlook on the world.
What I am attacking, in case you haven't noticed, is the dreadful evil called Socialism which has invaded every aspect of our American spirit politically, religiously and culturally.
Upon reflection I look back and now recognize that what I considered to be the ideals of Liberalism had been eroded by the invasion of cultural Marxism just after JFK was shot dead and I now acknowledge its desire to crush capitalism and with it truth, justice and the American way.
Posted by flenser | October 3, 2007 3:13 PM
Good Lord!
But he supported those he didn't initiate and I know the article doesn't agree with that, but that's he said, she said and it's splitting hairs.
Liberals, of any party, are quite unfamiliar with the concept of truth.
Actually, it didn't.
A complete lack of reading comprehension is the hallmark of a liberal.
I believe you are a Democrat, because you use the exact same tactics - bash the President
A) I am not bashing the President. B) I am not "bashing" anyone. I am giving you facts and cites. And C), I believe that you are a Democrat because you are supporting an uber-liberal GOP candidate. Which is 1000% more plausible than anything you have said.
What I do know is that NYC was a hell hole when he took over and it progressed significantly during his stewardship.
No, you do not "know" this. You may believe it, becasue people have told you it and you accept whatever you are told. But you do not "know" it.
New York State progressed significantly during Pataki's stewardship. For some reason, I don't see you urging us to make him President.
And we like to call Democrats irrational.
What have they individually accomplished?
What has Giuliani individually accomplished? And don't give me any more madeup stories about 23 tax cuts and a budget surplus.
Posted by whippoorwill | October 3, 2007 3:29 PM
You can forget about recent trends in American politics. The worm has turned and there is brand new paradigm in play. No one knows exactly what it is, but we'll get a better view after the 2008 election. But I think it's safe to say republicans won't be pleased and may even get wiped out.
I'm for Rudy for the GOP nomination, cause I want to see all the skeletons in his closet. It'll likely take a battalion of reporters to drag 'em all out into the sunlight.
Posted by NoDonkey | October 3, 2007 3:34 PM
flenser,
So factcheck.org is the final arbiter of truth? I don't buy it. Guiliani disputes the bit on the (really pretty irrelevant tax cut) matter and I don't see where factcheck.org has any hard evidence.
"I am giving you facts"
What "facts"? Cutting and pasting a web address and then maintaining it is the gold standard, is giving "facts"? I didn't realize it was so easy . . .
"No, you do not "know" this. You may believe it, becasue (sic) people have told you it and you accept whatever you are told."
If I did that, I'd be Hillary supporter.
But, I do "know" this because I was in NYC pre, post and during Rudy's mayorship. I've read extensively on NYC during that time as well. Anyone who maintains NYC did not improve during Guiliani's mayorship is delusional.
And of course, he's not solely responsible for it. Of course not. But he was at the helm when the turnaround occurred and he deserves a lot of the credit.
Please provide "facts" that back up your contention that the post-Guiliani years are no better than the Dinkens years (maybe you can go back to your silly website for some information), as far as crime, taxes and economic prosperity.
Who brought down Gotti? Who brought down the mob?
"What has Giuliani individually accomplished?"
See above. And he has executive experience, which is more than Thompson and McCain have.
And Romney passed a health care plan similar to Hillary's in Massachusetts. Do you despise him for that as well?
To get something done, anything done in any large organization, particularly NYC, takes action. It might not always make everyone happy and it might always look pretty, but it does take a doer.
Talkers cling to their precious little checklists because they don't actually ever have to accomplish anything.
I don't want a Republican who has lots of big ideas and no experience in implementing them, even if by some miraculous fluke he got himself elected (e.g. semi-literate Ron Paul). Congressmen have huge staffs, vote on party lines and generally do nothing of consequence. We don't need more talkers.
Posted by NoDonkey | October 3, 2007 3:44 PM
"But I think it's safe to say republicans won't be pleased and may even get wiped out."
Uh, OK.
So when will Hillary's little minions come for us kulaks?
Are you hoping for employment as one of Hillary's little minions, whippoorwill? What will that pay? All the radishes you can eat?
Democrat politicians are pretty useless and ineffective people, as we're seeing evidence of now in Congress.
Those of us who are Republicans will still prosper should Democrats succeed in fooling enough people to elect them.
How about those who voted for the Democrats?
They'll still be the hopeless losers they were before the election. The more things change . . .
Posted by NoDonkey | October 3, 2007 3:54 PM
Don't look now felsner, but Fred Thompson just reversed his position on the absolutely worthless idea of ethanol subsidies:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071003/ap_po/thompson_ethanol
Where will the ideologically pure go now?
Posted by patrick neid | October 3, 2007 4:04 PM
flenser, get a grip. Rudy is getting the nomination.
As to your canard about Rudy supporting Cuomo because Pataki was too right wing? That's cute.
http://tinyurl.com/34xbb4
"For months, Mr. Giuliani had made no secret about his distaste for Mr. Pataki, refusing to come to his side during the Republican primary. On a radio show last month, he plucked specific votes from Mr. Pataki's Senate and Assembly career that he said showed the Republican "trying to deprive New York City."
Many Republicans felt the Mayor had also kept his distance because of his own interest in running for governor in 1998 and because of his bitter rivalry with Mr. D'Amato.
Mr. Giuliani said that he had begun considering a Cuomo endorsement two weeks ago after he met with Mr. Pataki at Gracie Mansion to discuss where the candidate stood on such issues as a state takeover of local Medicaid costs, and the city's control of the watershed. He said he weighed the possibly of voting for Mr. Cuomo but staying publicly neutral. "I thought that wasn't the right thing to do," Mr. Giuliani said. He said he ultimately decided on Sunday to endorse Mr. Cuomo.
The Mayor's decision to back Mr. Cuomo was a closely guarded secret for hours, and word of his intentions began circulating only as he abruptly scrapped plans to deliver a televised speech at 5:20 P.M. to rally the city to support a new round of sweeping budget cuts that he plans to unveil today.
The reason people like Rudy despite the flaws and the stupid phone calls is because he is an authoritarian attack dog. Currently we need two things attacked--radical Islam and runaway government growth caused by both repubs and dems. He will do a better job at those than any other candidate from either party. His positions on abortion, guns, illegal immigrants (all conditioned by unique New York politics) are secondary to the two major problems facing us as a country.
True they were running him out of New York on a rail by the end of his second term but he did what he said he would do, no matter the consequences, he CLEANED up New York. That was a task everyone said could not be done. The Firemen's union still hate him. The Police still love him.
Absolutely no politician on the state level in the last century can claim that size of an achievement and I have not even mentioned 9/11.
Posted by whippoorwill | October 3, 2007 4:08 PM
"So when will Hillary's little minions come for us kulaks?"
There'll be a new tractor and a pretty pony for all Kulak's. You can grow even more radishes and then maybe I'll eat some.
"Democrat politicians are pretty useless and ineffective people, as we're seeing evidence of now in Congress."
Latest Gallup poll
Republicans 38% favorable 59% unfavorable
Democrats 53% favorable 43 % unfavorable
And filibustering wins no hearts and minds.
"Those of us who are Republicans will still prosper"
Maybe, but you'll need to change your name to make a comeback. It's been awhile since Whig was popular.
Posted by Concerned | October 3, 2007 4:19 PM
Rudy is the only candidate that can save the GOP in 08.
Posted by NoDonkey | October 3, 2007 4:59 PM
whipoorwill,
Even given your oversampling Democrat poll, 38% is still a pretty significant portion of the population. The Republicans aren't going away.
And if Democrats sweep the elections?
I'm really not concerned with Democrats eliminating non-Democrats. That would take effort. And muscle. Two things not in abundance in Democrat land.
Perhaps if Democrats do such a bangup job, they'll be no further need for an opposition party.
I'll be the first to congratulate you if Democrats do such a job. Then I will flap my arms and fly to the moon.
Posted by whippoorwill | October 3, 2007 5:33 PM
"Even given your oversampling Democrat poll, 38% is still a pretty significant portion of the population. The Republicans aren't going away"
It's oversampled because more people are identifying themselves as democrats these days.
I didn't say the republicans were going away, but they will have to change quite a lot to stay a viable party. That's just my opinion, so we'll see.
"I'm really not concerned with Democrats eliminating non-Democrats. That would take effort. And muscle. Two things not in abundance in Democrat land."
I'm sorry but I don't understand what your saying.
"Perhaps if Democrats do such a bangup job, they'll be no further need for an opposition party."
America is a Constitutional Republic. It needs two healthy parties to function properly regardless of what they're called. I believe the republican party is currently unhealthy and by that I mean it's way away from it's original beliefs. Wouldn't you agree? Although the managed chaos that is the democratic party can sometimes seem like it provides it's own opposition party.
"Then I will flap my arms and fly to the moon."
Then you'll be a moonbat. I would say welcome aboard.
Posted by NoDonkey | October 3, 2007 6:49 PM
"It's oversampled because more people are identifying themselves as democrats these days."
No, it's oversampled because Democrats are more likely to use landlines, to be home when annoying pollsters call and to actually talk to pollsters.
"I didn't say the republicans were going away, but they will have to change quite a lot to stay a viable party."
In what way?
"I'm sorry but I don't understand what your saying."
I'm saying to actually eliminate the Republican Party (in the traditional Marxist-Leninist gulag style, Democrats so admire) would take effort and muscle - two things in short supply on the left side of the aisle, fortunately.
"I believe the republican party is currently unhealthy"
I believe the Democrat Party died of chronic lunacy. How else can you explain Harry Reid? Someone needs to tell him he died in 2005.
"Although the managed chaos that is the democratic party"
Managed? By what or by whom? By dangling dollars? By waving a bong? I've seen preschool classes that are more competent, coherent and who are more qualified to pass legislation, than the Democrats in Congress.
"Then you'll be a moonbat. I would say welcome aboard."
Will drinks be served?
Posted by whippoorwill | October 3, 2007 7:53 PM
No Donkey
I didn't say the republicans were going away, but they will have to change quite a lot to stay a viable party."
In what way?
Let me count the ways/
Less spending- lower deficits
Less corruption-AKA Repub crime syndicate
Less whoring by GOP Senators and Congressmen ac/dc
Less toe-tapping in mens bathrooms By Gop senators
Less child abuse ie. Foley
less stupid and bungled wars
less nation building
less selling out country to Chinese loan sharks
less xenophobia
less torture
less generally trashing the constitution
less smearing those who disagree with you
Shall I go on? Oh, did I mention less corruption.
"I'm saying to actually eliminate the Republican Party (in the traditional Marxist-Leninist gulag style, Democrats so admire) would take effort and muscle - two things in short supply on the left side of the aisle, fortunately."
And less moronic remarks like this one, comrade
No drinks on the Moonbat unless you like lemon-ginseng Green Tea. Organic of course.
Posted by Rose | October 4, 2007 1:38 AM
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
There's just not enough difference between what he's said & done on the subject in the past, and what Hillary supports.
EXACTLY!
I won't stay home - I'll vote a write-in. But millions of others will stay home.
Posted by Rose | October 4, 2007 1:46 AM
Many of you think Rudi, or Mitt, or Fred, or McCain are light years better than Hillary, and easily more electable than her --- yet I don't see you guys figuring in the millions of us who didn't vote for Robert Dole who keep telling you WE DO NOT SEE this difference between these RINOS and Hillary that you guys insist is there, and I don't see you COUNTING US NOT VOTING GOP if they are the candidate, when you count the NUMBERS and swear these RINOS are "ELECTABLE".
Dah Ahnold Man has taught you nothing.
Enjoy.
Posted by Ken Moffett | October 5, 2007 1:00 AM
Rudy cannot hold a candle to Mr Paul.