'08 Republican Nomination - New Polls

[Elaine_s_Cross]

On the McLaughlin Report last night, new polls on the Republican Party candidates (announced, unannouced and speculated) showed the following:

Rudolph Guiliani 34%
John McCain 31%
Newt Gingrich 8%

The corresponding Democratic Party poll showed Hillary Clinton with 41% and the next closest challengers in the teens.

I forget the source of the poll.

Big question: Will the Republican Party end up nominating a pro-choice candidate such as Guiliani or McCain?

Of course, there is a lot of time to go.

 

[jman507]

I’d have to think there will be a serious challanger that pops up for both McCain/Guilianne and Clinton during the primaries, probably from some of the governors around the country. It seems much of the base has problems with all those candidates, the right wing will want a pro-life nominee and the Left those who have sympathy with Cindy Sheehan have been calling for someone besides Hillary.

Its tough to say, but it may seem any of the big names are carrying a lot of baggage. People might want a fresh name, I think people may tire of the Bushes and Clintons. With all the trouble we’ve had lately they may want a new person. Then again they might just want someone thats well-known and realiable, so a Hillary, Condi, or Guilianne might be good, but I’d still tip a governor. Hehe, a stealth candidate.

 

[mary_bobo]

Elaine's Cross:

On the McLaughlin Report last night, new polls on the Republican Party candidates (announced, unannouced and speculated) showed the following:

Rudolph Guiliani 34%
John McCain 31%
Newt Gingrich 8%

The corresponding Democratic Party poll showed Hillary Clinton with 41% and the next closest challengers in the teens.

I forget the source of the poll.

Big question: Will the Republican Party end up nominating a pro-choice candidate such as Guiliani or McCain?

Just a thought, and my opinion, but being politically connected thru four political consultants, I have come to the conclusion that is it highly unlikely that Guiliani or McCain will get the GOP nod. Hillary does, indeed, have the inside track, but the Dems are not too keen about her, HOWEVER, they want to win in the worst way and will do whatever it takes to make that happen. Hillary (with pres. Bill behind her) is very politically savvy and she will not run unless she is positive of a win.

One thing to keep in mind, both parties have been captured by their most radical elements and that could make a difference. It is going to be interesting to watch.

Of course, there is a lot of time to go.

 

[gnjsdad]

Elaine's Cross:

Big question: Will the Republican Party end up nominating a pro-choice candidate such as Guiliani or McCain?

My opinion is no, they won’t nominate Guiliani. The base is too solidly pro-life. McCain would probably be a little more palatable because he’s nominally pro-life, but he’s also alienated a large segment of the base because he disparaged the Pat Robertson-Jerry Falwell folks in 2000. He too will have a difficult time getting the nomination.

We must face reality. I can well see the path being opened for Hillary Clinton to win in 2008, and that would be disastrous. For that, we must thank George W Bush. Because he’s governed as a pseudo-conservative, voters in 2008 could well conclude that they’re sick of being governed by “conservatives” and want a change.

 

[mary_bobo]

gnjsdad:

My opinion is no, they won’t nominate Guiliani. The base is too solidly pro-life. McCain would probably be a little more palatable because he’s nominally pro-life, but he’s also alienated a large segment of the base because he disparaged the Pat Robertson-Jerry Falwell folks in 2000. He too will have a difficult time getting the nomination.

We must face reality. I can well see the path being opened for Hillary Clinton to win in 2008, and that would be disastrous. For that, we must thank George W Bush. Because he’s governed as a pseudo-conservative, voters in 2008 could well conclude that they’re sick of being governed by “conservatives” and want a change.

 

[mary_bobo]

mary bobo:
You are so right. I am so frustrated with the GOPs I could scream. It’s not only the President, it is the weak-kneed Congress (both House and Senate) that are more interested in getting their sorry selves re-elected than in doing what they were elected by their constituents to do. Hillary is a very polarizing figure, but if the GOP does not clean up its act, it will find itself in the minority again.

 

[Elaine_s_Cross]

gnjsdad:

…George W Bush. Because he’s governed as a pseudo-conservative…

IMO “pseudo-conservative” is kind. When one goes back to Eisenhauer, Robert Taft, Thomas Dewey, Calvin Coolidge, Grover Cleveland and others, GWB is not a conservative at all. In fact he is more liberal than many Dems of the 1960’s.

He and the Republican-dominated Congress have very well opened the door for Hillary. They can look in the mirror and blame themselves if she is elected in 2008.

 

[mlchance]

gnjsdad:

McCain would probably be a little more palatable because he’s nominally pro-life, but he’s also alienated a large segment of the base because he disparaged the Pat Robertson-Jerry Falwell folks in 2000.

Robertson-Falwell supporters do not form a significant base in the Republican Party anywhere outside Democratic Party propaganda.

gnjsdad:

I can well see the path being opened for Hillary Clinton to win in 2008, and that would be disastrous.

Senator Clinton will not get the nomination. The Democratic Party is, in reality, far too anti-woman. Very nearly the full scope of “women’s issues” uniquely endorsed by the Democratic Party is exhausted by abortion-on-demand and lesbian rights.

gnjsdad:

For that, we must thank George W Bush.

Nonsense. That Senator Clinton gets any support can be largely blamed on Christians - especially Catholics - who claim to be pro-life but see no problem supporting stridently pro-abortion politicians at all levels of government.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[gnjsdad]

mlchance:

Robertson-Falwell supporters do not form a significant base in the Republican Party anywhere outside Democratic Party propaganda.

In 2000, early in the primary season, McCain gave a speech in Virginia, I believe, in which he decried the influence of evangelical fundamentalist Protestants like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson in the Republican party. This speech ultimately doomed his campaign.

If you don’t believe that evangelical fundamentalist Protestants form a significant part of the Republican party base, then you are surprisingly misinformed.

mlchance:

Senator Clinton will not get the nomination.

I can only say I hope you’re right. One thing which might, and I emphasize might, save us from the likes of Hillary Clinton is that people will remember that she voted for the Congressional Authorization to go to war in Iraq. But since the GOP nominee will probably also be a war supporter, the Republican won’t gain any traction against Hillary that way.

As the lies and deceits which brought about the monstrous strategic blunder that is the Iraq war are exposed, people will be more than ever in the mood for a change. That just might be enough to get Hillary elected.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Elaine's Cross:

IMO “pseudo-conservative” is kind. When one goes back to Eisenhauer, Robert Taft, Thomas Dewey, Calvin Coolidge, Grover Cleveland and others, GWB is not a conservative at all. In fact he is more liberal than many Dems of the 1960’s.

He and the Republican-dominated Congress have very well opened the door for Hillary. They can look in the mirror and blame themselves if she is elected in 2008.

I am somewhat surprised to see Eisenhower and Taft listed together. In 1952 I participated in a debate between my High School and Taft School [Guess who they supported] on a local radio station. We found a lot of difference between the two.

 

[PiusXIII]

Joe Kelley:

I am somewhat surprised to see Eisenhower and Taft listed together. In 1952 I participated in a debate between my High School and Taft School [Guess who they supported] on a local radio station. We found a lot of difference between the two.

Exactly. In 52, Taft made a run for the nomination running against what he saw as the corruption of the Republican party by moderates. He ran against “Deweyism and Defeat” and said that Eisenhower was just another Dewey Republican—a Republican who said “Me too but not as much.”

All of these polls this early in the game are meaningless. Hillary gets high numbers because of name recognition. I think some governor or congressman will emerge from the ranks of the Dems to win the nomination–probably someone we don’t even know yet. Remember–back in 1989 who knew Bill Clinton? In 1973 who knew Jimmy Carter? Democrats often choose the unknown.

Giuiliani doesn’t have a chance in hell either because Catholics wouldn’t let him get past first base because of his abortion stance. And if you don’t think Catholics have the power to stop him, just look at the last election—look at the gay marriage proposals that got defeated. The real power players in the Republican party are bishops.

Also, Republicans go for the guy whose turn it is next. Since 1952, the Republicans have always had either a Nixon, a Dole or a Bush on the ticket every year except for 1964. So my prediction is that in '08, either Jeb Bush or Liddy Dole will be on the ticket—gotta keep the tradition going.

Look for a strong conversative to lead the ticket in 08–and not one in name only like W.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

either Jeb Bush or Liddy Dole will be on the ticket

Actually, I wouldn’t mind at all seeing Elizabeth Dole win the Republican nomination in 08. I like her a lot.
Love, Jaypeeto4 (aka Jaypeeto3 on my other computer)