GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
Lots of new polls have been released in the past 24 hours. The latest one is from Quinnipiac University, which contains no real surprises considering that it’s a New York State poll:
Quinnipiac University Polling Institute New York Poll, taken February 6 -11, 2007.
“If the 2008 Republican primary for President were being held today, and the candidates were Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Duncan Hunter, Sam Brownback, Tommy Thompson, Jim Gilmore, Chuck Hagel, Mike Huckabee, George Pataki and Tom Tancredo for whom would you vote? (registered Republicans)”
- Rudy Giuliani 51%
- John McCain 17%
- George Pataki 7%
- Newt Gingrich 6%
- Mike Huckabee 2%
- Chuck Hagel 1%
- Duncan Hunter 1%
- Mitt Romney 1%
- Tom Tancredo 1%
- Someone Else 3%
- Don’t Know 9%
“If the 2008 Democratic primary for President were being held today, and the candidates were Al Gore, Tom Vilsack, Joe Biden, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Chris Dodd, Wesley Clark and Dennis Kucinich for whom would you vote? (registered Democrats)
- Hillary Clinton 47%
- Barack Obama 16%
- Al Gore 12%
- John Edwards 7%
- Joe Biden 1%
- Wes Clark 1%
- Christopher Dodd 1%
- Dennis Kuchinich 1%
- Bill Richardson 1%
- Someone Else 2%
- Don’t Know 12%
These results, combined with the Strategic Vision midterm state polls, can reasonably lead some to believe that Rudy may have reached or exceeded 50% support in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Washington (depending upon whether you believe Quinnipiac and ARG or Strategic Vision more).
Potential 2008 Match-ups
- Hillary Clinton 50%
- Rudy Giuliani 40%
- Hillary Clinton 61%
- Mitt Romney 25%
- Hillary Clinton 56%
- John McCain 35%
- Barack Obama 46%
- John McCain 35%
- John Edwards 48%
- John McCain 35%
Curiously, Rudy vs. Obama or Edwards was not listed in these results.
February 14th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
The general election results are pretty telling: nobody beats any Democrat in New York. Not even Rudy, who loses by 10 points and gets the same exact percentage of votes in New York as George Bush did in 2004 (40%). Isn’t this supposed to be one of Rudy’s strengths, though — changing the map and putting blue states into play?
Again, I must caution my friends about choosing a candidate based on electability. The Dems tried that in 2004 and it worked out marvelously - for us. If Rudy carries New York in the general election in 2008, I’ll dance around outside in the snow with boxers on my head.
February 14th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Oops! I thought I had listed the 2008 match-ups in the post. I have updated it with the results now.
February 14th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Heavy M has a point, electability should not be the only factor, but it is still very important. A candidate has to be perceived as viable, and without a viable candidate, nobody will listen to your message.
February 14th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
True that, TM. That’s why my motto this election is the same as it was in 2000 (my first Presidential election) - the most conservative candidate that can win.
Seems too many folks have just gone for the latter part of that statement (who can win?) to the detriment of the former (who is conservative?). Or perhaps we think we are in such dire straits that the “most conservative” candidate able to win is Rudy… either way, as I’m sure everyone here knows, I would have to disagree.
February 14th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
I should say that I like Duncan Hunter as well, from what I know of him. But there’s a reason I haven’t thrown my support behind him. He’s conservative, but he can’t win.
Still, electability (which my spell checker says isn’t even a word - oh, well!) is only part of the equation, not the whole thing. Not by a long shot.
February 14th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
I find it really interesting that there is virtually no Rudy staff anywhere, yet he continues to climb in the polls. Now that’s real political power.
I can tell you from experience that electability is huge. Every day that I ran the Bush phone banks in 04, volunteers would ask: can he win? I was at the phone banks for almost a year and when Bush fell behind by more than 5 points, nobody wanted to volunteer.
I also worked on the Mark Kennedy campaign. This Senate seat was once considered by the RNC as one of their best pickups. Kennedy never got within 5 points, most of the polls had him 10-20 points behind. Guess what, nobody wanted to volunteer and his campaign tanked. Mark lost the election by over 20 points.
There is a lesson here.
Pick someone who can win!
February 14th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Quinnipiac University New York Poll…
…
February 14th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
Interesting that Guiliani still can’t win New York (although if Hillary wasn’t the candidate the numbers would be interesting…) It does call into question his ability to win blue-states. If it stays that way, his appeal may wane.
February 14th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
JayPe,
I don’t think that Rudy will win NY, but he does put it in play. In fact, he may put up to 10 Blue states in play. This is very important, because it will force Hillary to play defense and spend money in Blue states.
It’s much better to play offense than defense.
Rudy looks like a great offensive player!
February 14th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
On another note. As everyone already knows, George Pataki is DOA. If he can’t do better than 7% in his own state, he is finished.
February 14th, 2007 at 7:34 pm
It’s not only that, David. According to Iowa’s favorite Klown,
Best of luck to Pataki and his plans to clean up Iraq. He’ll need it, considering he spent his last 12 years ruining Albany.