A first(?) thread on 2008: McCain,Giuliani & the Republicans

Giuliani is Top Contender for U.S. Republicans

Code:

Polling Data



If the 2008 Republican presidential primary were held today, for whom would you vote if the candidates were:



                 Mar 2006  Sept 2005  Jun 2005

 

Rudy Giuliani       29%       26%       29%

 

John McCain         22%       23%       26%

 

Newt Gingrich        8%        7%        9%

 

Bill Frist           5%        2%        3%

 

Mitt Romney          4%        3%        2%

 

George Allen         3%        2%        3%

 

George Pataki        2%       n.a.      n.a.

 

Chuck Hagel          1%       n.a.      n.a.

0 Replies

McCain needs to get his message out there more.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

our more leftist press, which is most of the MSM

Most of the mainstream press is more leftwing than where you're standing, correct.

Then again, so is, like, three-quarter of the US population..

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
our more leftist press, which is most of the MSM

Most of the mainstream press is more leftwing than where you're standing, correct.

Then again, so is, like, three-quarter of the US population..

Which only proves just how successful the press's evil, librul, feminazi conspiracy is at brainwashing unsuspecting Americans. Laughing

0 Replies

Haha, I wasnt prepared for that one!
Yup, cant argue with that ... I mean, literally, you cant ;-)

0 Replies

Well, all responsible polling data that I've ever seen would suggest that the American MSM is left of MOST Americans, not just Foxfyre.

What is the source of the data you posted Nimh? Guliani of course would poll well in the east but I doubt he would be close to the top out here in fly over country. But I'm just guessing too.

0 Replies

Foxfyre asks the question I am curious about, where was the poll taken? Is this poll from New York or a sampling from around the country? The answer makes a huge difference in the interpretation.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Well, all responsible polling data that I've ever seen would suggest that the American MSM is left of MOST Americans, not just Foxfyre.

Now I finally understand why it's called MSM.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Foxfyre asks the question I am curious about, where was the poll taken? Is this poll from New York or a sampling from around the country? The answer makes a huge difference in the interpretation.

A click on the link shows it was from 900 people but no clue about the distribution around the country. It looks like the people with the most name recognition wins. I doubt if people outside of their states even know who Romney and Allen are.

0 Replies

Personally, I don't believe Giulianai has the political experience to be President. He was Mayor of New York. Not the glowing experience i feel that makes one Presedential material.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

It looks like the people with the most name recognition wins.

Which only makes sense, as nobody is campaigning to make himself known yet.

0 Replies

Heres your frontrunner for the Democrats in 08. In regard to illegal immigration legislation, "Clinton says, "It is certainly not in keeping with my understanding of the Scriptures, because this bill would literally criminalize the Good Samaritan and probably even Jesus himself." "

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7002897556

I hope she runs so all of her bizarre quotes can be dredged up. All the Republican candidates probably can't wait.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

What is the source of the data you posted Nimh?

Click the link and find out! (You might be interested to find that the poll was commissioned by Fox News...)

Foxfyre wrote:

Well, all responsible polling data that I've ever seen would suggest that the American MSM is left of MOST Americans, not just Foxfyre.

Well, I'd sure be interested to see all that responsible polling data, then. Because a quick browse through the pollingreport.com site yields just the one poll on this question. There's a poll about what people think the personal political preferences of journalists are, there's questions about bias on specific topics, but there's just one poll listed that simply asks about the general bias in actual news coverage.

Notably, it shows something very different from your contention. Everyone agrees the media is biased, for sure - overwhelming majorities of both Republicans, Democrats and Independents, in fact:

Quote:

Chicago Tribune Poll conducted by Market Shares Corp. June 23-27, 2004. N=1,000 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (total sample).

"Thinking again about the media and their news stories about politics, elected officials, and election campaigns, do you think their coverage is biased or not biased?"

Code:ALL Republ's Indep's Democr's Biased 76% 85% 74% 73% Not Biased 14% 11% 16% 17% Don't Know 9% 4% 9% 9%

But biased what way? Unsurprisingly (to me, anyway), only about one in five respondents said "in favour of Democrats", and an even small minority said "in favour of Republicans". Unlike Foxfyre, the mainstream American apparently just believes that the bias favours each party about the same:

Quote:

"Generally speaking, do you think the news media are mostly biased in favor of Republicans, mostly biased in favor of Democrats, or does the bias favor each party about the same?"

Code:ALL Repub's Indep's Democr's (Not biased / Don't know if biased) 14% 11% 16% 17% In Favor of Democrats 22% 53% 14% 4% Each About The Same 36% 26% 42% 40% In Favor of Republicans 13% 4% 11% 24% Don't Know 5% 2% 7% 4%

There you are. Of all respondents, 50% exactly believed the media was either not biased, or biased in a way that favours both parties about the same.

0 Replies

IMO, the Chicago Trib poll contradicts every comprehensive poll I've ever seen, and again we have no data on who was polled or where. Was the poll in the Chicago area only--Illinois is a blue state--or was it nationwide? Most people don't need a poll to know that the media is more favorable to the Left here than they are to the Right.

On the Opinion Dynamics poll, I would still also like to see the demographics of the polling area before I drew any firm conclusions re the results. I don't care if Guiliani is leading at this point because I like Guiliani, but any impromptu favorability at this time is likely only fleeting. But out of curiosity, I would like to know who was polled.

IMO, we should be wary of confusing 'liberal' or "left" with Democrats and 'conservative' or 'right' with Republicans. During a campaign either might pretend to emulate any favorable issues of the other and, in fact, that is already happening. Those like Hillary Clinton and even John McCain will have a tougher time campaigning in opposition to their own voting records. Guliani has less problems in that area, but he will still bring his own baggage along and some of it will be problematic for him.

Mitt Romney is a thoroughly likeable fellow, and I very much like the Reaganesque point of view of Allen at this time. The campaign has a way of shaking out the stuff that is just blowing smoke and that which is authentic, however, and we will see.

0 Replies

So I'd like to ask, Foyfyre, why you don't post NOW just s single one of all the responsible polling data suggesting that the American MSM is left of most Americans that you've ever seen.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

IMO, the Chicago Trib poll contradicts every comprehensive poll I've ever seen, and again we have no data on who was polled or where. Was the poll in the Chicago area only--Illinois is a blue state--or was it nationwide?

Fox, the info is right there in the post you just responded to:

Quote:

Chicago Tribune Poll conducted by Market Shares Corp. June 23-27, 2004. N=1,000 adults nationwide.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

So I'd like to ask, Foyfyre, why you don't post NOW just s single one of all the responsible polling data suggesting that the American MSM is left of most Americans that you've ever seen.

Walter, I am not posting it because I don't want to hunt them up AGAIN and they've been posted numerous times on various A2K threads. And it isn't really pertinent anyway. There is substantial data that 75% or more of those gathering and reporting the news are registered Democrats and tilt left. My primary college major was journalism with emphasis in print and electronic media and, in my opinion from reading the research and personal observation, the MSM largely tilts left. There are exceptions yes including the Chicago Sun, New York Post, Washington Times, the WSJ editorial division, and a few others, but these are relatively rare exceptions overall.

Anyhow, thanks Nimh. I did overlook that reference that the Trib poll was nationwide. When dealing with the average man on the street or Walter Smile

I suppose it could even reflect public opinion. It does not prove whether the media tilts Left or Right, of course, but only reflects public opinion.

You can look at A2K posts and see how those on the Left mostly think the media is largely fair and balanced and how those on the Right don't think that. So ideology or a lack thereof is no doubt a factor in perception. There are a lot more folks who are Left plus those who don't have a clue than there are those of us who know we are on the Right.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Heres your frontrunner for the Democrats in 08. In regard to illegal immigration legislation, "Clinton says, "It is certainly not in keeping with my understanding of the Scriptures, because this bill would literally criminalize the Good Samaritan and probably even Jesus himself." "

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7002897556

I hope she runs so all of her bizarre quotes can be dredged up. All the Republican candidates probably can't wait.

I am not a huge fan of Hillary Clinton but actually her statement is correct in the context that she meant it. The bill in which she objected to had in it a clause in which private citizens and charities who help illegal immigrants in any way can be criminalized. As we know from the story of the Good Smaritan, everyone in need is supposed to be our neighbor and we are supposed to help them regardless of who they are or where they come from.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200603240016
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2010:25-37&version=31;

0 Replies

I'm not aware that the person that the Good Samaritan helped was breaking any law, and if so, perhaps help would have been given along with transportation back to where he was supposed to be. I doubt very seriously that being a good neighbor includes helping someone break the law. Just a little reasoning would help alot here. So Hillary's reasoning is not correct at all. It is very cockeyed and shes trying to use religion to further her political agenda, and using it in a false way, which makes it even worse. She thinks she's clever and fooling people, or perhaps she really thinks what she is saying, which is just as bad because it shows the lack of ability to use logic.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

I'm not aware that the person that the Good Samaritan helped was breaking any law, and if so, perhaps help would have been given along with transportation back to where he was supposed to be. I doubt very seriously that being a good neighbor includes helping someone break the law.

Well, the Bible text does say:

Quote:

The expert in the law replied, "The one who had mercy on him."
Jesus told him, "Go and do likewise."

And not:

Quote:

The expert in the law replied, "The one who had mercy on him."
Jesus told him, "Go and do likewise, unless the person in question was breaking any of the laws of the land, whether just or unjust."

Making it illegal to help a person in need, no matter who he is - making it illegal to have mercy on someone in need, no matter who he is - thats downright unchristian.

0 Replies

A first(?) thread on 2008: McCain,Giuliani & the Republicans

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know