A new AP/Ipsos poll seems to support David’s point about the fluidity of the GOP race so far:
White men, conservatives, evangelicals and other pivotal building blocs of the Republican Party are divided among its leading contenders for president, leaving the race for the 2008 GOP nomination highly fluid, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll.
Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson are each attracting significant support from core GOP groups, based on the poll conducted this week. Even Sen. John McCain of Arizona, whose campaign has been staggered by money problems and staff shake-ups, is backed by solid shares of suburban, college-educated and Midwestern Republican voters.
The roughly one-third of Republicans in the poll who said they disapprove of the job President Bush is doing were gravitating around all three of those hopefuls. Overall, the survey underscores that no contender has yet to convincingly make the case that he is the candidate for change that so many voters want as the party searches for its identity and a successor to Bush.
The horserace:
Giuliani 24%
Thompson 19%
McCain 15%
Romney 7%
Results like this, and the general feeling that the race remains unsettled, suggest that McCain remains very much in the mix, despite his disastrous few months. Meanwhile, while Giuliani leads the field, he has nothing like the clear command of the race that Hillary Clinton does on the Democratic side.
Oh, and I couldn’t resist noting this anecdote from the article:
Lisa Baudoin, 40, a student and homemaker in Sugarland, Texas, said she is a conservative and supporting Thompson because of his views on abortion and immigration. She said she does not like Giuliani’s more moderate immigration stance or his three marriages, and doesn’t like McCain’s opposition to the U.S. torturing terrorism suspects.
“How are you going to get information? They don’t play nice. Why do we have to if no one else is,” she said.
Awesome. Your 2008 GOP: Party of Torture.
3 Responses to “Poll: Republicans Have No Favorite”
whats this damaged moral standing nonsense? i never understood when liberals say things like ‘we’re losing the moral high ground’. to who? who are we ceding the high ground to? bin laden? iran? korea? who exactly is looking morally superior to us that calls for this ridiculous liberal rhetoric. liberals are just so over the top with rhetoric that facts bounce right off their forehead. liberals see a war with 3700 casualties and call it worse then fdr’s 450,000 casualties, truman’s 56,000, and johnson’s 58,000. i guess dems get a pass when soldiers turn up dead, especially drafted ones. they whine about guatanimo, the safest maximum security prsion on earth, with zero murders. find me one democrat with a prison in their district where they can make that claim. the red cross has an office in git’mo for gods sake. ah and then there is abu ghrab, where soldiers made nudey piles with prisoners, oh the horror. i wonder if nick berg would have prefered a nudey pile or water boarding to having his head sawed off. we are losing no moral highground, zero. this is the liberal tactic though, since no liberal has ever won the presidency on a platform of optimism they instead try to depress the public into voting for failed demosocialist policies.
whats even more ridiculous is that this democrat congress has voted to continue funding the war, despite their rhetoric, voted to expand the presidents wiretapping powers, despite their rhetoric, no democrat has offered any of their local prisons to house terrorist prisoners of git’mo, despite their rhetoric, and have offered no alternative of any benefit to our country.
bottom line is democrats can’t win with high taxes and socialism against low taxes and the free market, so they aim to depress the public to the point of voting for them. carter did it, clinton did it, and clinton part deux will try to do it again.
Something to say?
beats being the party of surrender.
Left by bbatts
September 14, 2007 at 5:35pm