PDA

View Full Version : Pew: McCain surges past Rudy to take national lead in GOP race


jAZ
01-02-2008, 10:04 AM
This is rather stunning, given the near death of McCain's campaign over the summer.

McCain 22%
Rudy 20%
Huckabee 17%

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/2008-01-02_pew_chart_gop.jpg

That said, I'd rather have to choose between McCain and the Dem, than anyone else and the Dem.

That said, McCain in a general election (with all of the slobbering that the media will do over him) really worries me.

In a McCain v Hillary race, the deadly storyline is already in place. McCain = hero, Hillary = evil.
In a McCain v Obama race, a comatose (but not yet deadly) storyline is also already in place McCain = safe change, Obama = risky change.


I don't care what else is suggested. National political campaigns are hugely dominated by the nature of the media storylines. McCain's storyline favors him over just about anyone because the media loves him.

The best hope for the Dems if McCain really does come out the winner, is that they will have a likely turnout advantage.

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/01/giuliani_loses_his_national_le.html

Giuliani loses his national lead among Republicans
by Mark Silva

The contests for the hearts of Republicans in Iowa and New Hampshire have taken a toll on the long-vaunted national campaign of Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York.

Giuliani, who lags in polling among Republicans in Iowa and New Hampshire but has maintained that he will stake his claim to the party's presidential nomination in bigger state contests to come, now finds himself in stiff competition with Republican rivals nationally.

On the eve of the Iowa caucuses, the Pew Research Center's Andrew Kohut reports today, "Rudy Giuliani’s once solid lead in nationwide polling of Republican voters has vanished. ''

The latest nationwide survey by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press finds about equal levels of support for Sen. John McCain of Arizona (22 percent), Giuliani (20 percent), and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (17 percent).

The Dec. 19-30 survey of 471 Republican and Republican-leaning registered voters nationwide, found that Giuliani’s support has slipped 13 points since September, Pew reports. Huckabee has gained 13 points over that period, and McCain – "whom many analysts all but wrote off over the summer – has rebuilt his base nationwide from a low of 16 percent in September to 22 percent today.

See the full report here.

oldandslow
01-02-2008, 10:17 AM
If it is McCain vs Hillary - I will vote for McCain.

I think a lot of other ind/dem leaning folk will as well.

MGRS13
01-02-2008, 10:26 AM
The GOP has to know that McCain is the only guy running that can acctually win. The rest are just stuffed shirts or only appeal to 20% of thier party. The real question will be did Rove/Bush do to much damage to Mccain 8 years ago?

Cochise
01-02-2008, 10:41 AM
The fact that he seems to be jAZ's favorite Republican candidate should tell us all we need to know. :p

Cochise
01-02-2008, 10:42 AM
The GOP has to know that McCain is the only guy running that can acctually win. The rest are just stuffed shirts or only appeal to 20% of thier party. The real question will be did Rove/Bush do to much damage to Mccain 8 years ago?

He ought to have buried his own political career with his championing of amnesty not even 12 months ago

jAZ
01-02-2008, 11:11 AM
The fact that he seems to be jAZ's favorite Republican candidate should tell us all we need to know. :p
Voted for him over Dem's twice here in AZ.

clemensol
01-02-2008, 02:49 PM
If it is McCain vs Hillary - I will vote for McCain.

I think a lot of other ind/dem leaning folk will as well.

Yeah, I think McCain Hillary would be the worst possible scenario for the dems.

It frustrates me that democrats spend so much time worrying about minor differences between their campaigns and so little time worry about electability.

BucEyedPea
01-02-2008, 03:08 PM
McCain=No Change

jmo

StcChief
01-02-2008, 03:10 PM
McCain=No Change

jmo
compared to Obama/sHillary fine with me.

jAZ
01-02-2008, 03:17 PM
McCain=No Change

jmo
I think it will be a change, but just not on the war in Iraq. Had it been McCain v Gore in 2000 the world would be a far better place today.

BucEyedPea
01-02-2008, 03:18 PM
compared to Obama/sHillary fine with me.
Well ya' have that now, sir!
What's the difference. :shrug: Oh,I know, the difference is daycare being provided now. Plan on taxes, more illegal immigration, more interventions and more unecessary wars.

jAZ
01-02-2008, 03:26 PM
Well ya' have that now, sir!
What's the difference. :shrug: Oh,I know, the difference is daycare being provided now. Plan on taxes, more illegal immigration, more interventions and more unecessary wars.
The thing about McCain is that he isn't *not* a neocon. He wouldn't have gone into Iraq in the 1st place, IMO. He would have focused on Afganistan and continued containment, inspections, etc.

But his view of Iraq is affected largely by 2 things, IMO. Vietnam and politics.

On some level he wants the soldiers in Iraq to feel better about their service than those coming back from Vietnam did. This clouds his judgement, IMO as thier feelings have nothing to do with the objective decision making necessary one way or the other.

That position is also reinforced by the politics of the GOP. That feeling sells well there and thus, his position is reinforced as the best political course of action for him.

All of that said, were he in charge in 2003, we would not have invaded. I believe that completely.

I don't trust McCain like I used to (his pandering to the RR turned his "straight talk" in to BS. But I don't think he's a Leiberman/Cheney clone either.

Taco John
01-02-2008, 03:30 PM
The thing about McCain is that he isn't *not* a neocon. He wouldn't have gone into Iraq in the 1st place, IMO. He would have focused on Afganistan and continued containment, inspections, etc.

But his view of Iraq is affected largely by 2 things, IMO. Vietnam and politics.

On some level he wants the soldiers in Iraq to feel better about their service than those coming back from Vietnam did. This clouds his judgement, IMO as thier feelings have nothing to do with the objective decision making necessary one way or the other.

That position is also reinforced by the politics of the GOP. That feeling sells well there and thus, his position is reinforced as the best political course of action for him.

All of that said, were he in charge in 2003, we would not have invaded. I believe that completely.

I don't trust McCain like I used to (his pandering to the RR turned his "straight talk" in to BS. But I don't think he's a Leiberman/Cheney clone either.


You don't think he's sold out? I was a huge McCain fan in the 2000 run-up, and I don't know how anyone could watch him and NOT think he's sold out.

patteeu
01-02-2008, 03:38 PM
The thing about McCain is that he isn't *not* a neocon. He wouldn't have gone into Iraq in the 1st place, IMO. He would have focused on Afganistan and continued containment, inspections, etc.

But his view of Iraq is affected largely by 2 things, IMO. Vietnam and politics.

On some level he wants the soldiers in Iraq to feel better about their service than those coming back from Vietnam did. This clouds his judgement, IMO as thier feelings have nothing to do with the objective decision making necessary one way or the other.

That position is also reinforced by the politics of the GOP. That feeling sells well there and thus, his position is reinforced as the best political course of action for him.

All of that said, were he in charge in 2003, we would not have invaded. I believe that completely.

I don't trust McCain like I used to (his pandering to the RR turned his "straight talk" in to BS. But I don't think he's a Leiberman/Cheney clone either.

One of McCain's biggest supporters during the 2000 primary was Bill Kristol. I don't think Bill Kristol thinks your analysis is right. I agree with Bill on that.

BucEyedPea
01-02-2008, 03:43 PM
The thing about McCain is that he isn't *not* a neocon. He wouldn't have gone into Iraq in the 1st place, IMO. He would have focused on Afganistan and continued containment, inspections, etc.

McCain said to a veterans group "Bomb, bomb, bomb,bomb, bomb, Iran." McCain supported the Balkan interventions and also was for continued bombing of women and children there. McCain is one of the most blood-thirsty of the NeoCons, at least a rank interventionist. Maybe he would have listened to the Generals on Iraq though I dunno. I'd like to know where you got this info he wasn't for going into Iraq though.

patteeu
01-02-2008, 03:43 PM
You don't think he's sold out? I was a huge McCain fan in the 2000 run-up, and I don't know how anyone could watch him and NOT think he's sold out.

You seem to be something of a political slut. Your infatuations come easily. How can someone go from being a McCain supporter and a supporter of the Iraq invasion to being an Obama supporter to being a Paul supporter? Good thing you can't get STDs from political promiscuity.

I might be able to understand a nuanced position that took you down that convoluted path if it weren't for the fact that you're so judgmental about those who disagree with your squeeze of the week.

patteeu
01-02-2008, 03:45 PM
McCain said to a veterans group "Bomb, bomb, bomb,bomb, bomb, Iran." McCain supported the Balkan interventions and also was for continued bombing of women and children.McCain is one of the most blood-thirsty of the NeoCons.

I have to agree with BEP on this one, although I might characterize it differently and even though I didn't agree with the Balkans involvement, I don't consider his foreign policy philosophy to be one of McCain's big flaws.

mlyonsd
01-02-2008, 05:20 PM
That said, I'd rather have to choose between McCain and the Dem, than anyone else and the Dem.

Let me get this straight.

In another thread Obama was your third dem choice but the only one of the three running?

And McCain is your choice to run from the rep side?

So you and I are pulling for the same guy in each party?

Holy crap, I need a drink. :p

'Hamas' Jenkins
01-03-2008, 12:29 AM
John McCain circa 2000 or 2004 is not John McCain circa 2007/8.

He bent over and took a 2 foot double headed dildo from Bush Co. and changed his tune in every way, shape, and form.

penchief
01-03-2008, 02:39 PM
I think it will be a change, but just not on the war in Iraq. Had it been McCain v Gore in 2000 the world would be a far better place today.

If the election hadn't been stolen from Gore the world would be a much better place.

However, I see McCain and Clinton as different sides of the same coin. I'd have no preference. But either would be better than anything else the republicans are trying to peddle.

Calcountry
01-03-2008, 02:44 PM
My opinion really doesn't matter in all of this, ask Iowanian who he thinks will win.