Just taking a fun, informal and un-scientific poll of you Sound Politics readers about which Republican Presidential candidate(s) you like in 2008.
I've included just about everyone whom I could think of expressing an interest in seeking the GOP nomination, along with a few near the bottom who aren't.
Try to focus on the reasons for supporting one particular candidate as opposed to the reasons why you dislike another.
1) Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani - New York
www.joinrudy2008.com
2) Sen. John McCain - Arizona
www.johnmccain.com
3) Gov. Mitt Romney - Massachusetts
www.mittromney.com
4) Former Speaker Newt Gingrich - Georgia
www.newt.org
5) Former Sen. Fred Thomspon - Tennessee
www.fred08.com
6) Former Gov. Mike Huckabee - Arkansas
www.explorehuckabee.com
7) Rep. Tom Tancredo - Colorado
www.teamtancredo.com
8) Sen. Sam Brownback - Kansas
www.brownback.com
9) Rep. Duncan Hunter - California
www.gohunter08.com
10) Rep. Ron Paul - Texas
www.ronpaul2008.com
11) Former Gov. James Gilmore - Virginia
www.gilmoreforpresident.com
12) Michael Savage, talk show host - California
www.michaelsavage.com
13) Former Gov. Tommy Thompson - Wisconsin
www.tommy2008.com
14) Sen. Chuck Hagel - Nebraska
www.drafthagel08.com
15) Gov. Jeb Bush - Florida *
www.jeb.org
16) Sec. State Condoleezza Rice - California *
www.4condi.com
17) Vice-President Dick Cheney - Wyoming*
18) Former Vice-President Dan Quayle - Arizona*
19) Former VP candidate Jack Kemp - New York*
20) Former Sec. State. Colin Powell - New York*
21) None of the above!!!
Update
For some reason the links are broken, I'm trying to fix and/or ignore the problem.
I think a run by Newt Gingrich is going to be difficult because he seems to be too polorizing- i.e. people either really like him or really hate him.
I don't know enough about Fred Thompson. If he's going to be a serious candidate, he needs to get out there and make his views known.
Posted by: David on March 21, 2007 07:06 PMFred has conservative bonafides akin to Ray-Gun and he can communicate. When he speaks, you listen.
The GOP drafting a man for the 2000 ticket who isn't much of a public speaker turns out to be one hell of a blunder. In the 21st century communication skills count for more than managment ability. I'll never forget: At the time, one of the GOPs leading lights, who was instrumental in drafting Bush, said of him that he was "the whole package." Sure don't want to make that mistake again.
I haven't forgotten the quote but I've forgotten his name. Anybody have a clue?
Listen to his commentary from the Paul Harvey Show about illegal immigration. Perfect.
Posted by: G Jiggy on March 21, 2007 07:50 PMHe's a solid B, B+
I have at least one major issue with all the other leading candidates.
Jeb Bush or Condi Rice would be prefered though.
And I'll admit part of me wants to tell the Dems to shove it and nominate Newt.
Posted by: Cicero on March 21, 2007 08:40 PMA Romney/Thompson ticket sounds good to me. Think they would make a good team.
Posted by: Clean House on March 21, 2007 08:48 PMFor unmentioned dark horses, I'd look at Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina or Gov. Haley Barbour from Mississippi. Sanford has had epic battles with his legislature over pork spending, and Barbour has been notable for the lack of stories about Mississippi's recovery from Katrina (which, since he's GOP, means it's coming along fine.)
I'd love a Thompson/Rice ticket, but I think Thompson/Sanford is more realistic.
Posted by: Heartless Libertarian on March 21, 2007 08:58 PMThe idea that Newt can't beat Shrillary is nonsense. Newt can stand up against any or all of the other candidates and do it with class and aplomb.
Posted by: Paul on March 21, 2007 09:24 PMIf push comes to shove, I will cross party lines to vote for Obama to beat Hillary for the nomination. The worst possible scenario is Hillary.
Posted by: Jeff B. on March 21, 2007 10:03 PMMcCain lost me when with campaign finance reform. It should his true belief, and it isn't conservative.
Tancredo is a great for a sound bite, but not a serious candidate. He has one note, and it is irritating. Proposing to destroy the US economy to save us from illegals is just a non-starter.
Something about Romney just isn't right. He has made a few mis-steps, like the Castro quote, that makes me wonder if he is really up to the task. Again, he is brilliant. But I see a disaster like George Allen lurking.
I really like Rudy, but I suspect he has too many skeletons in his closet to be electable on the national stage. Of course, with such a shortened primary cycle, it might not matter.
So, it is Thompson/Hunter. Thompson can talk rings around everyone, and Hunter has some really interesting things to say.
Posted by: janet s on March 21, 2007 10:07 PMBut, without that choice, I would vote for Rudy Guiliani. I think he would be the correct person for the job and, much as do not agree with the other side, be able to satisfy their needs and help bring our country back together.
McCain, I think is a great Senator, and as such his strength has been more of a Presidential critique. I would like to seem him continue in that role.
Romney is difficult for me because of one key issue: He spearheaded the adoption of the OpenDocument format in Massachusetts and took on the Microsoft Bully Boys...his successor, a Democrat, could not cut the program completely out, even though I suspect part of why he was put in office was to do so.
But Romney has not spoken to me beyond that issue.
My suggestion: Romney for a high level Cabinet post in the Giuliani administration.
Posted by: John Bailo on March 21, 2007 10:14 PMHere is a good video of Giulaiai explaining his positions. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMAXw3ZZuYU
Posted by: Andrew S. on March 21, 2007 10:32 PMHell no on McCain- he is the last I would vote for. I'm also disapointed in Giuliani in his stance on illegal immigration.
Posted by: Tommy boy on March 21, 2007 10:52 PMI would like to see a stronger stance on illegal immigration from Giuliani.
Hillary would be a disaster and Obama is still wet behind the ears. He has no history.
Posted by: Marge on March 22, 2007 12:05 AMI have noticed that in presidential elections, the candidate whose party is most enthused about him/her usually wins. I see too much apathy for the Rs from the base for '08, and more excitement for Hillary and B. Hussein Obama amongest the dems. This makes the dem candidate look more promising. Last two times around, the republican base was more excited about W than the dems were about their guys, esp. John Kerry (one liberal news outlet reported that a dem desribed Kerry as "a flavorless pudding"). W of course ruled the day. I see things looking more promising based on the aforementioned right now.
Posted by: Michele on March 22, 2007 01:01 AMRomney is tough on the border problem as is Hunter.
Big issue is national security and I would take any Republican over any Democrat today.
Posted by: swatter on March 22, 2007 07:20 AMIdeologically I am closest to the Consitution Party, but won't vote for non-viable candidates. Gringrich, Thompson, Romney, Brownback all seen pretty good. Of those Gringrich I know the most about, but he has a uphill battle and may not be acceptable to the middle 20%.
Giuliani is to far left for me, however he would be steady hand and the helm. Rudy vs. Hillary or Edwards or Obama is a no brainer.
McCain no way no how. McCain-Feingold went too far in book, he seems more interested in being the media darling than taking a stand.
Savage is joke, he is blow hard I getting the feeling he doesn't believe half the line he talks.
My dream ticket which would never happen is Cheney, rock solid and doesn't take crap off anyone, and Rice. That would drive the left off the cliff, and be a solid ticket.
Posted by: JCM on March 22, 2007 07:33 AMHe does have the advantage of being outside of the mudslinging in DC. He's still been visible being an analyst on Fox News. He doesn't have any personal life negatives (that we know of) that the press can take advantage of. And he sounds like he has some conservative credentials.
He does lack recent political experience, and his opponents will try to use that angle, but then again Guiliani hasn't held political office recently either. I think mostly what Fred has going for him is that no one is particularly enthralled with any of the front running GOP candidates so far.
Posted by: Palouse on March 22, 2007 07:59 AM(Which is kind of ironic when you think about it.)
Thompson.
Posted by: Hinton on March 22, 2007 08:10 AMI think you would find Fred Thompson will not have as much trouble raising money as you may think. There are rumbles that some of the personnel on the steering committees for other candidates are willing to bail on who they are working for and jump in with both feet for Thompson. Romney is especially worried about this, because his money guy is a really close friend to Thompson and has said he would love to see Thompson run.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on March 22, 2007 08:17 AMI like D Hunter too but not sure how far he can get.
McCain has no real chance and if he even gets close the MSM who loves him, will eat him if he get's close to Billary.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 22, 2007 08:20 AMhttp://www.Canticle4Leibowitz.com
Posted by: Bob Leibowitz on March 22, 2007 08:54 AMMy dream (and totally unrealistic [remember it's a DREAM!]) scenario would be that Cheney voluntarily vacate the VP seat and Gingrich miraculously take his place, leading to a Gingrich-Giuliani/Guliani-Gingrich ticket...(remember it's a DREAM!)
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on March 22, 2007 08:55 AMA side note: If 2008 is a good year for the Democrats, it's because people like Richard Pope are their moles.
Posted by: Eunice Burns on March 22, 2007 08:55 AMNext is Rudy. I'm very impressed with how he handled things after 9/11. I also like how he's able to bridge the divide between conservatives and liberals. Our current President was attractive that way too, but Washington liberals are too stubborn to ever give him a chance. Phbt! Maybe they'd give Rudy a chance though and we could get some good stuff done. There's nothing to suggest his judicial nominees would be anything other than Constitutional minded either, so the pro-choice thing doesn't matter in all reality.
My 3rd is Fred Thompson. I don't know much other than I always feel like jumping up and down clapping every time I hear him speak. Hardly a really good qualification, but since I'm solidly conservative, that has to mean something.
My 4th is Mitt Romney. What I've heard about him I do like a lot. I also like that he was Governor of a super liberal state. Kind of like Dino Rossi, just more accomplished. He was also a cracker jack businessman and I'm always a fan of having a very accomplished businessman in the CIC spot (unless he's a fruit loop like Buffet or Gates or other liberals).
The others I just don't really know. Tancredo sounds like a whack job. Michael Savage would NEVER get past 10% in a primary. I mean, the guy pisses conservatives off, he pisses everyone off. Brownback just seems like a non-entity. I heard him interviewed yesterday and was very underwhelmed.
Posted by: ferrous on March 22, 2007 09:32 AMRomney is a Flip-Flopper, he doesn't have a chance. He even has a guy in a dolphin suit following him around.
Guliani is the only way the GOP can swing the moderate voters over to their side. His hero status after 9/11 is worth it's weight in gold. You want to win in 2008 go Guliani.
Gingrich may be the best bet for the conservative wing but he's got a lot of baggage. He's going to run, just look at all the trips he making to key election states. I'd like to see him run.
The GOP needs a centrist candidate with conservative principles.
I'd write-in the cat's name before voting for McCain.
Posted by: jimg on March 22, 2007 09:49 AMThere's a long way to go, but I think I would be in favor of Thompson first if he runs, then Rudy.
I think Rudy would win a nomination over McCain, but I would still vote for McCain over Hillary. There is not an honest conservative out there who can possibly think McCain would be worse for this country than Hillary.
Posted by: Palouse on March 22, 2007 09:55 AMProbably a shoo-in if he decides to run. His communication skills would be second to none.
Posted by: Ken on March 22, 2007 10:22 AMProbably a shoo in if he decides to run. The only real electable conservative in the whole bunch.
Posted by: Ken on March 22, 2007 10:24 AMThat Obama is an acknowledged empty suit won't stop you from supporting him if he's the leftist candidate, right, Cato?
I would love to see a head-to-head comparison between the two. And the fact is that the only thing Obama's got going for him is that he's "clean."
Thompson's got a conservative record that stretches back decades.
And I'll take that any time over just another pretty face.
Posted by: Hinton on March 22, 2007 10:24 AMFrankly, I’ll take any real Conservative such as Hunter or Fred Thompson – and I think Newt is brilliant (but not completely Conservative). One tiny problem for Thompson and Newt is that neither is genuinely running! (yet?)
How about Tancredo/Hunter, Thompson/Tancredo, Thompson/Hunter, Thompson/Gingrich? All no-brainers – all in a heartbeat.
Resist Judy McRomnesty!
Someone put Giuliani’s character well – he’s a tough-on-crime Democrat. Perfect. He’s also a cross-dressing, wife-cheating, gun-grabbing, infanticide-loving mayor. Mayor! (he may be an excellent leader – but to where does he want to lead us?)
Romney is a blow-dried used-car salesman – admittedly, a very good one. What does he actually believe in this week? I honestly think he’s held more positions than Bill Clinton. This guy’s ideological acrobatics makes Flipper seem an invalid by comparison. Perhaps there’s an opening at SeaWorld. We need a lot more steadfastness, honesty, and Conservative conviction we can rely on at this critical time.
McCain? A dangerous political time-bomb, who’s pretty much toast with anyone serious on the Right. (Keating 5, McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy (McAmnesty), Gang of 14, Voted AGAINST Bush tax relief, etc..)
Stop Judy McRomnesty!
I’d also like to see Cheney step-down (for health reasons) and let someone else gain the experience, grooming, and exposure in the Vice Presidency. Condi, Tancredo, Gingrich, Thompson? This should be a no-brainer if Bush weren’t such a tool, bent on gutting the right-wing of his party.
-JP
And he likes the NEA:
Voted YES on funding for National Endowment for the Arts.
And is soft on illegal immigrants:
Voted YES on allowing more foreign workers into the US for farm work.
The masked executioner of Saddam Hussein: Fred Thompson.
The reason Fred Thompson didn't want to stay in the Senate for long is because all the extra scrutiny kept him from doing his favorite hobby: Prowling the streets at night killing drug dealers.
Fred Thompson reconsidered running for reelection after 9/11 but later decided to handle things on his own. He was soon seen entering the Middle East with a bottle of tequila in one hand an a handgun in the other. They're still counting the dead.
Why does Iran want nuclear weapons? Out of fear of Fred Thompson.
And finally, If Fred Thompson was at Thermopylae the movie would have been called 1" and we'd all be wondering if Persia really ever existed
Yip Yip
How is Obama an empty suit? He seems to fill his suits quite well. I've got photos to prove it. =)
This forum is about Washington State issues...mainly Puget Sound (hence the name). DO NOT talk about national issues.
This directive repeats the protestations of the leasdership of this forum.
Posted by: StefanIsWrong on March 22, 2007 10:41 AMThat canard was floated and sunk a few days ago.
Posted by: Coyote on March 22, 2007 10:45 AMFred Thompson.
Posted by: Smoley on March 22, 2007 10:57 AMFred Thompson recently said that McCain/Fiengold was a mistake and that a better way is to fully open-up contributions and make it mandatory that contributions are reported within 24 hours on a central web site. Now that makes good common sense.
Voting to allow legal workers in isn't being "soft" on illegal immigration. It's called finding a solution to getting people here legally who want to work. And before you say that they are taking jobs from Americans, please note that unemployment is at historic lows and has been for some time now.
Look, most people don't agree with their wife 100% percent of the time so how can you agree 100% with some politician you don't even know? It's unreasonable and unrealistic to think that you can.
If extending funding to the NEA or banning union political money is all you have on him, he's my guy more than ever.
Another opinion from Fred is that he says government has gotten way to large and intrusive. With that single statement I'd follow his a** to the ends of the earth.
Fred '08
Posted by: G Jiggy on March 22, 2007 10:57 AMTouche'
Posted by: Coyote on March 22, 2007 11:06 AMThe fact that the likes of Cato are arguing against him means he knows that he's a viable threat to Obama/Hillary, who we all know Cato is voting for.
As a Thompson run becomes more likely, you will see the factions on the left lining up hard against him because they know he's a threat. I'm sure they're already trying to dig up whatever they can on him right now.
Posted by: Palouse on March 22, 2007 11:09 AMReagan said the same thing in 1980 and ended up spending more money than any other president in history (at that point). He also ended his term with the highest debt to GDP ratio we've ever had in this country.
If you want a smaller Govt. elect a Libertarian.
Another old canard and I am hesitant to engage you on this because I am afraid it would end up hijacking the thread.
Reagan wanted to cut more spending however he was faced with a congress that was run by Tip O'neil. The Tippster basically said that RR's budget was DOA so RR decided to get the most important of the two items he wanted. That is the supply side tax cuts. Thus giving this country the longest running economic expansion in history AND providing the revenue to pay for the exhorbitant government expenditures offered by the Democrats.
What do you want? A king?
Didn't think so.
Now back to your regularly schedule programming.
yip yip
Posted by: Coyote on March 22, 2007 11:16 AMCan we get a real candidate?
Posted by: H Moul on March 22, 2007 11:49 AMI also believe that Stefan's work will make a significant difference in future elections. That other shoe has really yet to drop....it may be civil and not criminal but it will drop.
Posted by: skyeyedgal on March 22, 2007 12:56 PMI also believe that Stefan's work will make a significant difference in future elections. That other shoe has really yet to drop....it may be civil and not criminal but it will drop.
Posted by: skyeyedgal on March 22, 2007 02:09 PMCare to define that, there seems to be a lot of disagreement on what a 'True Conservative' is. Is Dubya a true conservative? What about Barry Goldwater, Orin Hatch, Strom Thurmond, Newt Gingrich, or Abraham Lincoln?
I totally agree with you. I actually have a Condi Rice / President / 08 bumper sticker on my car. I consider it a place holder though until she decides to run / or I settle on somebody else. I take her at her word, meanwhile, that she really wents to be National Football Commissioner. I have several realistic candidates that I'm following in the mean time.
Posted by: RBW on March 22, 2007 07:51 PMCondi Rice understands why the founders understood that everyone needs to be able to defee
nd themself.
Her father and neighbors needed to arm themselves with personal shotguns and other weapons to stand off the night riders that rode with the authority of the law enforcement officers like Bull Conner.
RBW
I think Newt has the best grasp of issues but would be killed in 30 second soundbites.
Mitt seems clever enough and has some of the right mojo but does he have grasp of issues...that is yet to be seen.
It is still early to decide.
Posted by: AHR on March 22, 2007 09:34 PMFWIW, I chaired the Snohomish County GOP caucus for Council District 1 last Saturday, and we held a straw poll. Being an off year for Council District 1, we had only 16 participants show up. The breakdown of our informal straw poll was 8 for Thompson, 3 each for McCain and Gingrich, and 1 each for Giuliani and Hunter.
I'd vote for RUDY.
Posted by: AD on March 22, 2007 11:56 PMI'll give a brief view of each on the list below.
1) Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani - New York
www.joinrudy2008.com
(Rudy is the best all around candidate the Rep's have, more on him late)
2) Sen. John McCain - Arizona
www.johnmccain.com
(John's a good candidate, but he's hated by the far Left for being a war supporter, and hated by the far right for McCain-Feingold and other liberal postions)
3) Gov. Mitt Romney - Massachusetts
www.mittromney.com
(I like Mitt too...he's sharp, smart, articulate, and attractive. But can't get traction right now. A very good VP candidate though)
4) Former Speaker Newt Gingrich - Georgia
www.newt.org
(He's sharp and smart. But too polarizing. The media hate him, so will NEVER give him a fair shake. He's better as a Presidential advisor or possible VP candidate to get some right-wing votes for moderates like McCAin or GUilliani.)
5) Former Sen. Fred Thomspon - Tennessee
www.fred08.com
(I like Fred. But he's a unremarkable Senator, and has nothing to distinguish himself other than some TV and movie appearnaces. I think he'd be a good VP candidate to get some more conservative votes for a McCAin or Guilliani, but couldn't win. He also seems too much like the Old Boy's Club that the GOP needs to get away from if they want to win in 2008)
6) Former Gov. Mike Huckabee - Arkansas
www.explorehuckabee.com
(Don't know him, no one does, and therefore, has little chance unless he can work a masterful campaign)
7) Rep. Tom Tancredo - Colorado
www.teamtancredo.com
(I like Tom, a good, solid conservative. But too polarizing like Newt, could never get elected President.)
8) Sen. Sam Brownback - Kansas
www.brownback.com
(Same with Huckabee...unknown and likely to stay that way)
9) Rep. Duncan Hunter - California
www.gohunter08.com
(See #8)
10) Rep. Ron Paul - Texas
www.ronpaul2008.com
(See #8)
11) Former Gov. James Gilmore - Virginia
www.gilmoreforpresident.com
(See #8)
12) Michael Savage, talk show host - California
www.michaelsavage.com
(One of the few people even MORE polarizing than GWB, Hillary, or Newt. Not chance in hell of winning, no credentials and WAY too many sound bites to hammer him with. Net sure I'd even vote for him. There's a lot of people that have views I agree with, but don't think could handle being President. He's interesting though)
13) Former Gov. Tommy Thompson - Wisconsin
www.tommy2008.com
(see #8)
14) Sen. Chuck Hagel - Nebraska
www.drafthagel08.com
(Couldn't win the primary. Too many conservatives don't like him because he sides with the Dems more often than note)
15) Gov. Jeb Bush - Florida *
www.jeb.org
(Unelectable because his last name is Bush. Hillary will have her last name working against her, no need to to run a candidate with the same problem)
16) Sec. State Condoleezza Rice - California *
www.4condi.com
(No executive experience, and never ran for a public office. Great future potential, but I don't think 2008 is her time. Possible sleeper VP candidate though)
17) Vice-President Dick Cheney - Wyoming*
(Are you serious? Even if he did want to run, even Hillary would win in a landslide against him)
18) Former Vice-President Dan Quayle - Arizona*
(Yea, right)
19) Former VP candidate Jack Kemp - New York*
(See #8)
20) Former Sec. State. Colin Powell - New York*
(could win in a route against anyone the Dem's could run, especially if he took a more conservative VP, especially if he's critical of Bush during the campaign. But doesn't want to run, so is a moot point)
So to summarize, unless there are some real changes, really Rudy, Mitt, and John are the only serius Presidential candidates. All are good, moderate candidates, which are needed if the Rep's want to win in 2008. Mitt's still trying to become know. McCain just seems old and grumpy, and his campaign has been horribly run thus far. Rudy's the only guy with recognition, broad appeal and star power. He has leadership credentials which I think Americans are genuinly hungry for after 8 years of no leadership form Clinton and other than a brief year there after 9/11, sorta spotty leadership from Bush (although I think the hostile media and rabid Demon-cats pretty much undercut any leadership he might have been able to really convey to the people. I don't think he's a bad leader, but he can no longer give the impression of leadership with the hostile Left going crazy)
Rudy is also "America's Mayor", he's even keeled and I think the media and Dem's will just come accorss and petty when they attack him. All he has to do is say, "I stand on my record of leadership, can the esteemed senator from NY/IL say the same thing?"
But here's why I really think Rudy is the guy. He has the potential to delivery the swing states, as well as some light blue states, and maybe even a dark blue state like New York. He kills Hillary in most polls in NY. And he puts states like Penn, Iowa, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Wisconsin, and Minnesota on the table. Maybe even Washington STate out here. That may be a reach, but Rossi won in 2004 (even though the Dem's had to stuff the ballots to beat him), and Cant-vote-well barely beat Gordon in 2000. Even uninspiring McGavick was at least in the hunt. Then Dem's know this and are afraid of him. While I don't think we'll ever see the old Reagan era landslides, I think Rudy wins narrowly at worst, and wins in a route at best.
If he took THompson or Romney or Condi as a VP, that could help shore up the Right to come out and vote. If Hillary is running, the far right will show up just to vote against her. :-)
That, folks, is what I call a whackjob. Not only is it something that is not even feasible, it's just ridiculous not to mention borderline fascist. I don't like it one bit that millions have decided to be here illegally. But I also don't think they are overwhelmingly out to steal my job, rob me, or whatever.
A person like Tancredo (or Savage for that matter) is not electable to President. Whether you like it or not, that national office is going to require a little moderation. Staunch conservatism isn't going to fly to make it happen.
Posted by: ferrous on March 23, 2007 10:42 AM
Sorry - The string of lies you've just spewed reveals your own whackiness.
You might want to consider changing your momiker to 'feral' ferrous.
Posted by: Jefferson Paine on March 23, 2007 01:00 PMNewsMax will provide the results of this poll to major media and share them with radio talk show hosts across the country.
Here are the poll questions and results:
1) What is your overall opinion of Newt Gingrich?
Favorable: 87 percent
Unfavorable: 10 percent
No Opinion: 3 percent
2) Is Newt Gingrich your candidate for president in 2008?
Yes: 68 percent
No: 32 percent
3) In the following field, who is your 2008 candidate?
John McCain: 2 percent
Condi Rice: 4 percent
Mike Huckabee: 2 percent
Mitt Romney: 6 percent
Rudy Giuliani: 12 percent
Tom Tancredo: 5 percent
Ron Paul: 2 percent
Newt Gingrich: 58 percent
Duncan Hunter: 1 percent Other: 10 percent
4) In a Republican primary of Newt vs. Rudy Giuliani and John McCain, who would you vote for?
Rudy Giuliani: 17 percent
John McCain: 5 percent
Newt Gingrich: 78 percent
5) If the 2008 President race was between Newt Gingrich and Hillary Clinton, who would you vote for?
Newt Gingrich: 95 percent
Hillary Clinton: 5 percent
Posted by: HW on March 24, 2007 01:21 PMThere was also a silly V.P. poll where the ballot included Mary Bono, J.C. Watts and Fred Thompson. There was an option to write in an other candidate. The results: F. Thompson 3 votes, Watts 2 votes, Hunter 2 votes, the rest were divided among other write-in candidates who received 1 vote. Mary Bono didn't receive any.
The NewsMax poll is interesting. Were only NewsMax readers polled?
The one thing all this tells me is that you'll get a different result depending on which group of Republicans you poll.
Posted by: Michelle on March 24, 2007 02:23 PMRudy was my man until Fred Thompson's began to get serious traction. Unfortunately, IMHO many conservatives will not give Rudy a pass on his stance on abortion, guns, and choices made in family matters.
Posted by: cardio on March 24, 2007 03:01 PMNewt won the Cowlitz County straw poll. the results were Newt 35%, Rudy 29%, Fred 12%, Mit 8%, McCain 6% all others under 5%. Fred was a write in effort
Posted by: Shannon on March 24, 2007 03:18 PMRun, Fred, Run!
(run, Hillary, run....right back to New York!)
Posted by: Margaret on March 26, 2007 04:23 PM