The Quinnipiac poll asked voters to rate politicians on a scale of 0 to 100, with higher numbers representing more favorable opinions. Giuliani's mean score was 63.5, according to the poll.You know you want to talk about the '08 election. Go ahead!
Obama got a mean score of 59.9, McCain 59.7 and Rice 57.1.
"Not only do Mayor Giuliani and Sen. McCain get the best ratings, but their numbers are uniform across the country," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.
President George W. Bush's rating was 44.1. Vice President Dick Cheney got a 41. Former President Bill Clinton was at 56.1
Four Democrats who are considered potential presidential candidates in 2008 were also mentioned in the poll's top 10: Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards received a 50.8, former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner scored 50.7, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton 50.4 and Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin 49.
७ मार्च, २००६
Rudy Giuliani is the most popular politician in the country.
According to a new Quinnipiac poll.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२७ टिप्पण्या:
I don't mind going first:
Blech.
Or even second.
Oh for Pete's sake, I wrote Obama Barack the first time through! (laugh)
I'm struck that the politicians with the lowest ratings are the ones that we hear about most often -- Dubya and Cheney. I think it's inevitable that as more is learned about any politician, their ratings will decrease. Seriously -- how much does anyone really know about Obama Barack Obama, for example, other than he's a telegenic man who's been annointed a Democratic Savior by the Main Stream Media? The same can be said of Condi. Many of the politicians with high ratings are still enigmas. Give them time and their ratings will fall.
The danger of polls like these in that they limit the ability of unknowns to raise money for nationwhide campaigns. Who will donate money to a campaign if "The Polls" don't mention them? Is that just throwing away your hard-earned money?
How would Carter or Clinton or W have performed in such a poll two years before they were elected? Do polls such as this really do anything worthwhile other than employ pollsters (which may or may not meet your definition of worthwhile).
Alan: Whoops! Sorry. I fixed it...
"My bet is Guiliani won't say much..."
That doesn't sound like Giuliani! One thing we like about him is that he can talk and does talk. Remember how great he was at the Republican Convention in '04? And, of course, on 9/11. I'd love to have a President who could really talk straight to us. I can't remember ever having a President that could do that. And my clear memories go back to LBJ.
The country really needs a candidate who is not a magnet for partisan vitriol. IMHO McCain is the answer.
Hopefully, he could help return the election cycle to the old 4-year mode.
is as far fetched as creationists claiming they have disproved scientific theories of the origins of the universe.
So his nomination is likely?
Who could not like Rudy? Calm and strong in the eye of a terrible storm and not afraid to rub shoulders will all kinds of different people and being able to find some common ground with them counts for alot these days. Common Ground Rudy, that's my man.
Giuliani has the advantage of not being a Senator. Senators have little chance in being elected President. Only two Senators have been elected President in our history although dozens have run.
What is going on with Joe Lieberman?
The shabby way the Democrats have treated him and Hadassaha.
Ann: I'm relatively new here. Would you repeat your thoughts about Joe Lieberman?, and whether you think the Democrats are foolish for not showcasing a proven winner.
Peace, Maxine
Pea
I wonder what the more left-leaning Althouseguests think of Giuliani and Rice?
I am curious about Giuliani's health. He did withdraw from the Senate campaign because of prostate cancer -- which cancer killed his father, as I recall.
As far as the teaming of G&R -- do they like each other? I'm not sure I recall any shared moments between the two -- which means little, given my memory. And will Republicans -- conservative Republicans -- really cotton to a team that includes a twice-divorced Easterner and an unmarried black woman? When I envision a true "Red State" voter, I don't see someone picking such a slate. However, it would depend on who the Democrats nominate, and that party hasn't exactly shown a gift for strong nominees in the recent past. Maybe they'd pick the lesser of two evils. I've done that enough in the past.
G/R would be a strong ticket, appealing to some left leaners, I suspicion. But is such a ticket palatable to fundamentalists? That's the bigger question, IMO
I'm not much thrilled with this prospect, but I will reluctantly agree that McCain is the best choice so far apparent for the GOP in 2008. I have concerns about him and disagreements with him, but I trust him to do the right thing across the broad ambit of the Presidency, while I would have grave concerns about Rice or Rudy, particularly about the kind of judges they might appoint. I am extremely aware that before 2016, Bush and his successor(s) may get to appoint replacements for Stevens, Scalia, Souter and Ginsburg; this is not a task to hand over to someone we have every reason not to trust.
Prince of the City: Giuliani, New York and the genius of American Life
Must-read, before 2008.
As hoosthere said, Giuliani/Rice, unstoppable. She might even get Giuliani California.
Cheers,
Victoria
Careful Alan, you're sounding a little bitter in your easy denunciation or pro-life "crack-pots". What gets lost in that debate is that opposing abortion is an honorable position, when you accept the givens that life in the womb is independent from just the body of the "host".Bravo!
I would agree with Alan ("believing in the almighty power of G-vernment to make reproductive and "end of life" decisions for the individual ain't conservative") were it not for the fact that abortion is not, in my view, simply a reproductive decision. If government (and I mean primarily state governments here) can criminalize murder - and I have yet to meet a libertarian so extreme s/he denies this - then it can criminalize abortion. The difference between pro-choice and pro-life turns essentially on precisely whether abortion is nothing more than a reproductive decision; if it was, I would fully agree that it seems against small government conservative principles to permit government to invade that decision, but I do not think it is a reproductive decision.
Brylin - Hugh Hewitt and Pat Ruffini both supported the Harriet Miers nomination, so I'm not inclined to take advice from the likes of them on potential Presidential candidates.
How else to explain the rallying cry: "The government should not interfere with a woman's body"?
So is it your position, then, that the government should interfere with a woman's body?
More importantly, in the context of this discussion, is that the position that Rudy Giuliani or Condoleeza Rice will take and if it is, will conservative Republicans enthusiastically support the ticket?
Is all political discussion destined to becomes a discussion about abortion? If it is, it's gonna be a LONG 2+ years until the general election.
Brylin,
I'm not saying they're necessarily wrong, it's just that....How can I put this: if Alan Dershowitz told me that there were twenty seven amendments to the United States Constitution, I would feel the need to check, just to be sure. Likewise, with Hewitt. I'm not saying Hugh will never be right, just that his conduct vis-a-vis Miers creates the strong (if rebuttable) presumption that he is wrong. I don't mean to sound like I'm carrying a grudge, but the Miers nomination was a defining moment, as far as I'm concerned: one either stood with the movement, or with the man. Hugh stood by the man.
Others wavered, and eventually came down on the right side; some were on the right side from day one. Still others remained on the wrong side and realized in the cold light of hindsight - somewhere around the moment that Justice Alito walked into the House chamber at the end of January - that they'd been on the wrong side and admitted it. But as far as I'm aware, Hugh has never apologized, never recanted, and never shown any sign that he wouldn't do it again. People - and not just the President - lost reputations and trust over that episode, which will take a long time to heal.
I would have no hesitation in supporting either Condi or Rudy for President if the President did not nominate Judges; I do not believe the Federal Government has much role to play in the abortion debate (see Ninth Circuit strikes down Federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban, 1/31/06), so other than the judges question, I could live with a moderately pro-choice President. But until Roe is not just dead but buried, it remains necessary to maintain strict concerns over who gets appointed to the Federal bench. I don't trust Bush to appoint formalists; I expect(ed) him to appoint smart conservatives, who are in turn more likely to turn out to be formalists than those that a President Kerry would have appointed. But I do not expect Rudy or Condi to appoint either, while I do trust McCain to the same extent that (pre-Miers) I trusted Bush.
"Me":
"abortion law has been settled since 1973"
I disagree with that statement as strongly as when our hostess made the assertion, IIRC, two months ago. In my view (see previous link or About the unitary executive and settled law, 1/11/06), the idea that Roe is "settled law" is frankly preposterous. I'm still hoping that our hostess might provide some elabortion at some point on what exactly it is that she thinks so qualifies it, but in the meantime, I'd love to know how anyone else figures it is "settled."
I would suggest that you are right that "it is a very big deal to women" - those who have not yet been born all the more so.
Simon:
"I would agree with Alan ("believing in the almighty power of G-vernment to make reproductive and "end of life" decisions for the individual ain't conservative") were it not for the fact that abortion is not, in my view, simply a reproductive decision.
Call it beginning-of-life and end-of-life decisions, then.
I tire of the same old arguments having the same, miniscule effect on hearts and minds. These issues really only get clarified outside of the realm of ideas, and in the real world of pain and experience.
Wise words. And it's why I think persuasion is a major part of the campaign to reduce, not criminalize, early abortion.
I disagree entirely. An area of law does not become settled merely because the case is reaffirmed - as was noted during both the Roberts and Alito hearings, Plessy was cited and reaffirmed for over fifty years, and never once became settled law. In the post that I linked to above, I compare Roe's claim to be settled law to another case that was arguably wrongly decided as an original matter, Miranda, concluding that if any case exemplifies "settled law", it is Miranda, and none of the reasons for which it is so could sustain a similar claim for roe. Thirty years later, Roe is still bitterly denounced by anywhere from a third to a half of the population, is widely agreed to have been wrongly-decided as an original matter, and continues to be routinely challenged in every conceivable forum. If Roe is settled law, I'm a banana.
Thirty years later, Roe is still bitterly denounced by anywhere from a third to a half of the population
I freely admit I do not know which population you are citing here (half of all Evangelicals?), but I never recall seeing a poll that in any way comes close to the assertion that half of the US bitterly denounces Roe. How on Earth could someone like pro-choice Rudy be elected if that were the case?
me said...
abortion law has been settled since 1973
I sprayed South African herbal tea all over my keyboard reading that line.
Oh, me. Doesn't one wish...
Roe has been held to have the effect of preventing any meaningful restriction on abortion, even after viability. (In case you were going to ask, held by both (a) pro-choice advocates, and (b) courts.)
Polls are pretty consistent across the last twenty years, although they vary a lot based upon exact wording used. About two-thirds of the populace favor abortion being generally available, and about two thirds of the population favor reasonable restrictions on it.
(I happen to belong in that middle third, although I understand the outlying two pretty well.)
So, to the degree that Roe actually does prevent reasonable restrictions, it is quite unpopular. And there is some evidence of it being a widespread belief among both conservative and liberal legal circles that it was a badly written opinion. I would hesitate to speculate on the percentages, though.
Given a choice between Giuliani and McCain, most of my right-wing friends would take Giuliani's humor and self-deprecation (and mild pro-abortion stance) over McCain's dour hubris (and lukewarm pro-life stance) five days out of seven.
He might lose the pro-life "base", but I think his crossover appeal would probably mitigate that fairly well. And given that the opponent is likely to be Hillary, the base might not even sit on their hands.
As far as Condi, she would be a total plus to the ticket among conservatives and Republicans. (Unless they are scamming me because of my admirable ability to tan, which is always a possibility.) Personally I think her voice is a bit whiny for a sister, but I'd vote for her anyway.
"Me":
"I appeal to Ann: Roe IS settled law, isn't it, o law professor? :)"
I sense doubt. Let me add some more for you. ;)
A case does not attain that status merely through the passage of time, or the number of times it is reaffirmed, or (in my view, at least) any reliance interests that may have been built on it. As Gary Lawson points out in Delegation & Original Meaning, "[t]he Supreme Court has rejected literally every nondelegation challenge that it has considered since 1935" (id., text accompanying note 6), yet the nondelegation doctrine refuses to lie down and die. It is still routinely litigated, despite over seventy years of abject and almost complete failure, and an attempted coup de grace by the Supreme Court in Mistretta, it is still not settled law.
A case becomes "settled law," in my view, when it is broadly accepted despite any reasonable doubts that might have attended it at the time it was handed down. Marbury is settled law; McCulloch is settled law. It's very likely that Slaughterhouse Cases is settled law, although I think its completely wrong and should be neutered. Despite misgivings about cases like Gideon or Miranda, either in their results or their reasoning, I think those cases are settled law, not least because they are almost universally accepted, and even while it is arguable that the Constitution does not mandate their results, it is certain that is does not foreclose those results.
But no such case can be made for Roe. That is was wrongly-decided as an original matter is broadly understood, even by those who broadly support the result and underlying doctrines (such as Roe actually HAS an underlying doctrine); John Hart Ely, for God's sake, wrote that Roe was "not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be." So it was wrongly-decided, and not even in a cute gray area way like Gideon: the Constitution not only does not mandate the result in Roe, it cannot support it. Nor is the decision widely accepted. Consider South Dakota's new law, or the Nebraska statute struck down in Stenberg, and then ask yourself: how many states have passed laws in the last five years trying to establish segregated schools? How many have tried to abolish their public defenders? How many of them have passed laws voiding the exclusionary rule? I'm willing to bet you won't find a single one. Roe is defended - to the extent it is defended - purely and exclusively by that section of society which loves its result so much as to blind themselves to its shortcomings, and on no grounds other than their policy preferences, which should give immediate pause to anyone who understands that the whole point of having a written constitution is that the Court cannot sustain something purely because people like it. Truth be told, it is hard to imagine a precedent less worthy of being called "settled law" than Roe.
I posted here several months ago that I thought Giuliani could win in '08 and several commentors disagreed with me. One of them said I must be smoking crack. Where are they now?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा