Redstate

With John McCain quickly garnering alot of major player support and big money sources. You are right, it is fascinating that Rudy is the winner despite probably doing the least among the serious wannabees. Republicans need to take a hard look at this front runner in the polls, rather than pick the insider who works the system best.

Rudy would not just be the strongest candidate, he would expand the base of the party.

Looks like he's campaigning for the number 2 job from the outset.  In fact, I'm starting to think it's too late.  In this respect it's not about support, it's about talent - and the talent pool for a staff is fast evaporating.  Giuliani will not make it through if he's hampered by a weak staff - the other candidates will sow doubt about him on social policy and undermine him.

However, Rudy as the VP will still expand the party as Rudy seems to turn everyone he touches into gold.  With the Hildebeast not polling well with NYers in a hypo prez run, Rudy could take any of the possible candidates to victory in NJ, MI, PA, WI, MN, as well as making him competitive in NY, CT (and maybe even CA).

I'm still waiting to see what effect Rudy will have in NY this year.  Bill Weld is a friend of his and is running for governor.  Rudy is still wildly popular in New York.  Will he be on the campaign trail for Weld?  If so, will it boost Weld's ratings?  And if Rudy can help get Bill Weld into another governor's mansion, that will lock him in as almost the only choice for VP.

Once you have attained a certain level of hero status, you simply don't run for Veep. I for one would be hard-pressed to believe that MacArthur, Eisenhower, Powell, or McCain would have made good VPs. They'd violate the first law of the Vice Presidency: don't overshadow the boss.

Giuliani fits into this category. He's already effectively been the governor of a large industrial state, and a major figure on the world stage. Why become an attack dog or lightning rod?

Also: chief executives don't tend to become VPs. Just as governors have a virtual lock on the Presidency, the VP slot tends to go to a Senator/Washington insider who balances the ticket and can stay in the shadows when needed.

If any of his advisers are telling him to run for VP, they're giving him bad advice.

If he throws in the hat and defers to his buddy John McCain, there's no guarantee that McCain would win either the primary or the general.

2000 was different. We had a safe, reliable, charismatic governor in George Bush who was leading   Al Gore by 18 points at this point. It was over before it began. No need for Powell, who never really wanted it, to get in.

If Rudy opts out, and it boils down to McCain vs. a mainstream "conservative" like Allen or Romney, McCain probably loses. Antipathy for McCain runs deep in the party.

If Rudy doesn't run, he throws the nomination to George Allen, a far weaker politician than Bush, who loses to Hillary 52-48. There is no clean Rudy-to-McCain handover to be made. And judging by the Lefty reaction to McCain's stunt in Memphis, his liberal and independent support will start to wane as McCain starts playing Mr. Establishment.

Just like Bush's 18 point lead eight years ago, McCain's current 10 point lead could vanish in a heartbeat by what he would need to do to prevail in a knock-out, drag-out fight against a party that doesn't want to nominate him.

Rudy Giuliani is our best hope for stopping John McCain while beating Hillary or Warner.

Would all be good potential VP picks.

Giuliani, if not nominated, would make a good SecDef or SecState.

Rudy is not second fiddle material. Natural leaders don't do well in a VP slot.

about the job that will soon be vacant on the 38th floor of a big shinny building on the east side of Mid-town New York? The one Billy boy thinks he's a shoe in for? Wow, wouldn't that be something.

Rudy and John Bolton together at the UN.

Rudy's not running, thankfully.  It doesn't make any sense for this man who sincerely believes that abortion should be legal and supports same-sex marriage is going to make a commitment that he'll appoint judges who believe the opposite.  I've never heard Rudy talk about "federalism," I've only heard republicans who like Rudy talk about it.

Anyway why should pro-lifers be happy to get a guy who isn't "averse" to them when they can get one who shares their values instead?

Rudy's in his mid sixties, he'll be too old for POTUS in 2016.  Why'd he want VP?

He's just going around the country speaking to friendly crowds and making some money.  Maybe he's keeping himself fresh in people's minds so he'll be considered for a cabinet position in McCain's (or whoever's) administration.

Rudy may be gambling that by waiting, he's keeping his "halo".

And there may be some truth to that.

The minute he goes to Iowa to stump, he is a fair target for media scrutiny (admittedly, he's getting plenty of scrutiny right now).

But never underestimate the allure of coyness.  We Americans love coyness.  We're obsessed with coyness.

We tend to hate presumptuousness, which is why it is somehow unattractive for a major political candidate to announce his intentions too soon.

Hillary is playing the same game right now: running but trying not to look like she's running.

Does anyone know how difficult it is, or what has to be done, to get a candidate's name on a primary ballot in states like NH, SC, & MI?

Who determines who should be on a GOP primary ballot and when are those decisions made?

He was born in Cuba.

We'd have to have a comfortable house majority & a good speaker of the house (ala Shaddeg) to go with MelMart...

Bill Clinton was about to be impeached. Bush's lead over Al Gore meant almost nothing at this point. It is still a bit early to speculate about 2008. Give it a year and wait for Bush to become a lame duck (mid to late 2007). Secondly, comparing this election to 2000 is not very correct.

Write in Bush!

I'm just curious, why on this green earth would you include Tancredo and Pataki in a poll and not include Newt? Pataki over Newt? Pataki fer cryin out loud! I mean, you can argue all you want over his  "electability" but even MSM polls give him 5-10 percent every now and then.

Newt! Newt! Newt!

Come on you Newt supporters, I know your there!  

I figured I'd get this question.  Basically, I've long suspected that Newt attracts a lot of protest voters on this site, who vote Gingrich in my poll because they don't like any of the other choices but wouldn't do so on election day because of electability issues.  

I know I will get 3-5 responses telling me that this is incorrect, and that THEY plan to vote for Newt come election day, but I further suspect that for every genuine Newt voter in the blogosphere, there are two or more protest voters.

If Newt ran, and had a moderate chance of winning, AND Condi, Jeb, Oprah or Drew Carey were not running, I'd throw my support behind Newt. Allen I see as to much of paper-board cutout, MaCain I don't like for many reasons, and Rudy would REALLY have to convice me he would put Ann Coulter on the Supreme Court.

1.  Getting a candidate onto a primary ballot.

Varies state to state.  Contact each of those state's Sec of State for the process.

2.  Who determines...?

Again, varies by state; best answered by the Sec of State for each of the states you listed.    

And the SLRC didn't want Rice on the ballot either because it didn't fit with their agenda.

Look, you may suspect that Newt is a protest vote if you choose.  But why poll if you feel you alone have the answers?  Polling isn't meant to justify our own thoughts on matters, but to see what other people really think.

The best polls don't try to streamline answers.

The fact that so many people here choose Newt time and again should tell you something.  If your poll doesn't want to reflect a Newt friendly result you should create a unbiased poll and try it elsewhere.  Many poll results at RedState have shown Newt with a RedState brand of conservatism following.  To leave him out just shows the inability of some to grasp his potential.

Funny thing is, you don't see Newt supporters playing the same game (putting up a poll with Newt but without some of his competitors).  No, we'll just sit back and compare the polls he does strongly in versus the polls where he is excluded.  The methodology of those polls speak volumes about Newt's detractors.

To be consistent, a poll without Rudy is just as slanted and not to be given much consideration.

He has been on the record for several years now of supporting strict constructionist judges. Therefore, the question of abortion would be moot. The President does not make abortion policy. If he nominates judges like Roberts, (who he praised) then that is ok with me.

would love to vote for him but he has zero chance of winning. absolute zero

You're right that the President doesn't make abortion policy, most of the time.  But even if Roe v Wade is overturned(which it will be, sooner or later), states like California are going to have abortion on demand unless it is banned nationwide by Congress and signed by the President.

Also the President can sign executive orders that would limit abortion in states that do not ban (after RvW is overturned).

Why would we ever use Rudy Guiliani to "stop" McCain?

I don't understand how Rudy is preferable to the average conservative. Certainly not on social issues, for one. Is he that much more conservative economically? I may waffle on the Senator somewhat, but I can't see Guiliani any more reliably conservative.

And I do want an Italian President, mind you.

the president has some control over stuff like the partial-birth ban bill.  I haven't seen these quotes from Rudy saying he'd pick strict constructionists.  I've never seen him say something like "personally I support abortion but I think it should be up for the states to decide."  Maybe he has, but I haven't seen it.  Even if he did, I personally wouldn't vote for him, but I might not vote against him.  I happen to think that character is an important criterion in who should be president.  I'm not saying Rudy is a man w/out character or integrity, just that he doesn't share my values.  For me it's not good enough that he's not anti-my values, as a lot of conservatives on this site seem to be happy with.

William Weld is not going to be the next Gov. of NY--with or without Rudy's help.

I am a Republican who supports legalized abortion and same-sex marriage. However, unlike my liberal counterparts, I do not think there is a constitutional right to either and I think the debate on the issues should happen in the legislature, not the courts. When judges rule against same-sex marriage or abortion, they are not ruling against the issue, they are ruling for the fact that the issue needs to be settled in the legislature because the constitution does not guarantee a right to them.

Rudy thinks the same way that I do on these issues. The judges he would appoint would be in the mold of Alito or Roberts. This means the issues of our time will be settled through democratic means by elected officials, and not appointed judges.

I've heard this a lot.  Maybe it's true.  Can you provide me w/ quotes of him saying he believes in federalism and would nominate judges in the mold of Rpberts/Alito?

Wouldn't be that close for me though I would prefer to see Romney over either of those two.

Or if he is, he's off to a terrible start.  Too much of the top talent is gone.

How about a last minute entry into the 2006 Senate race?

I've never understood why Rudy doesn't run for New York's U.S. Senate seat against Clinton. He would have more than a good chance of beating her, and it would be a good springboard to his future Presidential aspirations. He would receive plenty of support of all kinds from throughout the entire country if he did run. He also could instead run for governor of N.Y. His not running for any political office prior to running for President doesn't make any sense to me. He also needs to understand that he's way too liberal on social issues to really have a chance to be the Republican nominee for President in '08 or later, and this last statement also fully applies to all of the Republican Presidential candidates from all of the northeast states(Mitt Romney, ect. are you listening?).

He must be in this poll... However he does not have a good chance of winning obviously. He is definitely my favorite candidate and probably the smartest.

We live in a sad world where a visionary like him is not electable.

I had to pick Romney... But Rudy would be my prime choice. Maybe with Condy as his veep. There is no way I can vote for a sellout like McCain, and the rest are not very inspiring.

Especially Pataki... What the heck is he doing running? The man is a sleazeball (I am from NY) and has no core conservative principles. None whatsoever.

Rudy worries me a bit because he is not all that conservative, but I think he would be a very strong leader.