Eli Republicans split on candidates

Notwithstanding statistical sampling problems, Republicans on campus appear as divided as Republicans nationally on whom to support for president.

The Yale College Republicans hosted an informal “primary” on Monday night to gauge the support for various candidates among their members. Although the College Republicans do not officially endorse until after the primaries are over, they said they were curious to see how the cards were falling ahead of Super Tuesday, the Feb. 5 date when more than 20 states will hold their primaries.

But the outcome was telling: Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Mitt Romney all received five votes, while the remaining candidates — Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul and Fred Thompson, along with “uncommitted” — each received one.

Kathyrn Baldwin ’09, the organization’s new president, said she is surprised by how much has changed since last semester. Using past informal conversations among members for comparison, she said the group seems to have followed national trends.

“I think McCain has a lot more support now. And back then, Giuliani and Thompson were much further ahead [among members],” Baldwin said. “But McCain has been surging nationally, and … Thompson has run such a lackluster campaign in general.”

Of course, she added, no one will be making any predictions from the night’s results: “It’s just a fluke they wound up tying.”

Still, the results do not jive with the undergraduate poll conducted by the News over winter break. The News’ poll — conducted online between Dec. 31 and Jan. 2 and sent to the entire undergraduate student body — received 1,833 responses.

In that survey, Paul led among Republicans, polling at 3.2 percent of the total undergraduate vote, while Guliani came in second with 2.5 percent. McCain received two percent, Romney 1.9 percent and Huckabee finished with 1.2 percent.

The results could suggest either that Paul supporters, who have been notable in the campaign for their large and enthusiastic grassroots efforts online, responded in greater numbers over break, or — and perhaps more likely — that many of the campus’ libertarians who support Paul — whose positions, such as ending the Iraq war, are at odds with much of the Republican Party platform — count themselves members of groups other than the College Republicans.

Regardless, those in attendance agreed that the lack so far of a consensus candidate, both on and away from campus, will make the group’s Super Tuesday viewing party much more exciting than otherwise.


  • Anonymous

    Did you see last night's debate?

    I was really concerned when Hillary Clinton mentioned that she believed that a core Democratic belief was Universal Healthcare. Never in the history of this nation has someone tied such a liberal agenda to this country. Although it is ideal give everyone in this country health coverage, we cannot afford it for the following reasons:
    1. In order to pay for it, we would need to raise taxes.
    2. If we did not raise taxes, then the government will have to undergo deficit spending and therefore increase our national debt. Then we can have even more fun with higher grocery, gas, and other prices (don't worry, your grandchildren will face this).
    3. Not everyone will be "covered." People will have to purchase supplemental insurance because the government won't cover everything.

    So if you are interested in another big government spending project larger than Social Security then vote Hillary. Unfortunately, she has not come up with an idea that will save Social Security and what makes everyone think that if she can't handle that single issue that she will be successful with healthcare this time around.

  • Anonymous

    @4:11, Please don't use "It's too expensive" when what you clearly mean is "I don't think it's worth it."

    We spend hundreds of billions on a war, and hundreds of billions more on defense spending. We spend billions on corporate and farm subsidies, and politicians on both sides of the aisle litter the ground with pork.

    All of these are policy priorities to those who spend them. So ultimately, you're saying you'd rather spend on that than on health care, that you believe health care is not a right. You're not alone in thinking so, but I disagree, strongly.

    What is it about everyone having access to safe health care that gets every libertarian or conservative's goat? That isn't rhetorical.

    Why can't we demonstrate America's greatness abroad by showing that having the privileges of the "first-world nation" isn't equivalent to limited edition playing cards dealt out at birth to a select few?

    We have food banks because as a society we have decided that no one, no matter what their circumstance, should not starve (even though many still do). We have homeless shelter (though many still roam the streets) because we have decided no one should freeze to death in New Haven when temperatures drop below freezing, night after night. And why then do we not see health care in that same light, that no one should die of diseases penicillin promised to cure a century ago, that treatment of debilitating childhood asthma should not be based on your parents financial success in life prior to your birth?

    That said, conservatives are right on many things. Costs need to be driven down, which means discouraging frivolous lawsuits and also not encouraging frivolous medical tests that ultimately do not affect what care a doctor chooses for a patient. And medical care should remain private, although government funded, because in that way competition will still lead to innovation. And we need to regulate harmful television ads that encourage patients to seek out the most expensive, though not necessarily best, drugs -- and private doctors receiving free samples to prescribe them.

    Maybe if Clinton and Obama stopped snipping for one second, there could finally be a national dialogue, in which Democrats, in which all three leading candidates, together, articulated and clearly defended the necessity of a new national vision to replace Reagan's.

  • Anonymous

    Re: universalized health care

    It's not too expensive. It's simply undesirable. Look at the NHS in Britain - their draconian lifestyle requirements are absurd. They won't treat smokers until they stop. They wont give some health care to the obese until they drop the kilos. In New Zealand, a woman had to lose weight before she was allowed to immigrate to be with her husband.

    Also, did I mention that state-run health care would destroy the privacy argument upon which Roe, Griswold, etc are built?

  • Anonymous

    Who said state-run? The term is state-funded.

    And I'd love to hear the abortion/contraceptive argument … the former is based off a confidential doctor-patient relation having nothing to do with whether the government pays. And contraceptives? Really? I wasn't even aware that conservatives still thought this point was worth attacking, but in this case, the privacy is between husband and wife, later extended to any couple regardless of marital status, and ultimately in Lawrence to include all consensual intimate relations between any and all consenting adults regardless of gender.

    For someone who says they abhor "draconian lifestyle requirements," like prohibiting smoking, you seem awful ready to let the government into your bedroom and all over your body. Maybe because it doesn't affect you? I can only speculate.

    Per Britain, etc., one anecdote does not an argument make. If we don't want those laws, lets not make them (I would not be in favor of them), but that says nothing about the validity of health car-for-all, in general.

    But please, give me some good reasons why its a bad idea, philosophically … I'm curious to listen.