Skip to comments.It's Grand Ol' Pro-choice party - poll
Posted on 06/28/2007 9:15:53 AM PDT by jamese777
The GOP is a lot more liberal than you might think, according to a surprising new poll that finds fully 60% would vote for a pro-choice candidate - great news for front-running Rudy Giuliani.
Republican pollsters Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates found Giuliani leading the field with all segments of the party - even among the 24% of so-called "moralists" who are most focused on social issues.
Giuliani's campaign rationale has always been that his reassuring leadership amid the trauma of 9/11 would trump his pro-choice, pro-gay, anti-gun record.
The sweeping survey, a bid to paint an in-depth portrait of the Republican Party, suggests he might be right.
Giuliani leads among even social conservatives because they consider him "a strong leader," said pollster Tony Fabrizio.
While many more Republicans consider themselves "conservative" than did 10 years ago, a remarkable 75% say the party is too focused on social issues. All but the vocal "moralists" call fiscal and security issues more important.
(Excerpt) Read more at nydailynews.com ...
Who commissioned this poll? It’s not very credible.
It’s the fact that he’s:
-pro gay marriage
-supports government funded abortion, an assault on two facets of conservatism (fiscal and social)
-has no problem with using statist methods to achieve his goals
-is the quintessential opportunist (running on his 9/11 heroism and nothing else)
-makes most “big government conservatives” look like Tom Tancredo
-Has no inclination at all of securing the border
-Has a horribly chaotic family life
I’d love to see the wording of the poll and what they consider the definition of “pro-choice”.
40% Would Not; me included.
“...fully 60% would vote for a pro-choice candidate...”
Is this in the primaries or in the general election?
It’s not too impressive in the primaries, in that it indicates that the potential nominee can’t get the support of a substantial minority of the party.
But if this is for the general election, it’s disastrous for pro-abortion candidates.
No Republican could possibly win a general election while losing 40% of the Republican vote.
In my latest poll 100% reject Rootie.
LOL Well, since Rudy has lost a lot of ground and is actually running behind Thompson in some polls, it would seem to me that this 'poll' is faulty.
The fact that Giuliani does not respect the principles of the consitution should be a key issue for Republican primary voters.
Well, all those points I listed kinda go along with that!
Can’t believe I forgot the Second Amendment in that list!
We will se the reality come election day. IMO we will be voting for Fred Thompson.
I’m going to tend to vote for a pro-life candidate in a primary. In a general election, if the choice is between a pro-abortion Republican and a Democract who is worse, then I’ll vote for the Republican. A few elections back we had the tables turned here: a pro-life Democrat running for governor who was generally more conservative on key issues than the pro-abortion Republican candidate. I happily voted Democratic because he was far and away the better candidate and, if he had won, he probably would have spared Illinois a considerable amount of grief.
I use that as an example because I think the question “would you vote for a ‘pro-choice’ Republican?” requires an answer more complex than simply “yes” or “no”.
Agreed, Giuliani position on abortion and 2nd amendment is simply put - against the constitution. Plus his failed marriages and cheating makes him a lousy candidate.
Polls are meaningless in the media. They are very useful in marketing and some other areas. However, what is used in the media is trash and just about as meaningful as another “study” on global warming, acid rain, the coming ice age or ozone hole.
Now factor in the Democrats who will not vote for a Pro-Abortion candidate and it adds up to losing the White House.
The GOP really wants a pro-abortion, global warming nut, big government, tax and spend liberal.
Must be dem bezerkley republicans polled!
There are self-described conservatives that would be "happy" if they could get abortion limited, as opposed to outlawed, just so they can save some (or most) of the lives being lost now. That would give them the "pro-choice" label in the media's eyes, just to boost those numbers.
There was a nice editorial this past weekend in the NY Daily News about the Dems and abortion. There are liberal Catholics who are liberal on most social issues, but not abortion. Up until recently, there wasn't much to do about it. But they voted for Bush over Kerry because of the Supreme Court. They will put off their own agendas just to get rid of this travesty.
So, yeah, let them believe that the "pro-choice" vote is out there.
I'm guessing you're right. I wonder if this poll was actually commissioned by the GOP.
ONLY PROBLEM WITH THAT LOGIC IS THIS.....once the GOP gives the nod to a pro abortion guy, there is no turning back. The day that happens will be the last time a pro life candidate ever comes out of the GOP.
A vote for Rudy as the “so called lesser of 2 evils” will only mean the departure of true Christians from the GOP forever. It will mean a permanent third party for the likes of Dr Land,Dr Dobson,Tony Perkins etc etc and myself (that may be the good part, you will be rid of me :) )
I disagree...to chose Rudy under the lesser of 2 evils argument, would be to only guarantee that the pro life/Christian influence never return to the GOP.
I am not saying vote Democrat...I am saying it would be better to not vote for the president at all, as Dr Land and the others have suggested.
This way hopefully Democrats win for 4 short years and then the GOP would never make the same mistake again.Yes the supreme court is the big issue, you think Rudy will nominate judges that are at odds with what he stands for. I say it is more likely that he would get in and then talk about bringing the country together, nominate liberal judges and run for his second term as the true liberal he is.
There is no reason to take him at his word.Better that a democrat win then Rudy IMHO.
WHY NOT GET IT RIGHT NOW AND ELECT FRED THOMPSON.
BTW WHATS all this crap about Rudy being this great leader??? The guy never stopped any terrorist attack.
“Polls are meaningless in the media. They are very useful in marketing and some other areas. However, what is used in the media is trash and just about as meaningful as another study on global warming, acid rain, the coming ice age or ozone hole.”
Obviously you haven’t kept up with political polling accuracy. The fact that every national politician hires pollsters should tell you something.
We can compare polling outcomes to actual election results to see which ones are accurate and which ones are off. All polls have a 3 or 4 percentage point statistical margin of error. That’s just good science.
Here’s the accuracy findings from the 2004 Presidential election.
There are applications where polls have a meaning. This is not the case in the MSM. For example: The state department conducts polls on perceptions on issues in foreign nations. Polling is used extensively in marketing, and it is also used in politics etc. However, the polls you read about in CNN, MSNBC, CBS...... are near all trash. Leading questions, incorrect sample sizes or sampling technique, populations that are all dorked up and not representative...........trash. Complete utter nonsense that isn’t worth my time. Do you think a poll on CNN.com has any relevance to the real world? No. It’s there to give those reading this entertainment an experience that is satisfying in that it “involves them”, making them come back. The poll itself is insignificant as is the data collected.
Crap until I see proof that it included Southerners. Sounds like a local poll to me.
Read my post.
There are applications where polls have a meaning. This is not the case in the MSM. For example: The state department conducts polls on perceptions on issues in foreign nations. Polling is used extensively in marketing, and it is also used in politics etc. However, the polls you read about in CNN, MSNBC, CBS...... are near all trash. Leading questions, incorrect sample sizes or sampling technique, populations that are all dorked up and not representative...........trash. Complete utter nonsense that isnt worth my time. Do you think a poll on CNN.com has any relevance to the real world? No. Its there to give those reading this entertainment an experience that is satisfying in that it involves them, making them come back. The poll itself is insignificant as is the data collected.”
The poll that is the subject of this thread was conducted by the polling firm of Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates which is a reputable organization that has worked for Republican candidates and office holders for many years.
Any one poll in isolation carries little weight. However a compendium of ten or twelve national polls conducted by reputable polling organizations adhering to the professional and ethical standards of The American Association of Public Opinion Research are usually pretty accurate.
And yes, polls on CNN are as trustworthy as those of any other media outlet. Media organs don’t do the polling, they hire reputable polling firms and then purchase their polls. CNN’s polls are done by Opinion Research Corporation. While Fox News’ polls are done by Opinion Dynamics Inc.
If you compare President Bush’s job approval ratings for this two week period on the CNN poll versus the Fox News poll, you will find the President at 32% positive job approval rating on CNN and 31% positive job approval rating on Fox.
For my own purposes, when I look at polling data, I look at 10 national polls on a subject. I throw out the high and the low and then average the other eight.
Probably Rudy Ghouliani or his apologists. Either that or RINOs seeking to diminish conservatism within the GOP.
Like Zogby? Most of the media conducted polls are not worth the paper they are on. Meaningless and intended like the “studies” they report on are there to catch attention. Are all studies worthless? Of course not, but most that are reported on in the media are. What you’ll get in the MSM is a study that is sensational or open the door for controversy.
No Conflict = no story.
Facts don’t sell papers, web-space, or raise the value of a block of time for a TV commercial. The MSM is in the business of selling, not informing. Supersaturation of colors, screaming at each other, using words like “bloodbath, apocalyptic.....”. It’s entertainment, not information and while I like FOX a little more than the others myself, even they belong to this crowd that deals in nonsense. Your "reputable" polling is part of this game. Even if the source is accurate and did do a thorough job, the reporters can be expected to interpret the data in a way they like. For example, the report on WMD in Iraq. Much of what is written about the findings actually does not jive with what they say if you read them yourself.
Yes yes, scientifically conducted and 100% professional and honest without bias: http://www.hannibal.net/Images/101998/POLLSTERS.jpg
Even if the source is professional, remember who's the intermediary and feeding you this.
I already posted the polling accuracy results from the last national polls before the 2004 elections. Every single national poll was within the margin of error except Newsweek which underestimated Kerry’s numbers by 4 percentage points.
If polls were so inaccurate, politicians wouldn’t spend big money on their own pollsters.
If polls were so inaccurate, politicians wouldnt spend big money on their own pollsters
YOU JUST MADE THE CASE AGAINST YOUR OWN ARGUMENT!
Yes politicians spend big money on polls,but they dont use Newsweek/media polls, and they dont publish the findings.
You’re having a very hard time with this concept.
http://www.cnn.com Go down 3/4 and look for the poll they are conducing today.
“Do you think race should play any role in school admission decisions?”
http://www.foxnews.com Go down 3/4 of the way on the right side they are conducting a poll as well.
“What would be the best health care system for Americans?”
Stupid polls, with stupid questions, intended to involve you. It’s entertainment, not news, not science, not any true opinion poll that means anything to anyone except those pressing the submit button. But you might say, “Well the real guys out there are different!” Even that’s not totally true. They’re “buyable” for the most part. Zogby was hired to conduct a poll of servicemen and this poll was blatantly bias and intended to be such! Why, because the people paying Zogby to conduct this poll in Iraq were looking for certain answers. Who packages up and puts the results on the web, TV, radio or in print? For example: Recently a “reputed” polling agency polled Muslims in the US. Some news outlets screamed bloody murder because 27% of Muslims living in the US agree with suicide bombers. Other news outlets downplayed this and argued that nearly 3/4rs of the Muslims reject this behavior and hence are peaceful bla bla bla. Same data, 180 degree different interpretation, all just depending on whether it was a more liberal or conservative paper bringing the story.
I can give you literally dozens of examples. Polls are useful and they do tell us a lot if they are professionally conducted and statistically correct and interpreted in a way that is honest. What you get in the MSM is garbage, 99% of it. Its part of the entertainment experience.
Can you explain how being pro abortion is against the constitution?
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
There is a long proud tradition of denying polls that tell Freepers what they don’t want to hear. It’s called Freeper Poll Denial Syndrome, and while some thought it was cured after the 2006 election, it is still an epidemic on this forum.
I’m against abortion but I think the people should decide it. If they ran 50 referendums in a post-Roe USA, and all of them were ok with first trimester abortions, I wouldn’t like the result but I wouldn’t bitch and moan about it for 3 decades.
Let the people decide, even if they decide against our position. Fair is fair.
Bill Clinton was a pro choice president who won twice and remains in many circles a very beloved president.
If Hillary or Obama win the presidency with a solid margin, and with dem coattails in the Senate & House, would that convince you that the country is morally ok with abortion in most cases? What lesson would you draw from that vis a vis abortion if either wins 54-46, for example?
“There is a long proud tradition of denying polls that tell Freepers what they dont want to hear. Its called Freeper Poll Denial Syndrome, and while some thought it was cured after the 2006 election, it is still an epidemic on this forum.”
Yeah, everybody hates the polls when they don’t reflect what they want to hear or believe. It was hilarious to me how many poll-haters were quoting all the polls showing how much we all hated the immigration bill! Suddenly every “MSM poll” was dead on!
Well, those polls are legitimate because they really, really, really want them to be. Simple, really.
“For the Eye altering alters all.” - William Blake
First of all make your preference known in the primaries but if Rudy wins it what good would it do us to pick up our chips and cash in? If we select a pro life candidate that can appeal to a majority we win. I won’t turn the keys to White House over to Hillary because I’m in a snit with the Republican party.
SORRY!!! I WAS NOT SUGGESTING YOUR DATA WAS WRONG.
Polling is one of my pet peeves,I was only pointing out that the politicians do hire pollsters but they don't use newsweek type polls and they don't publish the findings.
“There are lies, Damn lies,...”
First of all make your preference known in the primaries but if Rudy wins it what good would it do us to pick up our chips and cash in? If we select a pro life candidate that can appeal to a majority we win. I wont turn the keys to White House over to Hillary because Im in a snit with the Republican party.
THIS IS WHAT I MEANT....Its my opinion that if a pro abortion candidate ever wins the GOP nomination and goes on to win the WHITEHOUSE,the GOP will never nominate a pro lifer again...you cant go back once you make such a move IMHO....meaning the true Christian/pro lifers will leave the party.
Nominating Rudy does not equal “A SNIT” it`s far beyond that.
Bill Clinton, who portrayed himself as a moderate, never won a majority of the vote and would likely have lost both races without the outside influence of Ross Perot.
Hilary has worse negatives and will need someone (like, say, Bloomberg) to siphon votes so that she could win.
Bloomberg takes votes away from the ‘rats, not us.
Bloomberg would take away the moderates and well as the BLUE DOG DEMOCRATS that have been voting for the GOP because they can't stand how far left that their party has become.
True, but he’s well left of center. On a national level, he’d get maybe 1%.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.