Skip to comments.27% of Republicans Would Vote for Pro-Life Third Party Instead of Giuliani (Proof Rudy CAN'T Win)
Posted on 10/04/2007 9:38:23 AM PDT by TitansAFC
If Rudy Giuliani wins the Republican nomination and a third party campaign is backed by Christian conservative leaders, 27% of Republican voters say theyd vote for the third party option rather than Giuliani. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that a three-way race with Hillary Clinton would end up with the former First Lady getting 46% of the vote, Giuliani with 30% and the third-party option picking up 14%. In head-to-head match-ups with Clinton, Giuliani is much more competitive.
Over this past weekend, several Christian conservative leaders indicated they might back a pro-life, third-party, candidate if Giuliani wins the nomination.
The latest poll highlights the potential challenges for Giuliani, but the numbers must be considered in context. A generic third-party candidate may attract 14% of the vote in the abstract at this time. However, if a specific candidate is chosen, that person would likely attract less support due to a variety of factors. Almost all third party candidates poll higher earlier in a campaign and their numbers diminish as election day approaches. Ultimately, of course, some Republicans would have to face the question of whether to vote for Giuliani or help elect a Democrat.
The telephone survey found that 17% of Republicans believe its Very Likely conservative leaders would back a Pro-Life candidate if Giuliani is nominated. Another 32% believe it is Somewhat Likely. Among all voters, 22% think a third party approach is Very Likely and another 33% say its Somewhat Likely.
Most Republican voters consider themselves Pro-Life on the issue of Abortion. Most Democrats and Unaffiliated Voters are Pro-Choice.
The bigger question for Giuliani might be how this possible challenge from the right might affect perceptions of his electability. Currently, Giuliani is seen as the most electable Republican candidate which helps overcome concerns that some have about his ideology. A survey conducted earlier this month found that 72% of Republicans think Giuliani is at least Somewhat Likely to win the White House if nominated. However, the current survey finds that number falling to 58% if Christian conservatives back a third-party option.
With a third-party option on the table, only 18% of Republicans believe Giuliani would be Very Likely to win the election if nominated. Thats down from 31% in a two-way race.
Among all voters, 49% say Giuliani is at least Somewhat Likely to win a two-way match-up. That falls to 43% with a third party candidate in the mix.
Electability is a crucial issue for Giuliani because two-thirds of Republican voters seen him as politically moderate or liberal. That is a challenge unto itself in a political party where most primary voters consider themselves politically conservative. Fred Thompson is currently viewed as the most conservative candidate in the field.
Three of the last four Presidential elections have seen a candidate win with less than 50% of the total votes cast. If Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic Presidential nomination, there is a very reasonable possibility that neither major party candidate would top the 50% mark in Election 2008. With such a scenario, third party candidates on either side of the political spectrum could play a significant role by peeling away one or two percentage points of the vote.
Clinton is currently leading the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination, but her victory is not inevitable. Among Republicans, Thompson and Giuliani lead in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll.
Crosstabs available for Premium Members only.
Rasmussen Reports is an electronic publishing firm specializing in the collection, publication, and distribution of public opinion polling information.
The Rasmussen Reports ElectionEdge Premium Service for Election 2008 offers the most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a Presidential election.
Rasmussen Reports Election 2006 coverage has been praised for its accuracy and reliability. Michael Barone, Senior Writer for U.S. News & World Report and co-author of The Almanac of American Politics, mentions, One clear lesson from the Republican victory of 2004 and the Democratic victory of 2006 is that the best place to look for polls that are spot on is RasmussenReports.com." And University of Virginia Professor Larry Sabato states, In election campaigns, Ive learned to look for the Rasmussen results. In my experience, they are right on the money. There is no question Rasmussen produces some of the most accurate and reliable polls in the country today.
Rasmussen Reports was also the nation's most accurate polling firm during the 2004 Presidential election and the only one to project both Bush and Kerry's vote total within half a percentage point of the actual outcome.
During both Election 2004 and Election 2006, RasmussenReports.com was the top-ranked public opinion research site on the web. We had twice as many visitors as our nearest competitor and nearly as many as all competitors combined.
Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, has been an independent pollster for more than a decade.
Its pretty clear Hillary Clinton needs Rudy Guiliani to be the GOP nominee if she’s going to win come 08.
I know I won’t vote for him.
Not according to the most current polls I've been seeing. Rudy doesn't have a chance against Hillary.
If he really cared about conservatism, he'd drop out. But of course, he doesn't care, since he is actually a liberal.
Every party picks a candidate, but they also pick a platform at convention. GUARANTEED, stem cell research will be in the Dem’s, but voices like yours could keep it OUT of the GOP platform (which it will, maybe even denouncing stem cell, abortion, etc.).
That compromise brings you to the polls to vote AGAINST the sure-bet.
If the choice is between two pro abortion candidates for president, why would you make the choice that effectively destroys the prolife movement in the Republican Party? How will that save any babies?
I don't think that argument holds water since Republican presidents are responsible for Justices as bad or worse than Clinton's two choices. That's why many pro-lifers will feel free to vote 3rd party should Giuliani be the Republican nominee - they know it is 6 of one, half a dozen of the other, and Hillary will not lie to them to get their vote like Rudy has.
It’s a weird year, with no VP running, with war in two theaters, terrorist dangers at home, a potential 3rd and 4th term for Bill Clinton, universal healthcare, ect.
A very unique time.
As Rush Limbaugh has often had to explain to folks like you, there are only the Right and the Left, and everything in between are simply confused or cowards. That may well be a lot of folk, but when push comes to shove they don't want more confused or cowards to lead us. They want something only a person of integrity can deliver.
However, after primaries and such, you really have only two choices during the general.
So, which way are you going to help carry the ball, right or left? Canot leave the field and also have an effect the the direction of the ball.
I am much happeir moving the ball a few inches to the right than a few yards to the left.
Dude, you don’t get it.
If Rudy911 wins the nod, there is no point left to the GOP in 2008, none.
I don’t care about the platform of a party headed by Liberals. It is not relevant to me as a Conservative.
No allowing Hillary to win is the only way to have a chance a conservative President in four years. Giuliani would guarantee a liberal in the White House for eight years.
Worse, a Giuliani Presidency assures a shrinking Republican minority in Congress while a Hillary Presidency sets the stage for Republicans to retake Congress as soon as 2010.
your post is totaly wrong you should refer to her as her Royal Thighness, shees get it right will ya. everything else is on the money, but some people just cant see past one issue. Say hello to President Hitlery.
So we are agreed: Hillary it is.
I’ll only posting to you because your’s was the last as I waded through all 104 posts.
There sure is going to be a lot of cheering on FreeRepublic when Hillery gets elected.
But not from me. I’ll vote - not for the perfect candidate - but for the one that hits most of my important issues.
46 to 44 means Rudy can't win? 2 points behind over a year before the election means he can't win?
What are you smoking?
So, what you're saying is that someone who stands a PRINCIPLE is a stupid useful idiot? Lets say we hold our noses, and vote for Rudy. Then what do we have? A President that will want our guns, let gay marriages foster, and most importantly appoint liberals to the Supreme Court. Whats the difference????
I dont advocate "losing to win", but when the choices are a liberal for president and a liberal for president, maybe its better to vote your conscience and send a message to the GOP that they CAN NOT win the White House without their core base!!!! If Hillary is the winner of the spoils, so be it..... We seemed to do ok politically with Bill in office (Senate takeover, House expansion, etc), I think the backlash would be even more stark with Hillary in there. The Dems might not win the Senate back for 20 more years after 2010.
The GOP will keep pushing and pushing towards the center until its indistinguishable from the Dems. How does that make us the "winner"? We need to push the GOP the other way, to the right. We do that by showing that we actually have standards and actually have a line that we cant cross (2 or 3 lines in this case).
And we make fun of the blacks when they have a 90% buy in rate with the Dems, but we're being asked to do the same thing.
Sometimes you can lose the battle, but win the war, or win the battle and lose the war!!
Your comments are wise and appreciated. However, we can not (or maybe we can) vote for a POTUS on ONE certain special issue. (not a Rudy supporter, just someone who wonders why there are so many ONE ISSUE Repubs)
I would also pay a few professional trolls to post anti-Rudy stuff on FR too.
However, sitting out an election because the candidate is insufficiently conservative does nothing, absolutely nothinmg, to advance those same values. Rather, it guarantees just the opposite, further slide to the left. But you know that, or I hope you do. Do you?