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.
That's certainly not Giuliani you're describing. Explain to me why a pro-life voter would vote for either of them since both are NARAL darlings only Rudy will be abandoned by the baby killers for Hillary when it's time to vote. They know a real Democrat from a wanna-be one.
With Rudy I may get some of the things I want, with Hillary I know I will not only get zero but a painful asskicking for 4-8 years.
Her judicial appointments alone will be enough to make us run screaming in the night. For those of you who think you will be “teaching the GOP a lesson”, that’s short sighted and if you think it will succeed, it’s contrary to history.
Did the GOP and conservatives in general capitulate to the “Perot Revolution” after it helped usher in BC? No, they were widely criticized and most were embarrassed after the realized what they wrought and feebly shuffled back into the tribe. Too late though,their damage was done.
Unfortunately, I don’t hold out much hope for these single issue voters to learn much from history nor have the foresight to contemplate the results of their actions. If anything, they are even more resolute and blinded to all but what they see directly in front of them.
To continuously win at the ballot box a party’s voters must not only have good perspective but good peripheral vision as well.
Large tax cuts, WOT success, partial birth abortion legislation, no Kyoto involvement, no World Court involvement, very conservative SC Justices named....
NOTHING conservative? Uhhhh...right.
No it is not the same principle. There is a huge difference between one’s pocketbook and killing babies. I promised myself I would never vote for a pro-abortion candidate for ANY office. If the Republicans want to commit suicide, they can have at it. Just understand there are consequences to that move of utter stupidity.
I am more concerned about the Islamic terrorists who want to kill us. Rudy (or most other Republicans) will take this war more seriously than Hillary or any of the Dems. If we lose this war, don’t worry about abortion, gay rights, etc as under sharia, these issues will quickly go away. Just as President Members Only jacket said at Columbia, “there are no gays in Iran”.
You ought to think about that statement when you choose to sit out the election if Giuliani is the nominee.
“Sorry Bob, but the next President will get as many as 4 appointments to the S.C. and if it is Rudy or Hillary, the results will be identical.”
Yes, like how Bush foisted Harriet Meyers on us. You won’t acknowledge the influence the party AND voters can have on those nominations.
Are you stating that you, as a conservative or GOPer, that you will have no more influence on Hillary as you will on Rudy?
If so, you’re either lying to yourself or us.
The issues are different, but the principle of voting third party is the same.
It splits the Republican party.
I would rather put up with Hitlary for 4 years then rip the prolife plank out of the republican platform by electing Rino Rudy. IF he I nominated I am going thired party.
>>So let me just clarify the One issue thing: If, say, a candidate Conservative on 50% of the issues won the GOP nod, then revealed themselves to be rabidly anti-Israel and possibly outright anti-Semetic, youd be all on board to stop Hitlery, right?<<
What a clever comeback. Look, if what you’re saying is that abortion negates every other issue, including terrorism, the economy, health care, etc. then I’d question your priorities — Dennis Prager, who is very pro-life, has already condemned this way of thinking.
However, as I’ve stated elsewhere on this board, by virtue of his SCOTUS nominees, which is the only practical way that abortion rights can be weakened, Rudy is vastly superior to Hillary. Take a look at his judicial advisors - most are drawn from the Federalist Society, the same place where Roberts, Scalia, and Alito were drawn.
Since you're buying that, perhaps you would be interested in a bridge I have for sale.
You don't suppose that the country clubbers who run the Republic Party are counting on that, do you? You don't suppose that they know they can run a Liberal for the Presidency because those geldings who used to call themselves Conservatives will grovel before anyone who will promise to save them from Big, Mean Momma, do you?
This fight is not over. Those who haven't the belly for it, leave it to those who do.
>>”I would much rather take my chances with SCOTUS appointees from Rudy than from Hillary.”
Since you’re buying that, perhaps you would be interested in a bridge I have for sale.<<
Can you explain that comment? Are you suggesting that there is an equal probability of a conservative SCOTUS appointment from Rudy as from Hillary?
“then you will get a worse one (HILLARY) by default”
But if Mrs. Clinton wins the presidency, the party of life remains to fight another day. The Republican Party can and will oppose her and her liberal policies. Opposition to the first President Clinton brought about a conservative Republican congressional majority, and tempered the remaining years of Mr. Clinton's presidency.
If Mr. Giuliani wins the presidency, there will be no more party of life, only two parties of murder and slaughter. We’ve seen that Mr. Bush was able to pass many liberal policies through a Republican-controlled Congress. It’s tough for a party in Congress to oppose the policies of a president of its own party.
I have no doubt that if Mr. Giuliani were unfortunately elected president, he would take the Republican Party down the path of death and destruction, and then we’d merely have two liberal parties instead of one liberal party and one not-so-liberal party.
I’m not voting for a baby murderer.
No. There are only two reasons. Not a "variety". Confusion (stupidty, ignorance, etc) or Cowardice. Take your pick.
Like it or not, that is the group that ultimately decides elections.
But even confused or cowards don't want confused or cowardly leaders.
That's not saying a conservative can't win, only that a conservative also needs moderate support to win.
Which is exactly how Ronald Reagan won in a landslide. He backed the working man. Today, the GOP CFR clan appears to be the enemy of that man and woman.
Let me tell you what will happen if the pro life voters all move to a third party.
The GOP will be forced to move further to the center to pick up your lost votes and you and the pro life movement will be consigned to political obscurity for decades. The left will never move closer to you position and the right will now be dominated by center left and right voters who will not believe you’re issue to be critical.
If this is what you consider to be a successful long term strategy, you deserve to be in the political wasteland.
B.S. I do NOT ever vote for liberals and I don’t care what letter appears after the candidate’s name. If I can’t find a suitable conservative to vote for in the general, I skip the race. I finished with “the lesser of two evils” along time ago. When both are evil, neither gets my vote.
You may be voting for Hillary or for a liberal Republican, but I won’t be. But, yes, it’s Hillary if Giuliani is the nominee, and I’ve been telling anyone who would listen that because Rudy = 3rd party = President Rodham.
“Let me tell you what will happen if the pro life voters all move to a third party.
“The GOP will be forced to move further to the center to pick up your lost votes and you and the pro life movement will be consigned to political obscurity for decades.”
That’s one possible outcome.
But that wasn’t what happened when the low-tax conservatives abandoned Mr. Bush I in 1992.
The other outcome is that when Mr. Giuliani fails to score 40% of the vote in the general election, folks in the Republican Party who would like to run for the presidency will understand that being a pro-abort makes it impossible to actually win the election.
Just as Mr. Bush I’s defeat in 1992 after violating his “no new taxes” pledge confirmed every serious candidate thereafter as a fervent tax-cutter, Mr. Giuliani’s defeat in 2008 (God, please do not let this moral monster be the nominee) would likely confirm Republican presidential candidates long into the future as fervent pro-lifers.
The alternative to voting third party for social conservatives is to become the blacks of the Republican Party. They can count on our votes without ever taking our agenda seriously.
I won't vote for a baby murderer.
I doubt it, the prolife movement is large enough that they have to come to us. Yes we can not win with out the reps but they can nto win with out us either.
Reagan won because Anderson split the dem vote with Carter.
GWB won because Nader calved off enough of Gore's votes to make a difference in several key states.
In other words in two elections the left split their vote with a third party candidate and ushered in the Reagan and Bush revolutions...exactly what you're planning on doing, in reverse, but neither do you see or are willing to admit it.
Is it just me or have IQ's on FR dropped precipitously?
All of your caveats apply to my original question, so answer it.
What were you smoking during the 2000 primaries? McCain was the running as moderate and attack Christian conservatives. McCain was the one trying to lure independents to vote for him because conservatives were backing Bush. Bush was viewed as the conservative in the 2000 primaries.
“Reagan won because Anderson split the dem vote with Carter.”
Although Mr. Anderson certainly added to Mr. Reagan’s margin of victory in 1980, Mr. Reagan actually won an outright majority of the vote in 1980. Even if Mr. Carter had received every single one of Mr. Anderson’s votes, Mr. Reagan would have still won the election.
If five judges are confirmed like Scalia and Thomas, it would be overturned. There may be four votes or overturn it now.
It most certainly won't be if Giuliani becomes President, however.
I don't think I get your point? Bush is pro life, probably the most pro life president we've had in 40 years. Reagan was pro life. Bush 41 was at least not pro choice, probably just wanted to be "reasonable". Getting a pro life president isn't like getting a pro life king. If Bush could get a few Judges appointed, we would already have Roe turned over. Getting Rudy will definitely be no help. What you have is people voting for Bush for prez, and voting Dem for congress because they bring home the pork. Most elections are within the margin of error unless they are in "carved out" districts. If a abortion was voted on as a national referendum, it may not be turned over, but there would be severe restrictions on it.
Republicans like Spector, Chafe, Snow,and a few others is the problem. We had the power, we just didn't use it.
I thought FR hated the GOP, calls them “country clubbers”?
FR members have refused to fund them for years, and left the GOP over illegal immigration, right?
Also, many conservatives lost in 06 because FR, conservative media, talkies, and commentators encouraged voters to PUNISH the GOP for spending too much, and amnesty legislation.
The GOP has been blamed here for the individual perverts who have shown up in Congress over the years also.
So don’t give me the “don’t break up the party”, excuse. Plenty here could care less about the GOP.
The GOP is not responsible for RG running for President, and only the primary voters who nominate him will be responsible.
And who knows if that will even happen? Its very, very, early, FT has not even debated yet.
I've never voted for a pro-abortionist and will never do so . . . no matter what party they claim.
GOP fanboys can whine about me "giving the election to the Dems" or whatever mantra they choose. Know this though: if the GOP puts a pro-abortionist on the 2008 ballot for President, I - and many others - will know the party is lost and vote accordingly.
That said, I know a person's personal beliefs can change over time. If Rudy turns out to be a pro-lifer, God bless him.
You have things backward. Giuliani is far more likely to get liberal legislation passed than Hillary. Liberal legislation promoted by Giuliani will meet no resistance from Republicans while the same legislation would be filibustered by Republicans if Hillary were President.
A Giuliani Presidency would further diminish the number of Republicans in Congress while a Hillary Presidency likely would return the GOP to the majority in Congress.
You don't seem to understand that liberalism had advanced more under George W. Bush than it ever did under Bill Clinton because of the factors I just mentioned. Bush has expanded government at the fastest rate since Lyndon Johnson because Republicans refused to stop socialism pushed by the leader of their own party. We got a balanced budget and welfare reform under Clinton because Republicans took back Congress.
You're batting at least 50%, but I don't think Soros will have to spend a dime to turn off pro-lifers. They already are. But you nailed it on the troll posting by the Rudy/Soros/death cult worshiper, but its a labor of love and for sport, no need for Soros compensation. I read "tos" site for entertainment sometimes when I'm bored, and truly enjoy how much they squabble and trash one another as opposed to their liberal open-minded approach at the beginning. Try it sometime. It's hilarious.
Small potatoes. Where is the Fair tax? Where is the end of the Income tax? Where is the end of the burgeoning Federal Bureaucracy?
That is not particularly conservative. That is a neutral. FDR and Truman won WW-II, does that make them conservative? No.
Further, W has a lot of weakness in his war record to account for. The spinelessness in dealing with the war lords of Northern and Western Pakistan, the prosecution of American soldiers because the jihadists and their liberal allies accuse them of atrocities. The ham-stringing of our troops with incredibly frustrating rules of engagement. So don't miscontrue Bush as conservative. He is death to the American Navy (slashing it still further than Xlinton by another 80 ships and 15 subs!), the American AirForce (sabotaging its future, cutting off production of the only air supremacy plane of that future...the F-22. 185 planes won't cut it.) And of our logistics future capabilities, cutting off the Globemaster III production.
.. partial birth abortion legislation
Which remains unenforced, because W will not stand up to the Court's usurpation of all interpretation authority,
no Kyoto involvement
Only temporarily, as W has been proving non-stop since 2005. Pushing for Global Warming beliefs, cowed by his democrat opponents.
no World Court involvement
You mean ICC. Which we are in fact abiding by without signing. Otherwise there is a LOT of WTO subservience by this White House. And he is pushing still MORE with his Law of the Sea Treaty.
very conservative SC Justices named..
Not by choice. But he made a political deal. We saw who he would appoint if he wasn't constrained by we conservatives. Harriet Meiers. "Just Trust Me". The picks have largely been handed to him by an impressive effort by the Federalist Society...something which didn't exist when Reagan was in the White House, but if it had, we wouldn't have suffered through Sandra Day O'Connor, or Anthony Kennedy, and then under HWB, David Souter. We would have had real candidates. And that would have been the end of the Roe v. Wade decision already...and there would not have been any Kelo decision or Michigan affirmative discrimination policy.
NOTHING conservative? Uhhhh...right.
Reagans majority was razor thin in many important electoral states like CA, NY and FL, which Carter could have won if Anderson wasn’t running. I saw an analysis back then that showed Carter could have had a shot if not for Anderson.
Gore won the most votes but not the oval office because of how the votes fell in key states.
Actually Guliani will have CAUSED Hillary to Win, not the third party-He’s the liberal here, not the “pro-lifer”-the swiftness with which some of you throw out your principles makes my head spin!
Great logic....NOT. Once she’s in she is there for 8 years. Who knows how long this Republic would last.... the terrorists are laughing through their rotten teeth at the thought of a Clinton back in the White House. Pro life would then be an issue of — can we survive being under Muslim rule.
Giuliani has opposed a partial-birth abortion ban, supported taxpayer-funding abortion (even within the last year), has spoken before NARAL and has tried to redefine what a strict constructionalist judge is by saying one could vote to uphold Roe.
He is as pro-abortion as Hillary Clinton.
And, no, large percentage of Christians aren't stupid enough to vote for someone that is open adulterer, pro-abortion and pro-homosexual.
Shockingly enough, many actually care about the issues than getting a Republican elected.
Let them cry all the way back to New York City..for all I care.
Some would not like to live in fantasy world and pretend a Republican "communist dictator" is superior to a Democratic one.
Giuliani would do far more damage to conservatism and the nation than Hillary Clinton. Giuliani is far more likely to get leftist legislation passed and will assure Republicans stay in the minority in Congress.
I see the most important issue we are facing as a nation is the war on terror. It it isn't won, we won't have any choices about anything.
I can’t vote for Rudy Toot. It won’t happen.
As a conservative, I will have ZERO influence on Hillary or Rudy. Hillary will be upfront about searching for another Ruth "Buzzie" Ginsburg. Rudy will find one with no apparent record to foist on us just as the Republicans have been doing for my voting lifetime. The results are identical.
Rudy isn't my first choice, but I will be damned to vote for any other candidate than the republican nominee to insure that we do not have another 8 years of the Clintons.
“27% of Republicans Would Vote for Pro-Life Third Party Instead of Giuliani”
Yes I would.
The left is often criticized for their search for a worldly utopia. I think this can be applied to many on the right as well who say that "nothing conservative" has taken place under this Administration. Hint: don't use "always" or "never". Someone will prove you wrong.
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.