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.
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.