27% of Republicans Would Vote for Pro-Life Third Party Instead of Giuliani (Proof Rudy CAN'T Win)

Rasmussen Reports ^ | 10-4-07 | Rasmussen Reports

[Ol' Sparky]

Say hello to President Hitlery.

And, say hello to a Republican majority in Congress.

[babygene]

“Hillary would win in a landslide if that happens. If Christian Conservatives insist on this, they are ensuring 8 more years of the Clintons.”

Another way of looking at this is that knowing that Rudy can’t win without the conservative base, those supporting him would be responsible for the Clinton win...

[NKStarr]

>>Ah yes, let’s blindly vote for a socialist in the GOP ...<

Oh for God’s sake, let’s at least stay somewhat in the realm of reality. Whatever RG’s social views might be, you certainly can’t put him in the socialist camp. On economic matters, he is pro-tax cut, pro-fiscal restraint, pro-school choice, pro-free market in health care. Barron’s magazine rated him a 3.8 out of a scale of 4 for being pro-investor. Hillary ranked below 2.

[COgamer]

“Pro-Life advocates are not idiots, there will be no third party created by them.”

Why not? Hypothetical : If Republicans start losing elections for failure to support the pro-life cause, how long will it take them to start supporting the pro-life cause?

Whether the 3rd party worked out or not, Republicans would do everything they could to get those voters back.

[WhyisaTexasgirlinPA]

I agree with your tagline. I'm not so needy that I will put up with someone being only a partial friend - 95% maybe, but I'm just not a glass is 20% full kind of girl.

I wasn't polled - add me and my husband and daughter to those who would vote 3rd party. No rudy, no way.

[Paul Ross]

It (Roe v. Wade overturning) most certainly won't be if Giuliani becomes President, however.

Agreed.

I disagree with Hugh Hewitt that Rudy's reticence about judicial activism will necessarily reverse the case law precedence of activist legislation from the bench already in place.

My expectation is that he would choose more David Souter types.

[Hydroshock]

Rino Rudy is a globalist, statist, socialist liberal. I will never vote for him

[penowa]

"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."

You may very well believe that there is nothing worse than President Rodham in your future, but I would suggest that having no party and no choice, just one big Commie party filled with the Socialists, Democrats, once-were-RINOs, is a lot more frightening to many of us.

[sitetest]

Dear Bob J,

“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 don’t think so. First, Mr. Reagan took 52.7% of the vote in California.

These are the states where Mr. Reagan won a plurality of the vote (where Mr. Reagan received more than 49% of the vote, I’ve noted in parentheses):

Alabama - 9
Arkansas - 6
Connecticut - 8
Delaware - 3
Illinois (49.6%) - 26
Kentucky - 9
Maine - 4
Massachusetts - 14
Michigan - 21
Mississipi - 7
New York - 41
North Carolina (49.3%) - 13
Oregon - 6
Pennsylvania (49.6%) - 27
South Carolina (49.5%) - 8
Tennessee - 10
Vermont - 3
Washington (49.7%) - 9
Wisconsin - 11

As you can see, they add up to 244 electoral votes. If Mr. Carter had been able to win all of them, he’d have won the election with 293 electoral votes.

The problem is that Mr. Anderson wasn’t the only “third party” candidate in 1980. There was also Libertarian Ed Clark. If Mr. Anderson hadn’t run AND MR. CARTER RECEIVED EVERY SINGLE ANDERSON VOTE INSTEAD (not likely), Mr. Reagan still would have won:

Alabama - 9
Illinois - 26
Oregon - 6
Pennsylvania - 27
Washington - 9

That’s 77 electoral votes that Mr. Carter WOULD NOT HAVE WON, even if he’d received EVERY SINGLE VOTE THAT WENT FOR MR. ANDERSON.

Thus, Mr. Carter would have received 216 electoral votes in 1980 if he’d have received EVERY SINGLE VOTE for Mr. Anderson, and Mr. Reagan would have “only” received 322 electoral votes.

Of course, in reality, some number of “moderate” Republicans went over to Mr. Anderson rather than vote for Mr. Reagan, and thus, he likely would have received even more than 50.7% of the popular vote, and even more than 322 electoral votes if Mr. Anderson hadn’t won.

Yes, without Mr. Anderson, the race likely would have been closer.

But as can be clearly seen, even if Mr. Carter had received EVERY SINGLE ANDERSON VOTE, Mr. Reagan would have still won the election.

sitetest

[joonbug]

“Of course not. I much prefer a Republican appointed Souter or Stevens like you apparently do. /s
“

I was thinking more like Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito...

I think the odds are quite a bit better of getting that type of appointee from a Republican than from a Democrat.

Though if you feel otherwise, just sit out the election if you don’t like the Republican nominee, and let’s see who Hillary appoints.

[Grunthor]

“It’s more of a prevent defense until the next election when you will have the opportunity to elect someone more to your liking.”

The only thing the “prevent defense” prevents is winning.

We have the opportunity NOW to nominate someone more to our liking and the PTB are trying to force a pro-gay, pro-baby murder (on OUR dime) anti-gun SOCIALIST ON US!

Pray tell, just HOW can we expect that to be ANY DIFFERENT in 4 to 8 years???!!!

[Man50D]

So, let's see.

Not gonna vote R, because the candidate is not conservative enough. ok, so we will vote 3rd party, because, you know, that candidate is more conservative, because, we, you konw, need to stand firm on the issues, because we care about the unborn.

So, we will vote 3rd party, and therefore, because of our vote, the most liberal candidate, her royal highness, will become president, and THEN the voters will get what they deserve, a president who will appoint abortion activist judges from the SC down to the municipal level, not to mention rubber stamping EVERYTHING Ried, and Pelosi come up with

That will show em, yeah.

Let's look at the alternative.

I will vote for someone solely based on the R next to their name regardless of the candidate's socialist ideology because the candidate is a little less socialist than the Demorat, because we need to keep the Republican party united even if it means sliding farther to the left than we have been for several years.

So we will continue to eliminate Conservatives in the party just for the sake of winning and on the assumption if we don't Hitlery will win. Then the voters will get more socialism and we will have to continue to fight against the President on issues including amnesty for illegal aliens, just as we are doing with the current GOP President, in addition to abortion, 2nd Amendment rights, not to mention many other issues the socialist GOP President agrees with the RATS.

Then GOP will really be in control!!!!

[Paul Ross]

Here we go again. The GOP alienates conservatives by abandoning conservative principles to appease and compromise the socialist left, and then blames the end result on the conservatives.

BUMP! Precisely correct.

[sitetest]

“if Mr. Anderson hadn’t won.” = “if Mr. Anderson hadn’t run.”

[Grunthor]

“But it is fact that Hillary Clinton would not appoint any judge willing to overturn Roe V. Wade.”

Ditto Trudy.

[roses of sharon]

If the majority of GOP voters somehow become pro-choice and put a pro-choice plank in their charter, then of course pro-life advocates would have to start a 3rd party.

Can’t see that happening anytime soon tho.

[Paul Ross]

BUMP! Excellent regurgitation of the history! That took a lot of work to pull up. Commendations.

This is what makes FR so incredibly valuable, a crucible for truth...which will set us free.

[sitetest]

Dear Bob J,

Oh, and by the way - Florida wasn’t close, either - Mr. Reagan took over 55%.

sitetest

[Man50D]

Can you say hello President Clinton. thanks to the 27% of Christians who would rather have a communist dictator, than Rudy.

Can you say hello to a socialist President if Rudy and Hitlery square off? People are too hung up on party labels to realize the candidate's ideology is what's important. Both are socialists regardless of the R or D.

[sitetest]

Dear Paul Ross,

Thanks! It’s astonishing the level to which some folks will stoop to defend voting for baby murderers.

sitetest