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.
And, say hello to a Republican majority in Congress.
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...
>>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.
“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.
I wasn't polled - add me and my husband and daughter to those who would vote 3rd party. No rudy, no way.
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.
Rino Rudy is a globalist, statist, socialist liberal. I will never vote for him
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.
“Reagans majority was razor thin in many important electoral states like CA, NY and FL, which Carter could have won if Anderson wasnt 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.
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.
“Its 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???!!!
BUMP! Precisely correct.
“if Mr. Anderson hadnt won.” = “if Mr. Anderson hadn’t run.”
“But it is fact that Hillary Clinton would not appoint any judge willing to overturn Roe V. Wade.”
Can’t see that happening anytime soon tho.
This is what makes FR so incredibly valuable, a crucible for truth...which will set us free.
Oh, and by the way - Florida wasn’t close, either - Mr. Reagan took over 55%.
Thanks! It’s astonishing the level to which some folks will stoop to defend voting for baby murderers.