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.
I know its easier to live in a world of black and white than have to made a choice among less than perfect alternatives. Really I do. I prefer making the easy choices too.
In the bubble that is FR, a lot of folks don’t realize that exactly the same thing is going on over on the Dem side. We regard Hillary as a radical socialist, but (believe it or not) for many of them she’s way too conservative, pro-business, and pro-war. Yet, thus far, I haven’t heard any anti-war candidate talk seriously about mounting a third party challenge. They understand what is at stake. When we understand it, then we will deserve to win.
“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.”
Hydro, The spawn of Arlen Spector could be the nominee and the prolife plank will still remain. Split the Repub party and say goodbye to the 2nd Am., the military, maleness, and say hello to a further cultural infusion of homosexual acceptability, preferencial treatment, higher taxes, Jesse Jackson, the NEA, NOW, the acceleration of the feminization of our boys, Hollywood carte blanche...
What a biased comment!
Why not say, "Ultimately, of course, some Republicans would have to face the question of whether to
vote NOMINATE for Giuliani or AND help elect a Democrat."
We will get about the same with Rino Rudy.
abortion has and will kill many more Americans than terrorism has or will and thats alright with Giuliani.
The main question for the 2008 elections is whether or not the American people want to elect a socialist who will install a socialist government and implement socialist policies.
Proof there won’t be any third party candidate — Perot was a fluke and Bloomberg found no support. Bloomberg was Hillary Matters “Perot”, got to get the winning vote under 50% so a Democrat could win.
Of course not. I much prefer a Republican appointed Souter or Stevens like you apparently do. /s
Yes, its just you.
Reagan actually won in spite of REPUBLICAN John Anderson splitting the GOP. Peeling off all the liberal republican votes. Reagan won with conservatives. Republican and Democrat.
GWB won because Nader calved off enough of Gore's votes to make a difference in several key states.
LOL! Bogus. Try Buchanan's Independence Party and the other parties also again peeling votes from the GOP. W won in spite of that. With razor-thin margins in many middle states, winning or losing... the third parties cut both ways. Maybe not always equally, but your views are clearly revisionist and frankly devoid of merit. You must not have lived through the elections of the 70's and 80s and don't know what a struggle conservatism has had to gain ascendancy within the GOP...which has only been lost due to betrayal !
As for what you are imputing to me:
.exactly what you're planning on doing, in reverse, but neither do you see or are willing to admit it
Can't and won't admit what I am not DOING. I want a housecleaning of the GOP, to restore the Reagan Conservative majority...and oust every single CFR enemy of that coalition of nationalists.
I will not vote for Rudy whether there's a third party or not.
It's so close that he doesn't need to lose 14% of the vote to lose to Hillary. He needs to lose only about 2-3%. And he will lose that.
Look outside the box...... It will be Hillary if the GOP splits and votes on the pro-life issue as their main qualifier for who they pull the lever for.
I think the war on terror should be the main issue in the next election. If Hillary gets in, we may not survive as a nation.
Essentially correct, but I would replace that label "moderate" with the more accurate, LIBERAL. Bush was also definitely out-flanked on the conservative side of the ledger badly by Alan Keyes who dramatically outed both the other two. But due to his failed efforts at fund-raising he could not compete.
Wish it weren't that way. But that was the way it went down.
The Republicans need to win CA, and NY to win Presidential elections? Where did you come up with that?
Your many explanations of why these don't indicate conservative progress don't negate that.
Yes they do. I have barely BEGUN to list all the betrayals committed by this phoney.
“Its proof that a Pro-Life third party would be idiotic, not proof that Rudy cant win.”
So I take it that you would have no problem sacrificing your principles? Or, maybe you don’t have any...
Listed them already in response to a comment that "nothing conservative" has been going on.
Read the thread.
It's just you. LOL! Don't get mad, I couldn't help it.
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.
It's not just one issue. Giuliani is a liberal, period. Voting for him is turning the country over liberals and assure both parties are left-of-center.
Political rhetoric stated via a POTUS runner previously, "A giant sucking sound" has been given new meaning via a 3rd party in this millennium.
Important Post Bump.
If Mr. Giuliani is the Republican nominee and Mrs. Clinton the Democrat nominee, then a liberal Democrat will be the next president, no matter which nominee wins the election.
>>Rino Rudy is a globalist, statist, socialist liberal.<<
Following below is a news release summarizing the findings of the pro-free market Club for Growth regarding the record of RG. Suffice it to say that he is none of things you allege.
Rudy Giuliani Enacted Pro-Growth Policies Despite Liberal New York Environment
Washington - Today, the Club for Growth released its presidential white paper on Republican presidential candidate New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. The fourth in a series of white papers on presidential candidates, the report (reprinted below and as a PDF file) provides an extensive summary of Rudy Giuliani’s economic policies during his eight years as the mayor of America’s largest city.
“Mayor Giuliani’s economic record is not perfect, but he deserves credit for the remarkable nature of his accomplishments,” Club for Growth President Pat Toomey said. “In a city long accustomed to high taxes and ballooning budgets, Rudy Giuliani successfully cut taxes; kept spending below the growth of inflation and population; instituted sweeping welfare reform; privatized and deregulated many aspects of the city’s bulky bureaucracy; and fought aggressively for school choice.”
The white paper emphasizes the liberal context in which Giuliani was forced to govern. Although the Mayor took a number of anti-growth positions-such as his opposition to NAFTA, his support for McCain Feingold, and his opposition to several tax cuts-he used free-market, limited-government values to turn around a faltering economy in a political environment dominated by a left-wing City Council; public sector labor unions; social welfare activists; and an unfriendly media.
“Rudy Giuliani will still need to flesh out his positions on a number of federal issues, and we hope he will reconsider his few anti-growth positions,” Mr. Toomey said. “But it is impossible to ignore Giuliani’s overall commitment to a pro-growth philosophy and his executive talent for implementing that philosophy in a hostile political environment.”
You're certainly not basing that comment on his record, which is more liberal than Bill Clinton's was in Arkansas.
Sorta reminds one of the democRATS who are so blinded by their hatred of Pres. Bush that they'd rather see us defeated by our enemies.
There are 2 liberals appointed by Clinton on the court. All the past and present liberals with the exception of Breyer and Ginzburg going back to Ford have been appointed by Republican presidents, and including two “moderate” Justices appointed by Reagan, Kennedy and O’Connor who voted more with the liberals than the conservatives. Your chances of getting conservatives from a Republican President are not good to start with; from a liberal Republican President, virtually none.
In order to get the socialist elected, the media will plumb the possibilities of fear and conflict to bring about whatever scenario damages the opposition the most. This means damage to any opposition. They want Fred declared dead, with characterization of asleep and detanched. They want Mitt shown as a waffling poligamist, they want Rudy in drag to scare Pubbie base outside New York, they want the McCain to channel Nixon and the others to be invisible.
Rasmussen is trying to sell product and so he devises a one time poll and if the media buys it and re-commissions it for payment and tweaking they will run it until it is one of the many stumbling blocks being thrown in the path of all who oppose Chairman Hillary.
On this site of long standing where debate should be reasoned and spirited together, we can watch the media's manipulation play out as we fight with each other in accordance with their plan.
The country will be moving far more to the left if Giuliani becomes President.
There is no stopping liberalism when it is advanced by a Republican, especially one that will presiding over a shrinking Republican minority.
Hillary's election, at least, sets the stage for Republicans to take back Congress.
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.