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.
Nail, meet coffin.
Thank you for reality.
The Stop Rudy ping list!
E-mail/ping me if you want on/off the list! SPREAD THE WORD!!!
The truth is out there....if you weed through the lies from the Rudy911 campaign (”We’ll put D.C. and Canada into play!”).
It’s proof that a Pro-Life third party would be idiotic, not proof that Rudy can’t win.
Yep. Either that, or sit it out.
Meanwhile, Mrs. Clinton is inviting the decorators into the White House to measure for the new window treatments.
I have given money for 20 years to Dobson et al. It will stop if this foolishness continues.
I will hold my nose if I have to and save as many babies as possible. Not turn the government over to the evil left.
I’d vote for almost any third party candidate over Hillarudy.
That ought to give the pro-life movement a boost---like money in the bank.
Then we’d better be wise and nominate a candidate who won’t split the party, as opposed to being stupid and nominating Rudy911, then demanding that everyone who has sworn that they won’t give up their principles to support Rudy911 do exactly that.
There WILL be a Third Party option if Rudy911 gets the nod. I will be one of those folks working night and day, until I can work no more, making sure it happens.
Any third party of any kind that’s right of center guarantees a Hilary win, of course.
As I keep saying the inadequate republican candidates will be the reason hillary can win
This is the entire purpose of Ron Paul’s candidacy. In order for it to work, Rudy has to get the nomination. When that happens and Paul announces his third-party candidacy (with Chuck Hagel as his running mate) Paul will turn down the volume on the anti-war rhetoric (leaving it to Hagel) and turn up the volume on the pro-life rhetoric.
So far, everything seems to be going exactly according to plan.
Here we go again. Conservative third party puts another Clinton in the White House.
If Fruity’s nominated there WILL be a 3rd party candidate, regardless of what faction of the social conservative movement it represents.
We are not idiots, which is why we cannot have two rabidly Pro-abortion parties - the inevitable and undeniable result of a Rudy911 Presidency.
Heed the meeting from Salt lake City (Search FR for “Values” and read Dobson’s account). I will be one of those giving every ounce of blood to make it happen.
Those pure "conservatives" gave America eight years of Bubba. Good job guys!
You need to face the facts that have been presented here for months, there are a whole bunch of Republicans that will never vote for Rooty!
All the pro gun Dem’s will go back to their default party because they lose any reason to switch their vote for the gun issue.
There is no way that moron could win. If he is nominated the race is over and RATS win!
A Rudy nomination would kill the GOP. Conservatives would have no incentive to work for Rudy. The folks who man the phones and knock on doors, volunteering and passing out campaign literature? That's the conservative base, hello.
I have no intention of supporting Rudy should he win the nomination.
(Hands over ears) "La-la-la, I don't care if Hillary wins, la-la-la..."
No, it will be a bait-and-switch. Paul was created by anti-war leftists. After the primaries, he'll be re-packaged as the pro-lifer's only alternative to Ghouliani.
The only way to throw a monkey wrench into this plot is to nominate anyone but Rudy.
Paul already said he won’t run as a 3rd party or independent candidate regardless who’s nominated, so your speculation is moot.
I suspect you knew that when you were supporting him a few months ago. Just as you understand Ron Paul's purpose now.
This is different. Bush I looks like Rush Limbaugh compared to Rudy911. Rudy911 is a whole new universe of leftism in the GOP.
The Republicans have no one to blame but themselves if they dump social conservatives for Guiliani and lose. I will not vote for Rudy.
How do I get this thread put on the sidebar? it seems rather important, all things considered.
PROOF that 27% of Republicans are IDIOTS
The opposite is other rightwing/leftwing/anti-Israel type group, they will run their usual suspects.
Its proof that a Pro-Life third party would be idiotic, not proof that Rudy cant win.”
If we are not safe in the USA because of the terrorists who wish to take us back to the 7th century, then what difference does it make arguing about being Pro-life or not?
The terrorists won’t be allowing any such discussions. They want ALL of us dead, young/old rich/poor male/female short/tall thin/fat
They don’t care.
They have absolute no PRO-LIFE agenda in any part of their plans.
We are truly fiddling while Rome burns, IMO.
Give my a candidate who won’t put up with the BS from the radicals. One who recognizes trouble and works hard to eradicate it for good. Fred Thompson for President and Rudy for Homeland Security would suit me just fine. I think they would make a formidable pair. Get the woooosies out of the way and conduct business like this is really a war, because that is exactly what it is.
You don’t care if Hillary wins. That says it all!
You're primarily concerned with protecting the GOP. I'm primarily concerned with protecting America.
No President Hillary.
Since third parties never win and our system only allows for voting for the lesser of two evils in the general elections I’ll be holding my nose and voting for Rudy if he’s the only prospective candidate capable of defeating Hitlery in the general election. I’s rather win than make a point.
Hillary would win in a landslide if that happens. If Christian Conservatives insist on this, they are ensuring 8 more years of the Clintons.
I am rather disgusted the the attitudes of people who are so blinded by their hatred of Rudy that they obviously don't give a rat's patoot that their arrogance is in Hillary's favor. She's banking on the Useful Idiots of the Republican Party to push her over the top. Looks like she outsmarted them again.
Either you’re stunningly naive, or you think we’re all as dense as cheesecake.
In the history of American politics, has a candidate for his party’s nomination ever announced his third party contingency plans in the middle of the primary? Ever?
I’ll give you a hint: the answer is “no”.
“Meanwhile, Mrs. Clinton is inviting the decorators into the White House to measure for the new window treatments.”
The news on the vine says Laura already helped her put them up last weekend. ;)
Just think how well a prominent third-party candidate could do if Giuliani were the Republican nominee..
I was thinking 30% and that’s what I’ve been posting, so my guess was not far off. I am assuming that the 3rd party runs a “nothing” candidate like Gary Bauer. If they came up with someone semi-credible, it could go higher IMO.
It’s incredibly important. This 27% is the whole ball game.
We can’t let Rudy win this nomination. Period.
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.
Oh, and our cause, just as it is, will be advanced light years.
I understand your loathing of Rudy. I’m just saying that any third party effort such as you describe works to Mrs. Clinton’s benefit, and in the long run, she will do much more damage to pro-life efforts, with, for instance, her Supreme Court nominees, than Rudy ever could. Of course, Republicans could always nominate Fred. I see no logical reason to “work night and day to make sure” Mrs. Clinton elected, regardless of how good and virtuous that makes you feel. Her election would be a disaster for the country on several different levels.
Sure, something like Ross Perot did. 8 years of Clinton.
Care to explain how that works because I certainly don't understand how voting pro-abortion whether R or D saves any babies?
Here’s the deal folks: nominate Giuliani and practically guarantee a win by the left.
I wish there were stats on the number of times the GOP has nominated a “moderate” or that a GOP candidate shifted to the left during the campaign with the result that the leftist won. As has been pointed out over and over again people will vote for the real thing rather than a watered-down version. And in those cases where the “moderate” won we have almost always been saddled with a RINO just as likely to back the left as his own party (Snowe, Collins, Chaffee, Arnold, Hagel, ad nauseum).
Conservatives tend to win when they run as conservatives. Rush has been pointing this out for years.
I don’t give two tinkles for the party designation. What does the candidate stand for? Does he have a philosophy that I can agree with for the most part? I used to vote Democrat but I started voting Republican because the GOP and its candidates held a philosophy that coincided with my own on far more points than the left. Republicans like Giuliani hold philosophies that I cannot support and that I cannot vote for.
If Giuliani is what the electorate wants in a president then the conservative movement has lost. That the move to the left is led by a Democrat or Republican is a trivial matter. It is the move itself that matters.
Well enough to put Hillary in office.
Idiotic or not, that is the lay of the land right now. If Rudy gets the nomination, there may not be a third party, but there will be a number of conservatives sitting out.
You are most likely correct that Pro-Lifers will not mount a third party..however, it is true that most (not all) pro-lifers will not vote for a pro-abortion canidate, nor will they vote for the democrat...however, the result is the same.
Care to place a wager on that if Rudy is the Republican nominee? Or, perhaps you mean the used-to-be Republicans before their party left them by nominating Giuliani won't form a new party, but vote for some existing 3rd party.
Don’t forget the Ron Paul cult.