Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

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

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 they’d 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 it’s 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 it’s 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. That’s 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" And University of Virginia Professor Larry Sabato states, “In election campaigns, I’ve 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, 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.

TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2008; giuliani; giulianitruthfile; rds; rudy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 581-586 next last
To: NKStarr
I know its easier to live in a world of black and white than have to made a choice among less than perfect alternatives.

Giuliani isn't merely a less-than-perfect candidate. He is a LIBERAL. And, his record proves it.

And, we know the history of electing such liberal Republicans to office -- from Christie Todd Whitman to Michael Bloomberg to Arnold Schwarzenegger -- has been total failure.

Conservatism can't be advanced by a liberal of either party. And, liberalism is much more likely to be advanced by a liberal Republican.

Literally, you want to create a scenario with Giuliani where both parties are left-of-center, one that assures a move to the left in the country.

261 posted on 10/04/2007 12:36:56 PM PDT by Ol' Sparky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: Jen's Mom
I know you will disagree, but I don't see the big advantage of Rudy over Hillary. He was just a mayor of a city during an attack. That's much different than being Commander in Chief. I don't know how he would react any different than Hillary. I think he is getting a free ride because he was there during the attack. Hunter, Fred, Huckaby, even Tancredo has just as much respect there as Rudy in my eyes. Newt would have been the best, but he's not in.

It all boils down to core beliefs. If you are pro abortion, anti gun, pro homosexuality, I think you lose most credibility on most other issues. It shows a defect in your core belief system which will most likely fail you in an unknown situation. Having an "R" behind your name doesn't make you a "right thinker".I wouldn't vote for Snowe or Specter just because the have an "R" behind their name.

The bottom line is many, including myself won't vote for Rudy. It's up to other Republicans to deal with that fact. A vote for Rudy gets you Hillary. If you think Rudy will save you from her, ....not going to happen. Instead of settling for Rudy the party better get going on somebody that can win. 300,000,000 people and Rudy is the best we can do? I don't think so. The only way Rudy can win is some Dems may switch just because they can't stomach another Clinton. What are the odds? Repubs won't vote for him. Just the Christians and gun people is enough to dump Rudy. I'll put it as plain as possible... ROOTY WON"T MAKE IT!!! Even if you could change my mind, there are 10's of thousands that won't.

Sometimes when your nation is sick, you just have to take an enema to get rid of the sickness. Hillary may be that medication. Carter was the first one I can remember. Maybe a mushroom cloud, a few child molester rapes, Babies being aborted up until 6 mo. old because their mom changed her mind, Teaching all classes in Spanish or Farsi, suspension of the constitution, arresting Rush Limbaugh, etc will wake people up. Right now, people seem to be asleep.

262 posted on 10/04/2007 12:38:00 PM PDT by chuckles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist
It’s proof that a Pro-Life third party would be idiotic, not proof that Rudy can’t win.

Oh, but don't you know that when the public hears about Duncan Hunter all will be saved for the Republicans?

263 posted on 10/04/2007 12:39:15 PM PDT by AxelPaulsenJr (Fred Thompson for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Tarpon
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.

The only way to avoid that scenario is to make sure the Republican party nominates someone other than Giuliani. Both Hillary and Giuliani are leftists.

264 posted on 10/04/2007 12:39:46 PM PDT by Ol' Sparky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: WhistlingPastTheGraveyard
"Paul was created by anti-war leftists."

With ignorance like this, who needs enemies?

265 posted on 10/04/2007 12:41:00 PM PDT by Designer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
I have already decided. I am not voting for him. Not I "don't think I'll vote for him."

Agreed. Great post!

Part of my thinking is if the Republican party allows liberal Rudy to win the nomination, they must be penalized. Electing Rudy would set a precedent that would destroy conservatism for the foreseeable future.

The Republican party needs to change the rules to prevent a RINO from winning the nomination. Here in CA, an equal number of delegates will be awarded to each congressional district. So Duncan Hunter's district gets the same number of Republican delegates as Nancy Pelosi's district. Absurd.

266 posted on 10/04/2007 12:41:06 PM PDT by stillonaroll (Rudy = Hillary: pro-abortion, pro-gay, anti-gun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: penowa
Your chances of getting conservatives from a Republican President are not good to start with; from a liberal Republican President, virtually none.

And, even closer to no chance when we're talking about a liberal Republican that will be presiding over a shrinking Republican minority.

267 posted on 10/04/2007 12:43:04 PM PDT by Ol' Sparky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: Bob J
Guili can be restrained by his party and the party's members.

This same argument was advanced with regards to W on a number of his clearly liberal pet projects. Notice, that those inhibitory factors not only failed to stop him from steam-rolling ahead on them, he risked splitting the Party asunder ("I'm a Uniter, not a Divider"... notice we haven't heard that drivel for some time from him, heh.), plus, he has interfered with the State grass-roots selections of their own representatives, trying to "Top-Down" direct selections...and hence we get Norm Colemans and other phoneys who are not conservative. But democrats to the core, who wanted power now, and were willing to mouth whatever the Prez said, to get his backing. At least for a while.

268 posted on 10/04/2007 12:44:14 PM PDT by Paul Ross (Ronald Reagan-1987:"We are always willing to be trade partners but never trade patsies.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: WhistlingPastTheGraveyard
"..this plot.."

You've got some imagination!

RUN ON TINFOIL, aisle 5!!!

269 posted on 10/04/2007 12:44:46 PM PDT by Designer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Sparky
It’s really beginning to irritate me hearing Guiliani say he is a strict constructionist, except when it comes to the Second Amendment. Selective reasoning for selective outcomes. NO SALE.

You think you have problems, my wife refuses to vote for Rudy or Mitt, no way no how.

270 posted on 10/04/2007 12:47:58 PM PDT by Tarpon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: inkling
"I'm primarily concerned with protecting America."

Liberals do not protect America.

No President Rudy.

271 posted on 10/04/2007 12:49:00 PM PDT by Designer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist

The only proof that this shows is that the Republican Party continues to be stupid.

If they desert their conservative base (which they have) then I will not weep at their funeral.

They can get it right or go away.

We already have one liberal party, we don’t need another one.

272 posted on 10/04/2007 12:49:03 PM PDT by Leatherneck_MT (A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Sparky
"And, even closer to no chance when we're talking about a liberal Republican that will be presiding over a shrinking Republican minority."

Yes, it would be difficult for a conservative to slip anything past a Senate with less than 40 Republicans, not to mention that most of those are RINOs in tune with the Democrats and a liberal President wanting to appoint a Stevens clone, or worse, to the court.

273 posted on 10/04/2007 12:50:41 PM PDT by penowa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Sparky

So, in order “show the GOP who’s boss”, you’ll allow a more-liberal-than-Guliani to be elected?

274 posted on 10/04/2007 12:52:33 PM PDT by davidlachnicht ("IF WE'RE ALL TO BE TARGETS, THEN WE ALL MUST BE SOLDIERS.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: Designer

I won’t abandon our troops to CinC Hillary. You can turn your back on them if you want.

275 posted on 10/04/2007 12:53:53 PM PDT by inkling (
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

To: stillonaroll

“Part of my thinking is if the Republican party allows liberal Rudy to win the nomination, they must be penalized. Electing Rudy would set a precedent that would destroy conservatism for the foreseeable future.”

Exactly... Conservative influence in the party destroyed for years.

What I don’t understand is that the RNC knows they’re ALREADY on a slippery slope. No one is sending them money until they change their positions, and yet they’re pushing on... It’s almost like they WANT to be the minority party. And not just for now, they don’t seem to WANT to re-energize conservatives... I’m starting to think they’d be happy with permanent minority status.

Which is exactly what Giuliani would give us.

276 posted on 10/04/2007 12:55:26 PM PDT by COgamer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: joonbug

As I said before, if you’re buying what Rudy is selling (that he will appoint to the S.C. Justices OPPOSED to his beliefs,) then perhaps we could discuss that bridge I have for sale.

277 posted on 10/04/2007 12:56:27 PM PDT by penowa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]

To: NKStarr
As was Reagan.

Actually his version of free trade differs from the current Administration and the Xlinton's rather dramatically. The Bush's while trying to claim they are merely following in his footsteps, would, if he was still available to commment, condemn hims as merely a fair trader, because he explicitly declared that our being open, while the other side wasn't, or cheated...was not free trade. He also never believed in an international organization to decide our trade disputes...abdicating our rights to the WTO. This also has become a lynchpin of the last two administrations. Note, we have never formally executed a Treaty to become a part of this. This was merely done by legislation enacting the "Agreement" of NAFTA, appended as an 8-page addendum thereto. Congress cannot by simple legislation elevate something to Treaty status, and usurp our own Constitutionally-structured system so cavalierly. And it cannot also enact excess delegations of authority to the executive branch of functions fundamentally reserved to it alone.

278 posted on 10/04/2007 12:57:37 PM PDT by Paul Ross (Ronald Reagan-1987:"We are always willing to be trade partners but never trade patsies.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]

To: penowa
Given the alternatives, I’ll take my chances with Rudy (or Romney or Thompson) versus any of the Dems...

If I’m on the roof of my burning house, I’ll take my chances jumping off (and breaking bones) rather than the sure thing of incinerating...

279 posted on 10/04/2007 1:03:58 PM PDT by joonbug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC

Rudy supporters are idiots. Instead of facing the reality that Rudy can’t win, that people with principles will NOT vote for him, they continue to insist we all vote for the Rino SOB. The Rudy supporters are the ones splitting the party. We need Thompson as our nominee, NOT RUDY. Thompson has everything Rudy doesn’t, including honesty. Anyone who can still support Rudy after his silence on the Rush smear is just blind to the facts. Rudy is NOT a conservative, he is anti-conservative and not a viable candidate for President. Dump him and support a candidate that can win.

280 posted on 10/04/2007 1:07:57 PM PDT by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 581-586 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson