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.
Bloomberg was trying to reduce the vote totals for Republicans so that Hillary Matters could win with a 43% vote total like BJ did. Only problem he found zero support among anyone, except Democrats. Hence he dropped the whole notion of wasting money to try and help out Hillary Matters.
Dobson will find the same fate.
On the off chance that he might peek in from time to time, I pinged him.
He was quite insistent that hardly any social conservatives would abandon the baby murderer, should he receive the nomination.
If find it offensive that they are threatening the party with CERTAIN defeat if they don't get their way.
To hell with them. I wish they'd all leave now so we can start the process of reformulation.
The thing is, he never would...
...make any such promise.
...keep it if he made it.
Courageous like Abraham, America's Major: Rudy Giuliani could save our civilization from the terrorist hordes. And Abraham saved Sodom and Gomorrah for what??? Gay Pride? Divine annihilation?
I can't vote for the man.
Better eight years than a thousand years.
Pinging the religious right.
The Platform, you mean that document that nobody ever reads, and immediately vanishes from living memory? And a convention of Giuliani delegates, about to nominate Rudy, will write a platform opposing almost everythinmg he stands for and which he will promptly repudiate! Give me a break!!
Rudy will have this nomination locked up by Feb...Thompson might win a few southern states, but everything west of the rockies...and everything north of the Mason-Dixon will go to Rudy in the primaries...along with most of the mid-west.
“Let me know when youre ready to discuss the bridge sale.
You mean the Rudy “bridge to somewhere” versus the Hillary “bridge to nowhere”?
Nobody’s threatening anything. Conservatives are just restating what should be a given: we don’t vote for liberals.
If you’d like to nominate a liberal, go ahead. Just don’t act all betrayed when we don’t vote for him and he gets slaughtered in the general.
This isn’t real complicated stuff.
They never seem to have the answeres for those kind of questions.
(note; did not ping the other participant in the debate as I was not referring “just” to him)
If it turns out that the conservative vote for POTUS is split b/t the GOP and a pro-life third party come-lately...
WE HAD BETTER BE DAMNED CERTAIN TO GET CONTROL OF THE HOUSE AND SENATE!!!!
This thread is a perfect representative proof that the GOP would lose the Whitehouse. And to use FR as a representative sampling is to use some of the most conservative of GOP voters to survey. If the most conservative voters would split the vote, then...well then...Mene Mene Tarkel Uparshin...numbered, numbered, weighed, divided...the Republic will fall into the hands of the enemies of freedom.
I am strongly pro-life and do not desire to cast asparagus upon other pro-life folks who would vote their conscience. Hell I’ve done it and in hindsight I was wrong to do so. However, in the event of a 3rd party split, I’d HAVE to support the GOP. America is the last flickering light of freedom’s hope upon the planet. We ARE the free world. If the socialists take over the USA that light is put out.
We had better be willing to get off of our arses and stomp the pavement for votes to win back the two houses.
We must hold back this tide of leftists. Rush said it well yesterday when he said that these people CANNOT be allowed to take over our government. If they do, we may never get it back.
These are not John F. Kennedy democrats, these are statists, leftists, socialists, anarchists, and one-step-away-from-communists.
The congressional reigns on the beast better be tight and short, or we could lose the Republic to her Leftist Socialist Utopia.
Social conservative are not and have never been reliable GOP voters.
Yeah, right. Folks used the same argument with Schwarzenegger who has joined with Democrats in implementing their agenda and marginalizing conservatives all the way.
The way to fight liberalism is to be strongly aligned against it, not let it into your own backyard.
I’m not sure what Dobson has to do with anything. Until this post, I don’t think I’ve ever even mentioned the man’s name here.
But don’t let that fact interfere with the pro-abort republicrat fantasy that all pro-lifers sit around eagerly awaiting James Dobson’s voting instructions. If that makes things nice, neat and easy to understand for you, have at it.
“Also if we wanted to prevent fraud, we should have been watching the voting machines from day before yesterday. (so to speak)”
And, on top of that, the Dems won’t count all of the military votes.
And don't fool yourselves about 'winning back Congress in 2010' or 'winning back the White House in 2012'. It ain't gonna happen: Stalin-in-a-pants-suit will rig the system to prevent it. Here's how:
1. Impose the Fairness Doctrine by executive order to shut down talk radio (silence the opposition)
2. Expand entitlements to create a majority dependent on government services (guaranteed 'Rat voting bloc)
3. Ram through an illegal alien amnesty that will make GWB's failed 'comprehensive' bill seem conservative (another guaranteed 'Rat voting bloc)
That's just for starters. And God forbid we'd get hit with a terrorist attack on her watch: the first thing she'll do is take away guns from law-abiding citizens. Then she'll make Muslims a protected class and prosecute anyone who says anything negative about them under hate-crimes laws.
After 8 years of her reign, we will no longer recognize the United States of America.
Think Rudy will be bad? Consider the alternative. I rest my case.
If you mean me, I am definitely not pro-abort.
They have been working for a 3rd and 4th term since the day he left.
They are extremely angry about his Impeachment, and want payback.
And Hill and Bill KNOW modern day Americans, and KNOW most Americans WANT universal healthcare, and other goodies.
They also have their “WAR ROOM”, ie, the entire media, academia and Hollywood.
So it really matters not who we nominate at all.
Our mission at FR should be to destroy the MSM, completely discredit all of them, reporter by reporter.
FR should be funding ads against the MSM right now.
third party like Bloomberg?
Nobody is “threatening” anything. We are STATING an iron clad, irrefutable FACT!
CONSERVATIVES DO NOT VOTE FOR LIBERALS, BE THEY SOCIAL OR FISCAL!
Personally, I am backing the candidate who has the best chance to beat the democrats. Right now that is Fred Thompson. However, whoever gets the GOP nomination will get my vote, because the alternative is irrevelentcy. Your views won't matter! The democrats will simply steamroll over what we believe and when they are done, we will live in socialist europe.
So all you ideologues out there better be sure; the world with Giuliani as President would be a conservative utopia compared to the alternative...
If I thought your analysis was correct, I would be doing that right now!
“A socialist is a socialist regardless of whether there is an R or D after the name! “
Hillary is a definite socialist (or worse). I don’t think Rudy would be any more of a socialist than Bush (No Child Left Behind, Medicare Drug Bill, lack of border enforcement, etc). But I would much rather have a big government Republican that will keep us safe than a bigger-government liberal who will get us killed.
The federal government has grown (spending, regulations, etc) under every President regardless of party. I would welcome a real third party alternative that has a chance, but unfortunately the reality is two parties and a choice of one or the other.
Back then there were only 3 horses in the race, and I didn't know the extent of his left-wing views until he imploded on CNN with the support for taxpayer funding of abortions.
I ain't scared of a Hillary presidency, unlike you guys who whine for your Mommas whenever she's mentioned.
I seriously doubt christian right to lifers can get a 4th party candidate por-life single issue candidate on the ballot in 50 states.
I say 4th party because its far more likely you see someone like Bloomberg buy their way in to 3rd party ticket as an independent sucking up the oxygen.
Dr. Paul promised his wife of 50 years that he would not run as a 3rd party or independent candidate, and I'll take his word over the rest of the so-called Republicans who spin like Maytag washers.
There is a question as to whether the US could or SHOULD survive with a unanimously pro-abortion political system.
I fear for my country when I reflect that God is just--Thomas Jefferson
"Always vote on principle, though you may vote alone, but you may cherish the sweet reflection that your vote is never lost."
Ain’t nuttin principled about giving the country to hillary.
Cool. I was looking for the meeting place for all of those folks who wanted to cut off their nose to spite their face.
But if your vote "on principle" accomplishes not only nothing, but has brought about a worse outcome, then you and your efforts are a failure.
My vote on principle means that I refuse the accept the quasi-socialist status quo that Rudy-toots is pushing, and the subsequent demise of the GOP.
You can vote for this fascist authoritarian freakazoid who invokes 9/11 like John Kerry invokes Vietnam, but my vote and support will go elsewhere.
That would be better advice for Ron Paul or one of the other asterixes.
And what exactly will your vote on principle accomplish? Do you really think Republicans will want anything to do with those that acted like petulant children and allowed Hillary to win? I am one Republican that will have nothing to do with them if it happens.
Actually it’s proof of both. Welcome to hell.
You will not be deciding things. If the GOP sees that they can't win without the values voters, they will do what they did in 1994, shift their policies to attract the disaffected voters. It is not like they have ny principles to stop them from doing this. If you don't like it, you can go start a new party in 2010.
I disagree. I think almost any of the Republicans could beat Hildabeast if Bush had not done so much to disappoint and demoralize Republicans during the last four years. Now we can’t trust any of the candidates because the GOP has behaved as bad or worse than the Democrats in some cases.
Won’t happen. Like entropy, the size of government will continue to increase. And in turn a greater quest for power. I’d love to see a real conservative in the White House but it’s not likely to happen. So I can wish for what won’t happen or make the best choice of available options.
Government grew under Reagan and I wouldn’t describe him as a socialist...
My biggest problem with Rudy is not that he's pro-abortion. Though I don't like it. I can even buy into his federalism explanation of being a gun grabber and pro-gay marriage. Though I don't like it.
My biggest problem is that he is held out as the only alternative to beat the witch. And he's ducked running against her twice for the relatively low office of New York's junior senator. If he wouldn't take her on when the Republican nomination was his for the asking, why should we take him seriously now?