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.
>>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.<<
I’m old enough to remember the speech that Reagan gave that kicked off his 1980 campaign - he devoted a great deal of time to something he called “a North American accord”, which became the precursor to NAFTA. Whether this means that he would have endorsed NAFTA, etc. in its current form obviously we don’t know, but I suspect that he would have concluded that the benefits of low tariffs are worth the price of having these cumbersome agreements. I agree with Milton Friedman - we don’t need any agreement to lower tariffs, we can do so unilaterally.
Amen. Voting for Giuliani will only encourage the propagation of more RINOs. Don't waste your principles with a vote for Giuliiani. Vote Third. It's the only way to be stand up and be counted.
It was the last time. It ushered in the first truly conservative congress we have had during our lifetimes and created the first budget surplus ever. Republican control since has ruined all that.
Your "less strident one" will appoint people to the RNC and it's powerful committees -- liberal country club Republicans. Your "less strident one" will result in the prolife plank being stripped from the party platform -- effectively killing the GOP in future national elections.
“Its proof that a Pro-Life third party would be idiotic, not proof that Rudy cant win.”
it’s ‘proof’ that some ‘pro-lifers’ are not pro-life. Else they wouldn’t put Hillary Clinton in charge of the future of the Supreme Court.
Bush is not running and inadequate candidates are still inadequate
NO. We have his actual example. Insisting on fair agreements with Japan as one example. Putting tariffs up to protect Harley Davidson, requiring domestic content requirements of the automakers, etc.
I agree with Milton Friedman - we don’t need any agreement to lower tariffs, we can do so unilaterally.
To which Reagan, who had appointed him as chair of his Council of Economic Advisers, respectfully declined to implement, because he recognized more astutely than Uncle Miltie, that we needed to engage the foreign "trading partners" to not only eliminate the overt barriers to our productive exports, but the non-tariff barriers as well.
To that end, we needed leverage. Those without reciprocal barriers have no leverage. As Bush has proved over, and over, and over and over and over and over again with the Chicoms. They laugh themselves silly when he puffs up his chest and says they are doing wrong.
They call his bluff every single time. He will not betray his import lobby backers, and defend the country. They know it. He knows it. And I am willing to bet YOU KNOW IT TOO.
And there is nothing "conservative" about him or what is being passed off as Free trade...when it isn't. It is phoney. Just like the Democrat's phoney soldiers.
Can you overstate in any more? Your hysteria is frightening to me. And Sir/Ms I am not joking.
Methinks you just described yourself to a TTTTTTTT. Hillary Rodham Clinton is the enemy. Until people attempt to unite in any way to defeat her, we are talking 8 years of the war lost in Iraq and the war against liberals lost at home.
Well, if people want a candidate that has a great chance of being elected, SUPPORT DUNCAN HUNTER. Get his message out.
Then recall you start out by saying THIS in practically the same breath:
No, He is probably my last choice in the current field.
So, in view of that "last choice" you should be conducting yourself rather differently in this discussion. Recognize that NOW is the time to evict him from the nomination process, clearing the decks for a better choice.
You should instead be advocating your first choice. And then if you do defend Giuliani as a "last choice" it should be a hell of a lot more respectful of the principled rejections of him. That is, if you were serious about trying to persuade anyone.
At the current rate, to the extent you are persuading anybody, it is more likely you are persuading us against your views. You either aren't legitimate now (assuming you once were) or are now simply irrational in terror. Manuevered easily in a liberal shell game.
As a Christian, you should understand this from Matthew 11:
Jesus began to say unto the multitudes concerning John, What went ye out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken with the wind?
Who are you wishing to emulate? Where is your faith?
By the grace of God go all of us if Hillary Clinton is elected because the Republicans didn't know the difference.
Overstatements by him? Haw. How about getting frightened about the reality, instead of your derogatory attacks on FREEPERS. Who evidence the majority anti-communist views of long-standing Republican Conservatives. Do you have even a clue how large the Communist internal menace has become right under your nose? The fall of the Soviet Union (temporarily) has not dissuaded their internal subversion efforts one wit.
Did you ever read this? Note how much of it still is under constant agitation and advance.
Communist Goals (1963)
Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35
January 10, 1963
Current Communist Goals
EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. A. S. HERLONG, JR. OF FLORIDA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, January 10, 1963
Mr. HERLONG. Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Patricia Nordman of De Land, Fla., is an ardent and articulate opponent of communism, and until recently published the De Land Courier, which she dedicated to the purpose of alerting the public to the dangers of communism in America.
At Mrs. Nordman's request, I include in the RECORD, under unanimous consent, the following "Current Communist Goals," which she identifies as an excerpt from "The Naked Communist," by Cleon Skousen:
[From "The Naked Communist," by Cleon Skousen]
CURRENT COMMUNIST GOALS
1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.
2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.
3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament of the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.
4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.
5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.
6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.
7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.
8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev's promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.
9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.
10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.
11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)
12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.
13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.
14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.
15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
18. Gain control of all student newspapers.
19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.
20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.
21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."
23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."
24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."
27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch."
28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."
29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."
31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the "big picture." Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.
32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.
34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.
36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.
37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.
38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand.
39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.
40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use united force to solve economic, political or social problems.
43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.
44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.
45. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction over nations and individuals alike.
How much does Rudy pay you?
Do you sincerely beleive that?
Here's my prediction:
If Rudy is the Republican nominee, it will be a dummycrat landslide in '08.
You can’t help but throw in another slam, can ya?
Look within and ask yourself why you are defending a liberal when other candidates would clearly be superior.
All the more reason to get behind a candidate OTHER than Rudy.
Nominate Rudy, Hillary would win.
Pollsters trying to stir up and create news so they can get their name in the papers, on the media. The MSM does not really like Rasmussen. How else can he make news?
Never fear, calcowgirl, Sounds like she is an AA kind of person.
I think I heard that on Young and the Restless 20 years ago. Your typical Rooty supporter. Its like this “ Save me Rooty, my principles have long disappeared. Only YOU Rooty, can keep me from the burkha by sending out those social conservatives that you so despise to fight the WOT, so that people like me, living in my gated community, can continue to shop at the finest stores!
gag me kind of thing.
I am not defending Rudy.... Duncan Hunter is my choice. I am trying to be realistic — and realistic tells me, that if Rudy gets the nomination and runs against Hillary Clinton, I will hold my nose and vote for him.
You may be correct about the rust belt and the left coast, but Giuliani doesn't stand a chance in the South, the Midwest, The Rocky Mountain West, or the Desert Southwest. That is he total composition of the Republican stronghold.
If Giuliani is the nominee we will lose, and lose big time!
Well on the issue of trade,we just disagree.
But on the issue of Reagan, there is no disagreement - he was a great man and I miss his leadership.
Admit it, I busted you with the question. You would not support that candidate, even if they supported Free Trade, tax cuts, and the War in Iraq. Why? Because there are certain lines you will not cross, certain principles you will not sacrifice for the GOP - even if the Democrat is worse on 90% of the other issues.
So stop telling us to sacrifice what we believe in for the greater good of the party. We won’t. If the GOP nominates a Liberal, then DAMN the GOP! I DO NOT WANT THEM TO WIN WITH RUDY911 AS THE NOMINEE!!!!!!!
And for the last time - it’s not JUST about his rabid Pro-Abortion activism. The list is nearly endless on why Rudy911 is a nightmare and unacceptable in any contest.
If you wouldn't vote for the Pro-Free-Trade, Pro-Tax-Cuts, Pro-Iraq-War, Pro-Traditional-Marriage, Pro-Life, Pro-Gun, Pro-Constructionist-Judges Anti-Semite who sides with the Palestinians over Israel and supports the idea of it being a Muslim state, then you know how we feel. Whether the candidate feels Jews are lesser beings, or the unborn are lesser beings, they would be UNACCEPTABLE to me in either case. In BOTH cases I would revolt from this party. Both issues are TANTAMOUNT to me, I will not sacrifice either.
Clinton II. You get what you vote for.
15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.They've almost completed that objective, as evidenced on this thread.
gag me kind of thing.
I'm definitely suffering from that gag thing. ;-)
You know it is starting to make me dislike the pro lifers. Really. They would put a woman in the WH that would change the course of this country in ways they cannot even imagine.
They have controlled this board, demeaned anyone who disagreed with them, have done nothing but threaten to take their ball to a new field if they don’t get their way.
These third party people won’t nominate someone who would do anything other than deliver the WH to an evil evil woman.
-—”Clinton II. You get what you vote for.”-—
You just don’t get it. WHO CARES if Clinton wins in a Hitlery vs. Rudy911 race? The threat is empty to me.
You just don’t get the fact that a GOP run by Rudy911 is not a GOP worth supporting anymore. It is a radically different party working against my values and issues.
Clinton II would be BETTER to me than Rudy911. At least THEN the Liberal GOPers will get the DAMNED idea through their head that you can’t win with a Liberal running the party. At least THEN we’d have a party left to fight for, something we would NOT have with Rudy911 at the helm. At least THEN we won’t have to witness a permanent splitting of the party, and a GOP seeking NARAL endorsements every election.
Liberals within are more destructive than those who you can face and oppose openly and vehemently.
If you believed your tagline, you would not be calling conservatives “arrogant,” “stupid,” and “useful idiots”... IMO.
I'm afraid you're wrong. Ever heard of the Constitution Party? The problem is they're just as flawed as Republicans but the "purists" have been hoodwinked into believing they're more pure.
This is downright scarry. We must remain united to defeat Hillary.
Rudy = Schwarzenegger--on a national scale.
I would prefer FDT, but I don’t think he’ll win.
None of those things would happen if Hillary took over. Republicans would filibuster all legislation involving the issues you mentioned.
And, you don't SEEM TO REALIZE Giuliani is for domestic partnership benefits and civil unions for sodomites, has opposed a ban on PBA and has supported taxpayer funding of abortion. GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF BEHIND AND LEARN HOW LIBERAL GIULIANI IS.
There is a FAR better chance of civil unions and taxpayer funded abortions becoming reality if Giuliani works with Democrats and RINOs to get all that passed.
It's just amazing you can't comprehend that.
Guiliani has spoken before NARAL, opposed a ban on PBA and has and still does support taxpayer funding of abortion.
Given that, why on earth would you think he'd appoint a justice willing to overturn Roe?
You got the wrong poster here. I rather see Hillary in office than Giuliani. She would do less damage to conservatism.
Then you have nothing to worry about.
Oops, I think you posted to the wrong person, I have no idea which candidate you are talking about?
I scrolled back and don’t see which one?
Come again please, thanks!
The Republic survived just fine when Bill Clinton was in office. Republicans gained 500 seats nationwide, took over Congress and we got a balanced budget and welfare reform.
What the Republic might not survive is Giuliani Presidency that would cripple the conservative movement and shrink the Republican minority in Congress. It would at least a decade before Republicans would even have a chance of controlling congress again and eight years before a conservative President could assume office.
I'm sure they don't intend to do that at all, and I can see if we put two and two together, we could project that as one possible scenario.
However, if you look at it from a different angle, namely; put pressure on the Republican leadership to dump Rudy and any other pro-death candidate, then everybody wins!
A pro-life POTUS in the WH, a re-energized GOP, and the dummycrats in fast retreat.
I see that as a win-win-win.
Just dump Rudy. It's a start.
Please see my post #398.
Huh? Whodat? I didn't know there was an anti-Semite candidate in the race.