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 ... 401-420421-440441-460 ... 581-586 next last
To: Strategerist

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

Do that math. 46 is still greater than 44.

421 posted on 10/04/2007 7:50:04 PM PDT by DesScorp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sola Veritas
Funny, isn’t it, that nobody ever responds directly to the point that all this argument about whether conservatives should vote for Rudy is beside the point. If Giuliani is the nominee the Republican Party will fracture and defeat is almost guaranteed. Barring a total implosion of the Democrat Party, Rudy = electoral disaster.

Arguing that people who loathe the man should turn out in force and vote for him anyway merely to avoid a Clinton restoration is like standing on the beach and cajoling the tide to refrain from coming in. It is a waste of breath, or in this case bandwidth.

Conservatives need to stop squabbling about how best to deal with the catastrophe of a Guiliani nomination and start working together to avoid that catastrophe.

422 posted on 10/04/2007 7:51:48 PM PDT by fluffdaddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 418 | View Replies]

Comment #423 Removed by Moderator

To: Paul Ross
I think you are really rather pompous. Who do you seriously think has a chance of beating Hillary
Tom Tancredo? Mike Huckaby?
or perhaps Alan Keyes. Do you honestly think that a third party could win? Has it ever done anything other than give us, hmm, let’s see Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton?
No, I will not support a third party candidate./> And by the way I consider it a supreme insult that you sneeringly question whether or not I maintain my beliefs. I have not done that to anyone- I simply disagree with your assessment of the best strategy. But you choose to slander me.Save your effort, I will not reply to you again.
424 posted on 10/04/2007 8:02:09 PM PDT by Bainbridge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 367 | View Replies]

To: cajungirl
Watch out: you will be accused of being a troll. Or perhaps you have just given up your beliefs so that you could hang with the “ Country club Republicans”. I guess we have a list here of who we can thank if it is a close election between the only 2 real candidates, you know “D” and “R”.
425 posted on 10/04/2007 8:05:00 PM PDT by Bainbridge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 384 | View Replies]

To: Jen's Mom

I have two words for you - WAKE UP! Sorry if I frighten you, but maybe that’s what you need to come out of your deep slumber and see what is going on and where we’re headed.

426 posted on 10/04/2007 8:34:31 PM PDT by penowa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 364 | View Replies]

To: Bainbridge

I no longer listen and take direction from the phony Republican elites like Blankley, Barnes, Krauthammer, etc. If you want to march to their tune instead of thinking for yourself, that’s up to you.

427 posted on 10/04/2007 8:38:26 PM PDT by penowa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 354 | View Replies]

To: Bainbridge

We played that game out here in California with Arnold and have been sorely disappointed. In hindsight, I wished I’d voted my heart for McClintock and risked the valley that Cruz Bustamante would have given us. Now it’s a slow death and the GOP in California will never survive. I will not vote for Rudy. More babies will be saved in the long term if the people are so sickened by a Hillary presidency that they will never vote Democrat or a RINO again.

428 posted on 10/04/2007 8:38:39 PM PDT by Rockitz (This isn't rocket science- Follow the money and you'll find the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist
Dr. Paul promised his wife of 50 years that he would not run as a 3rd party or independent candidate

That's touching. Really. He's running anyway.

I'll ping you when it happens.

429 posted on 10/04/2007 8:41:21 PM PDT by WhistlingPastTheGraveyard (We didn't "win" the Cold War. We had a half-time lead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 331 | View Replies]

To: scarface367

“Rudy Derangement Syndrome” = Voters who Refuse to Vote for Liberals of any Party!

430 posted on 10/04/2007 8:48:01 PM PDT by penowa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 420 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook
Vote Third. It's the only way to be stand up and be counted.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! That was funny, you made laugh!

Vice Presidential
Popular Vote Electoral Vote
B George W. Bush Richard Cheney Republican 62,040,610 50.73% 286 53.16%
R John Kerry John Edwards Democratic 59,028,439 48.27% 251 46.65%
G Ralph Nader Peter Camejo Independent 463,655 0.38% 0 0.00%
Y Michael Badnarik Richard Campagna Libertarian 397,265 0.32% 0 0.00%
Y Michael Peroutka Charles Baldwin Constitution 144,499 0.12% 0 0.00%
Y David Cobb Pat LaMarche Green 119,859 0.10% 0 0.00%
Y Write-ins - - 36,585 0.03% 0 0.00%
Y Leonard Peltier Janice Jordan Peace & Freedom 27,607 0.02% 0 0.00%
Y Walt Brown Mary Alice Herbert Socialist 10,822 0.01% 0 0.00%
Y Roger Calero Arrin Hawkins Socialist Workers 10,795 0.01% 0 0.00%
Y None of these Candidates - - 3,688 0.00% 0 0.00%
Y Thomas Harens Jennifer Ryan Christian Freedom 2,387 0.00% 0 0.00%
Y Gene Amondson Leroy Pletten Concerns of People 1,944 0.00% 0 0.00%
Y Bill Van Auken Jim Lawrence Socialist Equality 1,857 0.00% 0 0.00%
Y John Parker Teresa Gutierrez Workers World 1,646 0.00% 0 0.00%
Y Charles Jay Marilyn Taylor Personal Choice 946 0.00% 0 0.00%
Y Stanford Andress Irene Deasy Independent 804 0.00% 0 0.00%
Y Earl Dodge Howard Lydick Prohibition 140 0.00% 0 0.00%

431 posted on 10/04/2007 9:03:22 PM PDT by finnman69 (cum puella incedit minore medio corpore sub quo manifestu s globus, inflammare animos)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 352 | View Replies]

To: Proudcongal
There is no difference in the judges we're going to get from Clinton or Giuliani. Giuliani appointed liberal judges by an 8-1 margins in New York. He would be dealing with a Democratic Senate who would have veto power over any nominee he chooses. Given that, there is no chance Giuliani will do anything but give the Democrats a nominee they find acceptable, which would be a liberal justices

The only way to get conservative judges on the court is to nomination a conservative President that has a desire to appoint conservative justices to the courts.

432 posted on 10/04/2007 9:13:28 PM PDT by Ol' Sparky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 410 | View Replies]

To: fluffdaddy
These are facts of life. There’s no point in arguing about them.

Are you sure you addressed your reply to the right poster? I didn't intend to argue with anyone, and I thought I made it quite clear where I stand on Rudy being nominated.

If I didn't let me try again. In short, I think it would mean Hillary as our next president, and that would be an unmitigated disaster for both the Republican party and the nation. Furthermore, if by some miracle Rudy were to win the general election it would be a somewhat less complete but still significant disaster for the US, all conservative Americans, and the future viability of the GOP. Is that clear enough?

433 posted on 10/04/2007 9:25:58 PM PDT by epow ("The best we can hope for the people is that they be suitably armed" Alexander Hamilton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: cajungirl
And the tactics that the anti Rudy people are using sicken me.

The lack of principle and stupidity of the pro-Rudy people makes me sick.

Liberal Republicans do far more harm then liberal Democrats.

434 posted on 10/04/2007 9:30:41 PM PDT by Ol' Sparky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 403 | View Replies]

To: penowa

Well simple reality is the next president will be from one of the two parties. This is the real world, so not voting for either means you end up with the greater of two evils.

435 posted on 10/04/2007 9:44:43 PM PDT by scarface367 (The problem is we have yet to find a cure for stupid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 430 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC

another 50% won’t vote for Giulianni because he wants open borders and doesn’t think an ILLEGAL ALIEN broke the law by crossing the border.

436 posted on 10/04/2007 9:46:57 PM PDT by television is just wrong (deport all illegal aliens NOW. Put all AMERICANS TO WORK FIRST. END Welfare)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cajungirl
Loonies? A loony is a 'so-called' Republican that is willing to compromise traditional values and principles to support a LIBERAL who epitomizes the EXACT OPPOSITE of the long-held, traditional, core, bedrock values and principles held by conservatives.

Only a 'looney' would toss the traditional conservative base 'under the bus' to support a liberal. Go figure.

437 posted on 10/04/2007 10:48:10 PM PDT by stockstrader (We need a conservative who will ENERGIZE the Party, not a liberal who will DEMORALIZE it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 403 | View Replies]

To: Man50D
So then how exactly does sitting on my hands and not voting for a less than ideal Republican nominee, thereby helping to elect a radical socialist Democrat, help anything?
438 posted on 10/05/2007 5:54:04 AM PDT by joonbug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 369 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
That would be better advice for Ron Paul or one of the other asterixes.

Actually, I'd like to see both Ronnie and Rudy out of the race.

439 posted on 10/05/2007 6:09:14 AM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 341 | View Replies]

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

I agree with you. A third party is a waste of money, and a spoiler for the Republican party."

Anyway there is no such thing as a perfect candidate.... I wish Dr. Dobson and other religious conservatives would come to their senses....If not, they'll only help get Hillary elected. And that would certainly be worse than if either Guliani or Thompson is elected.

440 posted on 10/05/2007 6:12:31 AM PDT by Auntie Toots (The GOP is still the best we've got.....AND THAT USED TO BE THE TRUTH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 401-420421-440441-460 ... 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