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.
I like the way you put this.
TitansAFC, maybe that should be the "Dump Rudy" ping list. ;-)
But to your dramatic post, I think that since we are at war in two theaters, most Republicans and Conservatives would for sure vote for a candidate that has the temperament, tone, attitude, a certain ruthlessness, and foreign policy ideas to fight our enemies abroad, being that we have boots on the ground right now, at this moment.
And that in no way comes close the Hillary and Bill Clinton, and does reflect whomever of our viable candidates is nominated.
A serious, mature, and rational voter, (which most Conservatives are), will not just ask who they are voting for, but also ask who they will ELECT.
So, obviously I’m sticking with the good guys, lol, and not participating in the election of a antiamerican party member, ie, Dimocrats like Hill and Bill.
I will vote for the republican nominee no matter who it is. And the tactics that the anti Rudy people are using sicken me. If the alternative weren’t Hillary Clinton I would quit the republican party, quit voting and say to hell with all of you.
I will put no pressure on the republican leadership in the name of you loonies!
Track back to the original question at #133—it was a hypothetical to try to prove a point (one that the intended respondent wouldn’t answer)
Is it just me or have IQ's on FR dropped precipitously?
Not true, Reagan got over 50% of the vote.....even with Anderson not being in the race Reagan wins.
I remember this and I was just in Jr. high. You might want to go and find a site that has the old numbers.
Bottom line is we have to ALL vote for the one who will beat Klinton or else we can kiss this country good by.That’s the whole story for me . As horrible as abortion is even worse will be Klinton in the White House . t will indirectly cause more deaths than one can imagine ( Islamic attacks , Iraq killing fields ect.)PLUS all the abortions will continue.Th esupreme court will decide abortion not the president wo is elected.
People that want a pro-freedom, pro-gun, pro-life, pro-traditional marriage President who doesn’t have a record of abusing the Constitution and appointing liberals to the courts and corrupt cronies to their administration are “Loonies”?
O.K., just let them pressure you instead.
Who did Bill Clinton nominate to the SC and who did Bush nominate? Are you saying you'd rather have Clinton than Bush if you were able to choose between the two???
Oh, I see now. Thanks.
“Its proof that a Pro-Life third party would be idiotic, not proof that Rudy cant win.”
What an assinine statement. There are a great many of us “moral” conservatives that absolutely will not vote for Rudy the Rumpranger in a general election...even against Senator Clinton....We just don’t see the significant difference.
Bottom line....AND GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD....a vote for Guiliani is a vote for the destruction of the Republican party. The “moral voters” (the party’s base) will not vote for Rudolph...EVER. With the base of the party ready to stay home or vote third party if Rudy is the republican candidate.....he has NO chance of winning in a general election. If one wants to maintain the coalition that is the Republican Party, then Guiliani must go.
See, now there's another thing. I get so tired of seeing this bogus statement.
FYI: Congress has the power to limit the Court's jurisdiction in this matter as well as any other specific area of the law.
Congress could, if it would, simply remove that hot-button issue from the federal courts. Then of course, it would remain for the state courts to rule on each state's own laws.
Now that we all know were the real responsibility lies, we can all go convince our Congressman and Senators to do the right thing.
No President needed.
No "test case" needed.
No majority on the Supreme court needed.
Just some backbone, guts, and huevos in Congress.
“PROOF that 27% of Republicans are IDIOTS”
No, it’s proof that 27% of Republicans have taken a principled stand. Those of you that keep backing Guiliani are just plain ole prideful fools.
The fact that Guiliani could have progressed this far indicates that maybe it really is time to start a more trully conservative new party. Personnally, I’m sick to my soul of “Goldwater Republicans.”
NOW is the time to change that which we can.
“Can you say hello President Clinton. thanks to the 27% of Christians who would rather have a communist dictator, than Rudy.”
How utterly dense can someone be. Rudy is a homophile, a gungrabber, and worse a baby killer. He ran NYC like a dictatorship. So, what is the significant difference between him and Mrs. Clinton? They are both bad news. No lesser evil here at all. Keep hurling insults at principled Christian voters and you just further the rift in the party. IF the party is SO important, then ditch Rudy. Without the base, he cannot win.
Sorry if this has been asked, but who might this third-party candidate be? Any ideas. Otherwise, it’s kind of silly to speculate on all this. It’s unlikely a conservative Republican is going to leave the party just to make a point in the election, assuring a Hillary victory. Of course, Rudy will probably choose a pro-life running mate.
“Rudy will have this nomination locked up by Feb...”
Then Mrs. Clinton will be sure to be elected in November 2008. The Republican party will lose 1/3 of the real stalwarts and it will cease to be viable.
“Think Rudy will be bad? Consider the alternative. I rest my case.”
No dice, I won’t vote for that vile person. His presidency will be no better than a Clinton one.
IF you really cared about the country, you would TELL RUDY NOT TO RUN. Plus, you wouldn’t vote for him either.
The battle lines are drawn and they a getting more set. A vote for Rudy is a vote for Hillary to be president....plain fact.
You rabidly anti-Rudy types keep spouting this nonsense yet it has no basis with reality. You are so overcome with Rudy Derangement Syndrome that you're showing no better rationality than the far left.
In case you are unable to grasp the difference, just look at Rudy's foreign policy views vs. Hillary's and think about the difference in judicial picks.
“Its proof that a Pro-Life third party would be idiotic, not proof that Rudy cant win.”
Do that math. 46 is still greater than 44.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That's touching. Really. He's running anyway.
I'll ping you when it happens.
“Rudy Derangement Syndrome” = Voters who Refuse to Vote for Liberals of any Party!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! That was funny, you made laugh!
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.
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?
The lack of principle and stupidity of the pro-Rudy people makes me sick.
Liberal Republicans do far more harm then liberal Democrats.
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.
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.
Only a 'looney' would toss the traditional conservative base 'under the bus' to support a liberal. Go figure.
Actually, I'd like to see both Ronnie and Rudy out of the race.
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.
welcome to bizzaro world.
“In case you are unable to grasp the difference, just look at Rudy’s foreign policy views vs. Hillary’s and think about the difference in judicial picks.”
NO STUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE. Rudy WILL NOT appoint judges that will be pro-life, anti-homosexual, or 2nd Ammendment upholding. Rudy doesn’t have the experience to dictate foreign policy.
STOP BEING OBTUSE AND LISTEN.....Preception is everything. Rudy the RumpRanger is perceived (and I believe rightfully) wrong. Your sad adherence to this Damnable Big City Yankee is going to destroy the party. IF you don’t want the RNC to continue to exist...then support G, if you want to see Hillary win in a general election, then support G.
I WILL NOT VOTE FOR THIS MAN....EVER!
“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.”
I agree, but it is apparent to me that the Republican Party is already fractured. Senator Thompson COULD be a uniting force, but he (although I admire a person of principle) is too mired in being a “federalist” when there our instances where it just won’t work (i.e. homosexual marraige).
Then you must have voted for Lester Maddox for President in 1976, right? He was the American Party nominee.
That’s right, Laura Welch was a McGovern supporter in 1972. B. Clinton was McGovern’s TX campaighn manager. I get the drift.
First, A Pro-Life Veep means little to nothing under an Abortion Rights Activist President. What if Hillary chose a Pro-Life veep? Would she suddenly consolidate the Pro-Life vote behind her?
Second, Alan Keyes has all but said he’d run. Alan Keyes, amid constant ridicule from the left and the GOP “Party folks” garnered almost 1.5 MILLION votes in just the state of Illinois, running against the unbeatable Barrack Obama - who enjoyed a near 90% approval rating after his DNC speech.
And that’s just Alan Keyes - we don’t even know if the Third Party guy would be more popular. IT WILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Besides, folks like me will give all that we have to make a Third Party run happen if we have to choose between Rudy911 and Hitlery.
Third, as far as nobody wanting to leave to make a point - think Bob Smith, Pat Buchanan, et al. Buchanan took enough votes from Bush that Florida became the recount capital of the world. Every single statistical model showed that without Pat in the race, Bush wouldn’t have needed Florida because of the other states he would have won.