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.
agreed.. some of you folks are acting like babies..
if I don’t get 100 % of everything I want.. I’ll let Hillary become president..
Get used to it: “President Hillary Clinton”
Hillary is counting on you and your ilk to get her into office. She is NO dummy. She loves Dr. Dobson...he is her ticket to ride.
Let’s see. The pro-abortion crowd kicks the Christians and expects us to stay and vote for their man? I don’t think so. Any loss to Hillary will be the fault of those who threw the Christians off of the ship.
I have asked this question repeatedly of the Rudyites on this forum with no response: Can you show me on viable pro-life candidate who is not also for supporting the war on terror?
It just seems that having a pro-life candidate who is also engaged in the war on terror is the best way to placate you and me. Why is it that you are the only one who should win? Why should I lay down for you when we can both have a nation free from terror?
In reality, you are the one who is unwilling to compromise. The candidates I support would give us both a good battle against terrorism, and support life for babies.
“President Hillary Clinton”
Both equally scare me, which is why that tired old boogeyman tactic doesn’t work in this case, nor will it ever. Rudy911 nullifies the effectiveness of the fear of Hillary.
Want to stop the thought of President Hillary? Find someone else but Rudy911.
Seriously? The man BOASTED of Universal Health Care in NY, thumping his chest about how they provide it even for illegal immigrants.
What planet have you been living on?
And since we are all only human, our principles differ, and that’s OK, really.
My principle is to win. Ruthless and dirty action, instead of comfortable surrender.
Beating the commie vampire Dims into a pulp, to defeat the liberal UNAMERICAN party, who have sucked the lifeblood out of everything good in this country, who command enormous power in broadcast news, newspapers, mags, movies, TV, ALL levels of education, who have enemy moles leaking intell from our bureaucracies, and who have gained power by bribing Americans with tax money for votes, for decades.
My principles consist of destroying them, hanging them, and freeing this nation from the propaganda grip of the MSM. And I will support anyone who is Right of them.
You misunderstood. I am not a Rudy supporter. I am just coming to the conclusion that Clinton's election is inevitable. The stars are aligned everywhere you look, from the GOP disarray, to Bush's incompetance, to the RAT takeover of Congress, to the MSM's coming coronation of the "First Woman President".
Rudy911 is actually the preferred candidate of the Pro-Abortion crowd, they endorsed him over Hillary even in the Senate run. Either one will give us fervently Pro-Abortion judges.
No, I would say that the hypocrites are the ones who blast candidates for filing junk lawsuits, opposing Federalism in practice, making sanctuary cities for illegal aliens, appointing Liberal judges, supporting Hate Crimes Legislation, Supporting the Fairness Doctrine, opposing school vouchers and Welfare Reform, providing taxpayer funding of Abortion, endorsing Liberal Democrats for office, speaking before the most extreme leftist groups in the country like NOW, NARAL, and GLAAD, imposing homosexual rights,......and then going out to vote for one and demanding support for that candidate.
You are the hypocrite, not me. By every measurable standard, you are the one being hypocritical.
Sigh. I get the same feeling. There is an immovable force vs. irresistible object thing going on with Rudy911 and Conservatives like me who would never, ever vote for him. And the media will side with Hillary over any of the other GOPers - which normally does not scare me, but considering the mood of the country right now and the GOP’s suicidal tendencies under the current “let’s move left now before it’s too late” battleplan.
Maybe we can pull it off, but it's going to take something like a Fred push or a late Romney run to get the party unified for 2008.
You are wrong and make no sense. You don’t even know who I want—personally. However, I know that the people who are going to sit home or vote 3rd party if it’s Rudy ARE hypocrits.
-—”However, I know that the people who are going to sit home or vote 3rd party if its Rudy ARE hypocrits.”-—
Then you do not know the meaning of the word. Not supporting a Liberal who has been an activist against our dearest causes is called “being consistent,” not “hypocritical.” If it was wrong to support a democrat who did it, it’s wrong to support a Republican who did it. Rudy911 once described himself as “one of the most effective abortion rights activists in America” before a NARAL meeting. He was right.
And I’m pretty sure you’re a Rudophile. But you’re right, I don’t know that 100% - yet.
“And I will support anyone who is Right of them.”
That’s just it. Rudy is not in the least to the right of the Dems. He holds all the same views that Hillary does. I don’t see any difference.
We conservatives thought we had it made when we had a Republican president and majorities in the Senate and the House. What happened? They went on a spending, vote-buying spree that would make a Kennedy blush. And those were the ones who promised to usher in a new day of limited government when they were elected! Rudy doesn’t even give it lip service. No thanks. I would rather have a Dem president and a Republican Congress, than a Republican RHINO in the White House. At least if we have gridlock, Hill’s plans might be thwarted.
That is certainly your right to do so. However, once they are elected, our influence is almost nil. As an example, there is Bush and the immigration issue. I would rather have a Republican Congress and a Dem president, than a RHINO president. At least then, the Republicans might stand up and fight.
They did, too. For about a day.
LOL. I stand corrected.
I begin to think that one day’s worth of hope is about all we can expect from politics.
You just don’t get it.
I don’t want Rudy...I Huckabee. I am NOT going to get what I want.
But I am terrified of Hillary.
And I will vote for anything they put up as the GOP nominee in hopes of keeping Hillary out.
I would bet that most of the people on this forum are not FOR Guiliani...the big worry is getting Hillary.
I can’t imagine that getting Hillary would be BETTER than stowing your Christian Hubris in order to keep her out. Just because the GOP doesn’t kiss your ring YOU are going to SHOW them. Whew...good thinking kid! To hell with what happens to our country. I HATE where the republicans have gone...I feel betrayed. But I am going to keep Hillary out of the white house if I can.
WAKE UP, Preacher, you and Dr. Dobson.