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.
If it’s Rudy911 vs. Hitlery, we’ve already lost. SoCons then have a choice: lose only the election (Hitlery wins), or lose the election and the GOP (Rudy911 wins).
I’ll minimize my losses and deal with Her Thighness, and start trying to rebuild the GOP and win in 2012.
There is no justification to vote for Rudy, none. Period, end of story. No matter how much you hate Clinton, it does not justify sacrificing everything at Rudy911’s altar. I will not be terrorized into voting for Rudy911.
Then how did George Bush win in 2000? I’ve read enumerable times on FR recently that Bush wasn’t considered conservative at the time(except as a “compassionate” conservative). He was clearly less conservative than John McCain in 2000, and could clearly be classified as a Republican moderate at the time.
That headline should read:
“14% Of Conservatives Favor Assisted Suicide”
>>Its proof that a Pro-Life third party would be idiotic, not proof that Rudy cant win.<<
It's one of the strongest weapons the Democrats have and they play it perfectly every election.
Say hello to President Clinton in 2009.
BTW, Is THIS political drek your FIRST CHOICE?
He is squirming constantly and misrepresenting his Hillary-like views on Guns, Abortion, Sanctuary, Federalizing Education, Feminizing the Military, Global UN Control, and oh, yeah, the NAU and NAFTA Superhighway...
I have already decided. I am not voting for him. Not I "don't think I'll vote for him."
No more "lesser of two evils."
That is just evil in and of itself. And those who wish to foist evil on us, as the 'lesser' are just accomplices to evil.
Don't be such an accomplice. Now is when and where you can make a difference. Support the bona fide conservatives.
HELP US. DON'T DESERT CONSERVATISM. STAND FOR SOMETHING!
Show some back-bone.
“Its proof that a Pro-Life third party would be idiotic, not proof that Rudy cant win.”
Can you say hello President Clinton. thanks to the 27% of Christians who would rather have a communist dictator, than Rudy.
Here’s the deal that will be cut: Rudy will get the Christian right once he agrees to give them veto power over the selection of the next Sup Ct justice.
Just as I tell people I am a Christian, not a Baptist, I am a conservative, not a Republican. If the Republicans leave the conservatives, they can go back to obscurity where they were for 60 years. I won't kill children, give up my gun rights, or bless homosexual marriage, just to get a tax cut.( And I don't think Rooty is all that good on taxes).
A much smarter move than putting a liberal Republican in the White House...
and don’t forget the RON PAUL following, (who in my opinon) is being funded by moveon as to distract from the GOP.
No lessons learned from Perot
No question Rudy would get smoked with a pro-life 3rd party candidate in the race. But it’s a moot point, because Rudy ain’t gettin the nomination. The bloom is off the rose and the polls that count those most likely to vote in the pubbie primary show it clearly. No way a gun-grabbing, pro-abort, cross dressing northeast liberal wins in the primaries. The liberal press is already fantasizing about such a possibility but it will never be more than that, a fantasy.
It's not new. It's the Republican party pre-Reagan, very small, liberal, and out of power.
We have plenty of pro-life candidates — today. What about yesterday?
This is precisely the scenario I have been warning about for at least six months.
Giuliani, in addition to (and because of) being unacceptably liberal, cannot win.
If Rudy wouldn’t give that to us by now, he certainly won’t later. Plus, Roe is way too important to him to take a chance that it would be overturned.
Easy. Guili can be restrained by his party and the party's members. What you will see is no action on abortion for 4 or 8 years if Guili gets elected. It’s more of a prevent defense until the next election when you will have the opportunity to elect someone more to your liking.
Hillary will have no such restraints. If she gets it it will be open season on abortion legislation and judges. IF the dems continue to have a majority in both houses, you can kiss any progress you’ve made on your issue for the last twenty years goodbye.
Guili will keep things in stasis, Hillary will be pedal to the medal. Take your pick.
Reminds me of how R's got so mad at Foley and Hastert last October Suprise that they sat out the election.
They were mad at homosexuals...so what did they get?
A Speaker from gay San Francisco!
Voting for someone that supports the slaughter of the unborn and the homosexual agenda is not only sinful, but STUPID.
If the Republicans abandon the pro-life position -- which they will be doing if Giuliani is elected -- the pro-life movement is essentially dead in both parties.
Get a brain.
Apparently not, as Rudy’s still in the running, and there are still faux Conservatives willing to vote for him if he gets the nod.
You are 100% correct that Perot gave us Bubba...but, should the GOP abandon it’s pro-life platform and nominate are pro-abort, the majority of pro-lifers will stay home.
I have said for YEARS in my FR postings that the pro-life GOP voters are NOT a majority of the GOP, but that the GOP cannot win without their 28% (28% was my estimate of the GOP vote percentage they represent....now this poll backs up my estimate).
For the pro-life voter, it would voilate the very core of their being to vote for a pro-abort canidate in any party.
The liberal press has EGGED on the GOP to be more “moderate” and “tolerant” by offering a pro-abort canidate...when your ENEMIES encourage you to be more “inclusive”, you can bet that THEY understand that it would be the kiss of death for the GOP.
The BLUE BLOOD GOPers also want the GOP to adandon this “family values” stuff....I hope this poll shows them the peril if it does....the GOP is the REAL big tent...pro-life and pro-abort are in its’ ranks...but it takes BOTH to win.
I have very few political illusions left at this point in my life. Once the Party finds it can field pro-abortion candidates with no consequence to them at the polls, you’ll find a lot more waffling on the issue to appeal to the so-called “moderates”. You can bank on that.
“No lessons learned from Perot.”
I think the Perot voters learned their lesson, the problem is fewe of them were pro life Christians, who will make the same mistake then regret if for 8 years as the Perot voters did.
I’m one of that 27%.
I won’t vote for a baby murderer for president.
Actually, every poll showed Conservatives came out in pretty good numbers. It was the middle that hated things most.
Our reward for all that loyalty and hard work? “Here’s Rudy, worship him or the terrorists will kill you!”
A Democrat would fill the administration with abortion advocates.
Much as many dislike Rudy, he will have liberals in his administration...sure.
But he will also appoint MANY conservatives to high positions. There would be a fight in his administration against him going too far left.
Not so with Hillary.
If it is true that the GOP base is voting on ONE SINGLE ISSUE (abortion) then we deserve to lose.
I myself will vote for ANY Republican running against the Hildabeast.
Unfortunately you fail to realize that it is the middle that decide elections
Nope. "Not gonna vote R," because I don't ever vote for liberals, R or D. I am a conservative and when the Republican party stops being the conservative party, it will have left me and I will no longer vote for its nominee.
According to the article: 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.
Since 30 + 14 is only 44, it doesn't appear that Rudy can win even if there's no third party.
If Rudy had any class, he'd drop out of the race.
And, if conservatives vote for Giuliani and he is elected, they will get what they deserve -- a liberal working with Democrats to advance liberal legislation with NO resistance in Congress and while presiding over a shrinking minority in Congress. And, NO chance at conservative President for eight years or Republicans retaking Congress for at least a decade.
Depends on the OTHER views of the third pat pro life candidate.
If that was their only issue I would vote with the 73%
The announcement by Dr. Dobson is not intended to herald the impending support of a third-party candidate against both Hillary and Rudy. It is intended to torpedo Rudy’s nomination now, while something can be done about it.
You want a unified Republican party? Don’t nominate Rudy.
Republicans weren’t offered a similar choice to have nixed Perot prior to the ‘92 election. If Rudy gets the nod anyway, no one can say they weren’t warned.
If Hillary wins, she will push the SCOTUS so far left that conservative social issues will be history for at least a generation. I would much rather take my chances with SCOTUS appointees from Rudy than from Hillary.
You know it’s about countless issues more than just his rabid Pro-Abortion activism.
them principles look good, all polished and up on the mantle piece, gathering tarnish and rust during the next eight years of hell
Not as long as people like you throw up their hands and say it isn't possible. Other people refuse to give up the fight.
Many times a vote against is as logical as a vote for.
All of the CFR candidates should be invited to depart, post haste.
Once the covert Anti-American's are out of there, then we get about saving the country before its really too late.
but we still have our principles
-—”them principles look good, all polished and up on the mantle piece, gathering tarnish and rust during the next eight years of hell”-—
You’re right, who needs principles?
They only get in the way.......
Actually, it’ll be thanks to liberal republicans who insist on imposing their liberalism on the GOP.
I agree...I don’t believe Rudy can win anyway...of course, Dobson has said he won’t support Thompson either...which I feel is a mistake on his part.
But, a non-vote or a vote for a third party is a vote for the democrat
>>According to the article: 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.
Since 30 + 14 is only 44, it doesn’t appear that Rudy can win even if there’s no third party.<<
46-44 is a statistical tie, with 10% still outstanding. He very much could win.
Wrong. It's proof 30% of Republicans are IDIOTS that or at the least the percentage of those Republicans that are conservative that would vote for Giuliani are.
Liberal Republicans do far more damage than liberal Democrats. A liberal Republican has a far better chance of getting liberal legislation passed than Hillary Clinton does. A liberal Republican will guarantee Republicans become a shrinking minority in Congress while Hillary Presidency would set the stage for massive Republican gains.
The best option would for all conservatives to get behind a strong conservative, third-party candidate, who in this scenario could win.