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

[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 RasmussenReports.com." 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, 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.

[Bainbridge]

So, Let me see if I understand. If I happen to agree with someone who happens to write something down I am taking “marching orders “ from them. Secondly, You yourself actually used to take directions from the sort of people you listed but have since stopped doing so?
How about this: You wrote down that I want to march to the tune of 3 commentators and the implication is that I should not do so.. So perhaps I should agree with and thus taking “marching orders “ from you!

[newnhdad]

so 27% are so in love with the idea of Hillary appointing supreme court judges, silencing talk radio and imposing her will on the American people that they would cast a meaningless vote for a candidate that would have no chance.

welcome to bizzaro world.

[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?

Wrong question. The correct question is how would voting for a GOP socialist over a Democrat socialist prevent the country from going further down the path of socialism?

[Bainbridge]

I appreciate your civil tone.
I do not like Schwartzeneger and knew he was just a Kennedy with a bit more gumption than some kind of saviour.
However, I do not agree with the “ game “ you are planning to play.
That is right. You too are employing a tactic, logical behavior in politics as it is essentially a bloodless war,
You, however, are counting on something that I do not believe is necesarily true.
You think that by letting the evil show itself the bright light of reality will so horrify, that the result will be a resurgence of the good. I am not so convinced that that will happen. I am more pessimistic about the confluence of markers that indicate we are in wholesale collapse as a moral people. I believe in triage so that we might, that is key here, might be able to someday turn this around.

[Sola Veritas]

“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!

[Sola Veritas]

“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).

[Theodore R.]

Then you must have voted for Lester Maddox for President in 1976, right? He was the American Party nominee.

[Theodore R.]

That’s right, Laura Welch was a McGovern supporter in 1972. B. Clinton was McGovern’s TX campaighn manager. I get the drift.

[TitansAFC]

-—”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.”-—

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.

[Man50D]

American people that they would cast a meaningless vote for a candidate that would have no chance.

There are also people who would vote for a GOP socialist under the misguided impression it is preferable to voting for a Democrat socialist.

[ex-snook]

If GOP nominates Guiliani, don’t waste your vote, vote your principles VOTE THIRD. It’s the only way your vote will be counted. Don’t be part of a RINO ‘mandate’. Abort RINOs, return the ELEPHANT if not 2008 then 2012.

[phillyfanatic]

So because of the purists,we get a generation of real socialist pacifist Dems running the Congress, the Executive, and far worse, SCOTUS. All because, we just cannot live with our guy being left of center who has told the world, he wants to support Scalia and Thomas like jurists who in the long run have the only power to deal with abortion. OK, so lose. Lose for a generation and wonder why the nation goes even more secular, more Third World than if we had a Rudy, Mitt vis a vis a Clintonista Presidency for 8 years. Cutting off our noses to be HOLY? And doing this will not help cut abortions , it will indeed solidify the abortion Dem caucus for a generation or more. Hillary will make mincemeat out of Fred or whoever the Lamb to slaugter we finally send up. And worse, the Congress will be even more liberal Dem. What political geniuses !

[TitansAFC]

-—”So because of the purists,we get a generation of real socialist pacifist Dems running the Congress”-—

Possibly. The GOP purists are constantly trying to rid the party of its Social/Cultural/Morel/Gun issues in pursuit of a more Rokefeller-eques GOP. They have been purists for years, and gave us Ford, Dole, and possibly Rudy911.

But we’re fighting the purists to avoid a Dem Presidency - the inevitable result of forcing Rudy911 down the throats of Conservatives who find him an anathema and then demanding that they abandon all values they hold dear in favor of the only value the Rudophiles seem to have: stopping Clinton.

But those Rudophiles who keep complaining that Freepers are exaggerating Rudy911’s flaws (read: telling the turth) need to stop doing the same about America and Clinton. There is no indication that Hitlery would be a pacifist - she is taking heat from her own party for not being one even during the primaries. And America would survive four years of her - though the Conservative movement would not survive four years of a Rudy911-led GOP.

And stop with the SCOTUS nominees bullcrap. Nobody here is buying the Extreme Primary Makeover that Rudy911 worshipers are trying to sell us on judges. He holds the right to Abortion more sacred than the Holy Sacrament of Communion - he's never, ever, ever, ever, EVER going to nominate a judge who would even CONSIDER overturning Roe. There is no debating that without flagrant lying.

[joonbug]

Since FDR, this country has been getting progressively more socialistic. One party moves this process much faster than the other. Ideally we reverse this trend, but I don’t see this happening (by who and how will they get elected?) so I choose the slower path rather than the fast track. Withholding my vote or voting for a third party candidate who has no chance of winning is a vote for the fast track toward more socialism. Find a third party candidate who is a true conservative with a real chance of winning, and you have my vote. Or we change into a parliamentary system where a conservative party can gather enough votes to influence the ruling government.

[Paul Ross]

I think you are really rather pompous.

You've been both that, and thrice rude now. And no, I never slandered you. As your responses indicate, there is valid reason for questioning you.

Who do you seriously think has a chance of beating Hillary Tom Tancredo?

Nope. His demeanor is harsh, and he conveys being ill-at-ease at the podium.

Mike Huckaby? [Sic]

Nope. Although he might actually be able to win, he is a likeable politician (albeit as noted by Cato giving him a "D" lifetime grade, he spends like a drunken sailor), the country would likely find another Arkansan one too many.

... or perhaps Alan Keyes.

No. I supported him before in 2000. And he is still among the most true on the key issues. BUT. He has been flaky on some issues he didn't need to be, and shown way too much campaign management weakness (displayed over and over now, ...Alan couldn't even beat Obama)...and the biggest reason for this was his Achilles Heel: The total inability to bite his tongue.

Sometimes silence is the best answer...Alan has never learned this.

I personally like Duncan Hunter the best. He appears to be our best champion. The most solid track record of anti-communism I have seen in the House. He has the clearest and most succinct message...to the point of bluntness. He has been the best thinker we have in the field of national security. His message resonates. And his ability to successfully and winningly campaign in a jerry-mandered district with 70% Democrats proves he is an able messenger candidate himself.

The issue is his name recognition and the limited opportunities for making up ground on that with so many "Teddy-Kennedy-Wing" phoneys in the way. They weren't up on that stage by accident, no matter how insane their candidacies were. E.g., Tommy Thompson?? Clearly one of Bush's many plants to confuse the Base.

So what are we going to do about it? We need to get very busy.

Do you honestly think that a third party could win?

Of course not.

I am opposed to third parties. I believe we need to recapture the Republican Party. And for the Kool-Aid drinkers who are defending the "process" we need them to come to Jesus, and stop living in denial. Admit that the Party machinery has already been lost and needs recapturing. We need to EVICT ALL LIBERALS from any positions of authority or candidacy within the party.

THEY REPRESENT NO LEADERSHIP WORTHY OF THE NAME. HOUSE-CLEAN. NO BIG TENT. No more creepy "New Tone". No more sinister "Diversity" which trumps Reason and Merit.

I have said over and over again that the way to accomplish this is to establish a "Party, within the Party" which has its own center-of-gravity, and which by virtue of its purity on the platform issues, would be able to withstand efforts to undermine or subvert it within the GOP.

It's called the Republican Assembly Movement.

I urge all to join in it.

National Federation of Republican Assemblies,

THE REPUBLICAN WING OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY

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.

Well, Good. You should be a member of the NFRA, then.

And by the way I consider it a supreme insult that you sneeringly question whether or not I maintain my beliefs.

You have been the one sneering, and smearing, attacking those who are simply saying "enough already", "DUMP RUDY."

I have not done that to anyone-

Wrong. You did right here, imputing that I am for splitting off from the Party, when I am not, but I won't belabor your continued misrepresentation, pomposity, extreme rudeness, etc...

I simply disagree with your assessment of the best strategy. But you choose to slander me.

Wrong. You are projecting your own suspicions on those who won't cavalierly drink the Kool-Aid.

Save your effort, I will not reply to you again.

Well, if that's the way you want it!

Somehow, unless you apologize, I think you would just continue in the same defamatory refrain anyways, if you did reply. And continue to misrepresent what I am proposing ... the pre-emptive Dumping of Rudy.

[woollyone]

Excellent point of attack.

However, and unfortunately, it does not cure the entitlement mentality upon which the freebies is based. This is an individual heart issue.

Certainly we need to groom and support more conservative broadcasters to educate the sheep, as Rush does.

My thinking relates to a congress that can run interference on billary.

I would support the ads that you suggest. Our members and the intellect they bring have put major dents in the left agenda in the past.

If you pick up such a crusade, or somebody begins such an ad campaign, let me know...check is on the way.

[TAdams8591]

Look at the division and infighting Giuliani is already causing, and he isn’t yet the nominee.

[TAdams8591]

"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."

Actually ALL social issues would be dead in both parties. Choosing between Hillary and Rudy would be a horrific choice. Conservatives must band behind one conservative candidate, or that choice will be reality.

[davidlachnicht]

ditto

[davidlachnicht]

"I rather see Hillary in office than Giuliani. She would do less damage to conservatism."

That's like saying...
'my wife is unattractive, so I'm going have an affair with a woman twice as ugly.'