Posted on 01/29/2008 11:21:17 AM PST by mnehring
Rasmussen Reports is looking at the impact of Michael Bloomberg and Ron Paul as potential third party or independent candidates in the 2008 elections.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that roughly 15% of voters would currently vote for one of these two candidates in general election match-ups.
When the two candidates are mentioned as independent options in match-ups between Mitt Romney and the two Democratic frontrunners, Paul and Bloomberg attract roughly the same level of support. When John McCain is mentioned as the Republican candidate in a match-up with Barack Obama, Ron Paul earns 11% of the vote while Bloomberg attracts 5%.
At this time, the net impact of such third party efforts appears to benefit the Democrats.
In a head-to-head match-up between Romney and Obama, Obama currently leads by nine percentage points. When Bloomberg and Paul are added to the list of possible candidates, Obama’s lead grows to twelve points, 42% to 30%. Paul attracts 8% of the vote, Bloomberg 6%.
Hillary Clinton leads Romney by five in a head-to-head match-up, but her lead grows to fourteen points with Bloomberg and Paul in the mix—Clinton 46% Romney 32% Bloomberg 7% Paul 7%.
In a McCain-Obama poll, the Democrat leads by five. That grows to seven points with the third party options—Obama 40% McCain 33% Paul 11% Bloomberg 5%.
The pair of third party candidates attract from 13% to 17% of Republicans in each match-up. They earn only 5% to 10% of the Democratic vote.
Additionally, they polled to see whether respondents think Paul or Bloomberg will eventually throw their hats into the presidential race as independent or third party candidates:
Twenty-six percent (26%) of American voters believe New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is at least somewhat likely to make a third-party or independent bid for the White House in 2008. That includes 5% who say he is Very Likely to do so.
Twenty-nine percent (29%) say that Texas Congressman Ron Paul will run as an alternative to the two major parties. Eleven percent (11%) believe he is Very Likely to do so.
I suspect that Paul’s numbers might be higher in any scenario where Hillary Clinton is the nominee, as the anti-war vote will probably still be fairly significant still on election day. This is partially offset by any support Cynthia McKinney might generate from her Green Party bid. Should the Greens nominate someone other than McKinney or Ralph Nader, I’d expect to see a higher total for Paul.
With respect to Bloomberg, I’m a bit perplexed about where his support might come from, except for “change” voters. What’s known of his political positions, so far at least, doesn’t seem to separate him from the leading Republicans and Democrats enough to engender him so much support.
Additional factors to consider: Bloomberg has a lot of money and may be prepared to spend a large chunk of it, Paul has a considerable base of grassroots support and the proven ability to raise significant amounts of money, Paul has pre-exisiting third party ties and support, Bloomberg and Paul have very different positions on a lot of issues (i.e. Iraq War, Second Amendment) voters find very important.
McKinney on a green Party Ticket? LOL I thought they were nuts before now it is certifiable.
Huckleberry, McPain, or Mutt Rommel vs O-Bomb-ya or Hitlery!!! Save us......Bloomberg might be better than any of these dopes. He did say invest in Gold when it was $500 an ounce.
I’d vote for Cynthia McKinney if she ran on the “Hissy Fit” ticket.
Coast covered this extensively last night with the insightful John Hogue interview.
Lou Dobbs would run as strong a candicacy as Perot did before he got cold feet and dropped out. A serious third party candidate needs to be a populist. Illegal immigration is the populist issue. There is great hunger by the people for candidates to address this issue. The MSM and the party elites want candidates to discuss ANYTHING but illegal immigration. A third party candidate who chose to make illegal immigration his issue, could run against Washington, the media, and congress. Bloomberg would be a terrible candidate, New York mayors and billionares do not connect with real people. I want to see a third party candidate make illegal immigration the issue it deserves to be.
I’d bet big money that either one of these would draw more from the RAT side than from the GOP side. Not a worry at all.
kookpaul is just a sacraficial anode to take the libertarian vote out of the electoral relevancy.
essentially fly paper for the people too stupid to do as the left wants and stay home.
There you go. Insulting kooks again.
Darn it, I'm sorry..
I’m gonna let you off just this one last time, but that’s it.
I disagree.
The Rats will see a third party as a chance to split the Pubbies, and vote for whoever their nominee is.
Some Repubs will split, depending on our nominee, and vote third party, causing a Dem win.
A third party is bad for our side.
“A third party is bad for our side.”
No arguing that after the PeROT debacle.
Unless Kucinich jumps in.
The polling has consistently shown you are right. The response here is to insist the polls are wrong. About as effective a strategy now as it was in 2006.
If Hillary loses the nomination she’s going to be mad. Maybe SHE would run as an independent then. Can’t you see Bill putting her up to that?
Make no mistake.
The Dems will hold their noses and vote for whoever.
All this is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. The MSM has now reduced our choices to McAmnesty and Romney the flip-flopper. I doubt either can win. I will not vote for McCain under any circumstances. He (and maybe Romney) will pass amnesty, Republicans will take the blame for this, most newly legalized immigrants will vote Democratic, Republicans will be out of power for a decade to a generation, and we will have a Democratic foreign policy from increasingly anti-Israeli Democrats. This should help focus our minds onto how to stop this train wreck and away from trivial stuff like this.
I thought she left the democrats. :grin:
You can take it to the bank that there will be a 3rd party to siphon off conservative votes if Hillary is the nominee. The Clintons know that if Bill couldn't get 50% running against Bob Dole, they NEED a 3rd party for Hillary with her 50% negatives to squeak by. The arrangements were in the works for this before Hillary declared.
Bloomberg would be the biggest lead balloon ever, since......er...ahhh,,,,, Fred Thompson.
If we do not nominate a 100% pro-life, pro-gun, pro-sovereignty, pro-original intent, anti-amnesty, anti-welfare state, limited government conservative, pro-national defense candidate we are sunk. I believe that there are plenty of Reagan democrats and independents out there who will support such a candidate, and we need them to win the election. We also need a Congress with a reasonable caucus of similar minded representatives, preferably in both parties.
The kind of question that needs to be asked of the “conservative” front-runners (like Romney) is this: will you be willing to use the bully pulpit to stand for faith, family & Constitutional limited government (and against big government), or will you compromise with a Democrat Congress on fundamental issues? Are you prepared to veto unconstitutional legislation (Art I Sec 8)? Are you prepared to promote the slashing of government spending (domestic & overseas)? Will you impose a proper social AND original intent litmus test on every SC nominee?
We can wring our hands all we want about third parties and their impact on the Presidential election, but until we have a nominee who is prepared to act on the issues that WE OWN, we are going to lose. The fear mongering about the lesser of two evils isn’t going to work any more.
Yea, that would be great, if we had one. Sure, we all want a Patton or Westmoreland to be the general of our troops, but right now, it looks like we'll just have to settle for someone who doesn't stab them in the back.
Just joined today, huh?
So, who do you support?
Romney may be salvagable, that is the only thing I think he has going for him. Nobody trusts him, he could in time earn it. Fred as his VP pick would go a long way in that regard.
A Paul third party bid would steal far more dim voters than pubs. I say Run Paul Run. Get out of my party. You do not belong here.
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.