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 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.
Which one has been lying about being pro-Israel?
Do you have a suspicion? Tell me, who?
Sorry Bob, but the next President will get as many as 4 appointments to the S.C. and if it is Rudy or Hillary, the results will be identical: More living Constitution B.S.; making law from the bench; citing foreign law to overturn our Constitution; and Roe v. Wade on steroids set in cement.
Which is why rudy simply cannot be the nominee.
Does the “Dobson wing” of the Republican party work for you? Its all about the Supreme Court. Period!
I agree with you Bainbridge.
This is what many FReepers have been saying since around August, of 2006!
Good thing we can count on conservative Fred winning the GOP nomination.
A vote for Rooty, is a vote for liberalism.
Go Fred08!
If you put your hand into the fire you will be burned. If you immerse yourself for hours with no source of air you will drown. If the Republican Party nominates a liberal candidate it will probably lose and Rudy is a liberal candidate.
These are facts of life. There’s no point in arguing about them. You can raise the specter of Hillary as President and promise an entire parade of horribles. It won’t make any difference. A large number of voters who might vote for a normal Republican won’t vote for Rudy and they are impervious to argument. He is therefore as weak as any candidate the Party is likely to choose. This is reality. You can turn you back on it if you chose, but if you do it will bite you in the butt.
RINOist Liberalism has had its day with the Bush's. Time for a CHANGE. The Bush's must not have a single thing to do with our party's choice for the next president. The Bush stamp of approval on the party nominee is a signal for everybody to reject that putative nominee.
From what I have seen, Giuliani, McCain, Romney, Brownback, Huckabee and both F. and T. Thompson have been the Bush-backed favorites. Hence Bush's obvious displeasure with Romney, Giuliani when they distanced themselves from his flagrant Illegal Amnesty policies, and had his lap-dog , Mel Martinez chew them out.
This leaves only the three distinctly American (Non-CFR) candidates among the second-tier to choose from. Are we going to fish, or cut bait?
I echo what Steve Sabin said not long ago:
I am also increasingly feeling as though there is nothing conservative about the RNC in terms of actual practice. What used to be undergirding planks are now merely optional trim packages that can be removed if it will bring in more votes. The goal here is not to win offices “at any price” in terms of constantly middle-seeking ideology. When the party stands for just about everything, it stands for nothing. The fact that Giuliani is a front-runner is all the testimony I need that the party has lost its firm compass. Although it will always be a party to the right of the Democrats, it bothers me that instead of pulling the whole spectrum rightward, the whole spectrum is shifting leftward. Today’s Republican is largely 1960’s Democrat.
RINOist Liberalism has had its day with the Bush's. Time for a CHANGE. The Bush's must not have a single thing to do with our party's choice for the next president. The Bush stamp of approval on the party nominee is a signal for everybody to reject that putative nominee.
From what I have seen, Giuliani, McCain, Romney, Brownback, Huckabee and both F. and T. Thompson have been the Bush-backed favorites. Hence Bush's obvious displeasure with Romney, Giuliani when they distanced themselves from his flagrant Illegal Amnesty policies, and had his lap-dog , Mel Martinez chew them out.
This leaves only the three distinctly American (Non-CFR) candidates among the second-tier to choose from. Are we going to fish, or cut bait?
I echo what Steve Sabin said not long ago:
I am also increasingly feeling as though there is nothing conservative about the RNC in terms of actual practice. What used to be undergirding planks are now merely optional trim packages that can be removed if it will bring in more votes. The goal here is not to win offices “at any price” in terms of constantly middle-seeking ideology. When the party stands for just about everything, it stands for nothing. The fact that Giuliani is a front-runner is all the testimony I need that the party has lost its firm compass. Although it will always be a party to the right of the Democrats, it bothers me that instead of pulling the whole spectrum rightward, the whole spectrum is shifting leftward. Today’s Republican is largely 1960’s Democrat.
then you will get a worse one (HILLARY) by default
That's certainly not Giuliani you're describing. Explain to me why a pro-life voter would vote for either of them since both are NARAL darlings only Rudy will be abandoned by the baby killers for Hillary when it's time to vote. They know a real Democrat from a wanna-be one.
With Rudy I may get some of the things I want, with Hillary I know I will not only get zero but a painful asskicking for 4-8 years.
Her judicial appointments alone will be enough to make us run screaming in the night. For those of you who think you will be “teaching the GOP a lesson”, that’s short sighted and if you think it will succeed, it’s contrary to history.
Did the GOP and conservatives in general capitulate to the “Perot Revolution” after it helped usher in BC? No, they were widely criticized and most were embarrassed after the realized what they wrought and feebly shuffled back into the tribe. Too late though,their damage was done.
Unfortunately, I don’t hold out much hope for these single issue voters to learn much from history nor have the foresight to contemplate the results of their actions. If anything, they are even more resolute and blinded to all but what they see directly in front of them.
To continuously win at the ballot box a party’s voters must not only have good perspective but good peripheral vision as well.
Large tax cuts, WOT success, partial birth abortion legislation, no Kyoto involvement, no World Court involvement, very conservative SC Justices named....
NOTHING conservative? Uhhhh...right.
No it is not the same principle. There is a huge difference between one’s pocketbook and killing babies. I promised myself I would never vote for a pro-abortion candidate for ANY office. If the Republicans want to commit suicide, they can have at it. Just understand there are consequences to that move of utter stupidity.
I am more concerned about the Islamic terrorists who want to kill us. Rudy (or most other Republicans) will take this war more seriously than Hillary or any of the Dems. If we lose this war, don’t worry about abortion, gay rights, etc as under sharia, these issues will quickly go away. Just as President Members Only jacket said at Columbia, “there are no gays in Iran”.
You ought to think about that statement when you choose to sit out the election if Giuliani is the nominee.
“Sorry Bob, but the next President will get as many as 4 appointments to the S.C. and if it is Rudy or Hillary, the results will be identical.”
Yes, like how Bush foisted Harriet Meyers on us. You won’t acknowledge the influence the party AND voters can have on those nominations.
Are you stating that you, as a conservative or GOPer, that you will have no more influence on Hillary as you will on Rudy?
If so, you’re either lying to yourself or us.
The issues are different, but the principle of voting third party is the same.
It splits the Republican party.
I would rather put up with Hitlary for 4 years then rip the prolife plank out of the republican platform by electing Rino Rudy. IF he I nominated I am going thired party.
>>So let me just clarify the “One issue” thing: If, say, a candidate Conservative on 50% of the issues won the GOP nod, then revealed themselves to be rabidly anti-Israel and possibly outright anti-Semetic, you’d be all on board to stop Hitlery, right?<<
What a clever comeback. Look, if what you’re saying is that abortion negates every other issue, including terrorism, the economy, health care, etc. then I’d question your priorities — Dennis Prager, who is very pro-life, has already condemned this way of thinking.
However, as I’ve stated elsewhere on this board, by virtue of his SCOTUS nominees, which is the only practical way that abortion rights can be weakened, Rudy is vastly superior to Hillary. Take a look at his judicial advisors - most are drawn from the Federalist Society, the same place where Roberts, Scalia, and Alito were drawn.
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.