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.

[gathersnomoss]

Clinton II. You get what you vote for.

[calcowgirl]

15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.

They've almost completed that objective, as evidenced on this thread.

[calcowgirl]

“ Save me Rooty, my principles have long disappeared. Only YOU Rooty, can keep me from the burkha by sending out those social conservatives that you so despise to fight the WOT, so that people like me, living in my gated community, can continue to shop at the finest stores!"

gag me kind of thing.

I'm definitely suffering from that gag thing. ;-)

[cajungirl]

You know it is starting to make me dislike the pro lifers. Really. They would put a woman in the WH that would change the course of this country in ways they cannot even imagine.

They have controlled this board, demeaned anyone who disagreed with them, have done nothing but threaten to take their ball to a new field if they don’t get their way.

These third party people won’t nominate someone who would do anything other than deliver the WH to an evil evil woman.

[TitansAFC]

-—”Clinton II. You get what you vote for.”-—

You just don’t get it. WHO CARES if Clinton wins in a Hitlery vs. Rudy911 race? The threat is empty to me.

You just don’t get the fact that a GOP run by Rudy911 is not a GOP worth supporting anymore. It is a radically different party working against my values and issues.

Clinton II would be BETTER to me than Rudy911. At least THEN the Liberal GOPers will get the DAMNED idea through their head that you can’t win with a Liberal running the party. At least THEN we’d have a party left to fight for, something we would NOT have with Rudy911 at the helm. At least THEN we won’t have to witness a permanent splitting of the party, and a GOP seeking NARAL endorsements every election.

[calcowgirl]

Liberals within are more destructive than those who you can face and oppose openly and vehemently.

If you believed your tagline, you would not be calling conservatives “arrogant,” “stupid,” and “useful idiots”... IMO.

[Conservativegreatgrandma]

Pro-Life advocates are not idiots, there will be no third party created by them.

I'm afraid you're wrong. Ever heard of the Constitution Party? The problem is they're just as flawed as Republicans but the "purists" have been hoodwinked into believing they're more pure.

This is downright scarry. We must remain united to defeat Hillary.

[calcowgirl]

Your "less strident one" will appoint people to the RNC and it's powerful committees -- liberal country club Republicans. Your "less strident one" will result in the prolife plank being stripped from the party platform -- effectively killing the GOP in future national elections.

Rudy = Schwarzenegger--on a national scale.

[Mariner]

I would prefer FDT, but I don’t think he’ll win.

[Ol' Sparky]

. And then when Hilary takes over talk radio and makes your taxes subsidize the late term abortions that her Supreme court nominees uphold and the “partnership “ benefits for the sodomites you can take full credit for not having voted for Giuliani but for actually effectively voting for HIllary.

None of those things would happen if Hillary took over. Republicans would filibuster all legislation involving the issues you mentioned.

And, you don't SEEM TO REALIZE Giuliani is for domestic partnership benefits and civil unions for sodomites, has opposed a ban on PBA and has supported taxpayer funding of abortion. GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF BEHIND AND LEARN HOW LIBERAL GIULIANI IS.

There is a FAR better chance of civil unions and taxpayer funded abortions becoming reality if Giuliani works with Democrats and RINOs to get all that passed.

It's just amazing you can't comprehend that.

[OESY]

Ross Perot made the Clinton presidency of either 8 or 16 years possible, got Ginsburg and Breyer appointed to the Supreme Court, encouraged al Qaeda by its weakness in foreign affairs, sent sensitive missile technology to the Chinese in return for campaign cash, and ran what was (not arguably) the most corrupt administration in the history of this Republic. Did you enable Perot for the sake of "principle"? If so, you also bear responsibility for the impending disaster that confronts the United States. Sometimes street smarts are required to avoid shooting yourself and your principles in the foot.

.

[Ol' Sparky]

But it is fact that Hillary Clinton would not appoint any judge willing to overturn Roe V. Wade.

Guiliani has spoken before NARAL, opposed a ban on PBA and has and still does support taxpayer funding of abortion.

Given that, why on earth would you think he'd appoint a justice willing to overturn Roe?

[afnamvet]

read later

[Ol' Sparky]

So, in order “show the GOP who’s boss”, you’ll allow a more-liberal-than-Guliani to be elected?

You got the wrong poster here. I rather see Hillary in office than Giuliani. She would do less damage to conservatism.

[WhistlingPastTheGraveyard]

Social conservative are not and have never been reliable GOP voters.

Then you have nothing to worry about.

[roses of sharon]

Oops, I think you posted to the wrong person, I have no idea which candidate you are talking about?

I scrolled back and don’t see which one?

Come again please, thanks!

[Ol' Sparky]

Once she’s in she is there for 8 years. Who knows how long this Republic would last..

The Republic survived just fine when Bill Clinton was in office. Republicans gained 500 seats nationwide, took over Congress and we got a balanced budget and welfare reform.

What the Republic might not survive is Giuliani Presidency that would cripple the conservative movement and shrink the Republican minority in Congress. It would at least a decade before Republicans would even have a chance of controlling congress again and eight years before a conservative President could assume office.

[Designer]

"They would put a woman in the WH that would change the course of this country.."

I'm sure they don't intend to do that at all, and I can see if we put two and two together, we could project that as one possible scenario.

However, if you look at it from a different angle, namely; put pressure on the Republican leadership to dump Rudy and any other pro-death candidate, then everybody wins!

A pro-life POTUS in the WH, a re-energized GOP, and the dummycrats in fast retreat.

I see that as a win-win-win.

Just dump Rudy. It's a start.

[Designer]

"..if Rudy gets the nomination.."

Please see my post #398.

[Designer]

"Anti-Semite"

Huh? Whodat? I didn't know there was an anti-Semite candidate in the race.