Rasmussen: With pro-life 3rd party running, Clinton would win big over Giuliani

[Tender Branson]

Thursday, October 04, 2007

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.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics

[Eraserhead]

The idea that the third party would get 14% is hilarious.

Rasmussen needs to stop having his personal ideals affect his polling.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

[Tender Branson]

Clinton would not lose IA in this scenario. IA is already favored to go to Clinton in 2008 without a third-party from the Right. Also NV would lean towards Clinton, but it´s more uncertain than IA.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

[auburntiger]

Clinton would not lose IA in this scenario. IA is already favored to go to Clinton in 2008 without a third-party from the Right. Also NV would lean towards Clinton, but it´s more uncertain than IA.

Also, NC is not going DEM in 2008...no way

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

If we have the right split NC is going to go dem.

[Verily]

Those numbers specifically would give a map looking something like this, maybe an even wider Clinton victory (winning around 35-37% and victory in Texas, Indiana, Montana, and maybe Kansas and South Dakota). Of course, this poll almost certainly overstates how strong the hard-right campaign would be.

[Boris]

The idea that the third party would get 14% is hilarious.

Rasmussen needs to stop having his personal ideals affect his polling.

Rasmussen does admit this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The idea of a one-issue third party getting that much of the vote is ridiculous. Maybe 2-5% at most, but that would also kill the Republicans anyway.

[7,052,770]

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

A pro-life third party candidate sounds very appealing to the conservative base!  (Until they find out that the pro-life third party candidate is actually going to be Alan Keyes.)

Any scenario where this pro-life candidate tops 5% in the most solid red state is pure fantasy.

[Likely Voter]

I could see a world where a lot of real hard core conservatives would get resigned to losing to Hilary and end up voting for the third party to send a message

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Those numbers specifically would give a map looking something like this, maybe an even wider Clinton victory (winning around 35-37% and victory in Texas, Indiana, Montana, and maybe Kansas and South Dakota). Of course, this poll almost certainly overstates how strong the hard-right campaign would be.

I would so love it if that map happened.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

The idea that the third party would get 14% is hilarious.

Rasmussen needs to stop having his personal ideals affect his polling.

Perot got 18.91% in 1992, and it's not outside the realm of possibility that a good third party candidate could do the same.

[Eraserhead]

The idea that the third party would get 14% is hilarious.

Rasmussen needs to stop having his personal ideals affect his polling.

Perot got 18.91% in 1992, and it's not outside the realm of possibility that a good third party candidate could do the same.

Perhaps but a good third party candidate would not be a one issue anti-choice candidate.

[HardRCafé]

Oh yes.  How could I forget Mississippi is Hillary Country.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

They'd also use anti-immigration xenophobia and protectionsim.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

The idea that the third party would get 14% is hilarious.

Rasmussen needs to stop having his personal ideals affect his polling.

Perot got 18.91% in 1992, and it's not outside the realm of possibility that a good third party candidate could do the same.

Perhaps but a good third party candidate would not be a one issue anti-choice candidate.

And wouldn't have multi-millions; wouldn't be invited to debates; wouldn't be taken seriously as anything but a spoiler.......

[Gustaf]

With a 16% win illary would sweep the South.

[Kushahontas]

my roommate tells me that mississippi would go to clinton narrowly in this scenario and she would probably take alabama by a very very slim margin. (i know i know..alabama is random) idk.

[Verily]

With a 16% win illary would sweep the South.

Possibly; it's not clear how many blacks would vote for the hard right ticket. In the South, a fairly substantial percentage of black Democrats are anti-abortion. Certainly she'd win the entire peripheral South.

[HardRCafé]

my roommate tells me that mississippi would go to clinton narrowly in this scenario and she would probably take alabama by a very very slim margin. (i know i know..alabama is random) idk.

Did your roommate precede you here?

[Eraserhead]

my roommate tells me that mississippi would go to clinton narrowly in this scenario and she would probably take alabama by a very very slim margin. (i know i know..alabama is random) idk.

Your roommate is pretty confused.

[7,052,770]

Oh yes.  How could I forget Mississippi is Hillary Country.

36% black.  Almost all vote Hillary.  She gets about 10% of the white vote to get right under 40%.    Roy Moore or whoever gets around 35%, with Guiliani getting the other 25%.  Boom.

The other Deep South states aren't black enough for Hillary to win, but Mississippi is.

[HardRCafé]

Never mind my question since your roommate answered for you.