Poll: GOP could trail third party in '08

[julialnyc]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/April%20Dailies/Election%202008.htm
Election 2008: Democrats by 12
Survey of 1,000 Adults
April 25-26, 2006
Election 2008
Democrat 44%
Republican 32%
Other 7%
RasmussenReports.com

Election 2008
(with immigration enforcement 3rd Party Option)
Democrat 31%
Republican 21%
Other 30%
RasmussenReports.com



April 27, 2006--Democrats currently hold a 12-point advantage over Republicans on a generic 2008 Presidential ballot. However, a third-party candidate focusing on immigration enforcement issues could fundamentally alter those political dynamics.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national opinion survey finds that 44% of Americans say they would vote for a Democrat if the Presidential Election were held today. Just 32% would vote for a Republican. Those figures are likely a reflection of unhappiness with the Bush Administration rather than a commentary on prospective candidates from either party (see crosstabs).
The survey also asked respondents how they would vote if "a third party candidate ran in 2008 and promised to build a barrier along the Mexican border and make enforcement of immigration law his top priority."
With that option, support fell sharply for both major parties. The Democrats still come out on top with support from 31% of Americans. The third party candidate moved into a virtual tie at 30% while the GOP fell to 21%.
This result probably reflects unhappiness with both parties on the immigration issue rather than a true opportunity for a third party. Historically, issues that drive third party candidates get co-opted by one of the major parties as they demonstrate popular appeal. Most Americans favor a barrier along the border and enforcement of existing law prior to other reforms.
With the immigration issue candidate as an option, 36% of conservative voters opt for the Republican candidate while 35% take the third party option. Among political moderates, 34% pick the Democrat while 32% prefer the third party option.

[Ignacio Upton]

1. Tom Tancredo in '08!

Immigration is one of his most important issues, and the Freepers salivate over him. He also wants to nuke Mecca. If the GOP is stupid enough to nominate someone like Giuliani, who is too liberal for most conservatives, then the GOP could place third in a Presidential election for the first time since 1912, when Teddy Roosevelt in his third party bid finished ahead of Taft.

[peace frog]

3. Even if the GOP nominate McCain

a Tancredo third party candidacy would siphon off enough conservative votes to handily put the Dem candidate in the White House.

GO FOR IT, TOM!

[liberalpragmatist]

2. I wonder what the EC breakdown would be like

A third-party would likely still come in third in the electoral college, as it'd be unlikely to get a plurality in too many states.

But I think an isolationist, antiwar, anti-immigration "America First" campaign could do VERY well, sort of similar to Perot in 1992.

Keep in mind, though, that third parties typically poll very well until people actually get closer to election day. The idea of a third option is very appealing in the abstract, especially because people project their own beliefs onto a third party candidate. Once you actually get used to the candidate, you realize they're just another politician, who are human beings after all.

[Ignacio Upton]

7. It was like that with Perot

during the summer of '92, he was tied with and BEATING Bush I and Clinton in the polls (or at the very least it was close.) However, once people found out that he's a bit "out there," and with things like his dropping out/returning, and Stockdale as runningmate (may he RIP) Perot was not taken as seriously as he could have been. Interestingly enough, he won the largest percentage of the popular vote for any third party candidates since Teddy Roosevelt, but failed to win a single state, whereas the regional candidacies of Strom Thurmond and George Wallace managed to carry several, despite not winning nearly as much.

[liberalpragmatist]

12. Yeah - the other problem with Third-Party Candidates...

... is that they often are kind of loopy. I do sometimes wonder how a more "mainstream" third-party campaign would do. It couldn't just be a regular centrist politician, as both the other candidates would run to the center too and you'd end up having no real debate. Much as I dislike him politically, I could see a third-party campaign by McCain do well.

Like I said before, the idea of a third-party candidate in any race is always more appealing in the abstract than in reality; but the fact that most third-party politicians are nutty makes it even harder to imagine them winning. Most people who'd be inclined to jump into a third-party race do so because either they're pretty extreme on one position or another that riles up partisans but doesn't do much for other people or because their hodgepodge of views doesn't fit the worldview of either party. Most people are a hodgepodge of views, but just because someone's beliefs may not be entirely partyline doesn't mean that you'll agree with them.

[julialnyc]

4. Please....bring us a Perot

to split their vote!!

[ronnykmarshall]

6. I hear that.

Maybe ol' Pat Buchanan will run as a third party candidate again. He might do better at taking votes from the GOP this time.

[regnaD kciN]

5. This is not good news...

Whatever may happen to Republicans in such a situation, it is telling that Democrats (making up the entire center-left spectrum) would barely be able to edge out a candidate whose sole promise would be to "kick out all them Messicans." :eyes:

Considering that such a modern-day "Know Nothing" would likely be far closer to the Republicans (and even somewhat to the right of them) in terms of other policies, this only shows the weakness of our party. Sure, we've stirred up a lot of anti-Bush feeling...but, beyond that, very little support for Democratic ideals per se. People are now mad at Bush, but, given a choice of a further-right candidate along with a moderate-to-progressive Democrat, those voters are likely to split around 50%-50%. Which tells me that the only thing the Democrats have in their favor right now is popular anger at Bush. There's no sign that anywhere near a majority of voters would be inclined to embrace a Democratic agenda if the alternative is anyone but Bush -- and we won't have Bush as an opponent in 2008. :-(

[julialnyc]

8. I disagree

Look what Perot did. If there is a conservative candidate that is running with the GOP it would split their vote. Next time around I think it will be split between a democrat,republican and right leaning indie. This would split the right wing vote. I don't think many democrats would go with a Nader type as their main agenda is to get the republicans out.

[Ignacio Upton]

9. I wonder if Nader will run again

I agree that in 2008, we won't be complacent like in 2000. However, if we run a shitty candidate like Hillary, then we could be looking at the first President from neither of the two current major parties, since before the Civil War. Unfortunately in this case that would be horrible.

[w4rma]

10. This poll shows where the Democratic leadership needs to be on immigration

And they really need to listen.

They have another winning issue, if they would run with it. Enforce existing laws. Go after buisnesses that illegally employ illegals, thereby lessening the biggest reason they cross the border illegally.

[jsamuel]

11. bull, Rassmussen oversamples republicans like crazy, Bush has been

in the 40's, even somewhat high 40's while every other poll shows him in the lower 30's. If you take this poll too seriously, you would end up thinking that dems are repubs.