See other Immigration Articles
Title: A Generic Third-Party Presidential Candidate Emphasizing Border Security Would Tie A Democratic Candidate And Defeat A Republican, According To A New Poll
Source:
WorldNetDaily.com
URL Source: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49945
Published: Apr 27, 2006
Author: WND
Post Date: 2006-04-27 20:02:19 by Mind_Virus
Keywords: None
Views: 75
Comments: 11
ELECTION 2008 Poll: 3rd party scores with border backlash Presidential candidate focused on fence, enforcement would tie Dems, beat GOP Posted: April 27, 2006 2:31 p.m. Eastern © 2006 http://WorldNetDaily.com A Generic Third-Party Presidential Candidate Emphasizing Border Security Would Tie A Democratic Candidate And Defeat A Republican, According To A New Poll. The Rasmussen Reports national survey 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." In that scenario, Democrats, with 31 percent, would be in a virtual tie with the third-party candidate, with 30 percent of the vote. The Republican candidate would be favored by only 21 percent. Rasmussen comments that the result "probably reflects unhappiness with both parties on the immigration issue rather than a true opportunity for a third party." Historically, the pollster points out, issues that drive third-party candidates are co-opted by one of the major parties as they prove popular. Rasmussen surveys have indicated most Americans favor a barrier along the border and enforcement of existing laws prior to other reforms. Without the third-party candidate, according to the new poll, Democrats hold a 12-point advantage over Republicans on a generic 2008 presidential ballot, 44 percent to 32 percent. Rasmussen said these figures likely are a reflection of unhappiness with the Bush administration rather than a commentary on prospective candidates from either party. The latest poll found that with the immigration-issue candidate as an option, 36 percent of voters who identified as conservatives chose the Republican candidate while 35 percent picked the third-party option. Among political moderates, 34 percent chose the Democrat while 32 percent preferred the third-party candidate. In contrast to issues such as Iraq and the economy, Rasmussen sees immigration as unsettling for the status quo "because it cuts across the typical partisan and ideological lines in ways that could reshape the nation's political equilibrium." By emphasizing enforcement of the law, Democrats have leaped ahead of Republicans in the latest poll asking Americans which party they trust more on the issue of illegal immigration. As WorldNetDaily reported yesterday, a Rasmussen survey found more Americans trust Democrats on the immigration issue than Republicans, a recent reversal that has come as Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean declares enforcement of the border his party's top priority. An earlier survey found that, in a hypothetical race for Congress, a plurality of Americans would vote for the candidate who favors more enforcement on the immigration issue. Another earlier survey found two-thirds of Americans believe it doesn't make sense to debate new immigration laws until we can first control our borders and enforce existing laws. That same survey found 40 percent of Americans favor "forcibly" requiring all 11 million illegal immigrants to leave the United States.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Mind_Virus (#0)
Third party candidate! HOO HOO HA HA HO HO HO! Look folks, a third-party candidate could get 99.99995% of the popular vote, and would still lose to the selected RepubliCrat candidate, alright? Third parties! What a laugh. Ya gets to pick from RepubliCrat shill "A" or RepubliCrat shill "B", and that's your choice, got it? Third party. HO HO HO HO HO! Seriously, what do you people think, that we live in a democracy or something? We live in a corporate dictatorship. Deal with it.
 | Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#2. To: Elliott Jackalope (#1)
Ross Perot could have gone somewhere in his Third Party bid but he chose to fritter away his momentum. A Third Party candidate with Ross's money could win on 2 issues: 1) Immigration 2) 9-11 Truth movement. But then these "lone assassins" really seem to hate honest men who see the light. I am not convinced that we will have elections in 2008 and that we will remain a sovereign nation until whoever wins will finish his or her first term.
#3. To: Horse, Elliott Jackalope (#2)
He got death threats from the PTBs.
Ross Perot could have gone somewhere in his Third Party bid but he chose to fritter away his momentum.
"Of the corporate elites, by the corporate elites, for the corporate elites" - it's what America is all about. Now send your kids off to fight and die in Iraq so that corporate pigs get everything and we get nothing. What else have we ever fought for?~~Elliott J
#4. To: christine (#3)
Back in '91 Perot waw well ahead of Bushie the Elder and Clinton in the polls. Then he had a pow-wow with some big Wall Street tycoons and unexpectedly dropped out of the presidential race. He re-entered the race but was only a shadow of his former self, at the end he still got 19% of the vote. The Establishment will either underminmine or, if necessary, assassinate any threats to its power. Since JFK, Washinton has been under the control of a shadow government.
Ross Perot could have gone somewhere in his Third Party bid but he chose to fritter away his momentum. He got death threats from the PTBs
Life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think.
#5. To: Zoroaster (#4)
I would say since Woodrow Wilson.
Since JFK, Washinton has been under the control of a shadow government.
God is always good!
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02] More and more of our imports come from overseas. - George W. Bush
#6. To: RickyJ (#5)
Good point, it might be said JFK was about to overturn Wilson's sellout, beginning with the Federal Reserve.
Since JFK, Washinton has been under the control of a shadow government. I would say since Woodrow Wilson.
Life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think.
#7. To: Mind_Virus (#0)
Let's see... When I talk to the rest of the dumbed down sheep in this country, I run into the same issues. Democrats, and Republicans. They define their politics by THESE TWO PARTIES. When I brought up being a Constitutionalist, they looked at me like I came from another planet. They asked, Is that like a libertarian? I said yes. Only smarter, and not quite as retarded. I then explained the Constitution Party platform, and while they seemed to understand it, they all seem to be averse to anything that isn't what they've been doing their entire fucking lives. Sheep are sheep and they will not stop being sheep just because you want them to.
 | What's that Mr. Nipples? You want me to ask the nice lady about her rack?. |
#8. To: Zoroaster (#4)
Felix Royington was one of them.
Then he had a pow-wow with some big Wall Street tycoons
#9. To: Mind_Virus (#0)
Our votes are meaningless and won't be counted. The sooner we realize we have NO representation, the sooner we'll get a clue. MONDAY IS CINCO DE MAYO. BUY A GUN.
#10. To: TommyTheMadArtist (#7)
Save your time and energy. It's over as far as the political system. I'm not quite sure what the answer is, but I know what it isn't.
I then explained the Constitution Party platform,
#11. To: Zoroaster (#4)
Exacta-mundo ... The NWO (CIA/MOSSAD/International Bankers) took physical possession of the U.S. Govt. on Nov. 22nd, 1963 ... Kennedy Assassination ... Bush (1) did it!
Since JFK, Washinton has been under the control of a shadow government.
9-11 ... Bush did it !
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest