Well, third party wins. Well, at least among these voters.

Hmm . . .

I don't know if it helped or hurt Giuliani, but it certainly hurt Pat Robertson.

And I can't believe how close the vote was. It should prove very interesting a year from now...

Wow, Hillary's even polling well on this pro-life site. Outstanding!

Like it or not, MK, Giuliani is still a front runner in the Republican party.

...says the media....

My little flag seems to be sticking out of Cincinnati....

I think it might hurt Giuliani with moderates to be associated with a nutter like Robertson.

Leah,

I've already resigned myself to the fact that it's going to come down to those two. I do hate it, but I see the way the wind is blowing. I was just surprised how close it was. I know this is a pro-life site, but I think the vote might have been pretty even. I think the hard core pro lifers said they would vote for a third party and I think the rest of the people (both sides) are evenly split.

We've still got time, and anything can happen, but I'm not holding my breath.

Like I said, If it came down to Hillary and Caligula, I'd vote for the Big "C". But Ireland is lookin' better and better...

Are we moving to Ireland? Yay

I think pretty soon I'll have to find a spot to live, far away enough from the nuclear fallout......

Poll shows support for Abortion decision at nine-year high
Written by Staff
Sunday, 11 November 2007
The Harris Poll® has been measuring attitudes toward the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion ever since it was handed down by the Supreme Court in 1973. During the 34 years since, Harris Polls found majorities, between 49 and 65 percent of all U.S. adults, in favor of Roe v. Wade.

The latest Harris Poll finds that support for Roe v. Wade has increased fairly significantly in a relatively short time. A majority – 56 percent – now favors the U.S. Supreme Court decision, the highest level since 1998 and an increase of seven percentage points from just last year when a slender 49 to 47 percent is supported the decision. Furthermore, only 20 percent of U.S. adults favor not permitting a woman to get an abortion under any circumstances.

This Harris Poll also finds that a substantial 69 to 24 percent majority of all adults do not think it is likely that this Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade. (Of course, that is not a prediction).

These are some of the results of a Harris Poll of 1,052 U.S. adults surveyed by telephone by Harris Interactive® between October 16 and 23, 2007.

Other interesting findings from The Harris Poll include:

* A quarter (25%) favor permitting abortion in "all circumstances", 52 percent favor abortion is "some circumstances" and 20 percent do not favor abortion in any circumstances. These opinions have not shifted much in the past year;

* While it is perhaps not surprising that most Democrats (63%) favor Roe v. Wade and half of Republicans (51%) oppose it, substantial percentages disagree. Over four in ten (45%) Republicans favor Roe v. Wade and a third (33%) of Democrats oppose it;

* Interestingly, the percentage of Republicans who favor it has significantly increased (from 37 percent to the current 45 percent) in the past year and the percentage of Democrats who oppose the U.S. Supreme Court decision has decreased (from 43 percent to the current 33 percent);

* Heading into the 2008 election year, it is worth noting that a majority of Independents (61 to 36 percent) favors Roe v. Wade. In 2006 the comparable views of Independents were 56 to 37 percent.

So What?

From 1998 until this year, the U.S. adult public’s support for Roe v. Wade had been declining. A year ago, The Harris Poll reported that Roe v. Wade was supported "only by a slender 49 percent to 47 percent plurality" – "support and opposition are almost equal". Today, a majority now supports the U.S. Supreme Court decision (56% vs. 40%) and almost seven in ten think that the U.S. Supreme Court decision will remain unchanged. What might explain such a shift in 18 months?

With the 2008 election about a year in the future and the first caucuses and primaries only two months away, there has been perhaps much more heightened interest in the many candidates’ positions on social issues. Also, President Bush is very unpopular at the moment in large part due to the situation in Iraq. This unpopularity may also be leading to be less support for more conservative positions in general. This perhaps is best seen in the strong support for former New York City mayor, Rudolph Giuliani, among Republicans, in spite of his positions on gun control, gay rights and abortion, and lack of support for Senator Sam Brownback, a conservative who recently dropped out of the race for Republican nomination. This is new evidence of the diminished influence of the Christian Right.

According to The Harris Poll and other polls, Giuliani continues to lead in the race for the Republican nomination. This has surprised many who expected his lead not to last as long as it has. This support can perhaps be partially explained by the fact that the country is more likely to support positions on controversial issues such as abortion. Of course, there is still a long time left before the election, and a candidate like Giuliani might still falter as he is scrutinized even more in the weeks and months ahead. Still his position on abortion and other social issues may not be that far from what the voting public (including many Republicans) want.

33% of Democrats oppose Roe v. Wade.

A sizable plurality.

51% of Republicans oppose it.

So I guess the third party guy really does have a chance, if he is pro life that is.

Hippie,

I don't trust those stats. I think more repubs are oppose and less dems oppose...

Hippie- the problem is that you guys are all convinced that everyone is a single issue voter. Abortion isn't on the top of most people's concerns. So we've got some little issues about Roe v. Wade- it's just not at the top of the list, nationally.

One note about Hillary.

John Edwards (whom I like on everything except abortion) challenged Hillary to join him in rejecting lobbyists money.

H. Clinton declined.

At $90 million dollars she is wearing the same sign that Bush wore during his campaign.

The sign reads:

I am beholden to everyone except you.

Erin,

You make a good point. There are all kinds of single issue voters. Some vote based on the war, taxes, economy etc. Even someone who opposes abortion will vote for Giuliani because they agree with him on other stuff. Just look at Pat Robertson. His derangement aside, he said at some point he was prolife but now, well, uh . . . Looking on the bright side, prolife folks can distance ourselves from him like we always wanted to.

If it comes to Clinton vs. Giuliani, I'd vote for Gene Amondson of the Prohibition Party ... unless the Constitution Party has a better choice running that the potential candidates that I've seen. I'm fully prepared to write in a candidate who shares my values.

As to the Robertson-Giuliani question, I doubt that it's going to make much difference to Giuliani. I think that it's probably flushed whatever credibility Robertson had left, though.

MK:

Ireland is amazing. This is not up for debate. :)

* A quarter (25%) favor permitting abortion in "all circumstances", 52 percent favor abortion is "some circumstances" and 20 percent do not favor abortion in any circumstances. These opinions have not shifted much in the past year;

Wouldn't that mean the 72% think that we should NOT have abortion on demand?

Yes MK

Figures don't lie but liars do figure.

Figures don't lie but liars do figure.

True, true.

MK,
Good post. That's how I saw it too.

mk, it really boils down to what they meant by "some." That could mean anything from "to save the life of the mother," or "only in cases or rape or incest" (both small numbers) or "only in the first two trimesters," which is practically all abortions.

Everyone polled probably has a different idea, so all we really know is 77% don't approve a general abortion ban

"I don't trust those stats. I think more repubs are oppose and less dems oppose..."

@Jasper, and wouldn't it just burn your buns if those stats were accurate? Who would have thought, eh? Not all Democrats are evil baby-killing bastards. Go figure.

Hal,

Everyone polled probably has a different idea, so all we really know is 77% don't approve a general abortion ban

However you want to spin it Hal, the bottom line is that right now we have abortion on demand and 72% of the US population disagrees with this.

sort of, I don't think most americans realize it's "aboriton on demand." they want some restrictions, but how much is the question. I'm guessing 75% would be fine with abortion on demand for the first trimester and strong restrictions thereafter.

Robertson's endorsement of Giuliani along with Kerik's indictment will be seen as being the moment where Giuliani's credibility as a competent leader was smashed to pieces and his fall in the polls gained momentum.

Giuliani is NOT a good leader as the people of NYC will plainly tell you and he cannot be trusted to make good choices as far as his cabinet and national security goes.

New favorite website about Giuliani - Italians Ashamed of Rudy Giuliani

http://www.myspace.com/italiansashamedofrudy

Hal,

The point made by both you and MK is that the article referencing the poll is ambiguous on "some circumstances"

This is where some claim bias.

Is the poll clear on "some circumstances" and the article choses not to discuss the circumstances?

Or

Was the original poll ambiguous on "some circumstances" ?

Why use ambiguous language in an article and not explain why it is ambiguous?

When they make broad generalizations based on ambiguous statements like "some circumstances", they beg criticism of their conclusion as well as accusations of bias.

MK quickly pointed to how she could interpret one way, while the article made the opposite interpretation.

If you are going to go to the trouble to poll people, wouldn't it make more sense to use less ambiguous language than "some circumstances" so you can really acertain what people think?

If we can use identical data to form opposite conclusions, then they obviously have not done a superb job of polling or reporting.

sort of, I don't think most americans realize it's "aboriton on demand." they want some restrictions, but how much is the question. I'm guessing 75% would be fine with abortion on demand for the first trimester and strong restrictions thereafter.

Posted by: hal at November 12, 2007 9:03 PM********************** Why?

why what? why do I "guess" that 75% of Americans are fine with abortion on demand for the first trimester? Polls like the one quoted here in part. Party because that seems to work pretty well in Europe. Partly because the mainstream opposition to abortion seems to focus on late pregnancy abortions. My memory of the polls is that most people are fine with abortions at 4 to 6 weeks.

The view that "it's a baby from conception on" is just not carrying the day.

Why what? Why are you okay with first trimester abortions, but you're not okay with second or third? My pro choice friends say the same thing. One woman said "At least I had my abortion in my 9th week." What's the difference.

I don't know why people feel that way. But they do.

Hal, we both know the truth.

the truth? All abortions "kill babies?"

Then why do you think people don't care about first trimester abortions?

Hippie: If we can use identical data to form opposite conclusions, then they obviously have not done a superb job of polling or reporting.

It does make a difference how the question is asked, often.

Go check out the wonderful new movie Bella, in theatres this weekend. It's a powerfully edifying story of the unmitigated value and dignity of human life.