Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) — Hillary Clinton is pro-abortion and the only female candidate pursuing a bid for the White House in either party. If abortion advocates are correct, Clinton has the women’s vote locked up — yet a new poll shows that women don’t necessarily support her and that her pro-abortion views are a turnoff.
The respected Polling Company firm conducted a survey with 600 women voters of both parties from August 15-20.The poll revealed that Hillary’s positions on abortion were at odds with a majority of American women.
Some 64 percent of women voters would be less likely to vote for a presidential candidate who voted against the partial-birth abortion ban — a measure Clinton voted against on four occasions.
Sixty-eight percent of women voters are less likely to vote for a presidential candidate who supports taxpayer-funded abortion — something Hillary Clinton adamantly supports.
And 73 percent of those polled said they would be less likely to vote for a presidential candidate who voted against a law that would have made it a criminal act for an adult to take a girl younger than 18 years of age across state lines to get an abortion without her parents’ knowledge.
Clinton twice voted against a Congressional bill to do just that.
Although she is portrayed by the media sychophants as “mainstream” there is very little if anything “mainstream” about Hillary Clinton. She looks as though she will be the Democrat presidential nominee. In order for the GOP to leverage the “mainstream” vote (i.e. somebody representative of the majority of American voters) they will need to run a candidate who represents the core values and beliefs of “mainstream” voters. And this is why I have been arguing that if the Republicans run somebody who essentially shares Hillary’s extreme social positions that they will lose a huge opportunity to distinguish themselves and give voters (values voters) a reason to vote them. And values voters (i.e. Evangelical Christian Conservatives) are the heart and soul of the Republican Party. Rudy’s social positions are virtually identical to Hillary’s- way out of the mainstream and his recent opposition to partial birth abortion seems a tad disingenuous and self-serving. And so even though he may attract some potential Hillary voters who care more about national security than social issues such as abortion, preserving traditional marriage and the 2nd amendment, I believe that on balance Rudy (or Mitt for that matter who most don’t buy his recent conservative conversion) would lose significant support from values voters who would not vote for somebody as far out of the mainstream socially as Rudy.
Republicans already know what the recipe for success is in presidential elections. When across the board conservatives (pro-life, pro-family, pro-military, and pro-limited govt) run they win every time (unless they act like Democrats and raise taxes (Bush 41) or unless a third party candidate siphons votes from them (Perot in 92 and 96). Again, if Rudy or Mitt somehow ends up being the nominee (and I doubt either of them will by the way) but if they are, I would hold my nose and vote for them over the overt Marxist Hillary. But in the end, I still believe that there is nothing more than Hillary and the Dems would like to see more than a northeastern checkered pants Rockefeller RINO like Mitt or Rudy. They know that on election day, that they will end up doing what they could never do on their own- supress the vote of millions of values voters (yup- those evangelicals who represented almost 40% of Bush’s vote in 2004). Republicans can’t win without them. And if Republicans lose 20% of them- a very likely conservaitve scenario-on election day, this could very well hand the presidency to Hillary (and Bill).
Now if Hillary moderated her social positions especially on abortion, she would pose a significantly greater threat in my opinion which I think is why she will end up picking a more “centrist” Democrat like Warner or Bayh for VP. But in the end, voters vote for presidential candidates by and large so her VP choice will be of little importance. Since she is clearly outside the mainstream on virtually every issue (favors socialist healthcare, opposes school choice, opposes individual voluntary retirement accounts, opposes the Patriot Act, favors raising taxes, voted with the minority to appease her wingnut base for retreat and defeat in Iraq, supported McCain-Kennedy amnesty etc…) the Republicans in my humble opinion would be making a huge mistake not to run an across the board conservative. This is what the American voter time and time again has demonstrated a preference for. If the GOP is smart they will give the voters what they want. And clearly the voters are not very enthusiastic about the top 3 front-runners (Rudy, Mitt, or John). In the end I think that the GOP will nominate either Thompson, Huckabee, or Gingrich with perhaps Rudy or Condi as VP. And that would give them the best chance of maintaining the White House in 08- which I believe will happen.