GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
Within the past week, two polls were released that tell almost entirely different stories. The Research 2000 group released two very shocking results from Iowa and New Hampshire that threw a lot of our assumptions about the make-up of of the 2008 primaries into the air. Obama was not only tied with Edwards in Iowa, but came within one point of Hillary in New Hampshire. Hillary, meanwhile, was marooned at 4th place in Iowa with 10%. Yesterday, the American Research Group released a four state poll (IA, NH, NV and SC) that showed Hillary the strong favorite in everyone of those states. Such a strong favorite that she is beating Edwards in South Carolina, which is a state that Edwards won over Kerry by 15 points in 2004. Not only that, but Hillary destroys Edwards in Nevada where he only gets 8% (huh?). Among Republicans, the ARG poll has Rudy leading McCain in Iowa by 5 and then McCain ahead in NH and SC by 4 and 7 respectively (polling Republicans in Nevada is somewhat moot because unlike the Dems, the GOP primary for that state won’t be held until April 26th and by that time, the nominee will already be sown up).
The question is, which of these polls are right and how could they get such different results? If we assume that the ARG poll is more realistic, that means that Hillary is in a much more comfortable position than I expected and so is McCain. The big losers of the ARG poll have to be Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. Romney doesn’t even break 10% in any of the 4 states and he is tied with Chuck Hagel (!) in Iowa, is somehow at 5% in South Carolina despite spending the a lot of time in the state this past year, and only hits 9% in NH where he has higher name ID than any other primary state besides Michigan (but even his support among conservatives there is slipping fast). Ouch. As for the Research 2000 polls, they seem to be an outlier and before last week I had never heard of them and I’m an avid 2008 poll watcher…
December 31st, 2006 at 2:14 am
You must be an ignoramous. Rsearch 2000 is a mjor polling outfit tracked by politicalwire.com and MSM sites not to mention NRO, redstate, and powerlineblog.com. When they give you a blog it is incumbent that you know your material.
December 31st, 2006 at 2:52 am
Ouch, Fred. Perhaps you could explain to me how the Research 2000 Iowa poll has Obama at 22% and Hillary at 10%, when the American Research Group poll has him at 10% and Hillary at 31%. For such a major polling outfit, that’s an incredibly huge differential gap.
December 31st, 2006 at 2:59 am
Differences between polls mean one is wrong or both are. It is irrelevant to my point. You need to learn your stuff. You have a blog and need to make up for your lack of education, knowledge and experience. I would suggest the American Almanac of Politics.
December 31st, 2006 at 3:25 am
Fred,
You have a blog and need to make up for your lack of education, knowledge and experience
Whoa there. I did not recognize Research 2000 as a major polling outfit because I had not seen any previous ‘08 poll done by them. Perhaps they’ve done a lot, please show me some. It’s very telling that on their website they have categories for elections in 2000, 2002 and 2004 yet none for 2008. Plus, I searched this blog’s archives and the first time a Research 2000 poll was posted was last weeks Iowa poll. Personally, I’d much rather trust a firm that has been consistently been doing 2008 polling like ARG, Gallup, Rasmussen, Quinnipiac and Marist over one that apparently just started last week. I browsed their site and the only other 2008-related poll besides their Iowa and New Hampshire ones was a poll determining Barack Obama’s approval rating in Illinois. They seem to be largely dormant since the 2004 elections. I hardly think that qualifies for me having any lack of education, knowledge or experience.
December 31st, 2006 at 3:34 am
You need to learn your stuff if you are going to blog. Read some basics every day like realclearpolitics.com and several major MSM newspapers. Read some basic recent US political history like the Making of the President series, the Caro series on LBJ, the Wills book on Reagan. Then you may be qualified to blog. Otherwise you will make rookie mistakes again and again.
December 31st, 2006 at 4:15 am
Um…okay.
Considering I do read RCP as well as about 40 other political blogs daily, in addition to the NYT, WaPo, WSJ, TNR, FT, the Economist as well as more then a handful of international papers everyday. Also, I am a double major in Political Science (focus on American Foreign Policy) and International Studies (I’m taking Arabic and studying Middle Eastern political thought). I’ve watched hundreds of hours of C-SPAN and the History Channel. I’ve also read biographies on Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Marshall, Jackson, Lincoln, McKinley, TR, Wilson, FDR, Truman, Johnson, Nixon, Humphrey, Carter, Reagan and Clinton. The Robert Caro books on LBJ are definitely some of the better political books I’ve read and Johnson himself is one of my favorite presidents. Right now, I’m reading a book on the Progressive Era (The Promise of American Life), one on the Senate (The Most Exclusive Club) and I’m about to start Giuliani’s book (Leadership). I’ve also been reading blogs for 4 years and have previously run my own for 2 years. Please don’t lecture me on being “qualified” to blog.
Research 2000 just started doing 2008 polls and they were wildly off the mark at that. They are hardly the gold standard of polling firms. Nowhere did I commit a “rookie mistake.”
December 31st, 2006 at 1:17 pm
Fred - relax. At the risk of keeping this line of discussion going, let me just quickly defend LJ by saying he is far from a rookie or an ignoramus. His posts are defense of that enough, but now he has detailed just how much research and knowledge he brings to this site. He was referring to 2008 polling data when he made his remark against Research 2000. And as you must know since you’ve obviously monitored every political blog ever posted since Al Gore invented the Internet, Research 2000 has not been in the forefront of 2008 polling. LJ knows what he’s talking about. I may not agree with everything he says here but I respect his knowledge of the issues and the process and I would never call him a rookie. Perhaps that term is best left for those who prefer to engage in name-calling rather then constructive political debate.
December 31st, 2006 at 2:54 pm
Me thinks Jake is a plant. The kid is an undergraduate so discussion rather than ponificating would be a better tack for someone who’s great accomplishment in life is a high school diploma.
December 31st, 2006 at 5:59 pm
Fred. . .sorry dude, my mistake for assuming you were capable of holding a civilized conversation. You have yourself a very happy new year.
January 1st, 2007 at 2:23 am
Fred,
Consider yourself warned. Keep the comments civil or you will be banned.
Kavon W. Nikrad, Founder/Editor Race 4 2008