Courtesy of Hotline:
A Zogby poll; conducted 1/15-16; surveyed 596 likely Dem caucus-goers (margin of error +/- 4.1%) and 465 likely GOP caucus-goers (margin of error +/- 4.6%); released 1/17).
WH ‘08 Primary Election Matchup WH ‘08 Primary Election Matchup (GOPers only)
R. Giuliani 19%
J. McCain 17
N. Gingrich 13
C. Rice 9
M. Romney 5
T. Tancredo
C. Hagel 2
S. Brownback 1
T. Thompson 1
M. Huckabee 1
Other/undec 31
WH ‘08 Primary Election Matchup (Dems only)
J. Edwards 27%
B. Obama 17
T. Vilsack 16
H. Clinton 16
J. Biden 3
J. Kerry 3
Other/undec 18
A couple of quick thoughts…
First on the GOP side, I’m not sure what this poll tells? us considering the frustrating inclusion of Condi Rice (no mention of whether Rice backers were asked who their support would go to.)? Also of note is the 31% who are undecided.
As for the Dems, should Clinton supporters start being concerned?
January 17th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
Well, past precendents have shown that a lot of that Condi vote ends up in Rudy’s column when she’s taken out, and another smaller chunk of it ends up in McCain’s column. With Condi taken out, this poll would probably end up looking a lot like the general election polls: Rudy a few points ahead of McCain, both of whom are neck and shoulders a crowd that is led by Gingrich, Romney, and the underdogs (in that order).
Also, taking into consideration the Dems’ long-established tradition of destroying their heir apparent at a weird time right before the primary season and launching an underdog into the top slot, I’d say Clinton supporters should stay concerned all the way up until August 25, 2008. Currently, Hillary Rodham Clinton represents the flawed, but top-polling, assumed frontrunner who the Dems are scrambling to find a viable alternative to. There’s a cluster of very viable alternatives to her that could overtake her, including Obama, Edwards, Richardson, and Vilsack.
All that being said, I’m still finding it funny that despite all the staff and organization and fundraising and key ties to Iowa that McCain and Romney are frantically building, Rudy is still outpolling McCain and Gingrich is still outpolling Romney there.
January 17th, 2007 at 6:56 pm
This can’t be good news for Romney supporters such as myself. I just asked for an Iowa poll this morning to see the general state of the race, and this isn’t what I expected. A lot of that probably has to do with Condi being included, which almost renders this poll useless, but his numbers should still be higher than 5%.
Now, I wish we had an Iowa poll without Condi, and that asked Newt supporters who their vote would go to if he didn’t run.
January 17th, 2007 at 7:02 pm
I know the Condi vote irks many observers, but keep in mind that a) it’s only 9 percent and b) in the Gallup poll below, they took Condi out and her vote pretty much split evenly throughout the field. I think the bigger question is what the 31 percent undecided decide to do.
January 17th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
Yikes. Romney is still stagnant at 5% in Iowa and only at 7% nationally. How much longer can this go on? Romney needs to break into double digits soon. It seems that for all the organization and money that he’s raised, people just don’t seem very interested in him.
Rudy is still outpolling McCain and Gingrich is still outpolling Romney there.
Rudy is out polling McCain pretty much everywhere now. His numbers, though, are artificially inflated and have no where to go but down once he starts campaigning. Rudy’s own advisers admit this. In reality, it’s McCain who is in a strong position because everyone knows where he stands and yet he is still only a few points below Rudy. Also, it’s interesting that McCain’s Iraq position seems to have not hurt his poll numbers at all.
January 17th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
As for the Dems, Hillary’s collapsing. If Edwards wins IA and then union-heavy NV, and then Obama goes on to win NH because of independents, and then Edwards wins his neighboring state of SC, Hillary won’t have anything left. She’ll be the frontrunner who never was.
January 17th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
Guys,
I will start to be concerned if Romney’s numbers stagnate when he starts targeting the general public. Until then, I am not going to worry.
Signed,
Alfred E. Newman
January 17th, 2007 at 7:12 pm
Check out my post here for more details on why this is not that big of a concern for Romney at this time.
January 17th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
Dave,
Is Hillary the new Hubert Humphrey? It seems increasingly likely that she’s boxed herself in a hole. She has to stop the bleeding and the only way she could do that is to come out against the war. But it really does seem as if she really does believe in the war (otherwise she would’ve denounced it 2 years ago) and can only manage to criticize it. But now, it’s almost too late anyway. The Democratic Party has 2 other major candidates that have been much more against the war and that excites them far more. Hillary is incredibly smart and she must see this. If she runs and loses in primaries, she’ll be destroyed.
January 17th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
LT: If anything, McCain’s ceiling is probably lower than Rudy’s, since his 2000 campaign snub will likely be thrown in his face. Besides, 30% has been enough to win the Iowa caucus before — it was the number Dole pulled out in 96, and this field is at least as fractured. Rudy will have to improve his organization, though.
January 17th, 2007 at 7:14 pm
I live in Iowa, and there is NO WAY this GOP poll is accurate. I can count on both hands the number of McCain supporters I know, and I still ahve a few fingers left when I’m done. Also, conservatives here will not vote for Rudy. Newt, Mitt, Tank, Huck & Brownback will perform well, and I am sure that McCain and Rudy will not finish first or second in Iowa. From what I see on the ground is Mitt has the momentum right now in Iowa, and I wouldn’t be suprised if he didn’t win the caucus.
I would like to see the criteria Zogby used to determine what a likely caucus goer is.
January 17th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
That 31% undecided is also meaningful, especially when compared to the general polling numbers. If we’re talking about “relative” polling, which is the only thing that I think makes sense, then Romney typically polls at just under 1/4th or worse of Giuliani and McCain’s numbers. We saw that in that Zogby poll, which actually represented a fairly large jump for Romney. Even there he was at less then 1/4th of Giuliani’s 31%. In this poll, he’s just above 1/4th Giuliani’s 19%. Throw in the odd Condi factor, and the poll seems on pace, or perhaps slightly above pace, of his general polling numbers.
January 17th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
[...] Earlier today, I summed up my thoughts on what this might mean for a Hillary Clinton candidacy: Is Hillary the new Hubert Humphrey? It seems increasingly likely that she’s boxed herself in a hole. She has to stop the bleeding and the only way she could do that is to come out against the war. But it really does seem as if she really does believe in the war (otherwise she would’ve denounced it 2 years ago) and can only manage to criticize it. But now, it’s almost too late anyway. The Democratic Party has 2 other major candidates that have been much more against the war and that excites them far more. Hillary is incredibly smart and she must see this. If she runs and loses in primaries, she’ll be destroyed. [...]
January 18th, 2007 at 9:23 am
Two points:
1. The Zogby organization is downright notorious for polling to the “Left”, both among Republicans and among Democrats. In my almost 40 years of studying political polls, I have noticed that the Zogby poll, for however long its been around — I don’t remember exactly — has consistently be an outlier to the left. Hence, Rudy is down from the 30%-18% lead he enjoyed over McCain among Iowa Caucus Workers in August, and Hillary is tied for third place, some 11 points behind Class Warrior Edwards.
2. I have been hearing for more than a year now that Rudy’s consistently high poll standing is based largely if not solely on ignorance. “When all those Right Wingers really get to know what he stands for, they won’t vote for him!” I honestly don’t know whether to laugh or cry. I don’t think I have ever seen such a persistent example of mass idiocy! There is obviously some sort of underlying psycho-pathological syndrome at work here. Or could it just be that the Beltway Elite is simply scared to death of a Rudy Presidency? — just the way that Mobsters, Inside Traders, and the Koch administration were scared to death of him when he was U.S. Attorney.
Of course, no evidence is ever given as to why Rudy’s poll numbers will come down, and no acknowledgement is ever given of all the sophisticated push-polling that has been done to compensate for possible ignorance of Rudy’s past positions, and when this is done, his numbers do not drop significantly! Put simply: Where is the hard evidence, for example, that “likely Iowa Caucus goers” — a famously savvy group on Presidential politics — are any more or less aware of McCain’s positions than Rudy’s, or vice versa? The facts are that Rudy has been pilloried from one end of the political spectrum to the other, from The NYT Editorial Page to that of the WSJ, about his soi disant “liberal positions”, yet he still consistently out-polls the Republican field, even in savvy Iowa and hard-core Republican “Base” States like Georgia.
I have written many times that it is downright insulting to the Christian Right, and other like-minded voters, to assume that they do not know of Rudy’s past positions. With all the attention and publicity that those positions have gotten, and are continuing to get, such a continuing assumption is downright idiotic.
Moreover, it’s even worse than that! In fact, it is not Rudy’s actual past positions that have gotten such attention and publicity. It is rather either a simply untrue statement of those positions, a caricature of them, or a Panglossian expression of distaste. For example: Rudy does not now, and has not ever, supported Gay marriage. Yet, just recently I heard no less a Media personage than Tom Brokaw give a political “analysis” where he stated flatly, and without contradiction, that among Rudy’s liberal positions that the “Right” will not like is that he (Rudy) supports Gay marriage! Another example: Rudy supported handgun-control for New York City when he was Mayor, yet he has stated that he does not support gun-control as a national policy.
All of this is particularly important for this reason. Of all those people who do “know” of Rudy’s positions — and he still remains the leader in the polls even after push-polling — what many, if indeed not most, of them “know” is the Media caricature of his positions. This actually leads to the conclusion, and there is a bit more than “some” evidence already to support this point, that when voters learn of Rudy’s actual positions, and find out that they are not so outré Lefty as they have been portrayed to be, his political support will actually go up.
My ultimate conclusion: Run Rudy Run!
January 18th, 2007 at 9:50 am
Luther,
I don’t have any scientific evidence, but I have plenty of anecdotes supporting the fact that when people get to know Rudy, they will not vote for him. I am not sure if it will play out nationwide like it does in my friends’ lives, but for whatever it’s worth: I have three friends specifically that I am thinking of that are fairly politically savvy. Out of those three, only one knew that Rudy was pro-choice all the way to partial birth abortion and pro-gun control. That one said he could never vote for Rudy based on those positions. The other two told me, after seeing Rudy in some magazine or commercial somewhere, that they hoped he ran and were thinking of voting for him. I said, “I don’t know if I could ever vote for him…” When asked why, I told them he was majorly pro-choice and pro-gun control. Both were shocked, surprised, and, after a few seconds of pondering the new information, said, “I don’t know if I could vote for him then, either.”
I know there’s scientific polls to show otherwise, but I will be interested to see what those polls show the closer we get to the primaries when it’s not theoretical and folks have to make an actual decision.
January 18th, 2007 at 10:03 am
All Condi and Rudy do is skew the results.
January 18th, 2007 at 10:28 am
HeavyM:
Actually, the reaction of your friends makes my point, and also points up the difference between “scientific” push-polling and anecdotal evidence: Rudy is actually not “pro abortion all the way to partial birth” and he does not support “gun control” either for the nation as a whole, nor the kind of gun control that most concerns the Republican “Base” in the South. Being in favour of controlling “Saturday night specials” in New York City is a distinctly different position that supporting the control of hunting rifles/shotguns in Alabama. As for the abortion position, there are a number of good articles floating around about how Rudy wrestled with this issue, vis-Ã -vis his sincerely held Catholic faith when first he considered a run for public office in the late 1980’s. I’ll see if I can find a cite for you.
Moreover, I have never had any doubt that Rudy most probably will not win outright the Christian Right, and other like-minded voters, though I would not bet the farm against it. That said, I think the more precise point is as I wrote in a posting on my own blog “Run Rudy Run” (http://lutherhardy.blogspot.com/) on 01 December 2006:
“Don’t forget, Rudy doesn’t actually have to win this block of voters. All he has to do is garner enough of their votes so that they don’t vote as a bloc for someone else and thereby deliver a primary win to that someone else.”
The title of the full posting is “The Frontrunnig Underdog”. Here is a longer excerpt:
“At least as important as Mr. Murdock’s prose, however, is the chart (reproduced below) that he compiled from Quinnipiac’s “Thermometer Reading†poll (conducted 13-19 November 2006), in conjunction with his article on Rudy in National Review On-Line, yesterday, 30 November 2006. I don’t believe I have ever seen anything quite this astounding. One should study this chart carefully!
“At the same time that the MSM and the “Conventional Wisdom†are loudly trumpeting John McCain as the frontrunner for the Republican nomination in 2008, Rudy leads every current potential candidate in every category of potential voters! Let me say that again louder: RUDY LEADS EVERY CURRENT POTENTIAL CANDIDATE IN EVERY CATEGORY OF POTENTIAL VOTERS!
“Even when non-candidates for 2008 are considered, Rudy still leads in 8 of 9 categories. The 9th category is “Republicans†where Rudy comes in a close 3rd to two non-candidates: 1. Condi Rice 72.3%; 2. President Bush 72.1%; 3. Rudy 71.7%. More importantly, however, even in this category, Rudy leads actual potential candidates, McCain (by 9.5 percentage points), Gingrich (12.8), and Romney (18.9), all by margins that are solidly above that category’s announced margin of error of +/-4.4%.
“Most importantly of all, however, in the category of “White Born-Again Christiansâ€, Rudy leads the entire field by substantial margins. Here again, Rudy leads actual potential candidates McCain (9.2), Gingrich (18.5), and Romney (19.9), by margins that are solidly above that category’s announced margin of error 0f +/-4.7%. What is most important here is that this is the very category that the MSM and the “Conventional Wisdom†say is supposed to deny Rudy the Republican nomination.
“Moreover, that’s all they have to say against Rudy. Let me say that again louder: THAT’S ALL THEY HAVE TO SAY AGAINST RUDY! There is no other reason advanced by the MSM and the “Conventional Wisdom†as to why Rudy won’t win the nomination than that the Christian Right in the South won’t vote for him in the primaries. Yet, not only does Rudy lead every other name advanced in this category, he also leads Mitt Romney, supposedly the new “darling†of the Values Voters, by almost 20 percentage points! Don’t forget, Rudy doesn’t actually have to win this block of voters. All he has to do is garner enough of their votes so that they don’t vote as a bloc for someone else and thereby deliver a primary win to that someone else.â€
In addition, if you do visit “Run Rudy Run”, on these subjects, I would recommend initially the following postings: the one entitled “Polls, Polls, and More Pollsâ€, on 04 October 2006, “Don’t Ignore this Poll†from 12 October 2006, “Another Poll to Remember†from 16 October 2006, “Politics, Polls, etc.†from 10 January 2007, and “More from New Hampshire†on 11 January 2007.
Finally, like you I eagerly await what the polls show the closer we get to the primaries when it’s not theoretical and voters have to make an actual decision. My “nose†tells me that people underestimate Rudy at their peril. Most pointed, I think they underestimate Rudy’s metaphysical bond with grass-roots America.
January 18th, 2007 at 10:48 am
Luther, I agree with much of what you’ve written – that is, the polls do show Rudy in the lead right now and strong in every group of GOP voters. There’s no doubting that. I just wonder how many know Rudy’s actual stances on the issues, and when they do, whether or not that will affect their voting decisions. I know, it’s a line oft trumpeted by the MSM, but I can’t help but have it in the back of my mind.
Rudy certainly is pro-choice up to partial birth abortion, and has fought for public funding for abortions in NYC as well as said “No woman should ever be denied her right to an abortion.” Now, if he’s had some kind of change of heart on this issue I might take a look at the guy. But that’s doubtful as well, since he said “I don’t see my position on that changing” in regards to supporting partial birth abortion.
And he did get an F from Gun Owners of America (I couldn’t find an NRA rating on him), which seems to tell me that he has gone a little farther than just outlawing Saturday Night Specials while mayor.
January 18th, 2007 at 11:30 am
Luther–good job.. What others seem to say is:Ignore the polls showing Rudy is the most popular politician in America. They say Rudy is up but will go down when people get to know him. But Romney is down but will go up when people get to know him. That argument is rubbish. Go Rudy.
January 18th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
HeavyM and Grant:
I look forward hugely to continuing to correspond with both of you as we wend our way toward 20 January 2009!
I shall look for more information on Rudy on both abortion and gun control. It may take me a while, however, because I do after all have a law firm to run. I do know, however, that Rudy has said that he views gun-control to be a matter of Federalism, i.e., local control, though I cannot give you the specific citation off the seat of my pants. Rudy certainly has an obligation to set forth his present positions. I do not, however, take the “F” grade by GOA any more seriously than I would take a special-interest group on the Left skewering Hillary because she voted for the war in Iraq.
I really don’t like to get myself drawn in to a discussion of Rudy’s past positions, though I do it far more than I probably ought do. My basic position is this: Because of 9/11 the American public forged an almost mystical bond with Rudy, a bond that goes way beyond this position or that position. Moreover, Rudy’s record as Mayor before 9/11 actually stands up well by comparison to his performance in the wake of 9/11.
There are no doubt many people who will not vote for him because of this position or that position. The 2008 election, however, will, in my judgment, turn on Leadership, with a Capital “Lâ€, and particularly so with respect to “National Security†and “Homeland Securityâ€. I am convinced that there are many people, including many in the Christian Right, who are going to strike an implicit bargain with Rudy and pull the lever for him in order to get his Leadership, even though they may have to “hold their nose†while doing so, on this or that issue. To some degree, I could indeed describe myself that way.
If you do read “Run Rudy Runâ€, you will find numerous instances where sophisticated commentators have also seen this tendency toward an implicit “bargain†with Rudy, including more than a few on the Christian Right, e.g., Fred Barnes. I would never criticize any actual voter who decided not to vote for Rudy because of what that voter considered to be a moral issue. Though I might not make the same choice myself, I do respect it.
What really drives me up the bleeding wall, however, and I am NOT referring here to either of you two gentlemen, is this. The Establishment Left, i.e., the “Conventional Wisdomâ€, the Mainstream Media, and the Beltway Punditoctacy are, in my judgment, using the Christian Right, whom they themselves disdain, as a verbal stalking horse for their own opposition to Rudy, so they won’t have to spell out their own reasons for opposing him. “The Christian Right opposes him, ergo, he can’t get the Republican nomination, ergo, all the PLU can simply dismiss him.â€
These people oppose Rudy, not on any sincerely felt moral ground, but because they are afraid to the core of their souls of a Rudy Presidency. They are so deathly afraid of Rudy, first, because they KNOW they will not be able to “control†President Giuliani in the way they believe they would be able to control President McCain. More importantly, however, they are afraid because they KNOW that a Giuliani Presidency would absolutely sweep them from their customary positions of influence. Indeed, it would be like the 11th Labour of Hercules where he mucked out the Augean stables by diverting the flow of the Alpheus River.
Finally, it really PISSES ME OFF that these pompous blowhards think they can get away with using the Christian Right in this way.
January 18th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
They do the same with Romney, Luther. How does the serenity prayer go again?
Lord, give me the courage to change the things I can change,
The patience to endure the things I can’t change,
And the wisdom to see the difference.
…or something like that.
January 18th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Luther==I don’t know if I am part of the Christian right or not, but I am catholic, social conservative, and financial conservative. I am a retired lawyer so no law firm to run. I support Rudy because only two Repubs can win–Rudy and McCain. I don’t like McCain because he backstabbed GW for 6 years so that leaves Rudy. I also don’t like the commentators who say Rudy can’t win. I can’t think of a social conservative commentator on TV other than Cal Thomas and Pat Buchanan(whatever he is). Unlike the commentators on tv, I actually don’t feel condicension(sp)for social conservatives. Many like me support Rudy because of 9/11.
January 18th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
Mark:
If I were that wise, I would not be involved in politics!
January 18th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Grant:
It sounds like you and I are, if not exactly on the same page, then no more than a page apart!
As for the Christian Right, I would count you in that group, as I would myself — a High-Church Anglican Virginian, who is just this side of being a full-blown Libertarian. The necessity, as I perceive it, for a strong military and strong fiscal discipline keeps me “just this side”. I practiced law in New York for 20 years, and negotiated many times with Rudy’s U.S. Attorney’s office. If Rudy and I belonged to the same debating club, we might very well find ourselves on opposite sides of more issues than not. His leadership as Mayor of NYC, and his performance in the wake of 9/11, however, puts him in a different category for me than merely someone with whom I might or might not disagree, on this or that issue.
My attitude toward Rudy is very much akin to the attitude expressed by the arch-Jacobin, General Vandamme about the Emperor Napoleon: “And so it was that I, who feared neither God nor Devil, trembled like a child when I approached him! And, I would have followed wherever he chose to lead.â€
Back to the Christian Right: Despite how you and I might count ourselves, I fear that the Beltway Punditocracy, when it uses that or a similar term, intends it to mean someone more along the lines of a Southern Fundamentalist or Evangelical Protestant, a la Jerry Falwell – for whom I have enormous respect, though he would never be my confessor. That’s why, I think, the Quinnipiac “Thermometer Reading†poll came up with the category of “White Born-Again Christian Malesâ€. In my view, this is one of the myriad of ways in which the Beltway Elite express subtly their disdain for anyone who is not PLU, including those who profess a sincere Christian faith. I cannot profess to know Rudy intimately, but I do know him well enough to assure you that his Catholic faith is deeply and sincerely held.
As for Media Personae, I would limit my social conservative commentators on T.V. to Cal Thomas and Fred Barnes. Pat, I am afraid long ago, became more Beltway Media Insider that Conservative Catholic Christian.
January 18th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
Fred Barnes has understanding of social conservatives views, but he seems like a fiscal conservative more than a social conservative.