The Candidates
Featured Archives
Strategic Vision Iowa, January 19-21, 2007, 600 likely Republican and Democratic caucus goers:
Republican
Rudy Giuliani 25%
John McCain 21%
Newt Gingrich 13%
Mitt Romney 8%
Chuck Hagel 7%
Tommy Thompson 2%
Tom Tancredo 2%
Sam Brownback 2%
Mike Huckabee 1%
George Pataki 1%
Jim Gilmore 1%
Duncan Hunter 1%
Undecided 16%
Democrats,
John Edwards 25%
Barack Obama 17%
Tom Vilsack 16%
Hillary Clinton 15%
Joe Biden 4%
John Kerry 3%
Wesley Clark 2%
Bill Richardson 1%
Chris Dodd 1%
Dennis Kucinich 1%
Undecided 15%
Also interesting to note:
When making your selection for a presidential candidate, what are you looking for most in the candidate, charisma, experience, or ideology? (Democrats Only)
Charisma 29%
Ideology 21%
Experience 16%
Undecided 34%
I wish they would have chosen to include “electability’ in the choices, as Democrats are reported to be weighing that factor heavily in regards to 2008.
January 24th, 2007 at 10:39 am
Gotta remember that electability!
January 24th, 2007 at 10:43 am
Please call to mind what I said last week about the Zggby/Iowa Poll:
“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 been 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.”
Remember also the inviolable maxim: “No single poll is worth a damn, including this one!”
January 24th, 2007 at 10:46 am
Iowa is so difficult to predict because of the bargaining that goes on between caucus attendees over the course of the evening.
Last Sunday’s “Road to the White House” showed how this process works. Basically, it’s like the floor of the New York Stock Exchange.
January 24th, 2007 at 11:02 am
Does anyone else find it sad that almost twice as many people prefer charisma over experience in a candidate? The leader of the Free World just needs to look good, and to hell with what he’s done over the course of a lifetime? No wonder Obama is doing so well. Doesn’t say much for American values.
January 24th, 2007 at 11:20 am
I found that kind of troubling as well. However, it may be the result of listening to Dubya’s frequent fumblings for the past 6 years. Although I think he did really well last night.
January 24th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
Luther,
While what you say used to be true of zogby, it is no longer the case. During the 2006 midterms Zogby consistently overvalued support for Republican candidates. Plus with primaries its difficult to say who is “to the left” of another candidate. Is Giuliani to the left of McCain because of his stances on social issues, or is McCain to the left of Giuliani because of his reputation as a maverick and consistent disagreements with the white house? The couple things I find surprising about these polls are that Vilsack is ahead of Hillary, even if its only 1%, and Chuck Hagel is polling at 7%, right behind Romney.
January 24th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
Yeah, that Chuck Hagel thing is a real headscratcher. But he does spend a fair amount of time with the Old Media, so he probably has reasonable name recognition. That said, has there been any sign, any sign whatsoever, that Hagel is running? I’ve heard people suggesting he might for the last 2 years, but has he done anything even reotely geared to a possible presidential campaign?
January 24th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
The thing to remember about Iowa polls is they are notoriously bad about pegging the actual results of the primary – and that is because Iowa primary voters are notoriously hard to peg because of the nature of the caucuses… just like Kavon pointed out. So take polls from Iowa as a general picture of how the race is shaping up, not as gospel truth.
As far as Chuck Hagel, he has told the media as recently as this past Monday that he is still trying to make up his mind whether or not he will run. In fact, on CSPAN this past weekend he said he will make up his mind “in the next couple of weeks” and said he may even run as an independent.
January 24th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
Wow. Hagel @ 7%. Here’s my question: what is his ceiling? Is it the % of Republicans who feel that Iraq is not linked to the war on terror? In that case his top end is probably 10-15%. Or is it the % of Republicans who feel Bush has simply mismanaged Iraq? Then he becomes a viable candidate (while that % is probably a minority of GOP voters, it is probably in the 25%-40% range). If anyone has links to data about GOP feelings on these issues, I’d love to see them.
January 24th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
I just don’t see how Hagel can possibly be higher than Brownback or even Huckabee. Maybe he is becoming the anti-war GOP candidate. What a niche to hold. He can tell the American people that he doesn’t want to cut and run like the Democrats, he wants to cut and walk.
January 24th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
One thing to consider is that if the polls are correct when they say that upwards of 60 or 70% of Americans are against the war in Iraq, and Bush’s approval rating have fallen below 30%, it stands to reason that a substantial number of these anti-war and anti-Bush poll respondents are Republicans. Yes it’s a unique position for a presidential candidate to hold within the GOP, but even if as few as 15% of Republicans are in that anti-war category, Hagel may do fairly well with no risk of splitting that group’s support. He’s probably banking on the idea that all hope is lost in the war, sort of the anti-McCain. Outside of the war topic, Hagel isn’t such a bad guy and could be sleeper candidate a year from now.
January 24th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Kavon,
I would just as soon not see “Electibility” as a major criteria for selecting our candidate. That basically says, “I am willing to hold my nose because I hope enough of the other side will dislike their own candidate and vote for mine.”
That is a recipe for disaster. The Democrats tried that in 2004 with John Kerry. Do you really want us to make the same mistake they did in 2008?
Instead of electibility, I think acceptibility is better. The GOP candiates needs to be a person that is acceptable to as much of the party as possible. Him, we can get behind. Him, we can support. Him, we can talk to our liberal friends about.
January 24th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
OK. I just checked out some behing-the-wall numbers from Rasmussen on Iraq (1,000 likely voters, 12/2-3/2006), and the numbers are startling (to me, anyway):
Among Republicans only:
44% favor, while 36% oppose (20% undecided), the REMOVAL of troops from Iraq.
54% think it is likely, while 46% think it is unlikely, that Iraq will ultimately be an ally of the US.
43% think it is likely, while 56% think it is unlikely, that Iraq will ultimately remain a democracy.
Hagel might have more wiggle room than I thought.
January 24th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
It’s gotta suck to be Hillary right now. FOURTH in Iowa?
As a Rudy guy, I can’t wait to take on Edwards. His 1950’s economics will not play well in the north or the west. We’re going to win states like Connecticut, New Jersey, California, Delaware, and Illinois. States that were once thought to be perpetually Democratic will be up for grabs again. And it will end our regional polarization and be good for the country in the long run.
July 3rd, 2009 at 4:39 pm
[...] 2008 election site, Race42008 often carries various primary polling data. At the end of one such post they pointed out this fascinating poll question and its results: When making your selection for a [...]