American Research Group, Sample Dates: January 29 – February 1. 2007. Sample Size: 600 telephone interviews among a random sample of likely Republican caucus goers living in Iowa (509 Republicans and 91 no party (independent) voters:
Republicans
- Rudy Giuliani 27%
- John McCain 22%
- Newt Gingrich 16%
- Mitt Romney 11%
- Chuck Hagel 5%
- Mike Huckabee 2%
- Sam Brownback 1%
- Tom Tancredo 1%
- Undecided 15%
Democrats
- Hillary Clinton 35%
- John Edwards 18%
- Barack Obama 14%
- Tom Vilsack 12%
- Joe Biden 2%
- Wes Clark 2%
- Dennis Kucinich 2%
- Chris Dodd 1%
- Bill Richardson 1%
American Research Group, Sample Dates: January 31 – February 1, 2007. Sample Size: 600 completed telephone interviews among a random sample of likely Republican primary voters living in New Hampshire (427 Republicans and 173 undeclared (independent) voters):
Republicans
- John McCain 27%
- Rudy Giuliani 20%
- Mitt Romney 20%
- Newt Gingrich 11%
- Chuck Hagel 4%
- Sam Brownback 1%
- Mike Huckabee 1%
- Tom Tancredo 1%
- Undecided 15%
Democrats
- Hillary Clinton 39%
- Barack Obama 19%
- John Edwards 13%
- Wes Clark 2%
- Bill Richardson 2%
- Joe Biden 1%
- Chris Dodd 1%
- Dennis Kucinich 1%
- Tom Vilsack 1%
- Undecided 21%
I have remained quiet since the New Hampshire Union Leader broke the results of the latest ARG polling shwoing Rudy tied with Romney in NH. I believed that there was something rotten in Denmark about the results, considering that the result was 8 points higher than Romeny has ever performed in any poll and 11 points higher than ARG’s own NH poll from just last month.
Well, it appears that ARG was skeptical as well since it appears that a follow-up question regarding Rudy was asked. From ARG’s site regarding Rudy’s poor showing:
“Likely Republican primary voters registered as Republicans in New Hampshire are less apt to say they would vote for Rudy Giuliani because he has not declared that he will be a candidate.
So what we find in this poll is the people of New Hampshire acting like the people of New Hampshire. Which is to say, in a place where retail politics trumps everything, voters have been listening to the MSM’s incessant “is Rudy Giuliani really running” debate and decided to withhold their votes until he declares. So these voters switched from Rudy to Romney as the anti-McCain candidate.
My guess is that you will see the results go back to the normal 29%-25%-10%-10% for McCain-Rudy-Romney-Gingrich after Rudy officially declares Feb. 10th.
February 3rd, 2007 at 6:37 pm
Kavon, it’s good to put the caveat in there, but I’ve just gotta ask a few questions:
1) Rudy was as undeclared in December as he was in January. Why did his popularity sink 5 points in that time?
2) Romney is just as undeclared as Rudy is as well; shouldn’t NH voters have taken that into consideration as well?
3) Rudy lost 5 point. Romney gained 11. So Romney’s gain did not come all at the expense of Rudy. Romney’s building a strong foundation in this campaign. Be afraid… be very afraid!
February 3rd, 2007 at 6:52 pm
Well like I said in the story. Obviously the people at ARG found the results fishy themselves, otherwise they wouldn’t have posted the explanation from the crosstabs directly under the poll.
This is further reinforced by the fact that this is the only poll (including the ARG Iowa poll conducted at the same time) that shows Romney with anywhere near this amount of support.
February 3rd, 2007 at 7:12 pm
This poll only confirms my belief that the only two viable candidates are Rudy and McCain.
I think everyone already knows who I support.
LOL
February 3rd, 2007 at 7:27 pm
I’m increasingly skeptical of the ARG as a reputable polling outfit. The president of the company claimed that McCain is tanking in the state even though he only dropped 2 points over the last month. Rudy dropped 5 and Romney shot up by an amazing 11 points. Those numbers defy all the other polling we’ve seen in the past several months. Romney’s done nothing to justify such a huge spurt in the polls. At the same time, the ARG’s explanation that Rudy’s numbers have dropped because the voters aren’t convinced that Rudy is really running is entirely unsatisfying. Rudy gave a major speech last week in New Hampshire that was generally well received and strongly hinted that he was actually running. There’s no reason for Rudy’s numbers to drop 5 points after that.
Until I see another NH poll, by a different organization, I am considering this an outlier.
February 3rd, 2007 at 8:21 pm
I see no evidence that a follow-up question was asked regarding Rudy (at least not during the initial sampling). Here is the exact question, as copied from that link: “If the 2008 Republican presidential preference primary were being held today between (names rotated) Sam Brownback, Jim Gilmore, Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich, Chuck Hagel, Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, John McCain, George Pataki, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Tom Tancredo, and Tommy Thompson, for whom would you vote?
Would you say that you definitely plan to vote in the 2008 Republican presidential primary, that you might vote in the 2008 Republican presidential primary, or that you will probably not vote in the 2008 Republican presidential primary?”
Before I get into any analysis of these polls, I’m going to simply say that I find your treatment of polls to be thoroughly uneven. You consistently bring up data showing that Republican front-runners two years out always win. You flount polls which show Rudy continually as the Republican front-runner. You’re further amazed at how he’s positioned as an “underdog frontrunner” as you and Deroy Murdock like to phrase it. It’s fair to say, a great deal of your arguments for Rudy’s candidacy and against Romney’s and others is thoroughly rooted in data. And yet every single poll I’ve seen posted here that has shown positive figures for Mitt. Blogger polls are worse then useless, and no seriousp parcel of information can be gleaned from them in your world view. The previous New Hampshire poll where Romney gained 21% was “useless” because it failed to include Newt. This newer one, useless because Republican voters have apparently become gunshy in the last month about supporting a candidate who has yet to declare his candidacy, though they seemingly have little trouble casting their votes for other candidates who are equally “undeclared”. I think I’ve been fairly consistent in my reaction to polls: I think they are useful in context, and only for the purposes of determining trends and gleaning where a particular candidate’s support seems to be coming from. You’ll see me state that over and over again. I believe my response to the “outlier” New Hampshire poll was something subdued like “some sort of movement seems to be occuring”. And I’m going to retain that attitude towards polls until we find ourselves at near-universal name recognition for all candidates. But the fact that you’re continually trumpeting polls which show your candidates strength, and attempting to downplay polls which seem to call into question that strength, strikes me as more then a little suspicious.
Anyway, onto to my little analysis of these recent series of New Hampshire polls, and some general comments on electability. Looking at the crosstabs of the Newtless New Hampshire poll we see a few things. 1. Romney gains slightly more support, percentage-wise, from Republicans, then he does from independents. I-21. 2. Giuliani’s support comes from, actually, a higher ratio of Republicans to independents. 34-29. What does this tell us? Well, it suggests that while a Romney and Rudy might gain support from different factions within the Republican or independent constituencies, on the whole, the difference between their support is one of degree, not of kind. Eneter Newt. Looking at the second polls cross-tabs we see that Newt’s support isn’t nearly so balanced. In fact, he gains nearly 3 times as much support from Republicans as he does independents. 14-5. Newt’s support then is going to pull primarily from candidates with high level of Republican support. In the Newt-less poll, Rudy was the candidate with the most Republican support (both as an absolute number and as a ratio). Thus, it is by no means surprising that Rudy’s Republican support would decrease when Newt (who seems to draw about 1/6 of Republican support) enters the race. Now of course, Romney’s and McCain’s should drop as well. Both do, though admittedly by percentages within the statistical margin of error. The Newtless poll is also slightly older, and McCain seems to retain more independent support (something that likely makes sense, as he seems to bleed indies daily with Iraq hanging around his neck). I don’t mean to suggest that this newer poll is a definitive account of the facts on the ground, but I find your assertion that Romney is likely to fall 10 points soon virtually without support. A small point on electability. From state to state, and poll to poll, Romney’s level of support from Republicans and Republican leaning indepdents is remarkably close. The ratio is something near to 8/7. In fact, it’s awfully close to the ratio’s of both Giuliani and McCain in these same states. McCain is perhaps 7/8 and Giuliani seems to draw roughly evenly. And Romney’s support is markedly different from Gingrich’s, which typically varies from 3/1 to in excess of 10/1. The point? Well, thus far Romney doesn’t seem to be viewed as an “ideologue” or “right-winger”. Instead, he’s drawing just the type of broad support that make a candidate “electable”.
February 3rd, 2007 at 8:29 pm
Grr. Point 1 is meant to read “Romney gains slightly more support, percentage-wise, from Republicans, then he does from independents. 22-21.”
February 3rd, 2007 at 10:54 pm
Romney’s polls have risen because even though he may have acted or thought differently in the past, he’s now TALKING like a social conservative, as opposed to the die-hard liberal Rudy who will barely give lip service to it.
February 3rd, 2007 at 11:13 pm
Peter,
Romney may start talking like a social conservative, and this may help his polls rise with social conservatives, but you still have to win the general.
In this tough political environment, which could be even worse for the GOP next year, most conservatives are going to be pragmatic. They want to win and it will be obvious that a no-name traditional GOP candidate like Romney doesn’t have a chance.
February 3rd, 2007 at 11:43 pm
I would really like to support Giuliani. I could probably even look past his liberal stances on socially conservative issues, but I just don’t think that he has the heart and will to run. That’s fine. Not many people do. But to say things like he had not yet decided whether he could make a “unique contribution” toward strengthening the nation that would justify a run for president. By any standard not a bad thing to consider, but why at this point in the race does he not know whether he could make such a contribution? If you are not that different than others on the field step aside and let someone with the passion and drive to do just that come forward.
I almost get the sense that there is something more that is holding him back from definitively making a commitment. Something that he’s afraid will come out or something (I have no evidence of this, only a premonition). If it is for political timing reasons say so. If it is for other reasons that will prevent your election, say so. You can rest assured that the REAL opposition will come to this fight with the grit and fortitude to win and we need a candidate with the heart and mind to match and win. I believe that there is a chance that Giuliani has that, but it almost seems as if he feels he already has the nomination in the bag or he will just wait to see if he gets the nomination.
February 4th, 2007 at 12:07 am
I believe that when Rudy does make the official announcement, both the left and the right will attack him.
That’s already beginning to happen, as indicated on this blog.
What will come out, it’s hard to say, but I suspect that he will have a better chance of surviving these personal attacks, due to his 911 hero status.
February 4th, 2007 at 10:24 am
TR:
Rudy has no will or heart? Has he ever done not a done a job without heart over his 30 year career?
Rudy has more heart and experience than Edwards, McCain, Romney, and Obama COMBINED!
Add up all of their exeperience, it’s less than Rudy’s. How could you not vote for him?
February 4th, 2007 at 10:25 am
not done* typo
February 4th, 2007 at 10:39 am
Huh? Say what you want about McCain, but he clearly has more experience then Rudy. If Rudy’s prosecutorial days are somehow being counted here, then McCain’s military days ought to be counted as well. You know, when he was being shot down over Hanoi.
February 4th, 2007 at 10:51 am
Polls are utterly ridiculous at this point.
Remember Liddy Dole was ahead in the polls around this time in 1999.
President Dole did reall well on election day, didn’t she?
Rudy’s a nice guy, and a great speaker. He’s a liberal and is not going to win the nomination. Period.
Ditto for John McKennedy.
Watch the 1 percenters move up steadily in the next few months, then quickly as we realize we’re being forced into a liberal nominee by the media and the “pundits”
February 4th, 2007 at 11:07 am
Rudy is not a liberal. Stop saying that, everyone. He’s much more conservative than Bush, whose No Child Left Behind act would have worked quite well as a Clinton program.
There is more to being a conservative than abortion and boys kissing. Conservative classically means that you want a smaller government, and Rudy’s proven to want a smaller, less intrusive government.
February 4th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
What does being shot down have anything to do with running a country or having good judgment?
He has never run a business or large organization. Rudy has done both, very well.
February 4th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
Mike B,
Rudy has more heart and experience than Edwards, McCain, Romney, and Obama COMBINED!
[McCain] has never run a business or large organization. Rudy has done both, very well.
Wow. Are you saying that Rudy has more experience than them all put together because you’re counting business or large organization experience?
It’s ok to admit that you were grossly exagerating Rudy’s experience.
Because otherwise I’m forced to assume that you don’t know very much about Romney’s record.
February 4th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
It’s not that I’m saying much about Rudy’s experience, I’m focusing more on the lack thereof of his opponents.
Hillary, Obama, and Edwards essentially have none.
Romney has the 2nd most without a doubt. He has had tremendous successful in the business world. His experience is less than being Mayor of the 2nd most complicated government operation in the US.
Romney also has more combined experience than Hillary, Obama, and Edwards. You might be able to toss McCain into that group too.
February 4th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
“you don’t know very much about Romney’s record.”
Nobody does, that’s the problem.
A no-name traditional GOP candidate like Romney is going have a very difficult time defeating Hillary.
February 4th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
GOP Activist,
Has the Giuliani campaign sent you here to repeat the same things over and over again, in the face of historical evidence or accuracy?
February 4th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
“Giuliani campaign sent you here”
Nope,
I’m just a really big fan.
There is something about his leadership after 911 that really inspires me.
February 4th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
It inspires me as well. That doesn’t mean I feel compelled to repeat the same things over and over again. You might be inadvertently proving your point: that 9/11 trumps all. Because you haven’t articulated any other reasons for your support of his candidacy, and seem to have gigantic blinders on regarding his shortcomings and the strenghts of other candidates.
February 4th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
911 hero is tough to beat
What does Romney or McCain have to run on?
February 4th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Romney has competence to run on, for one.
McCain…your guess is as good as mine. Maybe ability to work across the aisles, but Romney’s shown that, as well.
February 4th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
If Romney is so competent, then why didn’t he run for a 2nd term?
February 4th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
..because Romney is running for president. I don’t think he could seriously run for president if he were still Governor of MA. He’s running very hard. He is working very hard and that impresses me.
I like Rudy, don’t get me wrong here. I agree with the notion stated above that his heart may not be in the race 100%. I think he is just flirting with the possibility of running due to his good polling numbers. I think Rudy has serious reservations as documented by his leaked / stolen campaign memos about running.
Nonetheless, if Rudy gets our party’s nomination, I’ll vote for him.
February 4th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
President Bush won a 2nd term and then ran for office.
A one term Governor, doesn’t make me feel very confident that Romney is capable of winning anything in this political climate.
February 4th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
President Bush told Texas that he had no intention of serving his full-term, and they accepted that because Texas is redder then blood. Romney would have been consistently lambasted had he been pursuing higher office while simultaneously running for governor. He also undoubtedly chose to forgo running for re-election because Massachusetts has a sore spot for Republican governors who seem to be fleeing the state (the previous three had done so). His approval ratings were just fine, and indeed he was beating all comers in hypothetical matchups, until he began making substantial trips out of state. His approval ratings actually seemed to be little effected by his growing social conservatism, and changed nary at all after his stance against the SJC’s gay marriage ruling. He probably couldn’t have won re-election in this situation, but that fact has little to do with his ability to persuade, or his relative strength as a candidate: Masschusetts soured on him for reasons entirely unrelated.