GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
The latest polls from the American Research Group. This is big, folks:
Iowa
- John McCain 29%
- Rudy Giuliani 29%
- Fred Thompson 12%
- Mitt Romney 10%
- Newt Gingrich 7%
New Hampshire
- John McCain 23%
- Rudy Giuliani 19%
- Mitt Romney 17%
- Newt Gingrich 11%
- Fred Thompson 10%
Texas
- Rudy Giuliani 30%
- John McCain 20%
- Mitt Romney 13%
- Fred Thompson 12%
- Newt Gingrich 11%
Arkansas
- Mike Huckabee 40%
- John McCain 21%
- Rudy Giuliani 12%
- Newt Gingrich 8%
- Fred Thompson 5%
- Mitt Romney 4%
I must make a couple of points here.
First, it appears McCain’s recent foray into the two states paid dividends. Last month, Giuliani was beating McCain by 8%, now they’re tied. McCain regains his leads over Independents in Iowa (39%-30% over Giuliani) and, most importantly, New Hampshire (33%-22% over Giuliani).
Second, Fred Thompson starts was a base of support of 12%. One of the criticisms of my post yesterday (one Thompson tying Romney in Ohio), was that Romney has virtually no organization in the state, so he has no built in advantages over someone like Thompson. I didn’t think that argument held up because neither McCain or Giuliani have much of an organization in Ohio either. But now we have a poll showing Thompson beating Romney in Iowa, the one state that Romney has an astonishing organization in place (even better than McCain’s). Thompson instantly pulled double digits and it’s clear that if he becomes the vaunted credible conservative alternative to McCain and Rudy, Romney loses his whole reason for running.
March 23rd, 2007 at 4:15 pm
People who relied on polls to claim McCain’s campaign was finished look silly. Polls tell us what’s going on in the race. They don’t tell us what will occur in 11 months.
It looks like Thompson garners mostly undecideds and Gingrich supporters in Iowa. In NH Thompson pulls mostly Giuliani and a few McCain supporters. In each poll Romney’s support didn’t drop.
Romney has a stable base of support and enough money to stay in the race and be credible.
March 23rd, 2007 at 4:19 pm
econ grad stud,
But the point of my earlier post today was: Where does the growth come from?
March 23rd, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Indeed, this poll I think is excellent news for Romney. He’s gone up from 8 to 10% in Iowa in the last month. He’s gone up from 15 to 17% in the last month in New Hampshire. He’s polling better then I’ve seen him in any non-Utah red state in Texas. And Thompson had been added to the mix and is polling, as LJ noted, quite well. Thompson will surely be extremely competitive, but I’m finding it increasingly difficult to justify the notion that Romney’s going to be peculiarly harmed by his candidacy.
March 23rd, 2007 at 4:26 pm
Problem is LJ, you’re not looking at these numbers in context. The notion that Romney lost to Fred is nonsense when you see Romney actually gained in IA from last month. It Giuliani and Gingrich who are loosing to him:
Iowa
McCain - 29% (23)
Giuliani - 29% (31)
F Thompson - 12% (n/a)
Romney - 10% (8)
Gingrich - 7% (16)
All others - 1% or less
Now look at NH. McCain drops as does Giuliani (by a tremendous amount. Meanwhile Mitt gains again.
New Hampshire
McCain - 23% (26)
Giuliani - 19% (27)
Romney - 17% (15)
Gingrich - 11% (10)
F Thompson - 10% (n/a)
All others - 2% or less
Undecided - 15%
They also included useless TX and AR polls…
Texas (no previous poll)
Giuliani - 30%
McCain - 20%
Romney - 13%
F Thompson - 12%
Gingrich - 11%
All others - 2% or less
Arkansas (no previous poll)
Huckabee - 40%
McCain - 21%
Giuliani - 12%
Gingrich - 8%
F Thompson - 5%
Romney - 4%
All others - 1% or less
March 23rd, 2007 at 4:26 pm
Essentially it has to come from Giuliani, McCain, or undecideds. Of the candidates Giuliani has the greatest number of supporters that are open to someone else.
It seems like Romney’s candidacy depends on Giuliani faltering and his support looking desperately for a non-McCain. Romney is definitely not likely to win the nomination but he is better positioned than anyone besides McCain and Giuliani.
March 23rd, 2007 at 4:27 pm
[...] Directly, Amigo Romney’s role as third man, is seriously imperiled by the ascent of the Fred Thompson candidacy in the latest ARG state poll numbers: Poll Results>>> via Race42008 [...]
March 23rd, 2007 at 4:27 pm
EGS,
People who relied on polls to claim McCain’s campaign was finished look silly.
That’s what I’ve been trying to tell people. This is yet another reason why I never believe anything Dick Morris ever says.
Romney has a stable base of support and enough money to stay in the race and be credible.
Sure. But the problem is, he was hoping to win over the undecideds and solidify his hold on the right flank of the party. So now, in addition to going after McCain and Giuliani, he might have to go after Thompson. But he can’t really go after Thompson for running as a pro-choice candidate in the 1990’s (which he was) because well, Romney’s record on that is much worse. So, how does Romney draw a distinction between him and Thompson?
March 23rd, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Jason,
How does Rudy’s support dropping 2% in a poll with a MoE of 4% constitute his support dropping a “tremedous amount”?
March 23rd, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Kavon,
Where does Fred Thompson or Newt Gingrich’s growth come from? Presumably, the failings the other two if the idea that they’re going after the same base of supporters is to be believed (though I think this poll, among others, questions that idea). For instance, a Thompson candidacy makes it increasingly unlikely that Newt will run. It’s possible that in the event of a Thompson candidacy, we’ll simply see Thompson replacing Newt. Now, you make a good point that oit’s much more difficult to make progress if there’s additional serious candidates in the race, and that, ordinarily anyway, this is apt to harm the candidates who need to make the most progress, but this is only the case if we accept the idea that the candidates in the lead aren’t going to be affected either by new candidates: a dubious proposition I think. For instance, in New Hampshire, Giuliani has dropped by 8 points, and McCain by 3 with the addition of Thompson, while Romney has increased by 2.
March 23rd, 2007 at 4:31 pm
So, how does Romney draw a distinction between him and Thompson?
Um, accomplishments? Tons of ‘em? What has Thompson done?
March 23rd, 2007 at 4:37 pm
murphy,
Fair enough. But that might not be enough to win over supporters. After all, Thompson wouldn’t be running if Romney was the credible conservative candidate. Romney has already failed to establish his hold on the field. Voters won’t care that he saved the Olympics when the first thing they’re looking for is someone who reflects their beliefs and values.
March 23rd, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Oh well, I guess this is all not good for Rudy
March 23rd, 2007 at 4:39 pm
The problem is that none of Romney’s accomplishments are inspiring. Thompson ‘talks’ like a serious candidate so he’s going to be a given a pass on not having a record of accomplishment.
It seems to me that Romney needs Giuliani’s campaign to falter to make progress.
March 23rd, 2007 at 4:40 pm
Kavon,
Jason’s reference to a “tremendous” drop, refers to New Hampshire where Rudy went from 27 to 19. I don’t thionk referring to that type of drop as “tremendous” is a huge exaggeration.
March 23rd, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Kavon,
I was referring to NH where he drops by 8%. It’s IA where he drops by 2%.
March 23rd, 2007 at 4:44 pm
I would say things look encouraging for Rudy in Iowa and New Hampshire at this
time. He will visit Iowa for the first time next month, and he has spent much less
time in New Hampshire than McCain. I am sure this will change over the next 10
months.
March 23rd, 2007 at 4:45 pm
Matt,
I kind of agree that Thompson running may result in Newt sitting it out (I am on of the rare people who is convinced that he is planning to run barring unforseen events).
Well, Fred Thompson running would definitely be one of those.
What I think happens if FDT enters the race is that he gets Newt’s 10%, probably a third of Romney’s supporters (his allotment of “Checklist Republicans” which I wrote about earlier today), half the undecideds, maybe 1% from the lower candidates, while drawing a few points each from Rudy and McCain.
So this means that Rudy would be at around 30%, McCain at around 25%, and Thompson at 20%.
Essentially, Thompson assumes the George Allen role; which means that he dilutes the field down to the point where either Rudy or McCain will have to be the winner because you can only divide 100% of something so many ways.
Murph,
I agree with your statements on FDT. He really didn’t distinguish himself while in the Senate.
March 23rd, 2007 at 4:47 pm
LJ,
1. I’m not convinced that Thompson IS running, unless running for President means allowing people to voice support for you in polls.
2. I don’t see how you can say that “Romney has failed to establish his hold on the field” with any degree of finality, given that there’s 11 months left to this race, and we have yet to see any serious public campaigning or debates.
3. If voters don’t care about accomplishments (and I’m humoring you contrary to historical precident), and are instead looking for someone who reflects their beliefs and values, could you please show me how Thompson is better than Romney?
March 23rd, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Jason,
Got it
March 23rd, 2007 at 4:50 pm
KT,
Do not despair… If you want to know why, email me.
March 23rd, 2007 at 5:05 pm
I disagree with your analysis Kavon, but I don’t think its entirely off the mark. I have a few problems with it though. 1.) Candidates with the highest name recognition are more likely to have uninformed and lukewarm supporters. If 40% of the population has only heard of Giuliani and McCain, then that 40% of the population is, as of now, going to be supporting either Giuliani or McCain. That doesn’t indicate that they’re especially to them. It doesn’t indicate that they’ve thought through their candidacy. It simply indicates that they’ve been asked a question and have only two conceivable choices (3 I suppose if you count undecided). So there’s going to be a certain percentage of Giuliani and McCain supporters who are not only open to other candidacies, but have literally no serious committment to either Giuliani or McCain. Not so, by and large, of Romney supporters. If only 45% of the population knows who Romney is, you can bet that it’s the 45% who are paying the most attention. They’re more likely to know of the second tier candidates. They’re more likely to be familiar with the records and positions of the various candidates. They’re probably even more likely to be aware of the possibility of a Fred Thompson candidacy, and in turn more aware of his record (which is hardly that of a conservative stalwart). While both McCain and Giuliani likely have as much as 3rd of supporters who aren’t particularly to their candidacy, Romney’s likely to have a far smaller percentages similarly situated. 2.) Candidates with the most tenative supporters are more vulernable additional to additional serious candidates. Indeed, this is the only reason we’ve ever discussed the Romney candidacy. Because there’s the assumption that name recognition leads to higher support, but only to the extent that the least informed voters, those overwhelmingly likely to support candidates with high name recognition early in the process, are not truly comitted to that particular candidate.
March 23rd, 2007 at 6:05 pm
This race starts in July.
March 23rd, 2007 at 6:36 pm
murphy,
1. Neither am I.
2. I obviously met that he has failed to hold the right flank as of yet. Thompson and Gingrich would not be contemplating a run if Romney had. He’s been badly hobbled by the flip-flopping perception. But I have no crystal ball, for all I know he could wow the voters during the debates. But he has done a tremendous amount of campaigning something like 15-20 stops in Iowa since last summer.
3. I never said that voters didn’t care about accomplishments, I just said that they aren’t necessarily the first thing that voters care about. But for the record, I agree, Thompson doesn’t have much of anything to tout in the way of a legislative record or private sector accomplishments (Law and Order excepted). And yet he starts better out of the gate than Romney in the state that Romney is the strongest in. Doesn’t that worry you even a little?
March 23rd, 2007 at 6:56 pm
LJ,
It worries me to the same degree as I’m worried that Americans can name more of the 7 Dwarves than they can Supreme Court Justices.
March 23rd, 2007 at 6:59 pm
LJ
actualy
It doesn’t wrry me at all, because Giuliani started out the gate stronger in IA, when Romney has very little there. Romney is going up there and nothing has yet to be done.
Romney is strong there with infrastructure, not with actual campaigning. Yeah he has visited it a bunch, probably 10 times since in 2007 )just a guess) but that’s not enough on it’s own to jump up 10 or 15 points. But it is enough for him to keep moving up.
When people see Romney side by side with Thompson, thats when we really will know. I don’t think that will really happen until the fall.
March 23rd, 2007 at 7:11 pm
Jason,
Well, I’m sure you know that winning in Iowa is all about the strength of your GOTV operation. I’m not too concerned with, say, Rudy’s numbers because he has almost no organization on the ground except for Nussle and 3 guys from Iowa State. Honestly, I’ve always concerned Iowa the best chance Romney has at winning the caucus, despite his poll numbers. I was just really shocked to see Thompson start out of the gate higher than Romney, whose been languishing with his poll numbers barely moving at all since last summer. If Romney gets bumped to 4th place, that could have very bad effects on his ability to keep his operation strong.
March 23rd, 2007 at 7:13 pm
Sleepy, Sneezy, Doc, Dopey, Happy, Grumpy, and Bashful.
Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalito, Gingsburg, Souter, Kennedy, Brenner, ….
Whom am I missing?
March 23rd, 2007 at 7:17 pm
Old man winter himself…Stevens!
But congrats, marK, you land in the upper 98% with 7/7 and 8/9.
March 23rd, 2007 at 7:20 pm
Ack! I always forget Stevens everytime too.
March 23rd, 2007 at 7:24 pm
marK,
Hehe, you called Scalia Scalito. I’ve heard the nickname brandied about in the media, so I guess it sticks at a subconscious level.
March 23rd, 2007 at 7:27 pm
Thanks. I shall have to remember his name.
I am an engineer. I don’t follow the Supremes that much. I can’t remember Stevens being important in any case. He must be the Calvin Coolige of the Supreme Court.
March 23rd, 2007 at 7:28 pm
marK,
When you mentioned Brenner I thought of some horrifying combination of Breyer and Brennan. I shudder at the thought.
March 23rd, 2007 at 7:28 pm
Bark,
You’re right. Silly me.
March 23rd, 2007 at 7:29 pm
Matt,
So is it Brenner, Breyer, or Brennan?
March 23rd, 2007 at 7:31 pm
Breyer. Brennan was the uber-liberal (probably the most important liberal in a century) appointed by Eisenhower. Souter replaced him.
March 24th, 2007 at 12:12 am
[...] http://race42008.com/2007/03/23/poll-alert-arg-iowa-and-new-hampshire [...]
March 24th, 2007 at 1:58 am
Why is this such horrible news for Gov. Romney? He went up 2 points in Iowa. Wherever Thompson’s support is coming from, it’s not from the Romney’s base.
I’m still not convinced that Thompson is serious. And, if he is, he’ll wait until the race is more mature at which point Romney will have either succeeded or failed.
March 24th, 2007 at 8:56 am
Rudy is most likely to win the general election.
March 24th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Since I’m from Tennessee, I’ll give you my thoughts on Thompson.
I’ve met him and campaigned for him. He’s kind of like what they used to say about John Wayne: he’s got that “presence” about him. It’s more than him being an actor. Someone on another post said he’s ugly.
I wouldn’t say ugly, I would say well worn, weathered, mature, and experienced.
As far as politics, he’s not the most conservative, but in Tennessee he had a reputation of being (sorry McCain) a common sense conservative. True he didn’t have any huge legislative accomplishments to speak of, but he was part of the original Republican Revolution in the 1990s, and he did try to get Clinton on Chinagate, although it went way over most people’s heads.
Will he run? I would say so. Former Senator and Reagan White House chief-of-staff Howard Baker has urged him to run, and Representative John Duncan Jr. left Romney to go to a committee for Thompson. If he doesn’t run now, he’ll make a number of public figures look bad, so once they went public with their endorsements, I figured he’ll have to run.
Can he win? We’ll I don’t know. I don’t think he really has the fire in the belly ambition that I think a candidate has to have, otherwise he’ll look like he’s running because he can’t think of anything better to do. I think voters want to have a candidate who has a vision and thinks he’s the only one to carry it out. Right now, Thompson doesn’t have it.
Can that change? Sure, if things go badly in Iraq, if the economy tanks, or if the Bush administration or Congress does something really appalling, then a candidate, Democratic more than likely, but perhaps a Republican, can show up with an image, but not necessarily a platform, that differs so much from whoever screwed up, that he could win.
Kind of like when Carter won, because Nixon and Ford had Watergate and also got the blame for the Democrats war in Asia (Johnson got credit for civil rights, Kennedy got credit for everything, and Ford lost, “But hey Bobby and Jerry, life’s not fair.”)
What I think could most help Thompson, but also Romney, is the extent that TV advertising will have on the campaign, and how much Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina will be weakened because it looks like we may have a national primary day or at
least a national primary week since everybody’s moving their primaries up to the day after Christmas. I think people are really underestimating how moving these primaries up so early are going to change things. And I don’t have a clue.