The Candidates
This state poll shows Sen. McCain and Mayor Giuliani in a dead heat:
USA Polling Group Alabama GOP Primary Poll, conducted April 21st-25th 2007
- John McCain 23%
- Rudy Giuliani 22%
- Mitt Romney 12%
- Fred Thompson 10%
- Newt Gingrich 7%
All other candidates came in at under 4% and were not included in the story.
April 30th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
The new Illinois poll shows similar numbers.
http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/04/illinois_poll.html
Republicans
McCain 26.1
Giuliani 25.7
F. Thompson 17.7
Romney 10.2
T. Thompson 3.3
Undecided 17
April 30th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
This is an interesting late trend. Is McCain really catching Giuliani, after all the negativity of the last week or so thrown his way?
April 30th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Tommy, national polling, much more statistically significant, says no. New Gallup GOP today, new Rasmussen GOP tomorrow.
April 30th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
In the last Alabama poll we have, the results were as follows:
Giuliani - 28%
McCain - 23%
Gingrich - 18%
Romney - 3%
This poll, then, follows the general trendline of nearly every poll to come out recently - Rudy down, McCain flat, and Romney up. I think it would be pretty hard to argue that isn’t the general state of the race at this time.
April 30th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
Most National polling is actually less statistically significant than the Illinois poll which included 3,761 Republicans!
Few national polls have sampled as many as 1,300 individuals.
April 30th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
HeavyM: The RCP average and graph IS the general trend in this race.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-192.html
Yes, Rudy has come down, and, yes Mitt has gone up. There are still miles apart and McCain has not “caught” Rudy.
P.S. Recheck that link in the next couple hours as the Gallup poll is added.
April 30th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
econ grad stud, Yes, but all 3,761 Republicans lived in only one state.
April 30th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
David B,
There is no new Gallup poll - what Gallup did is combine their 3 latest polls and averaged all their past results together so they could get some crosstabs with decent MoE’s.
For anyone interested, the link is here.
April 30th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
HeavyM, oops, you’re right– thanks!
April 30th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
DavidB that’s actually a good thing statistically. When you start getting wide geographic variability it is difficult for a national poll to be as accurate as a local poll. A poll in one state with a given sample size is more likely to be accurate for that state than a national poll of the same size is to be for the nation.
When you expand the universe (population being sampled) you increase variability and error exponentially. That’s why polls would come out simultaneously during 2004 that showed Bush ahead or Kerry ahead. Obviously the polls were missing some subtlety in either geographic or social sub-groups.
Early primary polls are actually worse because voters aren’t generally paying attention to the election yet. At least state polls minimize variability.
April 30th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
A more accurate poll FOR ONE STATE.
We are talking about the STATE OF THE RACE.
Wow, talk about staring at trees and not seeing the forest at all!
April 30th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
DavidB you are aware that delegates are awarded by state(and by district) aren’t you?
Delegates aren’t awarded nationally. Rudy can have as large a lead in national polls as he likes if it doesn’t translate into wins in enough states he loses (see Al Gore 2000).
At this point I’m looking at polls in Iowa, NH, SC, Florida, Nevada, Wyoming and to a lesser extent the Feb 5th states. The other states aren’t particularly relevant.
Looking at the state polls it becomes clear that Rudy does not have a meaningful edge over McCain.
National polls along with fund-raising, endorsements, and “organization” are fuzzy indicators of where the race actually stands in the states that matter.
April 30th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Even on that argument, IL is not an early state.
April 30th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
And if you think national polls aren’t relevant to assessing the current state of the race, or influencing it, then ignore them at your own peril.
April 30th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
fuzzy indicators
April 30th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
“Looking at the state polls it becomes clear that Rudy does not have a meaningful edge over McCain.”
So states like NV, CA, NY, PA, NJ, FL, DE and MI, where Rudy is very clearly leading right now do not figure into your conclusions I guess.
Nor do IA or SC, where Rudy and McCain are pretty much statistically tied I suppose.
April 30th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
Thanks, Kavon.
Ya gotta wonder what kind of statistics they are teaching in economic grad schools.
April 30th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
IA, NH, and SC weigh most heavily in the primary because they will influence the other later states. In two of those states Rudy is tied for 1st. In one of those states he’s in second place. In states considering a Feb 5 primary Rudy leads. Since the early states are influenced by earlier primaries it’s dishonest to treat these as equal.
Rudy has a non-meaningful advantage over McCain at this point. If he could show more strength in NH and SC I’d consider him in a meaningful lead.