The Candidates
Featured Archives
Some more time out from the hospital room (where things are going decently okay – thank you for your thoughts and prayers) for a reminder of why national primary polls don’t matter at this stage in the game. I will be using the 2004 Democratic primary as a backdrop for this presentation.
Exhibit A: a poll from December 2003 – mere weeks away from the Iowa caucuses:
CBS News Poll, December 14-16, 2003
Dean – 23%
Clark – 10%
Lieberman – 10%
Gephardt – 6%
Sharpton – 5%
Kerry – 4%
Edwards – 2%
Al Sharpton was beating John Kerry in the national polls. Al Sharpton. The day before the Iowa caucuses, CBS released another national primary poll where John Kerry managed to climb into 4th place nationally with a whopping 7% of the vote.
Now, Exhibit B: that same poll taken just after Iowa and New Hampshire:
Kerry – 53%
Dean – 8%
Edwards – 7%
Sharpton – 4%
So Kerry wins Iowa and New Hampshire, and his numbers skyrocket to nearly 8 times what they were. What effect did winning just Iowa have on the national numbers? For that, we can turn to Opinion Dynamics. The week before Iowa the caucuses:
Dean – 20%
Clark – 13%
Lieberman – 8%
Gephardt – 7%
Kerry – 7%
Now, taken two days after Kerry wins Iowa and before the New Hampshire primaries, these are what the national numbers were:
Kerry – 29%
Dean – 17%
Edwards – 13%
Clark -11%
Lieberman – 5%
Just winning Iowa was worth a quadrupling of Kerry’s national numbers.
This pattern can be found in any poll results from 2003/04. USA Today, for example, had the race nationally at 26-24 Dean over Clark the week before Iowa, with Kerry at 9%. One week after Iowa, the national numbers became 49-14 Kerry over Dean. At the point we are at in this primary in 2003, USA Today had Kerry in fourth place behind Lieberman, Gephardt, and Dean in that order – and that was before Clark entered the race and Kerry dropped to fifth nationally.
Newsweek had the race at 24-12 Dean over Clark before Iowa. After Iowa but before New Hampshire, the race became 30-13 Kerry over Edwards, and after New Hampshire the race was 48-13 Kerry over Dean.
In Quinnipiac polls, Kerry’s national numbers before Iowa were at 8%. After Iowa, they jumped to 30%. After New Hampshire, they jumped to 42%. AP polls showed Kerry in fifth place at 5% nationally heading into Iowa. Pew showed him in fifth place with 7%.
You can go through literally dozens of polls that show the same effect, which all lead me to one conclusion: national primary poll numbers don’t matter. What matters is winning early states and riding that momentum. Because, as big of a day as February 5, 2008 is going to be, it is going to come nearly a month after Iowa. And it only takes one day for momentum from Iowa to change the whole race.
July 5th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
The fatal flaw in this analysis is one which has been discussed time and again here over the past 13 months, which is that you are using Democratic Party history to support your contention regarding the Republican nomination process. I do not protest for a moment that national primary polls are worthless on the Democratic side.
Apples to oranges my friend… Apples to oranges…
July 5th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
It also assumes your man Romney can win Iowa, when he spent millions in saturating advertising to capture only 1/4 of the vote and an 8 point lead, over half a year too early, unopposed on the airwaves.
July 5th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
In fact… I issue the same challenge now that I have over and over again when we debated this (almost daily) last fall.
I challenged anyone to find a poll (with a link that we can all access) on the GOP side which does not show the eventual GOP nominee to be in first place from this point in time.
I’m still waiting…
July 5th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
It also ignores the Dean Scream and how it played over and over and over and over.
July 5th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
Kavon, I think the Romney camp can make a valid argument that the Dem examples COULD apply to the GOP this time, because the GOP does not have a clear heir apparent as it always has in modern history.
(Romney folks, note this example of acknowledging weakness in your candidate and strength in another. Objectivity like this could erase much hostility here, and you may well be treated with the same respect supporters of the other candidates are here.)
July 5th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
BTW, I should point out my ongoing criticism of the blind irrationality of most Romney supporters does not apply to MattC. He does the best job making a facts-based argument for Romney’s candidacy.
July 5th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
David #5,
So what is the explanation for 2000? How about 1996? Yes, Dole can be viewed as an heir apparent, but should give his “heir apparency” the same weight as Reagan in 1980 or Bush I in 1988?
July 5th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
Not the same weight, but there was a general consensus that Dole and Bush43 enjoyed, that Rudy does not, given Fred’s involvement.
The real answer to such an argument is that GOP consensus is split between Rudy and Fred, and that there is clearly no GOP consensus around Romney. That’s Romney’s historical problem.
July 5th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
And, of course, the nature of Mega Tuesday. Pundits handicapping the horserace will be reminding big-state voters that Rudy’s strategy is counting on them, and the match can work if they stick with him. And big-state voters are sick of Iowans choosing our nominees. And early voting allowing many of them to cast their votes before Iowans do.
And the entire argument also rests on the assumption Romney can win both IA and NH, which I think is the main problem with the argument. He won’t. If he does, I’d have to say he would be a very serious threat.
July 5th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
Kavon,
I wonder about that key difference you point to…Democrats vs Republicans. There’s a lot of other factors that go into these elections, and I’m uncomfortable with simply pointing to one correlation and declaring it to be THE causation.
July 5th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
Oh, and doesn’t the same history show the early frontrunner in IA and NH in Dem split fields, was NOT the candidate who won those races?!
July 5th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
DavidB, so far in this thread, you’re the only one talking about Romney.
July 5th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
The difference has to do with the method in which the nomination is won in the different parties.
In the GOP if you have a strong poll leader (and no regionally strong opponent) the nomination is easy to win. It’s because of the leader friendly delegate rules in many states.
Unless you have a challenger that keeps winning states in his region, a poll lead is paramount to a win. Conversely if the leader is a regional candidate there’s also room for a long competitive primary (or an upset).
The epitome of this is the regional divide of the Ford-Reagan race which was undecided until the convention.
The Democratic process is insurgent friendly. This makes “winning” a long process.
July 5th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
*Knock that off David or I will perma-ban you. Do you understand me?*-KWN
July 5th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
Sorry, econ, that was directed to murphy #12.
July 5th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Sorry.
Murphy, we all know we’re talking about Romney. For what conceivable purpose would you say #12?
July 5th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
David B-
Its not just Matt C, Jason, Murphy, and others who say that Mitt can win IA and NH but others in the MSM see it too. They recognize that nobody has ever not competed at Ames and gone on to win IA. And not only that, Rudy is behind in IA on his groundgame compared to Mitt. And this (only 25% support) is a non issue, because any poll at the national or state level, for either party, has the candidate leading pulling 25%-40% (with only a few exceptions). The point is that if Mitt’s IA lead is weak, Rudy should have competed in IA, especially he is a human ATM machine with millions at his disposal. BUT HE DIDNT COMPETE.
July 5th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
Husky, I have no problems with someone arguing Romney CAN win in IA and NH. I’d love to see RATIONAL arguments for that.
I have problems with saying he has them in the bag. With taking negative information and twisting it into a further reason Romney will win.
July 5th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
As for NH, I think Mitt realizes that this state is one of his strongest. He lives there part of the year, and it sees much of the Boston media where he is a staple. He has visited there a ton, advertised too, and is as organized there as he is anywhere in the country. So I think that a win in IA and NH (while each is still up in the air), may go to Mitt along with a ton of momemtum. I can already see the rest of the country cry foul that IA and NH picked the candidates again, and made irrelevant superduper tuesday. Thats why I think there should be 5 super Tuesdays where the country votes in a block, deciding the nominee.
July 5th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
Rational arguements he can win IA and NH?
Well he visits there often, unlike Rudy. He raised more money in IA and NH than anyone else in 1Q, and may have done it again in 2Q. He has advertised there, and has remained in the lead for nearly 2 months there. His IA and NH groundgame are some of the best out there (according to other independant viewpoints). Not competing in Ames will hurt Rudy and Fred in the end, since they are downplaying IA’s roll in this process. They will hate that since this is there claim to fame. If Mitt is in 1st or close 2nd in NH, and then wins IA, the momentum will push him to 1st on primary day.
There is your rational arguement.
July 5th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
David B,
This call for rationality is really pretty perplexing in light of the types of arguments routinely employed by Rudy supporters. The “only Rudy can win” meme looks increasingly flimsy every day. Fred Thompson, at the very least, seems to be fully capable of competing will Hillary judging by recent polls. Romney also looks fairly strong in Rasmussen polls against Clinton. And yet the meme continues. Frankly, it doesn’t require a terribly significant amount of “rationality” to recognize that if Romney wins Iowa, he will New Hampshire. Take it to the bank. It’s the classic slingshot pattern, bolstered by his near favorite status, and strong early polling. Barring some sort of “it’s better to be enslaved, then die” comment, NH is Romney’s if he wins in Iowa. If. I agree with David to the extent that Romney’s victory in Iowa is hardly assured, and therefore his victory in NH is hardly assured (and obviously, his victory in both states isn’t assured). Fred Thompson could very well win Iowa, though I think he’s the only one capable of seriously challenging Mitt there given the animosity Rudy and McCain have created among Iowa GOP’ers by withdrawing from Ames. But, it’s pretty hard to take seriously any scenario that has Romney winning Iowa, and losing New Hampshire.
July 5th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
Near favorite son status*
July 5th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
DavidB,
Thank you for the polite question in #16.
Long before Romney was leading the polls in IA, this “small-state-insurgency” conversation was one we could have without the burden of it really being a conversation about Romeny spanking Rudy’s tukas.
Out of curiosity for the nomination process, and having nothing to do with my belief that Romney’s going to win it, I still like to have that conversation.
July 5th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
David B. you are not the sole judge of rationality. You say that you’d love to see rational arguements that Romney can win in Iowa or New – Hamphire. David B., the arguements that Romney could win should be quite obvious. Romney has gone from 3rd place to first place in both Iowa and New – Hampshire in a few months – increasing his lead in Iowa by about 15% and in New Hamphire by 10%. The fact that Rudy isn’t participating in the straw poll suggests to me that he doesn’t think he can win it.
I know that you think that Rudy can catch up with Romney’s lead, and I agree with you. However you seem to argue that this is inevitable. You haven’t heard rational arguements for why Romney could win Iowa or New Hamphire? Be real David! Maybe you haven’t heard rational arguements for why it is inevitable, but unless you have your head in the sand, don’t tell me that you haven’t heard good arguements for why he could win.
July 5th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
As I’ve argued here before many times, the GOP race looks a lot more like Dem nominations in the past than any GOP nomination, and the Dem nomination looks an awful lot like GOP nominations of the past.
That’s how I justify (I think rather easily) using Dem history for predicting this race.
July 5th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
Husky/Matt/John, sorry for being unclear. It’s not that I haven’t heard or don’t know the rational arguments for Romney’s case. I have heard them and know them, and can articulate them.
It’s the over-the-top blind faith that Romney already has them in the bag, that it’s inevitable, that I have a problem with.
Or when he loses 1/3 of his fundraising and has to quadruple his self-loan, the Rombots call it a good thing for Romney. That is blind faith, not irrationality.
By contrast, I don’t say Rudy winning Iowa is inevitable. I’ve said here a half a dozen times that he may even have to pull out of it at some point. In the meantime he’s ramped up to win it and beat expectations.
July 5th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
er, That is blind faith, not rationality.
July 5th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
DavidB,
Which Romney supporter said that a drop of 1/3 of fundraising was a good thing?
Which Romney supporter said that Romney winning in IA is inevitable, in the bag, 100% sure thing, etc?
You’re just talking to strawmen today.
July 5th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
David B., I agree with you that Romney winning NH or Iowa is not inevitable. But I seem to see more posts complaining about Rom-bots touting Romney’s inevitablity than the posts of them doing so.
July 5th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
Still waiting…
July 5th, 2007 at 7:35 pm
murphy, dblagent007 said that about the fundraising (under “Rudy Wins Q2″). Every day various Rombots tell us IA and NH are already won by Romney.
Kavon, your point is well-taken. I sure hope it remains true even in a splintered field!
July 5th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
Kavon,
I’m not sure your #3 and #30 are asking the right question. It’s obvious that GOP nominations have historically gone to the frontrunner in the polls. But this election might not be like previous elections in the ways that lead to frontrunner nomination. I alluded to this in #10, and MattC hinted at this primary being more similar to a historical Dem primary in #25.
The best question would be: “What has given nominations to the frontrunner in the GOP and the dark horse in the Dems in the small number of data points we have…and do those factors exist now?”
Assuming that the factors can be neatly summarized as party affiliation seems to be an error on the same order of assuming that winning your home state is necessary to win the general election.
July 5th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
DavidB,
A quote would help, so I don’t have to guess. Is this what you mean?
dblagent007: This is good news for Romney. Rudy is only $3M more than Romney and some of that was general election funds. Let’s have the primary only number.
The good news is obviously that the presumed frontrunner of the race who had twice as many fundraisers as Romney still only managed to raise 7% more primary money than Romney. Nobody said that a drop of 1/3 fundraising was a good thing for Romney.
So two requests. First, can you drop the strawmen, and second, can you stop taking what one person says and applying it to all Romney supporters? If you disagree with someone, just say you disagree with that person.
July 5th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
I don’t know if I’m in a dream or something, but I’m agreeing with murphy.
At least one historical precedent will be broken in this race, and that the summer GOP frontrunner is the nominee could be that precedent.
But I think Rudy will pull it out.
I’ve studied the internals of countless polls and cannot find any big obstacle Rudy is facing. He’s laid out an extremely strong agenda, and I watched him give his first speech on one of the planks, and I think he will be absolutely irresistable as a GOP warrior.
He faces a formidable challenger in Fred, who will garner a ton of grassroots support and endorsements but I believe Fred will fail to meet expectations in live appearances (vs. scripted video, where he will shine). I believe Fred won’t look so strong as Rudy in head-to-head polling with Dems come January, especially when we look at a state-by-state basis.
The smart money at Intrade is currently giving Romney a 17.5% chance to win the nomination. I think that’s a little high, for the chances of him winnning, on the early-state slingshot theory, especially as he becomes known for effectively self-funding his campaign.
July 5th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
Agreeing with murphy in #32 that is. Now on to #33…
July 5th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
murphy, dblagent said “This is good news for Romney,” after he dropped 1/3 of his support, and, worse, quadrupled his self-loan.
That is a ridiculous statement and not a straw man.
I’ve tried not to lump ALL Romney supporters together. I’ve noted that MattC, Matt, and dskinner11 are more objective Romney supporters. I’ll also say that you are somewhat more objective than the rest.
But this IS a phenomenon that those of us in Rudy and Fred camps have noted. A lot of Romney supporters seem to just think if they keep saying something over and over, it will be true, regardless of the facts.
July 5th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
You know what would mitigate over the top statements? If everyone would occasionally add what they think the probabilities are for the candidates winning the nomination.
I think: Rudy 60%, Fred 30%, Romney 10%.
July 5th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
DavidB,
From the sounds of it (and perhaps we might go to extremes and ask him), dblagent007 was saying that the fundraising results were good overall, not that the drop of 1/3 was good. However, your comments in #26 misrepresent this by leaving out the good aspects that dblagent007 was talking about.
I really don’t know what kind of character traits motivate you to make accusations of most Romney supporters being blindly irrational, or questioning whether they have brain cells (see “Rudy wins Q2″, comment #67), or spitting out the blanket term Rombot for all but a precious few posters.
But this is getting OT, and I’m pretty interested in MattC’s original thread, and elaboration on post #25.
July 5th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
I’ve seen in the MSM that journos are suggesting that the Dem race this year is like a Republican race (constant frontrunner, establishment candidate, a few people case excitement & generate lots of money, but get ground down by the machinary of the party) while the Republican race is very much like a “normal” Dem race (frontrunners collapsing, polls very fluid, etc).
If that is the case then comparisons to 2004 are very apt…
July 5th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
In addition to all the reasons I gave on Tuesday for why Romney’s news was terrible for him, I missed an obvious one:
If he’ll make up the difference between donations and $20M each quarter, he’s given a lot of incentive to Romney donors not to make the donation.
July 5th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
Jaype, our frontrunner has never collapsed. McCain was never the frontrunner.
Also, I think Obama will be gaining on Hillary, and that race is going to become fluid, too.
What makes our race especially interesting is that there is fluidity between more than 2 serious contenders. That fluidity is also reason for supporters of each candidate to realize that anything could change at any time.
July 5th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
Good points about the Dean Scream and his totally falling apart after that.
Also, how come MattC didn’t list the leaders in IA and Nh at similar points. One could just as easily say that early polls in IA and NH don’t matter, especially when one guy has pretty much had the field to himself and the other guys haven’t even started running ads.
DavidB, Ike won NH without even campaigning there. I think you underestimate the Fred factor. His cultural affinity with GOP base will do him wonders. It’ll hurt him in the general, though. Fred is my pick to win right now. Not who I want to win, but who will win. If only because I see both McCain and Rudy both endprsing Fred if it becomes apparent they won’t win and when you add their supporters to his, he has it made.
The fact is that there’s still a substantial amount of voters who won’t vote for a pro choice candidate. That will hurt Rudy. Although, if Bush were to get a 3rd SC pick between now and Jan(Stevens is 87 and Ginsburg is 74), that would help Rudy tremendously.
If Rudy had pulled a Romney and become pro life back in 2002 or 2003, he could easily have this thing locked up by now. While a bad move for him politically in not “evolving”, it does show me that he’s not going to just tell people what they want to hear or bend himself to fit the popular positions. So I give him credit for that.
I think Rudy’s strategy is to clean up among liberals and moderate Republicans as well as Independents who can vote in the primaries(a strayegy that will be even more successful if McCain continues to fall apart) and win enough conservatives to push him over the top, then pick a strong pro life conservative as VP, surround himself with strong conservatives as potential Cabinet picks(John Bolton as SecState, Ted Olson as AG, Lieberman as SecDef to gain a GOP seat in the Senate, Steve Forbes as Sec Treas, etc…)and hope for the best.
ut yes, it is ridiculously early. WHo knows what could happen? If the GOP continues to bail on Bush and Iraq and there’s a date set for withdrawal, then they may as well hand Hillary the keys.
Bush could order a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities(or Israel could do it) and that would help the GOP.
The Surge could show signs of success and that would help.
It’s still very early.
July 5th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
jim, agree with almost everything you’ve said. Except we differ on Fred’s ability to meet expectations.
July 5th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
By the way, I am drooling at that Rudy admin you laid out!
Even a radical like me thinks Bolton is probably not the right guy for SecState. Send him back to the UN. Rudy could have a great strategy with a good cop SecState to his bad cop Commander in Chief! In which case, Condi probably stays.
July 5th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
Dave,
Fred already has met expectations. Just by showing up, being able to wear a pair of Levis and a Stetson, laying down the drawl, etc… People tend to have type they go for and I think we’d both agree that Fred most clearly fits that and that no other candidate really does.
In the general, I think it hurts Fred. There will have been 16 years straight of Southern Presidents. Also, even though Bush isn’t running, especially for independents and moderate dems, it will be about a change. If you ran a poll and asked which GOP candidate most resemebles Bush, Fred would win going away. That’s not a good thing.
BTW, Does anyone know why Fred(B. 1942) didn’t go to Nam? I’m assuming a law school deferment, something with his kids, or some govt help.
As for Bolton, he’d never get confirmed by a dem Senate, it was more of a fantasy. Maybe he could be Nat’l Security Advisor, I don’t think position is subject to Senate approval.
How about this twofer: Lieberman as Sec State and McCain as Sec Defense. We’d pick up a seat and get McCain out of the Senate. Can’t do much better than that. After seeing his dream go up in smoke, I doubt he’d want a stay on anyway. A cabinet position in charge of the military would be a good way for the old warrior to go out.
July 5th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
Kavon,
Let me turn that question around on you. Show me a poll where the eventual GOP nominee wasn’t in the lead in Iowa or NH at this point in the race. The point is that in the past the GOP had a front-runner who led nationally, who also led in Iowa and/or NH. You are correct in saying that no nominee has ever not been in 1st place nationally, but it is also correct to say that no nominee has ever been behind in both Iowa and NH.
Whether state polls matter more or whether national polls matter more is a matter of opinion, but there is no evidence to say that national polls are a better indicator than state polls. In the past they have both predicted the same nominee. This year they predict different nominees, so we will just have to wait and see whether state or national polls matter more.
Many of us believe that state polls matter more based on their importance in past Democratic primaries where the state of the race was very similar to our current state of the race.
July 5th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
So many fallacies, so little time!
Something that no one has pointed out here –
The number of undecideds in that Democratic national primary poll are incredibly high: literally half of the voters had not yet made up their minds.
The Democrats also have an historic way of knocking off their front-runner at the last minute, while the Republicans have always tended to go with someone and stay with him.
There also was no “national primary” day and there was no reason to take into account the person running on the other side. This is an open race on both sides. Changes things up; no need to run against an incumbent.
The race also hadn’t started as soon as it did this year.
The split between Iowa/New Hampshire and the national polling is also unusual.
July 5th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
EXCELLENT point in 42 — The leader in New Hampshire and Iowa was Howard Dean for weeks, no, months!
IN SUM:
THE 2008 REPUBLICAN RACE IS DIFFERENT FROM THE 2004 DEMOCRATIC RACE.
We can all agree on that.
Except Matt.
July 5th, 2007 at 9:08 pm
I agree with Dskinner, this race is different than all other races, and we don’t know whether it’s going to be the state polls or national one’s that matter. Romney has in advantage so far in state polls and Rudy in National polls and Thompson is ahead in very reputable polling firn in National polling, and isn’t doing to bad in state polling. So I would say all three belong to the top tier. We really haven’t seen this kind of race before, so who know even McCain might win.
July 5th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
Jim and TLG (and possibly others),
I agree that it’s possible for the IA/NH frontrunner to change. Historical examples support this, common sense supports this, and we’ve already seen it happen atleast once this election cycle.
But I think the central aim of MattC’s post was to point out that winning the IA caucus can create a completely new frontrunner in just a few days. It’s far more important to be the winner of IA/NH than it is to be the national poll frontrunner in Dec ‘07.
July 5th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
I see I am being slandered by David B who claims that I said it was good news for Romney’s fund raising to drop by 33%. Wrong. The good news I was referring to is that Rudy barely beat Romney in fund raising. Rudy claimed he hauled in $10M in March (the last month of the Q1), yet when he turns in his numbers for Q2, he managed to only raise $15M total! Based on his March numbers, I took it as a given that Rudy would out fund raise Mitt. When Rudy’s numbers came in showing a 50% drop from his March numbers, I interpreted that as good news for Mitt.
I’m still waiting for the Rudites to respond to these points. It certainly would have been easier to refute the argument that David B said I made. But unfortunately that was just a straw man that David B set up to slander all Romney supporters (even though he mischaracterized what I said and then went on to generalize it to all Romney supporters).
July 5th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
Kavon,
Wasn’t McCain the front runner last fall?
July 5th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
Re #17: “nobody has ever not competed at Ames and gone on to win IA”.
Let’s not place too much stock in that. There have been 38 Republican presidential campaigns. There has been a straw poll at Ames only 4 times. Only twice has the winner of the Ames straw poll won the Republican nomination, and only once has the Ames straw poll winner gone on to win the presidency.
July 5th, 2007 at 11:16 pm
Jason,
The answer to that question is “No”. Giuliani has consistently been the GOP frontrunner ever since regular polling began at the end of last October.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-192.html#polls
July 5th, 2007 at 11:22 pm
It looks like he was basically in a statistical tie for a while, so I think that makes a pretty weak case for ” Guiliani has always been the frontrunner”.
July 6th, 2007 at 12:10 am
Dskinner,
Ever hear of Pat Robertson and Pat Buchanan? One state wonders who won Iowa and New Hampshire but fizzeled after that.
So ,Rudy could loose both and still be the nominee.
July 6th, 2007 at 12:42 am
Tenn Joe,
Robertson didn’t win Iowa or New Hampshire when he ran in 88. Dole won Iowa, and Bush Sr. won NH.
Pat Buchanon did win Hew Hampshire in 96.
But Dskinner was talking about winning Iowa and New Hampshire. If Romney wins both, and has good numbers in NV, CA, and many of the smaller super tuesdays prior to Iowa, he is unstoppable. If he wins only one of them, he will have to fight like the others.
Not to mantion, out of your two examples, only Bush win despite the loss in NH. Yet in 96, Dole loss.
July 6th, 2007 at 1:24 am
Aron (#54)
When we talk about previous frontrunners (like Dole) were they always leading the national polls?
they were always leading the media game of frontrunners, but then you’d have to say that McCain’s held that title for a while up til a few months ago.
Furthermore, wasn’t the theory that the Republican nomination went to the one “whose turn it was” – although I’ll foreshadow your response by saying that I agree that polls are more objective…
July 6th, 2007 at 5:24 am
So is everyone saying here that even though Rudy is ahead in the polls, and would likely win a lot of the big states, if he loses IA and NH its over for him??? I dont get it…splain, Ricky… thank you
July 6th, 2007 at 7:09 am
Bwhyte,
Read the the post.
July 6th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
Doesn’t it seem like the Rudy supporters believe the entire nation has their minds made up except Iowa?