The Candidates
Featured Archives
- Hillary Clinton 49%
- Mitt Romney 43%
- Hillary Clinton 49%
- Mike Huckabee 43%
- Hillary Clinton 47%
- Rudy Giuliani 43%
- John McCain 48%
- Hillary Clinton 44%
Survey of 546 registered voters was conducted November 9-11. The margin of error is +/- 4.3 percentage points.
November 17th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Its a good thing the election isn’t today
November 17th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
McCain really is pulling in quite a few independants. If he was able to get that many republicans he would be ahead in the caucus polls as well.
November 17th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
I agree that the only way this poll makes sense is if McCain is drawing indies and some dems. The other R’s are just getting the GOP base (and they all seem to hold the base against Clinton, which I don’t think would be true against Obama).
November 17th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
This is probably the most important state poll. Iowa is a pure toss up state. The Iowans know who’s running by now. Romney and Rudy won’t win the general. They are both well known in IA and can’t even beat Clinton, let along Barack. The GOP has to nominate McCain: We can’t have the Democrats controlling both branches of government.
November 17th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
why it is that giuliani is always trumping the electability card when it appears that mccain consistently does better than he does?
November 17th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
John Galt, for these reasons:
1. McCain is a non-starter in a GOP primary, so it’s terribly relevant in general election hypotheses.
2. McCain doesn’t reshape the map and we’re still fighting for the same ~275 electoral votes. Rudy radicalizes the map and gets us away from the red-blue, urban-rural divide. Rudy has a *chance* at a 400+ EV landslide like no other Republican does, which chance forces the Dems to compete in 40+ states.
Also, I think most independents will turn on McCain when they realize he’d be older than Reagan when he began his Presidency. Anecdote: I have a Democrat friend who talked about voting for McCain, but instantly retracted when I pointed out this fact.
November 17th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
Metro,
Where are your snide comments about how Mitt has spent so much dough in Iowa and how he performs so much worse than Rudy and McCain in a general match-up there?
Just wondering?
November 17th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
No way Metro. Rudy runs weaker in the south than either McCain or Bush and would be incredibly vulnerable to a Clinton strike into Arkansas, Virginia and Missouri (remember that Kerry pulled all ads from MO in the last months of 2004 because he knew he couldn’t win). Rudy runs better in the Northeast than almost any other Republican, but will still lose to Clinton because they share the same regional base.
McCain holds the South and the border states and capitalizes on his natural strength in the Midwest. McCain takes Wisconsin, Minnesota, runs even with HRC in Michigan and Ohio.
November 17th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Jeff, I thought about posting that, since he is running weaker despite all those ads. But is that really fair? His ads are directed toward Republican primary voters, naturally turning off independents, so I’m not sure it’s a fair argument. I’ll leave that to sampo. (Look, I’m being fair to Mitt!)
LJ, that’s not a bad argument, but Rudy’s shown a surprising ability to connect with Southerners. He will give up a few points in the South, where we can afford them, and ad more than a few points in the Northeast. Polling has proven and will continue to prove this. Hillary does not have a “regional base” in the Northeast. They carpetbagged NY, remember? And it worked for NY, but only NY.
November 17th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
Also, the point still stands: Rudy puts way more states in play. You can argue, as you have, that he ends up risking more. But he also has the opportunity to have a much larger UPside than any other GOP candidate, with enormous coattails.
November 17th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
And I would love to have a Republican candidate who is a fighter and a winner, a brilliant strategist and tactician, who connects with the voters, serving up to the Democrats an entirely new battlefield that throws off their game plan. Yes, Rudy is the man I want bringing us that scenario, and fighting to win in it.
November 17th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/us/politics/18repubs.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
November 17th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
McCain/Leiberman would be an imposing ticket for the democrats to face, but (as mentioned before) would it lock in the base while still being viable in purple states?
November 17th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
Metro,
You said . . .
“And I would love to have a Republican candidate who is a fighter and a winner, a brilliant strategist and tactician, who connects with the voters, serving up to the Democrats an entirely new battlefield that throws off their game plan.”
Glad you’ve chosen to finally support Romney
And before you regurgitate the MSM falsehood that Mitt doesn’t connect with voters I’ll, once again, state my opinion that he does so effectively. I’ve experienced it and seen it personally in Iowa.
And how is electing the frontrunner as nominee supposed to throw the Dems of “their game plan?” Are they gonna say, “Ooooh, they’ve elected Rudy. We NEVER expected that! What ever are we gonna do?”
November 17th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Merkis,
McCain/Leiberman would be the most pro-Iraq war ticket imaginable. Even if things are still going well there it’s hardly wise to chose the most pro-War people possible IMO.
November 17th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
P.S. Metro,
Thanks for being fair to Mitt in #9 (though I do feel that such gratitude is somewhat analagous to a “battered wife” that feels grateful that her husband beat her today)
November 17th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
McCain/Lieberman??? McCain, who has already pissed off significant numbers of Republicans, choosing a Democrat, and a somewhat liberal one at that, as his VP? Are you serious?
November 17th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
What has to be remembered is that the Democrats have raised a lot more money thus far, and they’ve spent a lot more. This money has been disproportionately spent in Iowa, and much of it has been spent attacking all things Republican. It’s amazing that we’re only slightly down in this state. I have a strong bias against McCain, but my gut tells me that he wouldn’t wear well throughout the general…that people would start to see through him. So, my sense is that he’s our least electable candidate, and that either Romney or Rudy are out most electable…something that could be argued either way.
November 17th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
Jeff, LOL.
November 17th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
I’m not saying I would vote for a McCain/Leiberman ticket, but I think a lot of other people would.
November 17th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
McCain/Leiberman would get NO money. Special interest groups hate those two.
November 17th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
Oh, and one more thing. When Romney campaigns in a swing state like Iowa he belly flops in the general. What’s the moral?
PEOPLE
DON’T
LIKE
HIM.
November 17th, 2007 at 9:54 pm
#12. I found this bit very intersting:
“Giuliani is putting increased emphasis on Iowa, and he is getting good, solid Republican support,†said Senator Charles E. Grassley, the Iowa Republican, who has yet to endorse any of the candidates. “I’ve seen evidence of them spending more time in Iowa. I’ve seen evidence of him getting people enthused: I’ve had calls from Giuliani supporters in Iowa — and these have been supporters of mine — that they would like me to get involved with him.â€
November 17th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
*interesting*