The Candidates
Featured Archives
A rather presumptuous, pandering Mitt Romney said on Friday that in order to win the White House he needs to win both New Hampshire and Iowa in next November’s general election. However, with Mike Huckabee leading in the polls in Iowa by an average of 5.2 percentage points, and John McCain catching up to Mitt in the former Massachusetts governor’s backyard, already within the margin of error, and tied among New Hampshire Republicans, the prospect of a Romney-less Race 4 2008 by the evening of January 8 is beginning to look very real.
- Mitt Romney 28% (32%)
- John McCain 25% (17%)
- Rudy Giuliani 14% (20%)
- Mike Huckabee 10% (5%)
- Ron Paul 8% (7%)
- Fred Thompson 3% (3%)
- Don’t Know 12% (15%)
Among registered Republicans likely to vote in the New Hampshire primary (N=273)
- John McCain 26% (15%)
- Mitt Romney 26% (33%)
- Rudy Giuliani 14% (21%)
- Mike Huckabee 11% (6%)
- Ron Paul 7% (7%)
- Other 5%
Which candidate has the best chance to defeat the Democratic nominee?
- Mitt Romney 34%
- Rudy Giuliani 28%
- John McCain 10%
- Mike Huckabee 4%
Which candidate do you think is the strongest leader?
- Mitt Romney 30%
- Rudy Giuliani 29%
- John McCain 25%
- Mike Huckabee 4%
Which candidate do you think is the most trustworthy?
- John McCain 30%
- Mitt Romney 23%
- Mike Huckabee 12%
- Rudy Giuliani 11%
Which candidate do you think has the most experience?
- John McCain 35%
- Mitt Romney 27%
- Rudy Giuliani 19%
- Mike Huckabee 3%
The race is still wide open – only 28 percent of likely GOP primary voters say they have definitely decided for whom they will vote. Among the undeclared (independents), that figure drops to 22 percent.
Among Democratic voters, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois has opened up a narrow lead over Senator Hillary Clinton of New York, 30 percent to 28 percent. That, too, represents a major shift from last month’s Globe poll, which had Clinton with a 14-point advantage. Former senator John Edwards of North Carolina remained a steady third at 14 percent.
Survey of 410 likely Republican primary voters was conducted December 16-20. The margin of error is +/- 4.9 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted November 2-7 are in parentheses.
December 23rd, 2007 at 4:42 am
I found the Rasmussen number today that 47% would NEVER vote for Romney as shocking and a death blow to him.
Mitt is done.
December 23rd, 2007 at 4:43 am
Not a Mitt fan, but I say:
Never count any one out before counting the votes.
I’ve learned from experience — A lot can change in a very short amount of time.
December 23rd, 2007 at 4:51 am
Looks like it’s going to come down to Iowa for Gov. Romney. He wins there, he shouldn’t have too much difficulty holding off Sen. McCain in New Hampshire.
December 23rd, 2007 at 4:59 am
#3, Isn’t that pretty much everyone except for Ron, Rudy, and McCain’s deal?
December 23rd, 2007 at 5:08 am
Show me the link where Romney said that please.
December 23rd, 2007 at 5:14 am
Just a note:
New Hampshire has 12 delegates to the Republican National Convention.
There will be a total of 2,380 delegates to the RNC.
If someone could manage to win the entire New Hampshire delegation, he would have just over 1% of the delegates needed to be nominated (1,191 is a majority).
If the current percentages hold up until primary day, the candidates would win the following numbers of delegates:
Romney: 6
McCain: 3
Rudy: 2
Huck: 1
Anybody still think winning New Hampshire is essential for the nomination?
December 23rd, 2007 at 5:14 am
Here is the burning question of the moment: Who will Romney endorse?
He slimed Mayor Giuliani.
He slimed Sen. John McCain.
He relentlessly slimed Gov. Mike Huckabee.
So who does Romney turn around and endorse after trashing these mens’ records?
Also: Given the level of disdain the other campaigns cherish in their hearts for the person and character of Romney, I despair of Romney ever getting asked to be anyone’s VP.
December 23rd, 2007 at 5:23 am
#4
Yeah, pretty much. But we’re talking about New Hampshire here. Gov. Huckabee and Sen. Thompson both would lose New Hampshire even if Iowa voted unanamously for them.
December 23rd, 2007 at 5:31 am
BTW, Aron’s being misleading about what Gov. Romney said about needing to win Iowa and New Hampshire.
His comments were about the general election, not the primary.
December 23rd, 2007 at 5:31 am
Re: #7,
Fading Romney targets Huckabee
December 16, 2007
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=DDAC95BA-3048-5C12-001DE605FB543671
Asked in an interview with Politico if he could stop his precipitous drop in the polls and come back by Jan. 3, Romney matter-of-factly replied: “Don’t know. I don’t know.â€
After arguing that he only hoped to finish in the top three, the former Massachusetts governor and onetime Iowa front-runner seemed resigned and said that he was “not going to lose sleep over it.â€
“If it were essential to me to win, if to put bread on the table I had to win this election, if to feel good about myself I had to win this election I might be more anxious about this,†he said.
“But instead I’m happy to describe to the people of Iowa who I am, and they can look at me in my totality and decide if I can help this country. I’m convinced that my experience qualifies me to help America in ways no one else can right now. If they agree, terrific. If they don’t, I’ll go back to my private life.â€
December 23rd, 2007 at 5:40 am
#10
That article is from Dec 1. Well before the Huck-a-bust. Not exactly ‘news’ in this fast moving race.
December 23rd, 2007 at 5:40 am
Dec 16, sorry.
December 23rd, 2007 at 5:43 am
#6: “Anybody still think winning New Hampshire is essential for the nomination?”
No one but Romney. Or so the Romney people have repeated for months. Win the early states primaries and you win the nomination. Win the early state primaries and you win the nomination. Lather, rinse, repeat. Almost US$20 million dollars of Romney’s own money spent on his campaign later, and they’re still repeating it, only now their careful recitations sound less like a prediction and more like a prayer.
Michigan is more likely to decide the issue. Or will it be Florida? Or do we face a contested convention? In any case, you really can’t hold Romney to anything he has ever said, whether it is about his performance in the early states or anything else. He’ll just tell you that he was e.g. speaking figuratively.
On intuitive grounds alone I would predict that Romney persists and campaigns aggressively until the Southern states return their verdict on the Romney candidacy. And given how Romney and his surrogates have abused Gov. Huckabee, I’m fairly confident that the Romney campaign won’t enjoy the electoral version of Gen. Sherman’s triumphal march to the sea.
Anyway, whatever.
#10, Aron
That’s a great article you quote–Martin rules. In the same article Romney admits that he lacks communication skills:
… But [Romney] also plainly recognizes the difficulties posed by Huckabee, a candidate who has risen largely on the strength of his dazzling and down-home communications skills. Natural gifts, Romney admitted, he lacks …
December 23rd, 2007 at 5:44 am
As I thought.
And Romney won’t need to endorse anyone as he will win the nomination – the hard way or the easy way.
December 23rd, 2007 at 6:05 am
Isn’t it ironic how all the ultra-pious, holier than thou Huckapee Hucksters are out on attack while everyone else spending the weekend with their family for Christmas. Thought you could attack while no one was looking huh guys!! Well, A RED SWEATER HIDES THE BLOOD BUT DOESN’T STOP THE BLEEDING NOW DOESN”T IT!!! HAHAHAHHAHAH!!!!!
December 23rd, 2007 at 6:38 am
Methodology of the pollster please: landlines of 2004 Republican primary voters called?
December 23rd, 2007 at 6:41 am
The Romney and Clinton NH firewalls are burning down!! Incredible. No wonder both of them were in NH yesterday.
Romney must focus on winning Iowa and to do so he has to pry some evangelicals away from Huckabee. With so little time left he has no choice but to play the Dumond card. That would make the conversation going into the caucus all about Huckabee and his record on crime. The bump from an IA win would be enough to carry him past McCain.
December 23rd, 2007 at 7:49 am
Romney is indeed falling fast. Just a week ago everyone was saying that Romney’s NH numbers were far enough ahead of the pack to absorb an Iowa loss. That is no longer the case. Now Romney is faced with the very real possibility that a loss to Huck in IA (which is now more likely than not) will sink him in NH.
Not a good couple of days for the Romney camp. John McCain is rising fast.
December 23rd, 2007 at 8:01 am
Didn’t NH used to be called Romney’s firewall?
December 23rd, 2007 at 8:02 am
I wouldn’t take serously anything that came from The Boston Globe.
December 23rd, 2007 at 8:03 am
Falz,
Except it’s not just the Boston Globe that is saying the very same thing.
December 23rd, 2007 at 8:04 am
Sorry, “seriously”.
December 23rd, 2007 at 8:05 am
American Research Group has it tied.
Rasmussen has it within 4
USA Today/Gallup has it within 7
December 23rd, 2007 at 8:19 am
E Dogg,if you take seriously ARG or Rasmussen you’re be surprise and not a good surprise.
December 23rd, 2007 at 8:20 am
Falz,
I have big problems with ARG, but the polling averages don’t lie. NH is tightening considerably.
December 23rd, 2007 at 8:20 am
Aaron,
It’s pretty obvious he was talking about the generals.
December 23rd, 2007 at 8:28 am
Aron. . .I know it’s wishful thinking on your part, but Romney did not say he has to win the two primaries to stay in the race (in the Union Leader article you cite). He’s saying he needs to win Iowa and New Hampshire in the General Election to reach the White House. Huge difference in meaning. You only need to read paragraph two to get that: “It’s important to campaign in both states, but whoever wins will need the support of the population in both states for the general election.” As I’m sure you’re aware, the two states are swing states and will be crucial in a close election. More importantly, in the article Romney is in fact saying that no matter who gets the GOP nomination, Iowa and New Hampshire will be important swing states come November.
December 23rd, 2007 at 8:30 am
Alaska Jake,
You’re right. He was talking about the general election but my reading of where he says he needs *both* NH and IA tells me something else. Bush won in both 2000 and 2004 with only one of the two in each election. So when Romney says that he needs both it means he is either a) worried about his continued weakness in the South or b) pandering to IA and NH by telling them how oh-so-important they are.
December 23rd, 2007 at 8:32 am
Even if Johnny McRino get closer or win NH he can’t win the nomination of the GOP because he needs the votes of the democrats and the independents to win in Michigan, he can’t win SC or Florida.
He is a RINO:
1-He is against the Bush Tax cuts
2-He was against the nuclear option
3-He was the creator of the Gang of 14, which deny the oportunity of several judicial appointees.
4-He is the autor of that aberration called “McCain-Feingold”.
5-You have the McCain-Kennedy.
6-He is a maverick, for pete sake.
If Mike Huckabee is a bad choice (and he really is) then McCain isn’t any better.
December 23rd, 2007 at 8:34 am
Adam,
You are right. For Romney to say that these states are important is really pandering. My, what an astute political observer you are.
December 23rd, 2007 at 8:43 am
Could someone post info about how many delegates each state gets and whether it’s a winner take all primary? Also, what happens if there is essentially a tie?
December 23rd, 2007 at 8:48 am
Falz, 29
Other than immigration, I’m looking for the poll that shows a single one of those “issues” as being remotely important. I can’t find any. As far as immigration goes, you may be surprised that many polls show voters have high confidence in McCain on immigration reform. If you don’t believe me, check the previous postings on this site.
December 23rd, 2007 at 8:49 am
Jason,
He didn’t say they were important. He said he NEEDS them.
December 23rd, 2007 at 8:57 am
Falz,
I just don’t think you’re right. McCain should have supported the cuts but he can plausibly explain that he didn’t because he didn’t want the increased spending. That’s not an offense that the GOP base can’t overlook.
No one cares about the nuclear option anymore. That was SO 2005. In fact, McCain could argue that if the nuclear option went forward the Democrats would be in a stronger position now that they control the Senate.
McCain/Feingold sucked – true. That alone won’t sink him. Fred Thompson supported it too. That didn’t sink Fred. Other things about Fred sank Fred.
McCain/Kennedy was supported by none other than a certain Willard Mitt Romney. If Romney can change his position then why can’t McCain?
And McCain isn’t the only “maverick”. Not wanting to return to Reagan/Bush and being Independent during their tenure speaks to sort of a non-conformist streak too. Don’t you think?
Look if there was a viable across the board conservative…one whose across-the-board conservatism extends back for a while – like before 2004, I’d agree with you. But McCain’s positions are less of a deviation from conservative orthodoxy than Romney, Giuliani, or Huckabee. That’s just a fact. The guy has an 83 ACU rating. Aren’t you Romney guys always saying “Pay attention to what he does…not what he says”?
December 23rd, 2007 at 9:17 am
McCain/Feingold needs to be repealed, but I give the senators credit for their effort to clean up campaigns. It failed, however, because there are groups with unlimited amounts of money trying to influence the election. And most of the money comes from millionaires and billionaires, not small donors.
December 23rd, 2007 at 9:19 am
Adam what’s troubling me about McCain is what he does not what he says. And about the nuclear option we’ll gonna see if nobody care when the next open in the Supreme Court of USA occurs.
December 23rd, 2007 at 9:23 am
There’s no quote from Romney in the article saying that he personally needed to win the Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire primary to win the nomination. The headline writer, as are most of them, was lazy and/or consciously misleading. The original poster here, of course, was biased against Romney.
If Iowa is very close between Huckabee and Romney, Romney will probably win New Hampshire and have a good shot at the nomination. If Huckabee wins Iowa by more than seven percentage points, McCain will win New Hampshire and stand at better-than-anyone-else odds to be the GOP nominee. Most non-evangelical Republicans would have to coalesce around McCain to stop Huckabee.
December 23rd, 2007 at 9:28 am
McCain is obviously making it a close race, but I have to say, he is probably at a peak right now. He just got a ton of endorsements, but he doesn’t have the resources to fight an ad war with Romney.
The USA Today poll that came out (and this poll), show that people believe Romney is the stroner leader, that he is the most electable, and that he most shares their values. Add this to the fact that his supporters are more comitted, and things look good for Mitt.
Also, I like the unbaised and fair way this post was written. Notice how you selectively choose to say that we are looking at a “Romney-less” race, but not a “Giuliani-less” or a “Thompson-less” race – even though those two are clearly in much bigger trouble than Romney.
Oh well, we knew that R4′08 was anti-romney, what else is new?
December 23rd, 2007 at 9:31 am
Falz (#36)
The problem with the nuclear option was that it would have set a precedent for the Democrats to do the same thing if they ever managed to get control of the Senate and the presidency. They currently have a slim majority in the Senate (which will probably increase a bit next year), and look to be in good shape for November’s general election. Would it have been worth it to place a few more judges in the circuit courts, if the price of the “nuclear option” was the loss of the filibuster for the next four years of appointments? I think McCain and the Gang of 14 did the responsible thing, and we’ll be happy about it if the Democrats get a big win next year.
December 23rd, 2007 at 9:53 am
Romney, McCain, and Taxes
December 23rd, 2007 at 9:56 am
The commentors on this thread have posted some of the most unintelligent and ignorant things I have ever read on this site. Not that it should come as any surprise considering the stupidity of what Aron said in the main post. As the traffic on this site increases, the quality and credibility of information posted has decreased along with the quality of comment debates. I will now address some points made directly.
Aron,
“…the prospect of a Romney-less Race 4 2008 is beginning to look very real.”
Iowans are beginning to move back to Romney. I strongly disagree with your assertion that he will lose in both NH and IA. Romney will catch up and win in Iowa and, with the momentum from winning a state he was supposed to lose, will be able to fend off McCain in New Hampshire. If anything is beginning to look very real, it’s the prospect of a Candidate Romney.
Joshua,
“Anybody still think winning New Hampshire is essential for the nomination?”
Bravo, Bravo! Your ignorance is stunning! Candidates don’t try so hard to win IA, NH, and the gang because they are some jack-pot of delegates. They try so hard to win them for MOMENTUM. When a candidate wins Iowa, he will get huge media attention for the week leading up to New Hampshire. When people go to the polls anywhere, they want to vote for a winner. If all they’ve seen on TV for the week before they vote is how candidate X won in Iowa and is defying all expectations, many will vote for him because they’ll feel like they’re on the winning side. The free media attention gained from winning the early states, along with the air of being a winner, are priceless.
Kavon, I think something seriously needs to be done to improve the falling quality of this site.
December 23rd, 2007 at 9:56 am
That link has nothing to do with Taxes.
December 23rd, 2007 at 9:58 am
…or McCain for that matter.
So either you got the wrong story, or you are trying to mislead people into reading about something most of us have had enough of.
December 23rd, 2007 at 10:01 am
#37,
Yeah a Romney=less race? I missed that line. What is is actually happening is a tightening of the race between Huckabee. McCain and Romney. The scenario actually leaves Guiliani and Thompson out of the picture. Aron’s a litte more than desperate here.
December 23rd, 2007 at 10:10 am
like I said, I think McCain is on a little bit of a high right now. He just got all those endorsements, and it makes things look good for him. Once people really sit down and decide who to vote for, probably at the same time Romney launches an ad-blitz, I think they are going to remember that McCain supported Amnesty, campaign finance reform, and the like.
The fact that McCain has had such a good week, and Romney not so much, and yet Romney still leads by a respectable (though not concrete) margin, really speaks to how solid Romney is.
December 23rd, 2007 at 10:51 am
Jason,
Do you disagree with Pat Buchanan?
“If Romney loses Iowa, however, he has to win New Hampshire or he is done.”
Texas Conservative,
To say “the prospect of a Romney-less Race 4 2008 is beginning to look very real” is NOT an assertion that he will lose in both New Hampshire and Iowa, but an acknowledgment that, in recent days, it has become a distinct possibility that the candidate previously perceived as the heavy favorite to win in IA and NH could be done by the night of January 8.
December 23rd, 2007 at 11:10 am
Aron is right and frankly the prospect is causing a stir in some Washington circles because that would leave Huckabee and McCain as the remaining favorites. Neither of them instills confidence in the GOP establishment because they have both demonstrated a willingness to go off the reservation. There is also a real possibility that both could go along with a lot of what a dem congress would propose in terms of taxes.
I think if Romney gets knocked out early there is going to be a rush to prop up Thompson or Giuliani in SC.
December 23rd, 2007 at 11:36 am
… “To say ‘the prospect of a Romney-less Race 4 2008 is beginning to look very real’ is NOT an assertion that he will lose in both New Hampshire and Iowa, but an acknowledgment that, in recent days, it has become a distinct possibility that the candidate previously perceived as the heavy favorite to win in IA and NH could be done by the night of January 8″ …
Which brings me back to my initial question, who will Romney endorse after he so aggressively slimed Sen. McCain, Mayor Giuliani, Gov. Huckabee etc.? Or does he perform another volte face and announce that he was speaking figuratively?
December 23rd, 2007 at 11:45 am
LOL. Romney will endorse whomever will benefit him personally. Perhaps he is looking for an ambassadorship or cabinet post.
December 23rd, 2007 at 12:13 pm
… “So either you got the wrong story, or you are trying to mislead people into reading about something most of us have had enough of” …
But did you read the story? Apparently the Romney campaign is trying to deceive the press with false witnesses–doesn’t this remind you of when the Romneys forwarded the “supporters” who received the anti-Mormon push-pull calls who later turned out to be paid staff? Does this not suggest a apttern with the Romneys? Here is how the story begins:
“… Two women contacted the Mitt Romney campaign this week, offering their memories of seeing Romney’s father march with Martin Luther King Jr., in Grosse Point Michigan in 1963. Campaign officials were well aware that the women were mistaken. Yet, they directed those women to tell their stories to a Politico reporter. The motives and memories of the two women are unknown and irrelevant; the motives of the campaign, however, were obvious — to spread information they knew to be untrue, for the good of the candidate … “
December 23rd, 2007 at 12:48 pm
#49,
He said that link was about taxes, it wasn’t, he lied. period.
Yeah, talk about being honest.
December 23rd, 2007 at 12:56 pm
[...] Republican presidential candidate former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney listens to a question at a town hall meeting in Londonderry, New Hampshire December 22, 2007. Boston Globe GOP New Hampshire Primary (PDF) H/T Aron Goldman [...]
December 23rd, 2007 at 1:49 pm
Interestingly, McCain and Romney are tied amongst Registered Republicans but Romney is leading due to Independents. Of course that could change but very interesting how the often repeated conventional wisdom that McCain needs big independent support to win the primary may not be true.
December 23rd, 2007 at 1:53 pm
On #48 – EXACTLY!
December 23rd, 2007 at 2:00 pm
I highly doubt Romney wants anything other than the oval office. He is already sixty, and would be sixty eight at the end of GOP administration. As McCain has shown, that is pretty old.
If Romney does not win the election, he will probably retire and enjoy life with his family.
December 23rd, 2007 at 2:28 pm
A few additional observations after perusing the internals…
20% of Romney’s supporters name Rudy Giuliani as the strongest leader. Just 7% of Giuliani’s supporters consider Mitt to be the strongest.
22% of Romney’s supporters say John McCain has the most experience; 14% of Mitt’s fans cite Rudy as most experienced. In comparison, only six percent of McCain supporters say Romney has the most experience.
27% of Huckabee’s supporters say Giuliani is the strongest leader in the field.
Mike Huckabee’s supporters are evenly split, 42%-42%, as to whether the income tax should be abolished and replaced with a federal sales tax.
A plurality of McCain supporters, by a 48%-37% margin, believe the Bush tax cuts should be repealed to fund health care. No other candidate’s supporters come close to concurring.
Among John McCain’s supporters, nearly one-quarter (24%) believe Rudy Giuliani has the best chance in the GOP field to beat the Democratic candidate next November.
71 percent of Romney’s supporters consider the challenge of keeping costs down to be the most serious health care problem. Only 22% of his supporters think the most serious problem is that not everyone has insurance (as Mitt mandated in Massachusetts).
Among Men
John McCain 25%
Mitt Romney 23%
Rudy Giuliani 18%
Ron Paul 11%
Mike Huckabee 9%
————————————————
Among likely GOP primary voters aged 18-34
Rudy Giuliani 32%
John McCain 22%
Ron Paul 21%
Mike Huckabee 10%
Mitt Romney 10%
————————————————
Among likely GOP primary voters who have never been married
Rudy Giuliani 33%
Ron Paul 26%
John McCain 20%
Mitt Romney 10%
Mike Huckabee 0%
————————————————
Best chance of beating Democratic nominee
Among likely GOP primary voters aged 18-34
Rudy Giuliani 48%
Mitt Romney 27%
Ron Paul 12%
John McCain 7%
Mike Huckabee 0%
————————————————-
Strongest Leader
Among likely GOP primary voters aged 18-34
Rudy Giuliani 46%
John McCain 20%
Mitt Romney 15%
Ron Paul 12%
Mike Huckabee 3%
————————————————–
Most Trustworthy
Among likely GOP primary voters aged 18-34
Rudy Giuliani 26%
John McCain 23%
Ron Paul 21%
Mike Huckabee 16%
Mitt Romney 9%
————————————————–
Strongest Leader
Among likely GOP primary voters earning $75,000-$99,000
Rudy Giuliani 48%
Mitt Romney 29%
John McCain 13%
Ron Paul 5%
Mike Huckabee 3%
—————————————————
GOP candidate least likely to vote for
Mike Huckabee 42%
Rudy Giuliani 22%
John McCain 17%
Mitt Romney 11%
Among Romney’s supporters, 56% named Huckabee as the candidate they’d be least likely to vote for, 22% said Giuliani, while 17% marked off McCain.
Among McCain’s supporters, 46% had it with Huckabee, 23% won’t go for Giuliani, and 21% won’t miss Mitt.
Among Rudy’s supporters, 50% named Huckabee their least likely choice, 21% said McCain, with 18% most reluctant to vote for Mitt Romney.
Among Huck’s supporters, 45% are least gung-ho about Giuliani, while 35% would readily write a Dear John letter to McCain.
December 23rd, 2007 at 2:38 pm
#55. Rudy could exceed expectations in NH if DuHaime can tap into that 18-34 age group.
December 23rd, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Aron, does the poll indicate “candidate you would definately vote for..”? Previous polls have shown that Romney’s core support had been highest, with McCain 2nd.
consider this. Lets put this poll into perspective. Yes McCain is doing much, much better in NH than he had previously been. But look at RCP in NH.
Since June, Romney has led every poll in NH except 1 ARG poll on July 26th (losing by 1 to Rudy). He has had a lead there for 6 months. His support is very committed as previous polls have shown. Remember to that when early voting began in NH, polls then showed Romney leading by 13-15%. Many of that very committed support (as illustrated in nearly 40 or so straight polls) will have probably gone out and voted early.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nh/new_hampshire_republican_primary-193.html#polls
McCain hopes Independants bring it home for him this time but consider that, regardless of IA results, many independants will vote for Obama or Hillary. Rudy might get some too. Recent polls showed Romney leading among independants as recently as a week or 2 ago. So unlike 2000, when McCain lost the GOP vote but won by a mile because independants and liberals came out to support him. This time independants will support Romney, McCain, Rudy, Hillary, and Obama, and nobody will be able to run up the score with them. In the end, Romney will pull enough solid core GOP votes, and his better groungame and 6 month double digit lead should hold up.
December 23rd, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Colin,
I would be interested in seeing exit polling data from previous New Hampshire primaries to measure the turnout among those 18-34 in contrast with the 7.9% that age group represented in the total sample for this survey.
December 23rd, 2007 at 3:06 pm
husky,
According to this poll, McCain and Romney are tied for registered Republican “likely voters”. So, I would echo your thought about seeing core support numbers just to see what kind of benchmarks we have.
But even core support can ebb and flow, after all….
December 23rd, 2007 at 3:10 pm
Something that always makes me wonder about these internals is how people view the candidates, and then how they actually plan to vote. For example, 35% say McCain is the most experienced, 30% say he’s the most trustworthy, and 25% say he’s the strongest leader – yet that’s what his overall support is.
December 23rd, 2007 at 3:24 pm
husky,
Among likely GOP primary voters who have “definitely decided” for whom they will vote (N=114):
Romney 31%
McCain 27%
Paul 15%
Giuliani 12%
Huckabee 10%
Among likely GOP primary voters who are “leaning to” their candidate of choice (N=117):
McCain 26%
Romney 26%
Giuliani 16%
Huckabee 14%
Paul 8%
Among likely GOP primary voters who have “no idea” whether they’ll vote for the candidate they chose in this survey (N=173):
Romney 26%
McCain 23%
Giuliani 15%
Huckabee 7%
Paul 4%
December 23rd, 2007 at 3:29 pm
#61,
Those “definite” numbers (for Romney and McCain anyway) are the exact figures that Rasmussen had in their last poll, weren’t they? Coincidence?
December 23rd, 2007 at 3:48 pm
Aron,
This CNN exit poll for 2000 NH primary says 11% in the 18-29 age group.
December 23rd, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Colin,
If that’s accurate (and considering that the 2000 exit poll’s data does not include those who are 30-34 — a sub-group considerably more likely to vote than their younger peers), then it appears this Boston Globe poll has undersampled Giuliani’s strongest age bracket by somewhere between 150 and 200%.
December 23rd, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Aron,
Yes, that 7.9% for 18-34 group is too low. Let us hope that the 33-year old DuHaime can find some clever ways to get the voters of his generation to come to the polling booth.
December 23rd, 2007 at 5:00 pm
“Oh well, we knew that R4?08 was anti-romney, what else is new?”
Need some cheese to go with that whine. There are at least three front page Romney posters. Three times how many Thomson supporters there. I think about the same number of posters that there are for McCain and then there’s more Rudy supportes. Romney gets by his rivals, but than your Romney posters attack the other candidates too. Not only do you have a substantial amount of front page supporters, I think you have a plurality of posters. If anyone has a right to complain its Huck supporters. Your whining is pathetic.
December 23rd, 2007 at 5:01 pm
“Oh well, we knew that R4?08 was anti-romney, what else is new?”
Need some cheese to go with that whine. There are at least three front page Romney posters. Three times how many Thomson supporters there. I think about the same number of posters that there are for McCain and then there’s more Rudy supportes. Romney gets by his rivals, but than your Romney posters attack the other candidates too. Not only do you have a substantial amount of front page supporters, I think you have a plurality of posters. If anyone has a right to complain its Huck supporters. Your whining is pathetic.
December 23rd, 2007 at 5:14 pm
A “presumptuous, pandering Mitt Romney”? Like, is there any other kind?
December 23rd, 2007 at 7:15 pm
#31 Mike: My preferred source for how many delegates each state has and how they are distributed is The Green Papers at http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/
The information is distributed among various pages on that site.
#40 Texas Conservative: Yes, I know about momentum in the context of presidential campaigns. I’m old enough to remember when George Bush (”41″) won the Iowa caucus in 1980, declared he had “Big Mo” (momentum) on his side, then went on to lose the New Hampshire primary. There is some element of momentum in the campaigns, but don’t place too much emphasis on it.
Thinking that New Hampshire is the key to the nomination would be like deciding in April, after your favorite baseball team wins the first two games of the season, that it’s time to order World Series tickets.
December 23rd, 2007 at 8:32 pm
Aron,
I came in late so i dont’ know if anybody mentioned this already, but I am pretty sure that Romney was speaking to the general election in those comments, not the primary. The Union leader seized upon the situation to take his words out of context to play the expectation game against him. why would romney say i have to win both ia and nh to get the nod. He wouldn’t.
shameless reporting with zero integrity.
December 24th, 2007 at 12:19 am
“A rather presumptuous, pandering Mitt Romney said on Friday that in order to win the White House he needs to win both New Hampshire and Iowa in next November’s general election.”
Um, Romney didn’t say that, the New Hampshire Union Leader said it, and they’ve endorsed McCain. They don’t even include a quote.