The Candidates
Featured Archives
- Hillary Clinton 50% (48%)
- John McCain 48% (50%)
- Barack Obama 49% (48%)
- John McCain 48% (48%)
- Hillary Clinton 55% (51%)
- Rudy Giuliani 42% (45%)
- Barack Obama 56% (52%)
- Rudy Giuliani 40% (45%)
- Hillary Clinton 56% (54%)
- Mike Huckabee 42% (44%)
- Barack Obama 58% (55%)
- Mike Huckabee 39% (40%)
- Hillary Clinton 58% (54%)
- Mitt Romney 40% (43%)
- Barack Obama 59% (54%)
- Mitt Romney 37% (41%)
Favorable / Unfavorable (Net)
- Barack Obama 55% / 28% (+27%)
- John McCain 54% / 29% (+25%)
- Mike Huckabee 38% / 30% (+8%)
- Rudy Giuliani 46% / 39% (+7%)
- Hillary Clinton 53% / 47% (+6%)
- Mitt Romney 31% / 39% (-8%)
For each of the following candidates, please tell me whether you will definitely vote for that person in November if they won their party’s nomination, whether you might consider voting for that person, or whether you will definitely not vote for that person in November.
Definitely for / Consider voting for / Definitely not vote for
- Hillary Clinton 37% / 19% / 43%
- Barack Obama 30% / 32% / 38%
- John McCain 22% / 35% / 43%
- Rudy Giuliani 19% / 25% / 55%
- Mike Huckabee 15% / 31% / 52%
- Mitt Romney 13% / 25% / 62%
Survey of 840 registered voters was conducted January 9-10, 2008. The margin of error is +/- 3.5 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted December 6-9, 2007 are in parentheses.
January 12th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Tails they win, Heads we lose.
January 12th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
yet another meaningless national poll.
January 12th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Look at how badly Hillary and Obama destroy Romney. But the scary thing is, get a load of this stunning opposition to Romney:
“The poll contained some worrying news for Romney: 62 percent of those surveyed say they will definitely not vote for the former Massachusetts governor in the general election, compared with just 13 percent who say they will definitely support him — the worst showing of any of the major candidates.”
Let that sink in for a minute. Romney’s core opposition blows Hillary’s negatives out of the water. 62%!?!?! He loses to Obama by 22 points and Hillary by 18. Thank god it looks increasingly likely that he won’t get the nomination.
January 12th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Stupid idiotic polls that mean nothing at this point.
January 12th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
I took a national poll the other day that forced me to pick between Huck, Obama, and Bloomberg. Talk about a nightmare and something that would never happen, because I would probably stay home if that was the general election setup.
January 12th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Illinois,
They don’t mean nothing anymore. People are a lot more aware of the candidates. When one of our guys is hated by 62 percent of the electorate, that is a problem for him. And if our party decides to pick him to hold our banner it’s a big problem for us.
January 12th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
LJ. . . I don’t believe that 62% number for a second. Those are LBJ-Goldwater numbers, which occurred during an historic restructuring of American politics unseen since Reconstruction, not to mention the Vietnam War and the death of JFK one year earlier. To believe that number assumes – wrongly – that more than 10% of GOP voters switch parties or stay home, based on the voting totals from the past couple elections. As much as Romney haters want to believe that would happen, they are just plain wrong.
Why anyone who knows anything about politics would put any credence in a national poll at this stage of the race just amazes me. I’ve said this a million times, but I’ll say it again. National polls taken during primary season are strictly based on name recognition and party identification, and nothing else. I would bet my life that 97% of Democrats couldn’t name three policies put forth by the entire GOP field, just as 97% of GOP voters couldn’t name three policies put forth by Clinton and Obama. These polls make good news filler, but that’s about it.
January 12th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
I’ve always said people don’t LIKE Romney and see or sense that he is a smarmy, phony, dirty-player.
The GOP will never nominate him, and he is only being a spoiler now.
January 12th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Mitt has come back from deeper holes than this. In fact, his forte is to start in the hole and come out of it wildly successful. The bold number should be next to America’s Mayor! This was the guy who thought he could go from writing off all the pre-Florida states, moonwalk to the nomination and sweep Hillary coast to coast. How’s that working out for him?
January 12th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Alaska,
That’s just spin. If 62 percent of voters are willing to say they won’t vote for Romney then that’s a really deep ditch for him to try to dig himself out of. Why would SIXTY TWO percent of people say they would never vote for Romney under any circumstances if there wasn’t widespread dislike and distrust of the man?
I’m waiting for that fat blowhard Rush Limbaugh to tout this 62 number on Monday as he has been saying for the last year that 50 percent of the country wouldn’t vote for Hillary. Somehow I get the feeling that that sort of objectively analysis will be lacking as he will continue to play whore for National Review Online and the GOP Establishment.
January 12th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Hello, all (McCain-site publisher)-
One thing I noticed in this particular poll:
HRC’s negatives, obviously, remain through the roof. Her negative rating is 47%, far higher than Obama at 28%, with a +/- of +6%, compared to Obama’s +/- of + 27%.
But here’s what I don’t understand -
This same sample, after telling the pollster how much more they dislike her than Obama, gave the following responses on general-election matchups:
HRC vs. McCain – tie. Obama vs. McCain – tie.
HRC vs. Rudy – 13 pt lead. Obama vs. Rudy – 16 pt lead.
HRC vs. Huck – 14 pt lead. Obama vs. Huck – 19 pt lead.
HRC vs. Mitt – 18 pt lead. Obama vs. Mitt – 22 pt lead.
Granted, Obama runs better against every R than she does. But not a lot better. Certainly far less strongly than I’d guess, looking at their respective plus/minuses…
Can anyone speculate as to why?
January 12th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
if you believe and poll especially CNN your an idiot
January 12th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
The Mitt haters seem very disappointed that Mitt remains the Republican front runner even after losing Iowa and New Hampshire.
They probably expected him to just drop out of the race because he finished second and is leading all the others by only 9 delegates. But I’ve got news for the Mitt haters. The South Dakota primary is set for June 3rd and Romney will be in it. He cleared up his schedule for the entire semester and he is not about to go broke like McCain, Huck and now Rudy:
http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/01/cnn-some-senior.html
January 12th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Arg,
Mitt isn’t the front runner. If you think so then you’re delusional.
January 12th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Randy,
Yes, Rudy wrote off all the pre-Florida states, and yet, he remains within the margin of error of the lead among Republicans for whom voters would definitely vote for in November.
John McCain 22%
Rudy Giuliani 19%
Mike Huckabee 15%
Mitt Romney 13%
January 12th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
#10. . . You just proved my point. They have been saying the exact same thing about Hillary for years. These polls are not based on anything but party ID and name recognition, not policy. No one besides politics geeks like us even care about the candidates from the opposing party, and have yet to examine their policies or ideas at all. Dems know relatively more about Rudy and McCain, so I expect those numbers to be based on at least a small amount of policy reaction mixed with a whole lot of historic context. Romney is still an unknown to the average Democratic voter. And of the GOP voters in that poll, it’s still an internal horse race where the party is far from unified. I know you love these polls but they are just fluff.
January 12th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Alaska Jake,
But here’s the clincher. Once Hillary’s negatives got to near 50 percent they stayed that way, give or take a few points, for the last several months. Why should we believe that now that enough people are able to form an opinion of Mitt, and an overly negative one at that, that all of sudden things are going to turn in any meaningful way?
January 12th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
I think Romney’s 62 number could be legit. If so, I believe it comes primarily from two groups.
1) Democrats who recognize his threat and answer no to this survey.
2) Evangelicals who are biased against his religion. Unless you have experienced it first hand, I don’t think any of the pundits have a clue just how deep the hatred is towards Mormons from the evangelicals. Their ministers preach anti-Mormon doctrine regularly. I expect the whisper campaigns in Iowa and Mich will be the unknown factor that defeats Mitt, and the masses will never know that it happened. This is why Huckabee gets the energized grass roots effort. Go check out his blogs and see how many comments are directed toward Mitt. Notice how the grassroots letter that appeared on politico mentions Mitt’s name several times, but no other opponent.
Who would have thought the day might come when a black and a mormon would compete for the presidency. I don’t think we have arrived there yet.
January 12th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
#11. . . The answer is becaused it’s more party identification and less policy based. Half the respondents will hate the other party’s candidates simply because they are from the opposing party. It’s like with me, I don’t like Huck at all, and he’s at the bottom of my list of preferred candidates, but I’d still vote for him over HRC or Obama.
January 12th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
#17. . . That’s not a clincher. Hillary is much more known to the general public than Romney. Once again. . .PARTY ID AND NAME RECOGNITION. If this was June, these polls would be significant. But in January??? With the possible exception of McCain, Republican candidates have yet to even try to appeal to the general public. I don’t know how else to explain this.
January 12th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
#17. . . And why do you believe that “enough people are able to form an opinion of Mitt?”
January 12th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
We’ll just have to disagree then. If it’s party ID and name recognition then why have we not seen anything as high as a 62 on this question before? I think you’re looking at this through rose-colored glasses.
January 12th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
21,
Look at his numbers. he’s the only candidate to have a net negative . That’s a big problem. Mitt is no less known than Huckabee. Why does he net 16 points lower in favorability then?
January 12th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
#22. . . Rudy, FDT and McCain are all known to Democrats in one way or another. Romney is not. Therefore, his numbers will be based solely on being a Republican. In a year – a few years actually – where Dems are ranked higher than Republicans in party polling, I’d expect nothing less than high negative numbers for Romney vs a well-known Democrat, especially a well-liked Democrat as Obama. As for the glasses we’re using, I’d check the anti-Romney tint on yours. It’s awefully blinding.
January 12th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Huckabee employs the unusual strategy of bashing parts of the Republican coalition to promote himself to moderates presumably for general election appeal.
Look how well its working. He drives the divisive Hillary up to 56%. Thanks for nothing, Huck.
January 12th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
#23. . . Huck is very well known among Evangelicals in both parties. That’s a giant positive for him. Once again – PARTY ID AND NAME RECOGNITION.
January 12th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
You still didn’t answer why Romney has a net favorability of sixteen points less than Huck. You simply can’t chalk that up to not being known about as much.
January 12th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
A ROMBOT, looking through rose colored glasses? Surely you jest.
January 12th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Look. Whatever. Romney has been all over the news coverage for the last several weeks and experienced two very high-profile losses in the past two contests. I don’t believe that he is any less known than Huckabee.
January 12th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Never Heard Of
Hillary Clinton 1%
Rudy Giuliani 5%
John McCain 5%
Barack Obama 6%
Mitt Romney 11%
Mike Huckabee 12%
No Opinion
Hillary Clinton 7%
Rudy Giuliani 10%
Barack Obama 11%
John McCain 13%
Mitt Romney 19%
Mike Huckabee 20%
January 12th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Huck and Romney are within the margin of error when you compare how they run against the Dems.
A warm and fuzzy second place is still second place in November. Huck gets warm and fuzzys from Dems who think he sounds like one of them, but they still will vote for the Dem in November.
January 12th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Thanks Aron. Thanks for proving my point. If Huckabee and Romney are essentially tied for NAME RECOGNITION, then Why is Romney doing so much worse ?
January 12th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
32, Romney isn’t doing that much worse than Huck in these polls. Its a point or 2 with Hill and B. Hussein, within the margin of error.
January 12th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
My My, what LIBERAL website or to what LIBERAL base was this poll taken out of. Notice that the most CONSERVATIVE of the group is the one getting pounded on….hmmmm…
The only thing this poll is reflective of is how the MEDIA is depicting these people!!!!
That was so dead on I will say it AGAIN
THE ONLY THING THIS POLL IS REFLECTIVE OF IS HOW THE MEDIA IS DEPICTING THESE PEOPLE!!
Don’t you love how the media gets to pick,or THINK they get to pick, who our president is?
Makes me gag! GO MITT!
January 12th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
#27. . . I’ve explained it 50 different ways, but I’ll try again. McCain and Rudy have significant historic context for Dems to base their opinions. McCain the GOP maveraick, an appealing quality to Dems, and Rudy the 9/11 hero, also appealing to the opposing party. FDT is well known from his acting days, which helps raise positive numbers, and his policies are unknown to Dems at this point, so his numbers don’t go down. Huck is very well known among Evangelicals in both parties, so his numbers don’t drop as much either. Romney is a virtual unknown outside the GOP. Therefor, Dems base their opinion solely on his party affiliation. Being a “Republican” with no other identifying characteristics is more than enough to get low positive numbers.
#28. . . Clearly you don’t read my posts. I’m a Romney supporter but far from a Rombot.
January 12th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
A Romney supporter but far from a Rombot? How can that be? As Churchill said about the Russians, that is a “riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma”.
January 12th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
#36. . . I don’t blindly support one guy in this race. I chose Romney because I think he’s the best candidate, but it doesn’t mean I hate everyone else. I’ve said all along, for over a year now, that McCain (who’s campaign I worked for in 2000) is my close #2, and I was at one time a strong Rudy guy. I don’t know why many people who post here are so negative towards anyone not on their candidate’s bandwagon. I fear for the GOP if the general population is anything like those here on R4′08. Eventually we have to unite around one guy, but judging by the posts that’s unlikely to happen. I actually find those who hate Romney to be way more negative about other candidates as well than Romney people are about the rest of the field. Read the posts and the anti-Romney responses are viciously negative not just against the candidate but against the supporters as well. I’ve been called stupid, shamefull, idiotic, blind, etc. It’s a sad state for the GOP when we hate each other more than the Dems do.
January 12th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Romney is the candidate with the highest vote count up to this point. This is not a poll, not a Boston Globe story, not a pundit prediction. It’s a fact.
Leaving aside Wyoming which he won, this is the current vote tally including Iowa and New Hampshire.
Romney – 105292
McCain – 104025
Huck – 67609
Rudy – 24492
Fred – 18790
If there is a front runner Romney is it. He has the highest level of support. The person who gets the most votes tends to win these things. McCain is the flavor of the month but he will fade like all the others who came before him. Plus, he is broke.
January 12th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
I remember in the summer if ‘88, Dukakis was leading Bush by 17.
January 12th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
You all know that poll is from CNN. Right?.
January 12th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Who really cares about these polls? They have no barring until after the primaries.
If you ask me CNN is throwing away their money.
Their money would be better spent concentrating on Michigan, Nevada, Florida, and South Carolina.
This will all change after the primaries.
January 12th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
I guess people tend to believe what they are told/sold . . . and the constant negativity to Romney by all the newspaper press, TV pundits, and MSM in general has sunk in.
Again, look at his favs/unfavs in places where he has been and is known . . . I can tell you they aren’t that low in Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, Mass, etc . . .
We’ve seen a concerted effort by the press (fanned along by his GOP rivals) to paint him as something that he is not. But it’s seeped into the national conscience. Put him on the stage vs. Hillary and Barack and those numbers would change mighty quickly.
January 12th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
General election campaigns are run to give voters the chance to scrutinize the candidates who have survived the arduous rigors of the nominating process. Polls this far out are useless to predetermine the outcome of that process. Polls of registered voters are particularly useless, because most registered voters are not following the race this far out from November.
January 12th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
The fact is this, McCain and Huck cannot and will not win the general election in Nov. Many Conservatives will not vote for a liberal Republican again.
January 13th, 2008 at 1:08 am
http://www.massresistance.org/
Mass. conservatives speak-out against Gov. Romeny!
January 13th, 2008 at 1:13 am
Wow Romney has been a part of national politics a grant total of 1 year (compared to Hillary’s 16 years) and nearly 20% more voters say they would NEVER vote for him. As someone who thinks Romney is the worst person we possibly could nominate this poll underscores my argument and destroys those made by the Hugh Hewitts of the world.
By the way – all the people replying to this post with statements such as “national polls are meaningless” are Romney supporters.