Poll: McCain Closes To Within Two Of Rudy; Hillary Holds Solid Lead
New CNN poll just in: It finds that John McCain has closed to within two points of Rudy Giuliani -- a lead that's dwindled from a 16-point lead Rudy held in March. Today's numbers:
Giuliani 25% McCain 23% F. Thompson 13% Romney 10%
Of course, the March poll didn't include Thompson, so that may partly explain Rudy's sharp drop in support, though without Thompson in the race CNN finds Rudy's lead growing to a mere five points. Also worth noting: The poll was taken after the GOP debate last week.
Meanwhile, Hillary's lead over Obama is a solid 14 points:
Clinton 38% Obama 24% Gore 12% Edwards 12% Richardson 5%
The numbers show an eight point spike for Hillary since last month, bringing her back to where she roughly was in March. Bush's approval rating, meanwhile, is 38%.
Advertisement
does hrc have a just too much of a ground operational advantage for obama to overcome? i mean, it seems like this will be over by feb? i'm not a pro at this, but all the primaries are front-loaded to the point where this really be all over by feb 28th, won't it? and, we're going into the summer dulldrums. i like hrc, and have stated as such. but i don't follow this like a lot of other people do . . sort of like how my roomie follows baseball, like a religion. when will the important stuff happen?
May 7, 2007 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree organizational that hillary will be awfully formidable. not sure how one gets past that
May 7, 2007 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
thanks for the reply.
May 7, 2007 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg,
What happens to the Democratic results when you take Gore out?
Seems to me the poll is fairly absurd to be measuring support for Gore when there's no reasonable indication of any kind that he is or will be in the race. Who benefits when Gore is removed from the poll: Hillary, Obama Richardson or Edwards or is it a wash? Without that info, I'm not sure there's much useful information on the Democratic race. If either Edwards or Richardson got the lion's share of that 12% it would make them competitive. If Obama got it, he's in a dead heat with Hillary. If Hillary gets most of that she swamps the field.
Whatever the truth of the matter, with Gore included, the poll can and should be criticized for skewing the results in a manner that may well distort what's really going on in the electorate.
May 7, 2007 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
IIRC, Gore takes points away from Obama, Edwards and Clinton, but more support is taken away from Clinton than the others. I believe their were two polls that showed the same trend. One thing to look at is the two person race that you can find at the poll tracker. HRC easily beats both Obama and Edwards in a one-on-one. I'm not convinced that Edwards or Obama have what it takes to beat Clinton. Not even combined. At least I'm not willing to take that bet...yet.
May 7, 2007 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rudy also is plummeting in NH, and now loses to Romney.
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/poll_surveyusa_new_hampshire_p.php
May 7, 2007 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really think the North-East is Rudy's only shot in the Primary. If he can't carry states like NH, he really has no place in this conversataion - within the GOP.
May 7, 2007 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shouldn't that be 28%?
May 7, 2007 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
The second choice polls are interesting too. CNN doesn't distinguish by first-choice candidate, but the May 3 Quinnipiac poll (see pollster.com) had one that showed 46% of Edwards supporters picked HRC as their second choice, and 55% of Obama supporters did so (I think each got about 20% of the other's second choices). I haven't seen other polls to confirm if this shows up repeatedly, but if so, it seems to contradict the idea that Edwards and Obama are competing to be the "anti-Clinton." In fact, if either of them dropped out, the cumulative impact would be to widen HRC's lead.
May 7, 2007 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would gladly and proudly vote for ANY one of the Democratic candidates. Edwards, Obama, Clinton, Richardson, Dodd, Biden, Kuchinich (did I leave anyone out?).... even the cranky guy from Alaska would be better than any of the Republithugs.
Of course Gore would join that fine list if he decided to run... I'm so proud of the Dems....
May 7, 2007 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
A lot will happen in Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, and South Carolina (and now Florida?!) between now and the caucuses/primaries in January. Obama and Edwards will both have formidable ground operations in place and the funds to compete effectively.
Hillary may well win, but she certainly won't coast to victory.
The race may be over by February 6, if not before, although there are some scenarios by which it could continue a bit longer if the candidates split some of the early states.
May 7, 2007 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
$25 million should help.
May 7, 2007 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Click on the link. CNN actually does show #s with Gore out. Then it's Clinton 41, Obama 27, Edwards 14, so not substantially different.
One problem is that this is a national poll. A second problem is that they poll registered Democrats, not likely caucus-goers and primary voters. Several folks have suggested that those factors both weigh in Hillary's favor, as registered Dems are somewhat less avid followers of politics and I think also somewhat more centrist than caucus-goers and primary voters.
The race will most likely be decided by Dems who caucus in Iowa (and Nevada) and vote in the New Hampshire primary (and perhaps South Carolina).
Those aren't two-person races, though, they are multi-candidate (think Iowa 2004), so lots of things can happen as more people come to know the field from their campaigning, the debates, their TV ads and mailings, etc.
btw, I totally agree that it's misleading to include Gore.
May 7, 2007 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink