Poll: Huckabee Catches Romney In Iowa

Comments (32)

Jake D wrote on November 15, 2007 10:58 AM:

Didn't we already go over this alleged "surge" in detail? You even changed the headline to delete "surge" Greg.

Jake D wrote on November 15, 2007 11:01 AM:

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/11/_polls_huckabee_surging_in_iowa.php changed to "Moving Up" (as in the Jeffersons: "Well, we're movin' on up / to the top / to a de-luxe apartment / in the sky!"

David wrote on November 15, 2007 11:12 AM:

Greg, you don't understand the concept of Margin of Error. If you insist upon blogging about politics and polls, you really ought to study some more about statistics. 26% and 24% are not a statistical tie. 25% and 25% is a statistical tie. There is some overlap in their probable range, but it's also likely the Romney is still several points ahead. This is really elementary stuff, but journos get it wrong all the time.

stlounick wrote on November 15, 2007 11:14 AM:

I'll repeat my previous forecast after watching Charlie Rose interview Huckabee. Huckabee will win Iowa and will go on to win the GOP nomination. Huckabee is likeable and he has the needed conservative credentials.

Jake D wrote on November 15, 2007 11:15 AM:

Also note that Romney has a huge lead in this poll among Independents and other voters who say they will definitely participate in the Republican caucuses:

Romney is at 39%, Huckabee is at 27%, Giuliani is at 9%, and McCain is at 8%.

Overall, a whopping 47% of likely caucus participants are undecided (13%) or say they could switch candidates between now and January 3 (34%).

71% of those saying they support Romney say their support is definite.

Only 58% of those saying they support Huckabee say their support is definite.

Greg wrote on November 15, 2007 11:17 AM:

David, the term "statistical tie" is not a literal one.

Jake D wrote on November 15, 2007 11:18 AM:

stlounick:

He's gonna need a lot more money to win the White House -- you do realize how much money Hillary and Obama raised -- even how much Mitt and Rudy have, right?

Richard L. Adlof wrote on November 15, 2007 11:19 AM:

Huckleberry gets urges,

then surges,

then he catchs his man . . .

Just what are they putting in the orange juice on the other side of the aisle?

Jake D wrote on November 15, 2007 11:20 AM:

I actually agree with Greg that this one poll has Romney and Huckabee "effectively" tied -- I just have a problem using one data point as the basis for a "surge" description -- Mitt better pray he wins Iowa, that's all I am saying.

Mike wrote on November 15, 2007 11:24 AM:

Someone please tell me that folks in Iowa see where this is going. Huckabee can not win the primary. He doesn't have a chance of taking even half of the early primary states much less all of them as Mitt could. And Mitt taking the bulk of those states is the only way he can beat Rudy's cynical plan of counting on big states where no one has campaigned, where his record and policies haven't been scrutinized, as his buffer. If the early states are split then the only way someone can fight with Rudy in the later states is to spend enough money to counter Rudy's name recognition through paid advertising. The system sucks, but that's just the way it is. A vote for Huck is a vote for Rudy. Are these conservatives in Iowa really okay with that?

Mic wrote on November 15, 2007 11:24 AM:

Josh's front page TMP story on how Huckabee could knock out Romney is interesting. But if Huckabee is able to knock out Romney in the way Josh describes, and also doesn't have the funding to take advantage of his momentum, who does it serve? Probably, McCain and Guiliani. I still think McCain is going to take NH and roll from there. The "it's his turn" thing in the Republican party is still alive.

demwinger wrote on November 15, 2007 11:40 AM:

if Huckabee wins it will be wonderful day for democrats :)

Jake D wrote on November 15, 2007 11:45 AM:

If Huckabee wins the WHITE HOUSE?

Anonymous wrote on November 15, 2007 11:49 AM:

feel the Wayne Dumond-mentum!!!

Nick wrote on November 15, 2007 11:54 AM:

Huck wins Iowa = Rudy wins the nomination. Great. Then we nominate certain-loser Hillary, and ... well, I don't want to contemplate President Rudy. What a freaking nightmare.

GaMaMa wrote on November 15, 2007 12:03 PM:

Huckabee is rising in the polls as a result of people getting a chance to hear him speak on the issues. His grassroots organization is strong and growing. His campaign brought in over $1M the last 2 weeks of October and that was JUST online contributions. Online contributions for this month are equally exciting.

His message is resonating with the American people who believe honesty, hard work and character are important in a civilized society. He's the ONLY candidate on both sides who's number are going up and not falling back.

He will have an effective funding surge AND polling surge after winning or making a good showing in Iowa. This will help to propell him further into New Hamshire and South Carolina.

A VOTE for Huckabee IS NOT a vote for Giuliani - FAR from it! Fox News would like you to believe THEIR "fear-speech" on that because they want Giuliani to sweep the nomination. (before this race began heatiing up, I WAS a Fox News fan. NO Longer)

I urge everyone to do their own research for this most important election. Mr. Huckabee CAN win the nomination, and I support him all the way and encourage you to make whatever donation you can at this time to his campaign. www.mikehuckabee.com

The alternatives: Mitt Romney, who although he seems to be a good fellow - is in actuality a POLISHED POLITICIAN and his flip flop on issues before elections just proves it. He's also using his megabucks to buy votes in Iowa. He's SPENDING $85,000 a DAY on his election. Now I'm not against people having money, but I'd like to believe that our system of electing presidents has not become a game for the "deep pockets" only.
Mr.Giuliani lacks the character traits associated with an honorable Statesman. Perhaps he'd fit in better at the United Nations.
Mr. Fred Thompson, wake up, sir. It's time for your meds. I mean no disrespect. I was excitedly looking for Sen Thompson to enter the race. I was a longtime supporter. But then he did enter the race - but I do believe he left his heart at home.

Mike Huckabee has the message. He's a REAL person. And I think it's time we had someone FROM the PEOPLE go to Washington. He's also a PEACEMAKER. I hold him in high regard. He's a gentleman and a LEADER.

Jake D wrote on November 15, 2007 12:07 PM:

New HamPshire : )

Dave wrote on November 15, 2007 12:15 PM:

I don't want to get into too deep of a discussion of statistical margins of error, but the reported margin of error was +/- 4%, which means Romney could be anywhere from 22-30%, and Huck could be anywhere from 20-28%, correct?

In other words, Romney could be up by as much as 10%, or down by as much as 6%.

Of course, I'm basing this on an undergraduate statistics class understanding of margins of error. Feel free to correct me.

Winston Smith wrote on November 15, 2007 12:42 PM:

Well, at least he's less corrupt than Rudy and less crazy than Romney.

Greg wrote on November 15, 2007 12:42 PM:

right, but this would be basically a statistical dead heat. I suppose I should have said "basically..."

stlounick wrote on November 15, 2007 12:51 PM:

For those worried about the money, I simply disagree with you.

Huckabee is getting Iowa GOP voters on a very slim budget. The money will roll in with an Iowa victory. He will have the money for ads and mailers heading into NH. A second place, close loss in NH would ensure a SC win, IMO. And I think he would then win in Nevada.

I believe this is a change election, and not just for the GOP but for the Dems. Best that we Democrats understand that and not try and nominate a candidate from the past.

ken wrote on November 15, 2007 1:11 PM:

Mitt Romney has been, so to speak, tested and refined, and I’m not talking about his overall competence through his business, political and Olympics experiences, I’m talking about being the frontrunner in the early states. He has been there for several months, and has been able to withstand and deflect all the attacks a typical frontrunner gets. Now, Huckabee is the new kid on the block, and part of being that kid is the ability to ward off the darts. This is going to be the prediction about Huck - In the next few weeks, after the voters have found out about his immigration stances favoring giving tuition breaks to illegals, and tax positions and history, especially those YouTube videos of being a tax-monger, he will slip, slide, and tumble. Romney has weathered the storms while Huck is just now starting to get them, and based on what we’ve seen of him and his positions, even his religious/evangelical connections won’t save him. That’s one of the big differences between Romney and Huckabee.

Been there, done that wrote on November 15, 2007 1:56 PM:

"He's also a PEACEMAKER. I hold him in high regard. He's a gentleman and a LEADER." "His message is resonating with the American people who believe honesty, hard work and character are important in a civilized society. "

You should talk to some of us in Arkansas (who were for him and worked with him) about his character and peacemaking...

Daddy Love wrote on November 15, 2007 2:04 PM:

I don't want to get into too deep of a discussion of statistical margins of error, but the reported margin of error was +/- 4%, which means Romney could be anywhere from 22-30%, and Huck could be anywhere from 20-28%, correct?

Dave, there is an unspoken accompaniment to the margin of error, which is the statistical probability built into these numbers. As you said, without getting too deep: a poll showing of 26% +/- 4% means that there is like a 90% probability that his standing as ACTUALLY 26%, and the probabilities drop off fairly rapidly out to the limits of the margin of error, such that there is something like a <1% probability that he is at 22% or 30%.

Basically, and oversimplified.

Stanley wrote on November 15, 2007 2:40 PM:

Huckabee is attractive on many levels. It would be so much better if we knew he was running for president and not Minister-in-chief. This is a guy who still believes evolution is a hoax. Well, perhaps he is comfortable with the theory of gravity!!

eve wrote on November 15, 2007 3:19 PM:

Huckabee is appealing to some because he comes across as a decent guy. Humble with a sense of humor. Whether he really is decent and humble, I do not know. But he portrays a classic everyman persona. He is good with the quips and tag lines.

If he could raise a lot of money -- a big if --- he could win.

It's how Bush won. It's all in the marketing and the money raising since the msm reports the marketing and rarely looks beyond that anymore.

Clover wrote on November 15, 2007 3:34 PM:

I'm a progressive and I was prepared to dislike Huckabee - until I saw him on Charlie Rose. Even Rose seemed surprised he liked Huckabee. I disagree with about 98% of the things he says but I still LIKE him - which is exactly what will win Huckabee the Independents. They'll understand that they don't need to agree with everything Huckabee says because he'll never get most of the controversial stuff (e.g., reforming the tax code) thru Congress. Meanwhile, 1/3 of the money Romney's spent has been his OWN money. And he's barely holding an edge against Huckabee who's spent far, far less. The truth is - and I live in Boston so I say this as an expert - Romney is the least charismatic human on the planet. He's cold and calculating and that comes thru ever time he opens his mouth.

Jane wrote on November 15, 2007 4:32 PM:

Huckabee comes across as a decent guy. So did Bush.

Given his statement that the right has to learn that life extends beyond the gestational period he has glimmers of moral understanding.

On the other hand, the Wayne Dummond referred to above is a convicted rapist who was released after Huckabee intervened in his parole hearing and went on to rape and then murder his next victim. Just what do we think Mitt's money can make of that?

It is also disturbing that Huckebee trashed all the hard drives on his way out of the State house.

Ian wrote on November 16, 2007 12:14 AM:

Mike Huckabee's ardent support ( http://snipurl.com/fthuckabeeonirs) for the FairTax Act of 2007 (HR 25 / S 1025) ( http://snipurl.com/irsgone ) represents a power shift of massive proportions in America. It lays out a practical ideal of voluntary tax payment, based on a substantial level of taxpayer choice that the plan affords. Since FairTax untaxes basic necessities (up to socially-accepted levels of poverty-level spending), what is taxed is marginal, and/or desired or preferred, on a broader base of retail products and services. This is to say that the taxpayer may, under the FairTax, choose to purchase used products and avoid paying the tax. And, to the extent desired, the taxpayer may choose to self-perform certain services rather than pay for them. This will stimulate do-it-yourself education, improve citizens' self-reliance; indeed the FairTax represents the possibility of ushering in a new "can-do citizen psychology" that would accrue to greater demands for government accountability - truly, a cultural sea change.

Government is the "necessary glue" that enables the social fabric to cohere. It does this by effecting "rules" that ostensibly provide members with equitable access to wealth and resources. It also must provide ostensibly equitable enforcement of those rules in order to mitigate threats to the social fabric. It is unrealistic to believe that the structures of a national government can be supported on donations, thus the need for taxes. Naysayers love to characterize anything purporting to be a "fair tax" as an oxymoron - but it is not true. The idea of fairness has to do with equitable sharing in the cost by all members who depend upon the social fabric for food, shelter, clothing and post-necessity economic enterprise. And, because of the shift of power from politicians and special interests under an enacted FairTax, the elected will find it more difficult to both enlarge government, and implement any dual system of taxation. FairTax strategist, Dennis Calabrese, discusses how the FairTax repeals the income tax ( http://snipurl.com/repealsinctax ), how it does away with the IRS ( http://snipurl.com/doesawaywithirs ), and how it addresses other aspects ( http://snipurl.com/ftvideofaqs ) of frequent concern to skeptics.

The FairTax has a much greater opportunity for success to operate as a "self-regulating" mechanism because of increased visibility. One finds that the current system, ostensibly regulated by the Internal Revenue Code, is in fact poorly regulated because of continually increasing complexity (the effect of "tax favors" from politicians, through lobbyists, to favored corporations and other special interests) stemming from the desire by those holding government position to steer public behavior using tax code "carrots." We have seen how 100 years of this type of behavior has eroded the Nation's currency and the purchasing power of working family incomes. "Visionist," Tom Frey believes the current tax system will soon simply collapse ( http://snipurl.com/incometaxcollapse ); and economist Laurence Kotlikoff heralds that - short of enactment of FairTax (or an otherwise unlikely change in spending habits) - the U.S. will shortly facing an irrevocable economic breakdown ( http://snipurl.com/meltdowninprogress ). (Kotlikoff believes that passage of the FairTax can stave off the economic ruin we're facing, but would be surprised to see it happen.)

Frey and Kotlikoff may be right on both counts, and we may not be able to successfully evoke change; but shall we not try?

Mike Huckabee believes we should. ( http://snipr.com/scrapthecode )

(Permission granted to republish, in whole or part. -Ian)

Richard wrote on November 16, 2007 1:09 AM:

The GOP should embrace Huckabee and at least they can lose with dignity. Hes the most likeable, has the least relative baggage and it is now obvious the best (relatively again) campaigner of the field.

Mike can not only pacify the base he can expand it a bit, along with some GOTV strength down ticket.

Mikes a winner in many ways, although ultimately they all will lose.

monique alpoonte wrote on November 16, 2007 3:03 AM:

evolution which is based on the single cell theory has already been disproven by modern scientists of THIS curent decade, with the discovery of DNA.

however, intelligent design, although not proven scientifically, has never been disproved.

adaptation is a fact, but not evolution.
and evolution is no longer even a theory, because it's been debunked with the discovery of DNA.

please get your facts straight and stop quoting theories from the dark ages in antiquated textbooks of the 20th century.

www.reasons.org

or you can do a quick google search and get informed.

and please someone tell huckabee this. amazing the media doesn't know this either.

monique alponte wrote on November 18, 2007 5:36 AM:

Hillary will win the dem nomination but Huckabee will win the general election.

...you may be missing a key point here. Given Rudy's emerging ethical problems stemming from all things Kerik, the last thing he needs right now are for the evangelical base to think they can unite behind a true believer in the fast rising Huckabee. Yes, Romney has money and organization, but he is blowing through that cash at a high rate. And a large part of Romney's evangelical support results from being seen as the less-than-perfect but most likely Anyone But Rudy candidate. But if Huckabee suddenly emerges as a real alternative for the remaining uncommitted evangelicals to unite behind, then Giuliani may find himself with a re-energized evangelical base opposing him, especially after Rudy loses both Iowa and New Hampshire as they head south. If Dobson and the rest of the uncommitted evangelical leadership feel Huckabee gives them a new chance to control the nomination, then the GOP race shifts.

Posted By: Steve Soto (November 14, 2007 at 3:53 PM)
http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2007/11/14/could-huckabee-actually-win-iowa.aspx

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)