« Tancredo Drops Out, Endorses Romney | Home | New Poll Shows Dems Could Win Historically-Red Virginia »
Another Poll Shows Rudy Has Lost National Lead
Another national poll -- the new Fox News survey -- finds that Rudy has lost his national lead. And strikingly, it also finds a three-way tie nationally for the Republican nomination — with the previously moribund John McCain one of the trio.
Rudy has 20%, Huckabee 19%, and McCain 19%. Behind them are Mitt Romney at 11% and Fred Thompson with 10%. A month ago, Rudy had a healthy lead with 33%, with McCain his closest competitor at 17%. Huckabee, meanwhile, has shot up 11 points.
On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton has actually widened her national lead even as she's started to struggle in the key primary states. Hillary has 49%, Barack Obama 20%, and John Edwards 10%. A month ago it was Hillary 44%, Obama 23%, and Edwards 12%.
Advertisement
I heard he is really really sick
December 20, 2007 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
FOX POLL SHOWS CLINTON'S NATIONAL LEAD WIDENING WHILE RUDY'S PREVIOUSLY COMMANDING NATIONAL LEAD HAS VANISHED
Hillary on the rebound or has the Dem race remained essentially "static", with voters just "flirting" with other choices before returning "home"? Has the news of Clinton implosion been greatly exaggerated?
Last three IA Polls
ARG 12/19 HRC 29% BHO 25% JRE 18%
CNN 12/18 HRC 30% BHO 28% JRE 26%
RAS 12/17 HRC 31% BHO 27% JRE 22%
December 20, 2007 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank heavens somebody finally came out with a poll that appeared to have good news for Hill in it. DCShungu was on the verge of withdrawal.
December 20, 2007 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL. I had predicted that things would quickly turn around for HRC, just in time for the early states elections, as her core supporters return to "home", and the MSM, bored with beating on HRC, will yet again change the narrative with, these polls kick-starting the new cycle that will run into the IA caucus...
December 20, 2007 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
He was in St Louis last night for a campaign event which had to be cancelled because only ~10% of the expected crowd showed up, and they did not dare go on and give the t.v. reporters a chance to show all of those empty spaces in the hall. He packed it up and got on the plane to head to Columbia, MO when he announced that he was feeling really ill. He checked into Barnes-Jewish hospital in St Louis last night and they found nothing wrong with him, so he is back on his way.
December 20, 2007 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I had long suspected that McCain was going to surge back into the running as time wore on. As the saying goes - democrats want to fall in love, while republicans want to fall in line. The longer it takes for a real consensus front runner to emerge in the GOP pack, the more the conditions favor the establishment candidate, and no one in this race is more establishment than McCain.
December 20, 2007 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is unfortunate that Hillary has such an advantage because she is the "default" candidate (and by "default" I mean married to Bill). The polls from Iowa show that when people really get a close look at Obama they love what they see and Hillary's numbers take a big hit. This is especially the case in hypothetical general election matchups, Obama's numbers destroy Hillary's against every Republican candidate there. If only more people in other states would take the time to really learn about Obama (and take the time to actually look at Hillary's record and character) these national numbers would look completely different. Well, it wouldn't even take that much actually, according to the polls, if people simply stopped supporting her just because she was married to Bill her support would drop significantly. Unfortunately way too many Democrats out there feel it is legitimate to vote for someone because of who they are married too...which reflects very poorly on the state of our democracy.
December 20, 2007 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just because things are not going according to your wish does imperil 'democracy'.... And would care to provide any evidence to support your contention that Hillary's support is attributable to her husband?
For someone who does not understand the importance of a candidate's "position papers" on issues, you sure do pontificate a hell of a whole lot about experience and character!!!
December 20, 2007 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
You asked for evidence that people are supporting Hillary because of Bill. New York Times national poll of Dec. 11 asked Dem primary voters why they support their candidate. 13 percent of all decided voters said "Married to Bill Clinton." Since only 48 percent of decided voters (44 percent of all) were for Hillary, fully 27 percent of her supporters gave that as the number one reason for supporting her! That's either the number one or two most popular answer for Hillary supporters (there's not enough info in the report to tell between "Married to Bill" and "Good Experience").
See:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/20071211_POLL.pdf
page 16
December 20, 2007 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dan Edelstein wrote that the two most popular reasons for people to support Hillary are "married to Bill" and "good experience." I take it that the two categories are mutually exclusive.
December 20, 2007 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where is Ron Paul on any of these polls? I do see his name on the last intrade poll - whatever that means - but he is listed below actor/lobbyist Thompson despite having double the numbers. Strange.
December 20, 2007 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
A few weeks ago, the Giuliani campaign put out the idea that he had a plan that would give him the Republican nomination even with losses in Iowa & New Hampshire. It was, they said, a national plan designed to key on the big vote states. At the time I said that the release was no more than an attempt by the campaign to inoculate Giuliani against a sudden, drastic drop in support in the races soon following Iowa & New Hampshire. A loss in confidence in Giuliani can quickly turn into a runaway train, and not a ride with a good end for him.
December 20, 2007 11:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Audacity of despair
or
the way you look
is how you look at it
I'll repeat what I've said several times, long before the recent shape-shifting: McCain has been the one to fear--the maniac could win. AND Hillary is our best shot overall. Don't make excuses about why this seems to be true. Look at the material at hand.
You don't want to hear it, but Edwards did not vote much differently from Hillary when he had the chance, and as Krugman has explained, Obama is actually less progressive on some key issues.
So continue to fight for Edwards--he talks a better game--Now. And if he wins I'll be worried but happy to work for him, Breck and all. Same for Obama, with a little more poetic justice thrown in. Remember that's how the Repugs moved in the WHITE house to begin with. But if Hillary wins, you better work like hell for her, duplicity and all, because if you don't think things can get worse, you haven't been paying attention.
The way she wins is to put Richardson in the number two spot and tell all the immigrant bashers to shove it cause we are about embracing our Hispanic brothers--who come for places with genuine Democratic aspirations, and we intend to welcome them into our party. That is the Latin Strategy. With it we'll have three branches for twenty years. In that time we might get a few little things done.
In the mean time, let us all take a deep reality breath--while the carbon levels permit--and remember that America is not a Democracy and it never was meant to be--it is a neo-fascist plutocracy. The constitution guarantees the advantages of the powerful. But if you tell me how you can convince an Wyoming Senator to give up his priviledges before the rapture, I'll turn believer and wave this precious rag, which I admit, is better than nothing. Cause it could be worse, and it probably will be.
But this voting business is better than nothing to. So let's go about walking the walk and be a little less silly doing it.
December 21, 2007 1:42 AM | Reply | Permalink