Polls: Rudy Barely Ahead In Big States
Two new SurveyUSA polls show that Rudy Giuliani's campaign strategy, built around February 5 and larger states, is on the edge of collapse.
In Florida, Rudy has a bare 29% plurality, with Mike Huckabee at 24% and Mitt Romney at 20%. In the last SurveyUSA poll two weeks ago, Rudy had 32%, with Huckabee at 18% and Romney with 15%.
In California, it's Rudy 28%, Huckabee 20%, Romney 16%, John McCain 14% and Fred Thompson 13%. In the December 3 poll, Rudy was at 32%, and his closest competitor, John McCain, had 18%.
If Rudy loses early contests, he could find his poll numbers diminish where he was doing well, as the early winners enjoy momentum from their wins.
On the Democratic side in California, Hillary Clinton has 49%, Barack Obama 30%, and John Edwards 14%.
Comments (12)
Kefa wrote on December 18, 2007 8:42 AM:The smell of burning toast.....Rudi on fire.
DTM wrote on December 18, 2007 8:48 AM:Since apparently Eric only thinks it is newsworthy when Clinton's lead increases and not when it decreases:
Since the last SurveyUSA poll in California two weeks ago, Clinton is down 1 and Obama up 6, with the lead going from 26 to 19. Clinton's peak lead was 27 in October (since then she is down 8 and Obama is up 10).
squenz wrote on December 18, 2007 8:50 AM:Why does everyone treat the primaries as if they were winner-take-all? The delegates are in fact normally split among the top candidates. There is "momentum" of course, but that is usually just played up by the media.
Michael A wrote on December 18, 2007 9:48 AM:Oh, dc, where are you? The big spin for clinton II repeatedly from dc is that she will be able to beat Mr. 9/11 in states like NY and cali, like he even had a chance in these royal blue states. Well, Mr. 9/11 appears to be going the way of clinton II. So, now what's the polling argument in favor of clinton II for races that Mr. 9/11 would allegedly be competative in in royal blue states? Zippo.
Richard L. Adlof wrote on December 18, 2007 9:58 AM:DTM,
The writers here are even handed. It is the news that is bad. Writers depend on sources of information.
The majority of pollsters have all gone corporate media allied. The questions and the pools of people questioned have become polarized. The only polls that count are at the ballot box.
All that being said I would prefer it if the writers talked about positions and platform rather than polls, name-calling and foibles.
DTM wrote on December 18, 2007 11:28 AM:Michael A,
By the way, there are a new series of head-to-head polls out from USAToday/Gallup.
Against Clinton, Giuliani picked up 4 points and is now just 1 point behind her at 49-48 (used to be 49-44). Romney also gained 8 against Clinton while she lost 2, but is still behind 6 points (was 54-38, now 52-46).
Meanwhile, Obama is now up 6 on Giuliani and gaining (was 45-45, now 51-45). He also leads Romney by 18, a 1 point net gain (was 52-35, now 57-39).
Of course, these head-to-head polls are very unreliable. But for those who thought we knew all there was to know about how the voters perceive the relative merits of the Democratic candidates, I think that is pretty clear incorrect.
Michael A wrote on December 18, 2007 11:59 AM:Thanks DTM. I agree with your analysis as always. I will be honest. I have learned a heck of alot about polls reading your posts and your exchanges with dc. I also agree that the head to head issue really is meaningless at this point, but the trends look good.
In fact, these trends as well as the early state trends are all coming in the wake of the clinton II "attacks." They sure keep shooting themselves in the foot and are showing the electorate that they are neither ready to run the country or win a general election. It's time to turn the page and look to the future. People are ready for change not more of the same old, same old.
BKW wrote on December 18, 2007 12:10 PM:Yikes, there's some movement on the Democratic side, with definite improvement in Obama's position, but on the Republican side, that's just nuts -- huge drop-offs for Gulliani. Josh has been talking for some time about the folly of hoping to come back and win the nomination after losing both Iowa and NH, but if the polls are correct, Gulliani would be looking at a third place finish in both states. That would move it from hard to come back to absolutely impossible. Which is too bad, since there's nothing I'd like better than for him to win the nomination. Any of the Democrats could clobber him easily.
Michael A,
It certainly seems reasonable to hypothesize that Clinton's attacks on Obama have actually helped Obama and hurt Clinton, particularly among independents and Republicans.
kjoe wrote on December 18, 2007 2:24 PM:In some states, there is proportional awarding of delegates for both parties, but in some states, particularly republicans, it is winner-take-all.
Is there a link to clear this up?
votenic wrote on December 18, 2007 4:25 PM:2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
New YouTube Video!
The Only Poll That Matters.
Results Posted Weekly Tuesday Evening At Midnight.
Civics Question for everybody: What happens if Obama wins or splits early states with Clinton and Edwards, but HRC holds on to sweep the big states in the following weeks? Is it over? What's the tipping point in the primary process regarding delegates and votes? Right now, HRC is up big in those states, like 20 points big. Is the prevailing hope among Obama/Edwards supporters that an early win or two will turn those big states around in early February? Does everybody REALLY think that will happen?
I'll support whoever the Dem candidate is, but I'm sitting here quietly thinking that Iowa and NH just don't matter as much in the big picture unless Obama/Edwards can somehow convert 20 point leads in some huge states in a 3 week time period. Long shot, no?
