The latest national polls on the Republican nomination race are literally all over the place. All of them show some slippage for Giuliani, who has been leading most of the year, and gains for Huckabee, Romney, and McCain. One poll shows Rudy maintaining a healthy lead; another shows him tied with Romney and Huckabee and McCain close behind; yet another shows Huckabee taking a slight lead.
So, what does it all mean? For one thing, it underlines the adage that national polls measure more in the way of name recognition than actual strong and committed support. Giuliani led as long as he was perceived to be the leader and dominated debates. The recent Huckabee boom in Iowa has vaulted his numbers nationally and attracted much media attention, though, and Romney's speech on religion and politics in America was well received. Meanwhile, McCain continued his slow but steady comeback, Thompson doubles down in Iowa, and Ron Paul sets a fundraising record as others scramble for donations.
There is only so much media oxygen, and Giuliani hasn't been able to break through the spate of news about his opponents.
We can say this much - and only this much - with certainty: the Republican nomination has become a five-man race, and the "sixth man," Ron Paul, is raising money in quantities which cannot be ignored. It's wide open.
Suddenly Thompson, McCain, and Giuliani are looking again at Iowa, a state all of them had pretty well written off, and playing for a reasonable third place there. They must perceive a value in third in Iowa, else why waste the resources? McCain has almost caught up to Romney in New Hampshire, where the former Massachusetts Governor had held a commanding lead for months. Of the top five, Thompson is most in need of a place to "break out" and, if he doesn't win, at least exceed expectations by enough to regain some momentum, but all four others have prospects to win in at least one of the early-voting states.
This promises to be a long haul unless someone can pull off several early victories.
Permalink | Send To A Friend | Linking Blogs | Digg this!
Filed under:
2008 Presidential Race, Polls, Primaries, Republican
Tags: poll, presidential campaign, primaries, Republicans
Comments (2)
One very important factor t... (Below threshold)1. Posted by Alan Orfi | December 20, 2007 10:39 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
One very important factor to consider when interpreting differing poll results is the political affiliations of the variousn pollsters. One would think that every pollster's primary concern would be accuracy, but there exist several who have binded with liberal-leaning news organizations and their sole focus is to help promote specific agendas. One example is Gallup, who is now joined at the hip with the mainstream media, and their charge is to generate news. So, they will release a poll with something like, "63 percent of Americans have no confidence in the direction of the economy". The news outlet draws on that and has actually created their own "news" about which they blather for days.
It has been equally fascinating to examine these same pollsters' numbers on the Republican nomination process. The liberal agenda-driven polling firms will always promote the Republican candidates they deem weakest in the general election.
1. Posted by Alan Orfi | December 20, 2007 10:39 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on December 20, 2007 10:39
2. Posted by Jim Addison | December 20, 2007 4:05 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Measuring "opinion" is often as much art as science, and the problem is that most pollsters, journalists, and even citizens lose sight of the difference.
It is one thing to measure support shortly before an election, when the electorate is "tuned in" to the race and the questioner can ask "Will you vote for Smith, or Jones?" It's a black-and-white question, and the response can be qualified as to likelihood of voting with some degree of accuracy.
OTOH, measuring support far in advance, or "opinions" such as how someone "feels" about the economy, is quite a different matter. Even if it were possible to measure such things with exact accuracy (and it clearly isn't), the result would only be a snapshot in time, subject to radical change by the next headline.
Results, then, resemble modern-day weather forecasting: If the weather man says "70% chance of rain," he is still "right" if it doesn't rain because he allowed the 30% possibility. Even the most accurate poll with the largest sample will only claim "95% accuracy within the margin of error," which means, in effect, "the result is correct, unless it isn't."
2. Posted by Jim Addison | December 20, 2007 4:05 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on December 20, 2007 16:05