Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of 571 Likely Republican Primary Voters was conducted by Rasmussen Reports January 15-18, 2007. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 4 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence (results reported may not be complete-KWN):
Rudy Giuliani 30%
John McCain 22%
Newt Gingrich 12%
Mitt Romney 10%
Mike Huckabee 2%
Sam Brownback 2%
Chuck Hagel 1%
Another poll released by Rasmussen today contains some bad news for Sen. McCain:
Senator John McCain (R), one of the most vocal advocates of sending more troops to Iraq, has lost ground in the Election 2008 sweepstakes. He now trails both John Edwards (D) and Barack Obama (D) in general election match-ups. Prior to this survey, McCain had been ahead of every Democratic challenger in every Rasmussen Reports poll (see summary of general election match-ups).
Obama leads McCain 47% to 44%. Edwards also holds a three-point lead, 46% to 43%. A month ago, McCain held a two-point edge over Obama and a five point lead over Edwards.
McCain’s support has declined among unaffiliated voters. Obama now leads McCain by an 11-point margin among this important segment of the electorate. Edwards and McCain are essentially even among unaffiliated voters.
McCain’s position on Iraq considered the most important issue by voters–may be taking a toll. Most Americans want exactly the opposite of what McCain advocates and want to reduce the number of troops in Iraq. Public confidence in the War on Terror has declined sharply in recent months and a plurality now believes that the terrorists are winning. Ninety-four percent (94%) of Americans say it is likely that American soldiers will still be facing combat in Iraq when the next President is sworn into office on January 20, 2009.
In addition to McCain, Obama now leads in head-to-head match-ups with Mike Huckabee (R), Mitt Romney (R), and Newt Gingrich (R). Rudy Giuliani is the only Republican with an advantage over the charismatic Democrat.
Edwards leads Huckabee and Romney, but trails Giuliani.
Update: Meanwhile, Soren Dayton over at Eye on ’08 has analyzed the Hotline/Diaego Poll from last week and concluded that the group most likely to have a problem with Mormonism are Republicans:
48% of Republicans have an unfavorable view of Mormonism. (Evangelical Christians??) Only 38% of Dems and 26% of Independents have an unfavorable view. Also, more Republicans have opinions (I won’t say “informed”) on this (only 1/4 do not, versus 1/3 for Dems and almost 1/2 for Independents) Republicans have more negative and more defined views of Mormonism than anyone else. In other words, Romney’s problem is with his own party’s base in the primary. Independents just won’t care so much.
January 23rd, 2007 at 3:05 pm
This is great news for the Giuliani camp, as the air of inevitability and electability combine to form a powerful force in American politics.
The big question mark is still Newt Gingrich… I’d like to see a poll where Scott asks Gingrich voters who they would vote for if Newt decided not to run.
January 23rd, 2007 at 3:28 pm
At this point, I think a Giuliani/Gingrich ticket would be the best option for the GOP.
Giuliani would be the frontman and the guy to bring in the Reagan Dems, the Italians, the Catholics, and the independents/moderates. He’d focus mostly on nat’l security/foreign policy/killing terrorists and being in charge, maybe 2 or 3 signature domestic things like school choice, tax cuts, and the like.
Newt would be the conservative point man, the ideas man and have a big say on domestic policy. His presence on the ticket would sure up the conservative base/South and carry big weight with theconservative establishment.
I think as VP, Newt’s baggage and electability issues won’t be a factor but his presence will help Rudy with conservatives without hurting him with independents/moderates.
It’s odd that Rudy leads virtually all the polls, has huge favorable ratings, leads general election polls, and has all these things going for him but no one takes him seriously. At some point, when does the hype stop being hype?
January 23rd, 2007 at 3:31 pm
I can’t speak for anyone else, jim, but for me I won’t start taking these polls really seriously until after this summer and the Ames Straw Poll has its chance to make these guys honestly assess their chances.
That being said, racking up a 21-3 lead on your opponents in the first half of a ball game is pretty good and a great thing for Giuliani. Let’s see if he can hold that lead better than the Pats did last Sunday.
January 23rd, 2007 at 3:32 pm
A Giuliani/Gingrich ticket is pure suicide. I’m sorry, but a ticket with a grand total of six former or current wives is an astonishingly bad idea. Either one could justiably appear on the ticket, if the other slot was filled with an obvious “family man”, but together they’re doomed. I think there are a handful of tickets which make absolutely no sense from a strategic standpoint. That’s one of them. As is a Romney/Giuliani ticket (two northeastern Republicans?).
January 23rd, 2007 at 3:40 pm
These polls also help corroborate my belief that Giuliani is relatively impervious to the nia. Hillary does significantly better against Giuliani then does Obama, while McCain beats Hillary and loses to Obama. I think this is mainly because Obama’s entire appeal at this point is his supposed “star-power”, something that’s neutralized in a Giuliani/Obama matchup (and I’d argue, will be neutralized in a Romney/Obama matchup once Romney actually becomes better known). I’m actually pretty happy with these poll results because they really confirmed all of my assumptions. McCain is particularly vulnerable to the young, charismatic figures like Obama and Edwards, while Rudy isn’t.
January 23rd, 2007 at 3:56 pm
“It’s odd that Rudy leads virtually all the polls, has huge favorable ratings, leads general election polls, and has all these things going for him but no one takes him seriously. At some point, when does the hype stop being hype?”
Or conversely, when do people start accepting reality?
Rudy and McCain are the clear cut frontrunners. And right now, Rudy appears to be surging.
January 23rd, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Oh Heavy – why did you have to tread into the Pats game? I’ve been trying to put that behind me and focus now on the Sox, but with your comment I skipped all the other comments after you just to write this reply. My heart is deeply saddened by your comments.
January 23rd, 2007 at 4:05 pm
Sorry, RayB – do they offer any kind of counseling for this sort of thing up in that part of the country?
January 23rd, 2007 at 4:13 pm
“[Rudy would] focus mostly on nat’l security/foreign policy/killing terrorists and being in charge, maybe 2 or 3 signature domestic things like school choice, tax cuts, and the like.”
Hmmm. I still wonder how you guys think that Rudy will deal with the fact that he has been 100% supportive of the Bush national security appproach – which has turned out to be so disastrous. How does being mayor of a city attacked, and handling well the aftermath of that, but then supporting deeply flawed policies, amount to a national security credibility?
As for the domestic issues, well – education is supposed to be a local and state level enterprise. What can (or should) a federal leader be doing to rejigger the educational structure?
And tax cuts? Hello people,,,,we have federal budget deficits. There is no such thing as a tax cut when there is a deficit – it is only a tax deferral – asking your children to pay your share of taxes (with interest).
January 23rd, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Tano, Tano, Tano… that’s the problem with the liberal economic ideology – it’s incomplete picture of how the economy works.
First, your underlying assumption is that we must raise taxes to close a budget deficit. Unfortunately, that is not the case. The better way is to cut spending. If your family is taking in $3,000 a month and spending $4,000 a month, and you see that you are spending $1,500 on eating out at restaurants, what are you going to do – go try and get a better paying job or stop eating out as much?
Secondly, supply-side economics have been proven trustworthy under Reagan and Bush – that is, after their respective tax cuts, federal tax revenues went up! In fact, we are currently taking in the highest amount of tax revenues in this country’s history. How can this be, you ask? It’s this silly thing that conservative ideology is built upon: if you give more people more incentive to do more things, more results will happen. In this case, giving more people an incentive to start businesses, hire workers, get jobs, etc. by making taxes lower results in more people working. More people working results in more people paying taxes. More people paying taxes at lower rates equals more tax revenues than less people working at higher rates.
Just like how Wal-Mart manages to outsell their competitors, even though their prices are significantly lower.
The problem has been reigning in out-of-control spending, which has been one of my biggest gripes about the current Congress. We’re taking in record amounts of revenue, but also spending record amounts of it as well. That’s why I think we need someone like Romney, who has a proven track record of taking organizations in financial ruin and turning them around, leading this country for the next four years of the Presidency.
January 23rd, 2007 at 4:24 pm
Tano,
Tax cuts have this funny little effect of increasing federal revenue. That is why we conservatives are so fond of them, Oh, because we want to reward our rich corporate overlords of course
.
January 23rd, 2007 at 4:27 pm
Heavy,
We are wasting our breath here. Bottom line is that liberals want to take our money and decide what’s the best way to spend it. No amount of data, facts, etc… regarding the beneficial effects of the Reagan and Bush tax cuts can change that fact.
January 23rd, 2007 at 4:27 pm
Oh, yes – how could I forget that part of it, Kavon? Careful revealing too much of our playbook!
January 23rd, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Oddly enough, considering I most commonly identify myself as a fiscal conservative (as opposed to a social conservative, or a war or terror conservative), I’m not much of a supply-sider. I personally think tax cuts on the middle and upper middle class make the most economic sense. If I could magically devise brackets, I’d cut taxes for people in the 75-180k range.
January 23rd, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Actually, the best solution is to have someone who cuts taxes AND balances budgets. It doesn’t need to be an either/or game. As far as I know, Romney is the only one standing in this category.
January 23rd, 2007 at 4:44 pm
Heavy – no there is no counseling for that sort of thing of here. It happens so rarely that there’s never been a need. That, must somehow tie into your’s and Kavon’s supply-side economics comments. lol
January 23rd, 2007 at 5:26 pm
My ultimate conclusion: Run Rudy Run!
My penultimate conclusion: Newt for Veep!
January 23rd, 2007 at 6:11 pm
If Rudy gets the nomination I dont see him going with Newt, why frighten away the moderated youre picking up with Giuliani? (whether its fair or not to newt, he’d do exactly that) A lot will depend on who the Dem nominee is. If its Hillary I bet you see someone from a Florida or Missouri, one of those redder states she plays well in. If it is Obama go with a Hispanic to try and stake out a claim with the other minority vote. With Edwards a Veep like Thompson who helps against some of Edwards regional in the upper midwest. Of course, Im knocking on wood right now because first Rudy has to get the nomination.
However, I could certainly see some sort of deal with Newt where he gets Veep (or sec. of something) in return for backing Rudy in the primaries and giving him a stronger conservative pull to win it.
January 23rd, 2007 at 10:11 pm
Rudy/Alberto Gonzalez
January 24th, 2007 at 4:50 am
Heavy,
First of all, I said nothing about raising taxes (as opposed to cutting spending). I merely pointe3d out that cutting taxes when there is a deficit amounts to deferring taxes to future generations. There aint no way around it – if you refuse to pay the bills due today, then will be paid later.
Secondly, supply side economics is a crock. How on earth can you claim that the experience under Reagan was a success? During those eight years the national debt QUADRUPLED. Reagan was the single most fiscally irresponsible president in all of American history. Hey, y’all got your tax cuts, but the debts have to be paid eventually – there is no free lunch.
The whole theory rests on the assumption that the economy is on the right side of the (absurdly simplistic) Laffer curve. But there is no evidence that it is there. All your arguments amount to is a recantation of theory. But in the real world, it has not worked out that way.
Funny, but I seem to recall that the greatest period of economic expansion followed a (modest) tax increase – one that all your fellow party members guaranteed us would destroy the economy (based on those wonderful theories of yours).
January 24th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
Grant:
I said before that you and I were no more than a page apart!