Cue the Drudge siren.
From SurveyUSA:
NH GOP
Rudy: 33%
McCain: 32
Romney: 21NH DEM
Hillary: 40%
Obama: 25
Edwards 23
Note how the Big 3 on either side suck up enough first-choice votes as to deny room for any other candidate to break through. Those waiting for a dark horse to emerge in either party will be disappointed; one of these six individuals will be the 44th POTUS.
On the GOP side, Rudy has finally surpassed John McCain in New Hampshire, demonstrating that the Mayor has a real shot at beating the Arizona senator in one of his strongest enclaves. Romney has also finally experienced the long-awaited jump into relevance. I don’t expect Romney to win independent-laden, libertarian-conservative New Hampshire. The question is whether Mitt can replicate this performance in Iowa or South Carolina.
On the Democratic side, Hillary’s lead in the Granite State over Edwards is not surprising. Edwards is exactly the opposite of what New Hampshire looks for in a Democrat, with his economic populism more at home in the south and midwest. Obama does have to worry though. The primary calendar is very friendly to Edwards, with the senator leading the field in Iowa, likely to win union-heavy Nevada, and also likely to clean up in South Carolina. Given Edwards’ strength in three of the first four contests, both Hillary and Obama have to win New Hampshire to stay in the race until Super Tuesday. If the Granite State is Hillary! country, Obama may just be squeezed out of this thing long before Obamamania can take hold in places like Illinois and California.
January 29th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
Unlike in Iowa, there is little to no room for a darkhorse to emerge in New hampshire because McCain and Giuliani are so pallatable to the voters there. This is the only state where I would be surprised to see a lot of movement in (besides Romney inching up) between now and primary day. My question is whether or not New Hampshire is a must win for Team McCain.
January 29th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
Not necessarily. McCain has a lot of boots on the ground in SC. Presumably if Rudy wins NH, McCain could really put everything into SC. What’s going to be interesting is that whoever has the mo’ coming out of SC will be favored on Super Tuesday. Rudy’s job is to win NH and to ride that wave, one that so many in the MSM won’t see coming, into SC and then into Feb 5th.
January 29th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
John R,
I think you can safely say that New Hampshire is a “must win” for McCain. He won here big time in 2000. It was one of his biggest, if not the biggest of his 2000 wins. If he cannot put in a respectible showing here, it’s all over.
Perhaps if he wins Iowa first, he might be able to survive a New Hampshire defeat, but a week later is South Carolina.
South Carolina is a bit iffy for him. He lost there in 2000. Just losing is bad enough, but the way he lost is indelibly fixed in many people’s minds. He blamed all his problems on Bush/Rove. Then he lit into the Evangelicals, calling them just about every name in the book.
People have long memories.
January 29th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
So if Romney loses NH, is he probably out of contention?
January 29th, 2007 at 8:20 pm
Bizarre. Romney’s all over the place in polls. Though, he has seemed to be consistently higher in New Hampshire then in Iowa or South Carolina.
January 29th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
Nusrat: “So if Romney loses NH, is he probably out of contention?”
Only if he had won big there previously. Since he hasn’t, we really don’t have a baseline to judge Romney or Giuliani by like we do McCain.
January 29th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
Given how front loaded the primary schedule is becoming, would a big loss in any of Iowa, NH, or SC spell disaster for any of the Big 3? There’s not going to be a whole lot of time for the winners of the early primaries to bask in the glow of their new innevitable front-runner status.
January 29th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
marK, the more i think about it the more I concur with your assesment. I’m assuming McCain does not win Iowa (not set in stone by any means) followed by a loss in New Hampshire seems crippling. I dont see South Carolina being the stage for a McCain comeback. How McCain, who is so unpopular with the base, could win much on Super Tuesday with no momentum from an Iowa, NH or SC victory is difficult to envision.
McCain seems in the same odd position as Hillary, they are both the “frontrunners,” but when you sit down with the polls in the early primary states and look at the history it becomes difficult to chart their paths to victory.
January 29th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
marK,
He won here big time in 2000. It was one of his biggest, if not the biggest of his 2000 wins. If he cannot put in a respectible showing here, it’s all over.
I disagree. As Dave said above, McCain could pretty easily survive a loss in NH and then steam roll everyone in South Carolina. I hope the irony of that happening isn’t lost on anyone. It’d be the exact opposite of what happened to him in 2000.
I have to say that while Rudy besting McCain in this poll is disconcerting for me, it’s not particularly surprising. McCain has lost about 5-7% in independent support and gained a few points among conservatives within the past month because of his very vocal support for the surge. Remember, the NH primary is primarily dominated by independents who favor the insurgent. Right now, Rudy is uniquely positioned to pick up the independents that left McCain. A lot can happen in a year, or even two weeks, so this shift isn’t set in stone.
Also, congrats to Romney for breaking 20 points!
January 29th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
John R,
I think you are right. If McCain loses in Iowa and New Hampshire, then South Carolina becomes a “gotta hafta, do-or-die win”. I don’t see that happening very easily. But that is a year away. That is an eternity in politics.
January 29th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
LJ,
I honestly don’t see McCain steamrolling anyone in SC. But, we are still 12 months away. Pull up the popcorn.
January 29th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
LJ,
It is nice that Romney has broken 20%. And this without his team putting any real effort into reaching the general public yet.
I understand that Romney is scheduled to appear on Nightline tonight. He is also in Iowa today, doing some serious campaigning. He is also scheduled to be the key speaker at the President’s Day Dinner in Orange City, IA in three weeks. This is supposedly a big deal for Republicans in Northwest Iowa.
The General Phase of the Campaign is about to begin. Romneyites will not be able to plead “Name Recognition Problems” in a few months.
January 29th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
Nusrat, let us not forget that if candidates do not finish high in Iowa or New Hampshire or beat expectations in those two states significantly then their financial contributions dry up, which is what forces them out of the race. Romney can write a check and self-finance a presidential campaign as long as he wants.
Given that this is now turning into a national, two-and-a-half-month (January through early March 2008) primary (with so many states moving their caucuses and primaries up) in which candidates will need to be able to afford television advertising and attract intense free media coverage across the country for three consecutive months (December 2007 through February 2008), the premium will be on candidates with money and name recognition. Romney ought to be able to last for the entire national primary.
The 2008 primary, due to the compression of the calendar, will be intense and quick; candidates will not be getting out as much as they will merely be losing.
January 29th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
marK,
I think Romney is the big X-factor when it comes to gaming out how the primaries go. He’s been to Iowa at least as many times as Edwards has been but it’s not reflected in the polls. Edwards leads Obama and Hillary by healthy margins, yet Romney is still a distant third behind McCain and Giuliani. We all know that to win in Iowa, name recognition is not as nearly as important as organization. Most observers say that Iowa is Romney’s to lose, because of his superior organization. But I’m becoming increasingly skeptical that his lock on the state is solid.
It seems likely that soon Rudy will make a big splash in the state and we know from polling that Rudy and Romney’s supporters greatly overlap. So if Rudy manages to put together a competent organization, it will conceivably hurt Romney. That could allow McCain to sneak in the middle and take Iowa. If McCain wins in Iowa, he can still go on to place second in NH and then win in SC, which would give him almost unbeatable momentum in the Super Tuesday primaries. McCain has to win in South Carolina in order to stay in the race.
I don’t really see how Rudy can overcome either McCain or Romney in Iowa, so for him, it seems like he’ll have to focus most of his resources in New Hampshire and then hope to slingshot down to SC, place second and then hopefully have enough money left to compete in the February 5th primaries. Rudy has to win New Hampshire to stay in the race.
Romney’s best shot is in Iowa. I don’t see how he can get around McCain and Rudy in New Hampshire and despite living in South Carolina as well, he’s lagging badly there too.
January 29th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
A frontrunner, which McCain is, can lose Iowa or New Hampshire and rebound to win, but he can’t lose both states. He’s not popular enough in a place like South Carolina to make that his firewall.
I have heard Romney say that he does not intend to self-finance his candidacy.
January 29th, 2007 at 9:06 pm
LJ, if you look at the way the primary calendar is shaping up, Iowa and New Hampshire are not going to make or break candidates as much as they have in the past, nor will South Carolina provide the firewall it has the last two presidential primary cycles. Candidates will want the momentum coming out of those earliest states, but too many large states are moving their caucuses and primaries up into January and February for Iowa and New Hampshire and South Carolina to be dispositive.
This was inevitable. The rest of the country is tired of having Iowa and New Hampshire, states that are not representative of large portions of the country either physically or statistically or demographically, eliminate candidates before they get to campaign in their states. So the free for all is compressing the 2008 primary at an alarming rate, which will ultimately force a more rational and predesigned national process in 2012 and greatly reduce the importance of Iowa and New Hampshire in 2008.
The free rides and monopolies with this process for Iowa and New Hampshire are ending, for better or worse.
What will be dispositive is whether candidates have the money by December of 2007 to purchase television advertising across the country in this two-and-a-half month national primary. Those who do will be in it seriously until it is all decided by early March of 2008.
January 29th, 2007 at 9:09 pm
Has anyone looked at the crosstabs? Absolutely fascinating stuff. Two things I noticed. The old geezers seem to really like Romney (he leads among 65+) and the women continue to dislike him. I’ve seen these effects in other polls, but they make very little sense to me. Anyone have ideas?
January 29th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
Marksal, they all say they do not intend to self-finance in order to be able to raise as much outside money (and I just got a Romney solicitation in the mail today) as possible; people don’t contribute as much, if at all, to candidates they think will self-finance their campaigns. But if by December of 2007 Romney needs more money to compete until the end, he will write a check because at that point too much time and effort will have been spent not to.
January 29th, 2007 at 9:17 pm
I don’t see Romney self-financing his candidacy.
(1) Those sorts of candidates seldom win. Paying your own way passes on all the networking that is necessary to win.
(2) Romney is too good of a businessman to throw good money after bad. If the American people decide they don’t want him for President, he won’t keep beating his head against the wall. There are any number of major corporations that would kill to have him as theirs.
January 29th, 2007 at 9:21 pm
Momentum is building.
Rudy, Rudy, Rudy in 08!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
January 29th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
Anyone know anything concrete about Romney’s financial situation? All I’ve heard are reports that he’s likely worth in excess of half a billion dollars (but presumably less then a billion). That seemed logical to me, as the company he founded manages something like 20 billion in assets (from 30 million in start-up capital).
January 29th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
I agree marK:
Self-financing a campaign is not a good sign. Self-financing demonstrates a lack of support and is sure sign of implosion.
January 29th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
Romney has the most to gain, and the least to loose. He really didn’t
have any place to go but up, so at least that’s the direction he’s
headed.
January 29th, 2007 at 9:24 pm
I just realized the poll did not include lesser known candidates. While these six are definitely top tier, I would like to see lessers knowns included.
January 29th, 2007 at 9:24 pm
Also, what sort of bizarre state is New Hampshire where 50% of Republican primary voters are pro-choice?
January 29th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
LJ,
Yes it is true that Romney has been in Iowa a lot, but it has mainly been in “front parlor” sorts of meetings.
There is an additional thing to consider. Romney’s opponents have decided, for whatever reason, that they just have to attack him now, and as viciously as possible. I suspect that is the real reason for Romney’s huge jump in the New Hampshire polls. The Romney-bashers have helped Romney a great deal making people aware of him. They wonder why a candidate that is polling in the low to middle single digits can generate so much venom. Let’s face it, Giuliani and McCain don’t seem to be targeting each other much. The people wonder what it is about Romney that has got Giuliani, McCain, and the DNC so worried.
January 29th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
“Also, what sort of bizarre state is New Hampshire where 50% of Republican primary voters are pro-choice?” – Well Matt, that’s NH, its an interesting state. But no one should label them moderates, many of those same pro-choice voters would tell you the government pry their guns from their cold dead fingers and are militantly anti-tax. Think of NH as Goldwater country.
January 29th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
Ruuuuddddy! Ruuuuudddy! Ruuuddy! RUDY!
Jump on board, the train is about to take off!!!
January 29th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
marK, I think the compressed calendar will allow Romney to significantly supplement his campaign finances if necessary. By December of 2007 the networking will be in place and what will be helpful is to supplement the ad buy with personal funds; and that add buy is going to cover all of the states moving up into January and February so you won’t know whether it was good or bad money until the whole thing is over and a nominee has been selected in early March.
January 29th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
I disagree that there`s no room left for another candidate to emerge. Remember what happened when it looked as though Kerry had lost New Hampshire. He went to Iowa, won it, and that saved New Hampshire and the nomination for him. Iowa is extremely important, and it is entirely possible for the breakthrough to take place there. Winning Iowa could springboard a fourth candidate into a top three, perhaps even top two, finish in New Hampshire and leave him competitive heading into South Carolina. In fact, it might make sense for Brownback and/or Huckabee to skip New Hampshire altogether and focus on more conservative electorates in Iowa and South Carolina. In New Hampshire, questions about the candidates` social conservatism are far less important than in the other two states. If similar numbers begin to show up in Iowa and South Carolina, I`ll be inclined to agree with you. Until then, I continue to think that New Hampshire is important, but not enough to eliminate the possibility of another contender emerging.
January 29th, 2007 at 11:02 pm
the closer #s are due to inly 3 candidates being polled, no Newt, no Condi, just those three. If you go back to Dec and early Jan polls and take out Newt and Condi and the undecided and parcel them out among the three, that explains Mitt’s jump as well as Rudy’s. It’s still really early though.
I think Rudy’s best bet is to win either IA or NH, have a decent showing in SC, and bank on the big states like CA, FL, NJ that are moving up their primaries. He really needs those big states to win, and coincidentally, they’re also the states where he polls well and where a moderate type can do well. I suspect that if he wins IA or NH and those big states, McCain’s people will break more for him than Mitt and taht will wrap it up.
I think McCain is so disliked and the war will so hurt him in a general that the race will basically come down to whether Rudy or Mitt can grab McCain’s votes once he bows out.
January 29th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
Huckabee’s coming to Iowa this week. The good ole’ polls will begin to have his name real soon.
January 29th, 2007 at 11:15 pm
Umm… I hate to be the fly in the ointment, but this poll is meaningless. There will be at least 8 candidates competing on the GOP side in NH, not three.
The choices are: A. McCain B. Rudy, C. Romney.. That’s it. Not having Newt in it is enough to discount it by itself. But no Brownback or Huckabee?
If Mitt needs Newt to not be included to break 20%, then this poll shows that he has made no ground whatsoever.
Throw this poll in the garbage, because that’s about how much it’s worth. Geesh… Well at least they didn’t include Condi or Jeb. That’s they only way it could be more meaningless.
January 29th, 2007 at 11:35 pm
Have you heard any Mitt supporters lauding this poll on this thread Kavon? Who in the world was claiming it as terribly significant? I think polls at this early stage, whether they help my candidate or not, are useful for only two things: measuring progress (i.e, who seems to have momentum) and determining where a candidate’s support is coming from. Because of the, as you noted, odd formulation of the poll, the first is difficult to determine (does anyone have previous SurveyUSA polls at hand?), but when less then a week ago we were seeing polls where Romney was hovering around 10% nationwide in an actual 3-way race, and below 20 in two way races, its pretty clear that Romney at least is somewhere in New Hampshire in particular, that he isn’t in the nation as a whole. And the depth of crosstabs allows us to gain excellent information about where a candidate’s support is coming from. Hardly a meaningless poll.
January 30th, 2007 at 1:35 am
Matt,
This poll shows my guy Rudy upsetting John McCain in what is suppose to be his stronghold, and I’m still poo-pooing it.
January 30th, 2007 at 2:49 am
I seem to recall in previous primaries where there was a candidate from MA, that the CW was that he had to win NH – on the theory that it was a neighboring state, and you dont win there, then forget it. Thats why Kerry spent so much time there before giving up and trying his (successful) hail mary in Iowa.
But you guys dont seem to think that NH is absolutely crucial for Mitt. I wonder why.
January 30th, 2007 at 8:23 am
Mes Confrères:
Even though Rudy is shown to lead McCain in New Hampshire, by 1%, nevertheless I do agree with Kavon that the general value of this latest SurveyUSA poll is quite low in estimating now what the Republican Primary will look like a year from now. Certainly, this Poll’s lack of value to Romney is even more apparent because he reached the 20% level of support ONLY because Newt was removed from consideration by the Pollsters, and this from what should be a State favourable to Romney as the immediate past Governor of neighboring Massachusetts.
That said, please allow me to share with you here a report/analysis that I published on my own site, “Run Rudy Run”, on 11 January 2007, and indeed have also posted elsewhere on this site. This report/analysis is, in my judgment, absolutely vital to assessing the state of play in New Hampshire, and I don’t believe anyone else has mentioned it here. As you read the following report/analysis, please bear in mind two things that seem to have been forgotten in the analysis presented here
1. A recent Zogby New Hampshire Poll, conducted 15-17 January 2007, showed the following:
Republicans:
McCain 26%
Rudy 20%
Romney 13%
Condi 7%
Newt 6%
2. A recent Fox News New Poll, released on 07 January 2007, showed Rudy leading McCain by 29% to 24%,
Now the report/analysis:
“I heard an interesting tidbit last night [10 January] in Fox News’ Chief Political Correspondent Carl Cameron’s report on the ‘state of things’ in New Hampshire, which I think bears on my comments yesterday about the recent poll showing Rudy leading McCain by 29% to 24% in the Granite State, as well as on the New Hampshire Primary in general.
“This tidbit is set in the context of John McCain’s 2000 Republican Primary trouncing of George Bush by 49% to 32%. Mr. Cameron talked to a New Hampshire Democrat ‘political insider’ who gave the following analysis: McCain’s margin of victory in 2000 was the result largely of registered independent voters who ‘broke’ hugely for the Arizona Senator — ‘Straight Talk Express’, and all that. The 2006 elections, however, ‘changed all that’. This past November, owing to the war in Iraq and all the other things we all know about, those same independent voters voted overwhelmingly for Democrats, giving the New Hampshire polity a political ‘cast’ at all levels that is hugely Democrat, in fact more so than at any previous time in the State’s history. That’s more-or-less ‘fact’. The ‘analysis’ is that those voters have cast their lot with the Democrat Party, at least for the foreseeable future, and will not therefore be voting in the Republican Primary in 2008.
“I do not necessarily ‘endorse’ this analysis, but at the same time, I have no reason to doubt it. In fact, it does sound rather intuitive, and it is certainly in consonance with all the ad nauseam Media blather we heard in the wake of the 2006 elections, about how the GOP ‘lost’ the Northeastern Republicans — the old ‘Rockefeller Republicans’ — perhaps for good. The ‘poster boy’ example, of course, was Lincoln Chafee, who lost his and his family’s long-held Senate seat in Rhode Island, apparently for no other reason than that he had an ‘R’ after his name on the ballot. Moreover, the actual results in New Hampshire in 2006, do seem to support the analysis of Mr. Cameron’s interlocutor.
“If the ‘analysis’, actually an educated prediction about voting patterns in the 2008 New Hampshire primaries, proves to be accurate, then, in the current through-the-looking-glass world in which we find ourselves, this can be only good news for Rudy. I put it that way because, in the normal year, independent New Hampshire voters, who customarily vote Republican in the primary, would be exactly the kind of voter one would expect to respond very well to Rudy. Thus, their loss to the Democrat Party should hurt Rudy’s primary electoral fortunes. This time round, however, the defection of those voters to the Democrats will mean principally that the support of Rudy’s primary rival has been gutted! Couple that with the recent Fox News poll and the enormous and enthusiastic turn-out for Rudy’s appearances in New Hampshire last fall, and it all adds up to a very good ‘alignment of the planets’ for America’s Mayor in the Granite State!”
My ultimate conclusion: Run Rudy Run!
January 30th, 2007 at 9:44 am
one of these six individuals will be the 44th POTUS.
Well put, DaveG, and it’s for this reason that conservatives need to start consolidating around Romney. Rudy’s record and rhetoric are clear–he’s pro-choice, pro-civil unions, and and pro-gun control. McCain deep-sixed 5 known (and we’ll never know how many unknown) conservative judicial nominees through the Gof14, pushed for amnesty with Kennedy/McCain, opposed the Bush Tax Cuts (before he supported them), supported the surge (before he oppossed Cheney and Rumsfeld), and supported free speech before he gutted it with McCain/Feingold.
Romney’s got his problems. His evolution over the last 4-6 years is a tough pill for lots of folks to swallow. But let’s face it: I’d rather have someone (electable and competent) who says he’s pro-life than someone who does not. I’d rather have someone with a track record of balancing budgets and holding the line on taxes than a McCain.
Brownback, Huckabee, Hunter, Gilmore are good folks. There not winning the nomination. It’s time for conservatives to get on the Mitt train before the GOP goes pro-choice or starts governing by (Gof14) moderate consensus.
January 30th, 2007 at 9:59 am
Fredo, well said my friend. My sentiments exactly.
January 30th, 2007 at 10:08 am
I’m surprised how poorly Romney is doing. The hard right does not like him any more than Rudy or McCain. Without a clear choice, the hard right is going to fracture over several candidates and Rudy will win.
Rudy, Rudy, Rudy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
January 30th, 2007 at 11:11 am
Tano: “But you guys dont seem to think that NH is absolutely crucial for Mitt. I wonder why.
Tano, that is a very good question. I am not sure in light of your usual postings here as devil’s advocate if it was entirely serious. However, even if you are only trying to push our buttons, it is a arather stute observation on your part nonetheless.
It could be that Romney’s campaign is barely getting started. He has so much ground to catch up that it is difficult to really concentrate on which states are safe for him, and in which states he is vulnerable.
It could also be that deep down we feel he is such a strong candidate that he could easily loose NH and still gain the nomination.
What do you think the answer is?
January 30th, 2007 at 11:19 am
The reason I previously felt that Romney didn’t need to win New Hampshire, was that New Hampshire is practically McCain’s home state. It’s where he entered the national political scene with gusto, and they carried him on their shoulders. I didn’t think anyone could beat McCain, which drew some pressure off of Romney. But if Giuliani is beating McCain here, then perhaps McCain’s favorite sun status has ebbed and Romney’s chances and therefore expectations increase.
January 30th, 2007 at 11:24 am
I don’t think Mitt has to win NH if he wins Iowa (which he has a pretty decent shot at) but he has to come in at least 2nd no matter what.
“3 tickets out of Iowa, 2 out of NH.”
January 30th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
“I seem to recall in previous primaries where there was a candidate from MA, that the CW was that he had to win NH – on the theory that it was a neighboring state, and you dont win there, then forget it.”
I think that’s generally true. Not only does New Hampshire border Massachussettes, manymany HNers commute to Boston, and most TV and radio stations broadcast in southern NH are from Boston. Romney’s name ID in NH is through the roof relative to his recognition elsewhere, so the fact that he comes in third in a three man matchup is a very bad sign for his campaign.
There is one caveat. McCain won the NH primary in 2000, and has been a steady fixture in the state since 1999, so Romney could probably afford to finish second to him, as long as he finishes within 5-8 points. But if he finishes behind Rudy, or Newt, or any other candidate, he is finished.
January 30th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
It wss a serious question. And quite frankly, I dont know the answer to why you guys to hold him to a win-standard in NH, hence the question. I think Sean’s answer makes sense. Somehow I think that the rest of the country, and the pundit class, when actually seeing Mitt do badly in the extended Boston suburbs (if that is what happens) will conclude that he doesnt have enough support from those who know him best to warrant any further consideration.
January 30th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Tano,
With regards to winning the GOP primary, I really don’t think the fact that Giuliani and McCain do better in the most liberal state will hamper Romney…despite it being Romney’s state. A great argument can be made for liberals not liking GOP platforms, no matter how well they know the guy.
January 31st, 2007 at 1:27 am
murphy,
When I said “extended Boston suburbs”, that was a bit of a joke. I was referring to NH.
January 31st, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Sorry I missed that one. I’ve heard the old “if Mitt can’t win in MA he’ll lose the GOP primary” argument a bit too often.