Here is the latest Rasmussen GOP update:
- Giuliani 25
- Romney 16
- McCain 15
- Thompson 12
This week, Giuliani is followed by Romney at 16%, McCain at 15%, and former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson at 12%. While Romney’s one-point edge over McCain is statistically insignificant, it’s worth noting that McCain had a six-point advantage over Romney just two weeks ago.
A look at the Trend lines:
| Date | Giul. | Romn. | McCain | Thom. |
| 5/29 | 25% | 16% | 15% | 12% |
| 5/22 | 26% | 15% | 18% | 14% |
| 5/15 | 25% | 12% | 18% | 15% |
| 5/08 | 25% | 12% | 17% | 16% |
| 5/01 | 30% | 11% | 14% | 14% |
| 4/24 | 28% | 10% | 15% | 12% |
| 4/17 | 33% | 12% | 19% | 13% |
| 4/10 | 27% | 12% | 16% | 14% |
| 4/03 | 26% | 8% | 16% | 14% |
| 3/27 | 35% | 8% | 15% | x |
| 3/20 | 33% | 10% | 15% | x |
| 3/13 | 37% | 10% | 16% | x |
| 3/06 | 34% | 9% | 19% | x |
| 2/27 | 33% | 10% | 17% | x |
| 2/20 | 33% | 8% | 19% | x |
| 2/14 | 32% | 8% | 18% | x |
| 2/06 | 27% | 9% | 19% | x |
| 1/29 | 29% | 8% | 19% | x |
| 1/23 | 30% | 10% | 22% | x |
| 1/18 | 28% | 8% | 20% | x |
May 29th, 2007 at 9:53 am
Rudy does still hace a large lead…but he is at his lowest point ever, which he has been at since May.
Fred jumping in would not make him a sure thing–Mitt’s starting to pick up a bit.
May 29th, 2007 at 10:00 am
State to state, Romney has been moving for a while. Now it’s starting to show up in the national polls. Everyone who writes off Romney needs to have their heads checked. This guy is for real.
I think McCain is pretty well close to finished. He has national poll numbers and little else. His mouth gets him in trouble.
Sounds like a friend from 2004 who had big national poll numbers and nothing to show for it.
May 29th, 2007 at 10:39 am
Rudy is a solid candidate… he lost some support because of the abortion issue, but he consistantly polls in the 25 – 30% range. Romney’s bump is only because of McCain’s slump. He is a fake and people see right through him.
May 29th, 2007 at 10:46 am
McCain dropped and Romney and Thompson switched places. Is this because of advertising or is this because McCain singled Romney out on the immigration issue, where the voters are definitely on Romney’s side?
May 29th, 2007 at 11:40 am
“Is this because of advertising or is this because McCain singled Romney out on the immigration issue, where the voters are definitely on Romney’s side?”
I think we have a winner here. According to the same Rasmussen polling outfit, only 26 % support the McCain/Kennedy senate immigration bill. The longer that this issue is at the forefront of national news, the more damaging it is to McCain.
“Is this because of advertising or is this because McCain singled Romney out on the immigration issue, where the voters are definitely on Romney’s side?”
I don’t know that I would phrase it this way. The public is certainly against McCain’s stance but just like on so many other issues, no one really knows what Romney’s *real* stance on this is. As much as I dislike McCain, his dig about the small varmint gun and the Guatemalans on Romney’s lawn had me rolling.
May 29th, 2007 at 11:44 am
McCain is practically done, he is polling low, he has no momentum, and he isn’t doing well in any of the January primaries. I think it is about time to move his ranking down to third, or fourth.
May 29th, 2007 at 11:49 am
I feel bad for McCain. I really do. If the Bush machine didn’t destroy him in 2000 with the aid of the Christian Right, and McCain actually got the nomination can anyone honestly say that we wouldn’t be better off today?
I don’t support McCain now. He’s old and he’s washed up and he’s wrong on immigraton. Then again, so is George W. Bush. Here’s one two-time Bush voter that has a little bit of buyer’s remorse over 2000.
May 29th, 2007 at 11:59 am
Adam,
You are so right. Bush treated McCain like garbage in 2000 and that is only part of the reason why I never liked the man. I sure as hell did not want Al Gore for president, but I could almost say that we probably WOULD all be better off if not only had McCain won, but maybe even if Gore won.
May 29th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
“but maybe even if Gore won.” – KT
Please.
May 29th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
I totally disagree with KT on that one. We were damn lucky to have Bush in office during 9-11.
May 29th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
By the way, Rudy has said the same thing. He also supported Bush over McCain in 2000.
May 29th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
Regarding immigration, do any Republicans realize how damaging being anti- guest worker program will be in the general election? Do you realize there are feelings as strong among Hispanics as there are among conservatives on this issue? Do you realize it takes millions of Hispanics to elect a Republican?
May 29th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
I certainly don’t think we would have been better off with Gore, but I gotta say…if McCain was the commander in chief on 9/11 I think we still would have gone after the training camps in Afghanistan. Maybe someone with a better military perspective might have made better decisions on Iraq. We’ll never know. Point is – I can’t help but shake this sneaky suspicion that if McCain was president now he wouldn’t be at 28 percent and Republicans in general wouldn’t have the same feelings of despair they do now.
May 29th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Again – that’s not to say he gets my vote in the primary next year. He won’t.
May 29th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Pollnography!*
*a line I stole from a Mormon blog.
May 29th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
McCain never would have won reelection. We never would have had tax cuts to stimulate the economy and we would have been in a 3 year long recession at the time of the 2004 elections.
The economy was in serious trouble post bubble burst and post 9/11. If it weren’t for the tax cuts that got the economy going again Bush would have lost in a landslide to Kerry. The reason Bush won is because he held together the coalition. McCain would have long since alienated the economic conservatives and therefore lost the election.
May 29th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Dskinner,
I don’t know about that. I would submit that McCain acted the way he did regarding the tax cuts just to be a thorn in Bush’s side and because he knew the senate was closely divided and he had the power to do so. Was it right? Of course not. Then again if someone was spreading false rumors that I fathered an illigitmate black child just to make me look bad to conservatives in SC, I don’t know for sure that I wouldn’t have retaliated too.
And let’s be honest here. If Bush had lost in ’04, aside from the Supreme Court nominees, would it have been that terrible? I never want a Democrat president but if Kerry was Commander in Chief it would have been really hard for the Democrats to nationalize the ’06 election against “Bush’s War”. If Kerry were president now then he would have to make the tough decisions on what to do with the mess in Iraq, we’d probably still have control of congress and we’d be sitting pretty and looking forward to winning next year. Not only that but we would have learned our lesson from Bush and we’d know that we’d have to field a candidate who is intellectually curious.
It’s funny how things look differently in retrospect.
May 29th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
Mitt never ceasese to amaze me. my next doubt is if he can sustain such momentum. I don’t doubt he can simply given he contineues to suprise me. At this point I don’t get suprised anymore. He is incredibly competent. I want Fred in, the earlier he gets in the earlier everbody will realize that he is just a lazy version of mccain.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/05/AR2007050500284_pf.html
May 29th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
Admittedly I’m not a Mitt fan but let’s keep things measured here. This 16 percent is from one pollster. All the other numbers on the race show Mitt at a lower number. I don’t like the guy and I think he has no core. Still, for those of you who support him, enjoy this bit of news. Whether or not it’s statistical noise or whether other poll results nationally back this up remains to be seen.
May 29th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Adam: Rasmussen is the best respected pollster out there, and he does a better job of screening out unlikely voters than anyone else. Romney supporters have good reason to feel good about this. (I am not one. I was worried about this guy….)
May 29th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Adam, look at the trends in every poll. Plus Rasmussen is perhaps the most accurate of any of the pollsters. I think they were accurate in the 04 election by less than a percentage on both sides.
Of course it’s a long road ahead and anything can happen. Mittheads shouldn’t get comfy, the worst of the attacks is yet to come.
May 29th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
Adam says:
All the other numbers on the race show Mitt at a lower number.
The CBS/New York Times poll last week (the previous most recent poll) had Gov. Romney at 15%. This Rasmussen poll is confirming that result.
May 29th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Adam:
“I don’t like the guy and I think he has no core.” What exactly do you mean by no “core”? No core values, no core beliefs? Did you read Jason’s post on 5/28 with the flier from Romney’s ’94 Senate campaign against Ted Kennedy? He’s been consistent on his positions. He has only flipped on abortion – but he flipped in the “right” direction – towards life. There was no flop back – his record is clear and consistent. You don’t have the kind of success Romney has had in his life without having core values – that’s baseless slander.
May 29th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
Thomas Alan,
Noted. Ok. We’ll see. That CBS/NYT poll *was* only of 275 people though so it’s just as possible that that 15 % is actually 9 %.
KevinP,
How about his stance on guns? Claiming to be a lifelong hunter and NRA supporter…and then it comes out that he’s had these positions only since 2006. Or even more simply, claiming to not be a “Reagan Republican” and then kissing his a$$ now that he thinks he can win points from the Right. Then there’s the matter of being more pro-homosexual than Ted Kennedy. And now immigration. Politicians change positions; Sure they do. Doesn’t it seem awfully convenient that these transformations all seem to be ones that suddenly appear to be ones that conservatives support? And the statewide healthcare system – not conservative. Also it’s not classy to constantly to rip on your home state. The people of Massachusetts – whatever they are – were still good enough when he needed there votes to run as a liberal Republican for senate and governor.
The most frustrating thing is that all this is known and is as plain as day…and intelligent people fall for it. Romney will keep the red-blue divide, and this time the Republicans will be on the business end of it. Also, I’m sick and tired of our nominees kissing the a$$es of these evangelical leaders and if Rudy wins the nomination they will all have nothing better to do than wallow and sulk in their own misery at the knowledge that they no longer have veto power over the nomination process of a major political party. Call it liberation if you will.
May 29th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
The CBS/NYT poll also included only 3 names, inflating all 3 of them. That’s why it isn’t included in the RCP average.
May 29th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
There are three new ARG polls out. I am very skeptical about them though because they show McCain receiving double the support of Rudy among independents and they also show Fred Thompson at very low numbers. I just don’t believe that McCain has more appeal to independents than Rudy. I also don’t believe that Thompson is at 3% in New Hampshire.
Also, ARG has consitently been too high on McCain relative to other polls which leaves me skeptical. There hasn’t been anything to give McCain the bounce that they show him receiving.
Even though these polls don’t show Romney in the lead, they are up or even from the previous polls, so the trendlines are still good for Romney.
http://americanresearchgroup.com/
May 29th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Adam,
As it’s often mentioned, Romney never said anything about being more pro-homosexual than Kennedy. He claimed he would be more effective at advocating certain equal rights (housing, employment, etc). The reason he would be more effective is simply because it’s not taken for granted that a Republican takes these positions. Kennedy, on the other hand, wouldn’t turn any heads. And while we’re on the topic, equal rights in 1994 never meant pro-gay-marriage or pro-civil-unions.
His guns position is consistent as well. Romney’s record in MA earned him a “B” from the NRA…he doesn’t line up with them on every single issue (Brady Bill and AWB for example), but he’s pretty good. I’m not sure why you’re unhappy that he joined the NRA in 2006…he said they wouldn’t endorse him unless he endorsed them, so voila.
Not sure what you’re talking about on immigration…Romney’s got the best record in the field of realistic (top 4?) candidates here.
As for the state-wide health care reforms…be sure to call up that bastion of liberality the Heritage Foundation and let them know it’s not conservative. Do you know the details of the previous and current health care situations in MA?
May 29th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
“The reason he would be more effective is simply because it’s not taken for granted that a Republican takes these positions. Kennedy, on the other hand, wouldn’t turn any heads”
Is that what he meant by that? Because that’s not what I got from it.
“His guns position is consistent as well. Romney’s record in MA earned him a “B” from the NRAhe doesn’t line up with them on every single issue (Brady Bill and AWB for example), but he’s pretty good.”
It’s not so much that. I am pro-second amendment. Everyone has the right to bear arms. If anything I think that NRA is a little much in some of their positions but that’s another topic entirely. What bothers me is the blatant and obvious pandering. “I’ve been a hunter pretty much all my life”. What the hell is that? Well for one thing it’s NOT TRUE. And all you Romney supporters who give him a pass on this stuff…think about what we all would have said if Kerry said that and it came out that it was a prevarication.
Immigration – he was for the “comprehensive solution” before he was against it. Maybe it’s something they put in the water in the Bay State. I don’t know…
“be sure to call up that bastion of liberality the Heritage Foundation and let them know it’s not conservat”
Is this the tack you want to take? John Kyl supports the senate immigration bill and he’s a conservative. That doesn’t mean that the bill is conservative or that it ought to have the support of conservatives.
“Do you know the details of the previous and current health care situations in MA?”
I know that expanding government is not conservative. I have the same problem with George Bush and the new medicare part D entitlement.
May 29th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
Adam,
That is indeed what Romney meant by the comments on Kennedy and gay rights. The context of the remarks is worth listening to. Romney was arguing that although he and Kennedy took the same views on certain aspects of gay rights, Romney’s viewpoint was more valuable.
Regarding Romney’s statement “I’ve been a hunter pretty much all my life”, this is much ado about nothing. Did you read the full context of the remarks? Romney wasn’t trying to mislead anyone. He talked about childhood hunting of varmits and poked fun at how poor a shot he was. He never claimed to be the sort of guy to go on regular hunting trips for elk. Rather, he hunted the country’s most ferocious squirrels and bunnies as a young lad, yound adult, and in the last few years.
Maybe you’d like to spell out your complaints about Romney immigration in a little more detail, provide a link or two, etc. His position is consistent and conservative.
As for Romney’s health care reforms, that subject deserves (and has been given) multiple threads of its own. You really should learn the specifics before dismissing it on a knee-jerk reaction. The short of it is:
1. Romney’s health care reforms did not raise taxes.
2. He did not hire any new government employees.
3. He did not mandate that government offer insurance.
4. If you can show that you’re wealthy enough to self-insure, you do not need health insurance.
5. If you can afford health coverage, you can no longer bill your medical expenses to the taxpayers.
6. The rates for basic health coverage dropped from above $400 to around $175 monthly.
May 29th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
Of course we’d be better off if Gore had won 2000, I would have thought that was obvious. You need to be pretty partisan to dispute it (as some of you do).
The Supreme Court would not be as good, for sure. But our military would be much stronger (courtesy of not invading Iraq), the Taliban would be down & out (thanks to not invading Iraq, and concentrating on Al-Queda & Afghanistan). Furthermore climate change would be less of an issue, cos Gore would’ve actually done something. Global warming will be Bush’s legacy in years to come.
Furthermore, Bush took advantage of 9/11 and created a partisan political climate which I personally think is terrible. I don’t think Gore would’ve done that, although we’ll never know for sure…
May 29th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
As far as the trend lines go, it looks like Giuliani has locked up 25% of the vote, at least for the meantime. McCain is just going down, which is kind of sad for a good Senator.
I think Thompson has peaked, potential candidates tend to do better than actual candidates. I think Wesley Clark is a good model to compare.
Does anyone think McCain will drop out and support Giuliani to keep Romney out? He seems to dislike Romney much more, and he may be able to score a SecDef post or something like that, as his endorsement would make Giuliani the firm establishment favourite. I don’t think its likely, but is it possible?
May 29th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
Re JayPe #30. Wow. Why are you in the Republican party?
May 29th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
I’m a pro-life conservative Christian, but I’m not going to say Bush was a good President just ‘cos he has an R after his name. He’s failed on so many levels: the economy (you can’t cut taxes and increase government spending – is simple economics really that hard to understand), the response to Katrina, the response to the growing environmental problem, the response to 9/11 (initially good, we hit Afghanistan hard. But going to Iraq was a major “eye off the ball” moment, and has let the Taliban back in), his failure over Iraq, and his failure to run a clean Administration (Rove, Gonzales, Libby, etc).
Maybe, like Carter, he just wasn’t up to the job of being President?
May 29th, 2007 at 9:26 pm
[...] tip to Race42008.com, who first alerted Campaignia to these new numbers in Poll Alert: Rasmussen GOP National Primary:Â Here is the latest Rasmussen GOP [...]
May 29th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
Hello, all-
I thought it would be worthwhile to return to the quantitative numbers, that Rasmussen has provided, and see where that takes us:
There does not seem to be much movement. Trying to analyze them as objectively as I can, I come to the following conclusion:
Giuliani had maintained a steady, significant lead, prior to non-declared Thompson’s inclusion. Thompson appears to be taking all of his support from Giuliani, and has ended up sandwiched between McCain and Romney, for the most part. As for McCain and Romney-
From January to May, McCain’s lowest total was 14%, and his highest was 22%; the vast majority of his support has been in the teens. Romney – it was largely the same story, from January until mid-May, his support fluctuated from 8%-12%. For some reason, over the last couple of weeks, he’s posted his best numbers in 2007, securing 15% and 16% in consecutive weeks. Nonetheless, within the realm of polling, it basically means that McCain and Romney are roughly equal, both within the margin of error, and now Thompson seems to be creating a three-way logjam for second place.
Ergo – Giuliani still up a bit, the other three well within striking distance.
Thoughts are welcome…
May 29th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
The headline missing from this poll is Newt Gingrich’s 50% jump from six to nine percent, which, interestingly, Rasmussen chose not to mention in their release. With McCain losing 3% and Thompson, 2% support since the last poll, Gingrich has quietly been the primary beneficiary of their slight downturn.
Adam, that Newsweek poll from a few weeks ago that placed Bush’s job approval rating at 28 percent has been thoroughly discredited, having significantly oversampled Democrats.
While it’s hardly worth bragging about, 37% is territory that’s been frequented by every president over the past several decades. And amongst Republicans, Bush’s approval rating remains a strong 73 percent.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/political_updates/president_bush_job_approval
May 30th, 2007 at 4:11 am
Argo,
Probably so. Newsweek polling (like CBS/NYT) is famous for that, but I bet if we picked a different candidate in 2000, we’d have better numbers for our guy now.