Rasmussen Daily Tracking Poll , GOP Nomination
- Fred Thompson 26%
- Rudy Giuliani 20%
- Mitt Romney 13%
- John McCain 11%
- Mike Huckabee 6%
Daily tracking results are from survey interviews conducted over four days ending last night. Each update includes approximately 600-650 Likely Republican Primary Voters. Margin of sampling error for each is +/- 4 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.
September 27th, 2007 at 10:59 pm
Better late than never…
September 27th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
So, is Huckabee a realistic shot at 6%? Would need a mammoth result in Iowa methinks…
September 27th, 2007 at 11:44 pm
I don’t get where the 26% comes from for Fred Thompson. He didn’t even go out on the campaign trail this week –
just attended some “safe” fundraisers in the safe state of Tennessee. Must be the Arthur Branch personna.
I just can’t wait until he is in a debate with the rest of the candidates.
I think he is hiding behind his t.v. star character “Arthur Branch.”
Sorry, Tommy (I respect you) but I think Fred Thompson is a dud of a candidate.
September 28th, 2007 at 12:08 am
By my count, there is nearly 24% undecided. I also heard of a recent poll with Fred’s entry which said that GOP voters are still around 38% satisfied with their choices.
So add those two metrics together and you have a very fluid race. ALL, including Fred’s support is soft. This thing is going to be a horse race to the wire!
September 28th, 2007 at 1:33 am
unrelated but this is beyond disturbing.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070928/ap_on_el_pr/thompson_lethal_injection_5;_ylt=AttPKYPrBgl1Ezo0URS8DNgE1vAI
September 28th, 2007 at 1:38 am
The GOP could be transformed.
McCain, Giuliani or Huckabee would signal a shift in GOP’s ideological center.
Romney and FDT would at most signal changes in leadership and management styles but not in the ideological center of the Republican Party.
If Republicans choose McCain, Giuliani or Huckabee it would be a repudiation of Republican orthodoxy from 1980-2004. Each of these guys is opposed to one part of the Republican base.
September 28th, 2007 at 1:43 am
They also have general election match ups:
Hillary Clinton: 48%
Rudy Giuliani: 43%
Hillary Clinton: 49%
Fred Thompson: 41%
Rudy Giuliani: 43%
Bill Richardson: 40%
Fred Thompson: 42%
Bill Richardson: 41%
September 28th, 2007 at 6:55 am
Its not surprising that a new candidate would rocket to the top because voters are undecided and not really satisfied. I wish the bottom of the heap got more attention.
What is amazing to me is that there are no near perfect candidates.
September 28th, 2007 at 7:16 am
Mcon,
That’s a hit piece. I didn’t know about the case and I live in Tennessee. The author is Erick Schleshig (sp?). He and the contributor Travis Loller and anti-death penalty activists who have been deported from a foreign country for supporting a revolution.
If you’ve been out on the campaign for the last month, you’ll have heard almost nothing about the case. Of course, Aron rushes it to the top of his stories like he does, but I didn’t know about it and I live here in Tennessee and aren’t on the campaign trail.
September 28th, 2007 at 7:17 am
I agree withe econ grad’s analysis.
September 28th, 2007 at 8:04 am
This all leaves an opening for Newt, who looked very much a president last night (especially towards the end).
September 28th, 2007 at 8:13 am
One point of information, Rasmussen polls are automated. This means that the intended person is not always voting in the poll. Husbands, wifes, and children can all press any of the button choices to skew the results. This is one reason why political pollsters don’t trust Rasmussen as much.
September 28th, 2007 at 8:15 am
Ben,
It’s also one reason Rasmussen has the best track record over the last few elections.
September 28th, 2007 at 8:38 am
interesting post on the nh cnn poll. Apparently there is some whispering going on that the unh purposefully oversampled independents in the poll who are largely expected to not have as strong of a showing in the republican primary this year. given that giuliani is stronger with independents, it may be overstated. either way, polls are always pretty suspicious. Despite this, I still believe that it is a rudy romney race there, both of them being pretty close to each other.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0907/Romney_camp_responds_to_NH_poll.html
September 28th, 2007 at 8:44 am
Tommy,
You’re from Tennessee, that explains a lot. You sound extremely intelligent and analytical, but your support for Thompson seems a bit overly biased at times.
I researched Rasmussen and thought this was interesting info:
“Rasmussen national presidential polls use faulty methodology. Some candidates are listed by name, along with other. You have to select other to get to the rest of the choices. Not surprisingly, the “other” candidates always do worse in Rasmussen polls than in polls that are properly done by rotating all the names.”
I’m sure all of the top five had equal rotation, but does this have an effect on other candidates?
September 28th, 2007 at 8:47 am
Look up the facts and not opinions. Rasmussen has been the most accurate pollster the last two election cycles.
September 28th, 2007 at 8:49 am
I know Rasmussen’s track record and trust it. However, I simply find it inconceivable that FDT is in the lead in this race. Rasmussen is the ONLY reputable poll that has him leading nationally. No one else even has him tied with Rudy (though he is in the moe of Reuters/Zogby). Can anyone explain the skewed FDT results in the Rasmussen polls (other than claiming collusion with FDT or overt bias)? Its not like it is a fluke for Rasmussen. This is a daily rolling average. Rasmussen has consistently had FDT register higher than other polling firms and, sure enough, currently giving FDT the most support on RCP.
September 28th, 2007 at 8:52 am
nope, I can’t even explain why he does as well as he does in any of the polls.
September 28th, 2007 at 9:03 am
He also consistently has Mitt higher and McCain and Giuliani lower. I still don’t see your point. Many of the other polls you cite are adults or registered voters which makes them even less reliable. You would expect more liberal, and more well-known candidates (like Giuliani and McCain) to do better in both of those types of surveys compared with a likely voter survey.
Rasmussen not only screens for likely voters, but his screen is (based on the last two cycles) more accurate than other likely voter screens.
September 28th, 2007 at 9:14 am
I’m a big Rudy promoter, as you all now, but I defend Rasmussen as one of the best, always have. And I do understand why Fred is on top.
September 28th, 2007 at 9:17 am
Dskinner, lets compare apples to apples. Reuters/Zogby and Gallup polls are also of LV. FDT is also in the moe with Rudy in the Gallup LV poll. However, why does Rudy perform six points lower in R than in R/Z? Or a full 9 points lower in R than in G?
September 28th, 2007 at 9:19 am
Metro, what’s the secret?
September 28th, 2007 at 9:32 am
terry, Rasmussen screens more tightly for likely voter than any other pollster. His efficient telephone operation means he can disregard more voters whose likelihood for voting is most suspect, thus he reach finalize on more consistently conservative voters. He may screen so tightly he’s actually leaving out too many likely voters, the ones who don’t vote in every election.
Fred is the consensus conservative alternative to Rudy. He is the grassroots candidate, and you can see that in online polls.
However, I think many of these polled, even though they are very likely GOP voters, aren’t following the race closely enough to see that Fred on the campaign trail is not living up to his original promise as a strong candidate. They’re picturing the Fred of yesteryear, the Fred of the Michael Moore video (best he’s done this year), and a couple of his better clips from the trail. I expect it all to change after the first debate.
September 28th, 2007 at 10:04 am
6 egs:
Rudy and Huck I get as candidates who would change the ideological center of the GOP (one for the better, one for the worse, IMHO). I’m not sure I follow your reasoning on McCain.
If you mean on the fiscal side, he’s touting his support for extending the Bush tax cuts. He’s not campaigning on a platform that would shift the GOP’s ideological center, as with Rudy and Huck. Are you extrapolating from his past positions? What am I missing?
September 28th, 2007 at 10:04 am
I’m beginning to think that Fred won’t really start to dive until he loses some primaries. While I don’t think Fred could hold his own in a 2-man debate, we have so many “candidates” taking part in these things that his forensic deficiencies won’t be as obvious as they otherwise would be; particularly since I doubt if anybody will really go after him. His campaigning deficiencies, on the other hand, will become a major factor in the early states. People who have seen Mitt and Rudy up close and personal, and then get a chance to see Fred in the same kind of setting, will be able to figure out which one is the lightweight.
September 28th, 2007 at 10:17 am
I think McCain would change the ideological center of the GOP also. Only 8 years ago he ran
against the social conservatives. I suspect people believe those are his true instincts.
If that true, McCain likely would not overtly push his religious values on every issue like
GWB does.
September 28th, 2007 at 10:18 am
I’m not from Tennessee, but Tommy Oliver is right about the death penalty case. Senator Thompson has been outside of Tennessee more often than he has been within it’s boundaries the last few years. He can’t possibly be expected to have kept up with every case in every state. This issue is a red herring. They tried the same thing with Senator Thompson in Florida. The only issue that I would raise in something like this, is, if there is any fault, it lies with Senator Thompson’s staff, and they are just really getting organized. It is their job, as he travels from state to state, to have an issues book for him with each issue that may be important in a particular state. Once they get up to speed on that, this kind of hit piece will stop.
September 28th, 2007 at 10:20 am
I agree with Metro’s analysis. I think it is right on point in regards to Fred.
It is only a matter of time before many of the fred supporters catch on to his inability to be an effective campiagner. can you imagine him running against hillary. might as well throw in the towel before that race even started.
she is nearly flawless, he is nearly the opposite on the trail.
September 28th, 2007 at 10:24 am
I don’t know if i agree that the debates will be bad for fred. i think to the average person they will likely be good for him. he is huge and speaks in a way that makes him sound like he knows what he is talking about and that people like.
it is all about perception, and i think he will be perceived as a strong candidate, even though he is not.
however, these might not be the case, if the moderators nail him like they have nailed rudy and romney in the past and if others go after him. i don’t think mitt or rudy can afford to let him off the hook in that first big debate.
is is russert that is going to be moderating the next one?
September 28th, 2007 at 10:41 am
Fred mumbling and looking like he’s 90 will not make him look like a strong candidate even if he’s huge. He gets confused whenever he speaks and can’t remember things. His favorite line has been that he can’t recall that. He also disappears for days at a time. How can anyone support this man? The thought of him as President is beyond frightening.
September 28th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Tommy,
What you say may be true but a presidential candidate should be aware of a supreme court case from his home state. Re the Everglades, Notice the difference between Fred and Mitt on the issue. Fred had no idea what was going on and stumbled through the question. Mitt immediately responded with a well thought out opinion. Fred would be destroyed in the general as this would happened time after time and the media would be more than willing to catch him on it.