- Hillary Clinton 46%
- Rudy Giuliani 41%
- Hillary Clinton 47%
- John McCain 40%
- Hillary Clinton 49%
- Fred Thompson 37%
- Hillary Clinton 52%
- Mike Huckabee 31%
Survey of 500 likely voters was conducted October 24. The margin of error is +/- 3.5 percentage points. Mitt Romney was not included in this poll. In the 2004 presidential election, Senator Kerry defeated President Bush in Maryland, 56-43%.
October 31st, 2007 at 2:21 pm
Maryland is a blue state so these numbers are not too shocking
October 31st, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Rudy looks better in blue states, but hasn’t been able to prove he can win any. What’s worse, he actually looks worse compared to McCain in swing states.
October 31st, 2007 at 2:23 pm
Where’s Mitt?
October 31st, 2007 at 2:28 pm
I still don’t understand why they are polling Huckabee over Romney when Romney is clearly a tier 1 candidate, these polls make absolutely no sense. The good news, HRC isn’t running away with anything. Did anyone see how she performed last night? She got caught in “Double speak” a few times!, it was great to see the other Dems finally going after her, she was not impressive at all and I do believe the GOP Nominee can fluster and cross her up in the general, she is definately breakable & beatable.
October 31st, 2007 at 2:36 pm
3, rasmussen must have missed the “two person race” memo
October 31st, 2007 at 2:44 pm
Something is really strange here. Maryland is a fairly liberal state. How is it Hillary is not over 50%? I’d like to see how other dems do because knowing Maryland as well as I do this confuses me.
October 31st, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Pablo,
Rasmussen has an interesting piece about that phenomenon at the national level. It seems that no matter who Hillary is pitted against (even Ron Paul), she can’t break 50% nationally. I think if the Dems nominate HRC, we are almost guaranteed a tight race, either way.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/poll_matching_hillary_clinton_and_ron_paul_tells_a_lot_about_clinton_little_about_paul
October 31st, 2007 at 3:09 pm
come on guys! post 5 was funny. someone throw me a bone.
October 31st, 2007 at 3:11 pm
MWS,
Yup. I’ve long said that Hillary has a ceiling of 54%. Conrad Burns could be our nominee, and she’d still have difficulty winning by double digits. I think she’s the most electable Dem though, because given her organization and political skill, she probably has a floor of around 46-47%. It’ll be a reasonably close election, barring a third party, regardless.
October 31st, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Sampo,
I thought #5 was a nice clean shot — definitely worth a smile.
October 31st, 2007 at 3:39 pm
Matthew,
Excepting Rudy, I think Hillary vs. any of the top 5 Republicans will fall between 52-48% either way. I except Rudy because about 1/4 of the party says they will bolt if he is nominated. I don’t think he will take enough moderate and liberal votes away from Hillary to compensate.
October 31st, 2007 at 3:46 pm
what’s with this rasmussen/Fox partnership? What happened to opinion dynamics? Previous partnerships seem to pair liberal and conservative groups together. Both Roger Ailes and Scott Rasmussen are righties. I wonder how this will play out.
October 31st, 2007 at 4:02 pm
To all the were’s mitt folks, be thankful. Mitt would have gotten crushed in this poll. Just like he would in his home state in the general.
Well whaddya know? SurveyUSA just put out this poll. And romney does in fact get creamed. Could it be all the broken promises mitt left behind in MA?
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=b939477b-c511-46ae-bc02-8464124c331f
October 31st, 2007 at 4:12 pm
Someone should post the surveyUSA poll.
Clinton vs. (Margin of defeat)
McCain (21)
Giuliani (23)
Romney (34) wow. his own state hates him.*
Thompson (38)
Paul (43)
Huckabee (44)
October 31st, 2007 at 4:14 pm
Rasmussen didn’t just omit Mitt, they omitted the utter irrelevance of polling Maryland in the first place.
October 31st, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Sampo,
So you thought we were competitive in Massachusetts? We’re not. That’s what makes Mitt’s victory there so impressive.
October 31st, 2007 at 4:20 pm
sampo: you know how to tell if your a terrible candidate?
passerby: no sampo, tell me
sampo: if the margin you get defeated by is greater than the number of people who voted for you
passerby: like Mitt in his own state?
sampo: exactly.
passerby: even Bush’s margin of defeat (25) was smaller than the number of people who voted for him (37) over their hometown hero John Kerry.
sampo: this is true…
October 31st, 2007 at 4:27 pm
Sampo,
So you want to nominate McCain so that we can come within 25 points of winning in Massachusetts?
October 31st, 2007 at 4:32 pm
I can see why this polling bothers you Dave. The guy you support is despised by the only people in the country he actually governed.
October 31st, 2007 at 4:33 pm
California is blue, but at least they liked Reagan after he left office.
October 31st, 2007 at 4:45 pm
You’re equating Massachusetts with California? Look, Massachusetts is a very left-wing state where the liberals (McCain and Rudy) lose by smaller margins than the conservative. Note that everybody else does worse. Let’s wait and see who wins the Massachusetts primary. So far I’ve seen 2 polls, and Mitt won one and Rudy won one. Virtually the entire GOP establishment is supporting Mitt.
October 31st, 2007 at 4:47 pm
page 3 says it all fellas!
www2.nationalreview.com/dest/2007/10/31/strategymemo10312007.pdf
October 31st, 2007 at 5:09 pm
Virtually the entire GOP establishment is supporting Mitt.
you’re forgetting a sect, the millions of people who vote.
October 31st, 2007 at 5:10 pm
Sampo, it’s a combination of factors. He governed like a true conservative for one, but he also spent a good portion of his last year outside the state running for president. He now goes around making jokes about how liberal they are. It really pisses them off.
Romney was governor of the most liberal state in the country, so I would hope they hate how he governed (it makes you wonder how he got the job in the first place). Though I don’t buy most of the pandering charges against Romney, if I were to play your game for a moment Sampo, I would give Mitt the following slogan, “Say Anything, Govern Conservatively”. I’m just confident he would govern as a conservative, his record as governor is strong evidence of that.
Also, Massachusetts is not Romney’s home state. He’s from Michigan first, Utah second, and he’s spent his working years in Massachusetts, though he vacations regularly in Hew Hampshire.
October 31st, 2007 at 5:17 pm
How bout them apples?!
Rudy 31
McCain 18
Thompson 17
Romney 9
Huckabee 8
http://people-press.org/reports/questionnaires/366.pdf
October 31st, 2007 at 5:21 pm
True conservative? Like when he lived up to his pledge to planned parenthood to fight for more access to contraceptives? Remember when he overturned a ruling that would have given the right for to religious based hospitals to refuse to carry the abortion pill? Like the time he raised fees by some 250 million dollars? Like the time he Signed into law hillary care and sent out his own press secretary to poo-poo his OWN vetos?
Riiight.
October 31st, 2007 at 5:32 pm
If you Rombots screw this up for me, a Maryland resident, and destroy this chance to make me happy, I’ll gouge my eyes out.
Or maybe just be really mad.
One of the two!
October 31st, 2007 at 5:33 pm
“Romney was governor of the most liberal state in the country, so I would hope they hate how he governed (it makes you wonder how he got the job in the first place). Though I don’t buy most of the pandering charges against Romney, if I were to play your game for a moment Sampo, I would give Mitt the following slogan, “Say Anything, Govern Conservativelyâ€. I’m just confident he would govern as a conservative, his record as governor is strong evidence of that.”
Actually, Vermont and Rhode Island are bluer, but whatever.
New York City is also bluer (and Rudy was re-elected there, unlike cut-and-run Mitt).
October 31st, 2007 at 6:06 pm
TLG, nice.
October 31st, 2007 at 6:12 pm
Sampo . . .
Did you see that Rudy loses to Hillary in New York 64-30 (wow! That same 34% of Romney losing to Hillary in MA).
http://www.surveyusa.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/mccain-map-of-1007-susa-polling.JPG
I know you’re a McCain guy (and dedicated RomNot), but will you have the forthrightness to make all your same slams against Rudy as you did for Mitt?
That would be refreshing!
October 31st, 2007 at 6:28 pm
Who started this RomNot thing? Reading the term makes me feel embarrassed for the user.
RomNot? It’s like “Yes! We admit it! We worship our leader! Those who do not worship The Mitt and His Holy Son Tagg are but RomNots!”
October 31st, 2007 at 7:31 pm
TLG,
RomNots are the many posters here who spend WAY more time bashing Romney and RomBots than they do supporting their own candidate.
I’m fine with people who genuinely like their candidate and fairly criticize others . . . but if you haven’t noticed this trend here and elsewhere then you’ve got a BIG blind spot.
By your mocking phrase at the end of #31 you show true RomNot form.
October 31st, 2007 at 7:32 pm
And I don’t know who invented the term . . . but I’ve seen it flying around the last week or so.
Any claimers?
October 31st, 2007 at 7:42 pm
Oh, I hope to God that there are no claimers for that embarrassing phrase!
But let’s examine your loopy “logic” –
You tell a lie about Mitt Romney’s strengths.
I reply.
Then all of a sudden I’m being “negative” for pointing out a lie.
Alright, then!
You Rombots can’t attack. What can ROMBOTS attack Rudy for? Flip-flopping?! A past history of endorsing socially liberal policies?!
YOU CAN’T ATTACK or you’ll look like hypocrites.
At least Rudy has a record of results in government!
November 1st, 2007 at 8:49 am
I feel so sorry for this child. He’s got a hard life ahead of him.