- Mitt Romney 28% (26%)
- Mike Huckabee 27% (24%)
- Fred Thompson 14% (11%)
- Rudy Giuliani 9% (11%)
- John McCain 9% (10%)
- Ron Paul 3% (3%)
- Tom Tancredo 1% (1%)
- Undecided 9% (13%)
Survey of 600 likely Republican caucus-goers living in Iowa (512 Republicans and 88 independent voters) was conducted November 26-29. The margin of error is ± 4 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted November 10-14 are in parentheses.
November 30th, 2007 at 11:47 am
Looks like the undecided are finally tuning in and starting to decide… net pickups for Mitt/Huck/Fred… Interesting…
November 30th, 2007 at 11:48 am
Sorry, unrelated. new nh rasmussen is out.
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/new_hampshire/election_2008_new_hampshire_republican_primary
Romney up BIG in NH. Rudy continues to fall in support despite his advertisements.
November 30th, 2007 at 11:49 am
rudy falling in iowa as well. that makes ia, nh, and sc all going down for him.
November 30th, 2007 at 11:49 am
forgive me. i didn’t see you already had it posted. sorry.
November 30th, 2007 at 11:56 am
Why isn’t the Huckster taking votes from Mitt…
Because the Huck-a-Bust is coming…..
The Huckster has just peaked….
and now the Unseen Unraveling begins of Huck’s Campaign…
The surprise, come Iowa, will be “Why didn’t Huckabee do better?”
November 30th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Huckabee admits he is for amnesty.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071130/NATION/111300094/1002
November 30th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
#6 Erik,
Ouch!, that’s gonna hurt starting in Iowa
November 30th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Immigration is Big in Iowa, and Huckabee’s going to get nailed on this
November 30th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
That Washing Times article is brutal. I don’t think Iowans will continue to support a guy who is admittedly not strong on illegal immigration. It’s become the biggest issue in the campaign.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071130/NATION/111300094/1002
November 30th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Sorry, but can someone please tell me the difference between a
caucus and a primary? I’m curious to see what Huck’s rising
numbers mean in the context of a caucus versus a primary.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Run, Fred Run!
November 30th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
It is interesting that Huckabee is not taking away Mitt’s voters. I don’t know that this is what the Giuliani people wanted. A 4th or 5th place fisnish for Giuliani, and it’s over for him.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
IMMIGRATION!!!!!!!!!!!!
HUCKABEE IS DONE
November 30th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
HES PEAKED HES WRONG ON IMMIGRATION HES DONE!!
November 30th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
This race gets crazier and crazier all the time.
I’ve thought it all through, and I’ve just about convinced myself that no one can win!
November 30th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
What the polls don’t show is how much support Ron Paul has in Iowa.
And immigration is the #1 issue in Iowa……sorry Huck, you lose.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Prediction: Dobson IS going to Huckabee. Huck barely wins IA. Mitt wins NH amd barely wins MI over Rudy. Huck barely SC. McCain and Fred become insignificant (Senators never work in the Gop, that only works if you are a Dem). Huck knocks off Rudy in FL and it is a 2 man national race.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Iowa goes for nice, the heart string, and the underdog that means Huck and somewhat Mitt.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
ColoradoRepublican (#10)-
I’ll do my best to answer your question on the difference in context between a caucus and a primary (I’m the McCain-site publisher):
In the context of presidential politics, caucus states are more volatile than primary states. A caucus takes place in an interactive, collegiate environment, where party supporters have to convince their neighbors that they ought to support Candidate Red vs. Candidate Blue. A primary, in contrast, is just a typical election where the voter walks in, casts his or her ballot, and leaves.
The ramifications for presidential politics:
1) It’s far more difficult to poll caucus states, than primary states.
In primary states, the vast majority (perhaps 90% or more) of voters already know which candidate they will support when they arrive at their poll. In caucus states, the voters’ minds might very well be changed by the activities at the caucus itself. For that reason, the answers voters give pollsters, even the previous day, make the poll very accurate in terms of what the electorate thought the day before, but by definition, can’t measure what will actually take place.
2) Turnout is lower in caucus states, than primary states.
Because of the time commitment, turnout is lower in caucus states. This means that hard-core party activists – people who vote consistently in low-profile elections, and take a great interest in party affairs – dominate the election night verdict more than in primary states. They are disproportionately represented at the caucus to begin with (there are fewer casual voters), and they also are influencers of other, less-ideological voters at the caucus while it’s taking place.
3) It’s more expensive for presidential candidates to build organizations in caucus states.
Because of their greater complexity, it takes a lot more organization to do well in a caucus state. For that reason, candidates will sometimes ignore them completely, or conversely, pour almost all of their resources into doing well in them.
How does that influence 2008 on the Republican side?
Huck, Tommy Thompson, and Brownback all placed all of their finite resources on doing well at the Iowa caucuses, first by trying to influence the Ames Straw Poll. McCain and Rudy opted for only token participation in Iowa, because they are not likely to do well among the hard-core Iowa activists (and in McCain’s case, the campaign ran out of money and wisely chose to put its chips on New Hampshire instead.)
So per your question on what Huck’s rising numbers mean in a context of caucus rather than a primary…
One is that the polling could be further off base (either in his favor or not in his favor.) Because it’s hard to poll the Iowa caucuses in advance, public polling might be either underestimating or overestimating his support. (Whereas the public polling is more likely to accurately predict his support in New Hampshire or South Carolina, since they have primaries.
Two is that it’s a testament to his popularity among hard-core activists in Iowa. If Huck weren’t gaining support among them, he couldn’t rise in the polls at all. (Whereas in NH or SC, his increase in support could be due to more casual voters seeing him on a debate and liking him, rather than deeply-committed support.
Hope that helps… anyone else’s thoughts on the question…
November 30th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
nowandlater, I would welcome your prediction as a Mitt supporter, but I don’t think Dobson is going to endorse anyone. If he did, I don’t know that it would Huck. Huckabee already has the support of the Dobson followers. Huckabee needs to maintain his current base in Iowa while he is increasingly attacked on immigration.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Who’s Organization is Better come Caucus Night? Romney’s or Huck’s………
November 30th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Romney’s
November 30th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
I’ll bet on Mr. Organization……. Mitt Romney
November 30th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
#19
That was a great post. Very informative. Thanks!
One question: “the voters’ minds might very well be changed by the activities at the caucus itself”
Do the candidates address the attendees? What is involved in the “activities”?
Thanks again. That really cleared up a lot for me.
November 30th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
Organization is important, but it might be telling to know what percentage of caucus-goers identify as evangelicals or socons.
November 30th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
Nowandlater’s prediction can only come true if Huckabee wins Iowa. Romney has the superior GOTV organization and his support is remaining solid, so it looks like Romney will win Iowa. But if Huckabee DOES win Iowa, the candidate he hurts the most is Rudy. A 2-man race between Romney and Huckabee in January will decimate Rudy’s very soft support in the Super Tuesday states. In the end, there can be only one. But toward the end, there can be only two. If Rudy’s not one of them coming out of January, stick a fork in him…because he’s done.
November 30th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
Huckabee is helping Romney with the expectation game.
November 30th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Huckabee has more volatility at the moment. It’ll be interesting to see how well he can sustain is surge in support. The fact that Romney hasn’t dipped shows their bases are somewhat mutually exclusive and Romney’s support isn’t likely to wane. It’ll be an interesting showdown!
November 30th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
#24 – Colorado-
Good to hear that you found the answer helpful. Per your followup question-
I’ve never lived in a caucus state, and so I’ve never participated in one. Others on this board who have, could undoubtedly describe what goes on within them, a lot better than I could. I only know what I read about them… Can anyone else here – I’m curious about this – describe what goes on at them, in detail?
One other distinction I should have mentioned – there’s a national trend toward “open” primaries – i.e., letting not only party members, but independents (and in some cases, members of the other party) vote in the primaries. I would assume that this is not permitted in Iowa or most caucus states – and even if it is, the odds that an independent or Democrat is likely to bother to show up and argue with Republicans over a candidate, is very low. (Likewise, independents and Republicans aren’t likely to show up at Democratic caucuses and argue over candidates). It’s a lot more of a hassle than just showing up at the poll on primary day, voting, and leaving.
On the question of candidates’ participation:
The candidates would not be directly involved in the caucuses themselves (it’s not like a convention, that takes place at a central location, or like the straw poll). Caucus sites are scattered all over the state, in the same way that polls are for any other election. I speculate that caucus sites are probably not as numerous as polling places, b/c of the size involved, but it’s along those lines.
On what activities go on at the caucus site:
A good analogy, ironically, is what goes on at this site. It attracts people who are very interested in politics, and debates go back and forth as to which candidate is better than another. (It might not necessarily change minds, but some useful dialogue is created by discussing the candidates back and forth, since each candidate will have some people in the caucus for them, and so opposing viewpoints can be exchanged.)
Some caucusgoers undoubtedly show up on caucus night and know that “I am absolutely voting for Red.” But there are degrees of support. Red might have a firm vote from certain caucusgoers – but he’d be a lot happier if his firm voters are also willing to argue hard for him within the caucus itself, to yield more votes.
Conversely, Blue might have a lukewarm supporter: “I don’t really like any of them, but I think Blue’s the best of the group.” That person might cast his/her vote for Blue, but probably won’t contend with others to gain more votes. Also, the lukewarm Blue supporter might have his/her mind changed by Red’s firmly committed caucusgoers.
This is why the caucuses are so challenging to organize and cost so much money for campaigns. Ideally, you’d like to have firm supporters in EVERY caucus throughout the state. If your caucusgoers don’t ultimately vote, they not only are costing you their own votes, but anyone they might have potentially persuaded at the caucus. It measures intensity of support.
In contrast, a primary ballot counts the same, regardless of whether the caster likes the candidate very much (or even at all). In primaries, an enthusiastic vote for Mitt Romney or John McCain doesn’t count any more than a lukewarm vote. They’re each one vote.
Hope that helps…
November 30th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
ElectionNightHQ.com Publisher, so the candidate will not only do well in the caucus states when his supporters are present, but even better when they are educated. I mean, they will need materials to argue and counter-argue on why their own candidate is the best man for the job. So far, not only has Mitt the best organization in Iowa, he also is supplying them with a lot of materials they can work — with all of his data-mining actions, with all of his adverstisements, with all of his proposals and plans.
And I believe caucus also is done in series of conventions. The first convention would be at a small level (preceipt or county), then the they would send the delegates over to the next level and start the whole process all over again. Also, please correct me, but I believe it is possible for the delegates from one convention to support different candidates. For instance, if a convention has 3 delegates, then each candidate only need to win 1/3 of votes to get a delegate. They will meet again until at the state convention. It could last over the period of 3 or 4 days, right? Is Jan 3rd the date only for their first convention, and that there will be some more over the coming weeks?
November 30th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Dave, LOL. A Huck/Rudy race decimates Rudy? How? Where are the Rudy/McCain voters going in that alternative?
November 30th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Metro, You meant a “Huck/Romney race decimates Rudy”….But I don’t see that happening either
November 30th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
http://confessionsofapoliticaljunkie.blogspot.com/2007/11/how-often-do-candidates-do-stuff-like.html
wweaty pictures of Romney
December 1st, 2007 at 4:44 pm
Hello, Colorado and SGS-
It’s good that SGS asked that detailed question, as it caused me to go look up the specific rules…
http://www.iowacaucus.org/iacaucus.html
That site has all the rules…
I’ll make one note, though – the main reason for its importance in this era, is the free-media coverage (and boom in online fundraising) that comes as a result of winning, not due to the delegate count or any of the subsequent stages that you mentioned…
If there are any other questions, I’ll do my best to answer…