• Send FReep Mail to Unmarked Package to get [ON] or [OFF] the Mitt Romney Ping List •
Posted on 07/05/2007 1:34:26 PM PDT by Reaganesque
A second New Hampshire poll in less than a month shows former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney pulling ahead of former front-runners John McCain and Rudy Giuliani and into first place in the leadoff Presidential primary campaign.
The American Research Group's June 27-30 poll of 600 likely Republican primary voters has Romney with the support of 27 percent of those surveyed, compared to 21 percent for McCain and 19 percent for Giuliani.
A month ago, the same poll showed Romney trailing McCain, 30 to 23 percent and in a virtual tie with Giuliani, who received the support of 21 percent.
The new poll also shows that among 600 likely Democratic primary voters, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton continues to lead the Democratic pack with 34 percent, unchanged since May, but that Barack Obama has moved ahead of John Edwards and into second place, with the support 25 percent of those polled. Edwards was backed by 18 percent of those polled in May, while Obama in May was backed by 15 percent. The June poll shows Edwards at 15 percent.
Both party polls have margins of error of 4 percent.
In the new Republican poll, former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson jumped from 3 percent in May to 10 percent, apparently taking support from McCain and Giuliani.
Thompson, who visited the state last week as the poll was being taken, is not yet a candidate, but has strongly hinted that he will run.
Former House speaker Newt Gingrich, who is also not a candidate, drew 4 percent, the same percentage as in May, while Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, Ron Paul, and Tom Tancredo received 1 percent each, and 14 percent were undecided.
Romney led among self-described Republicans with 29 percent, compared to 21 percent for Giuliani and 18 percent for McCain. Among independents, McCain led with 29 percent, while Romney followed with 22 percent and Giuliani 19 percent.
In the Democratic poll, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson headed the second tier with 6 percent, while Joe Biden received 4 percent, Dennis Kucinich received 3 percent, Mike Gravel received 2 percent, non-candidate Wesley Clark 1 percent, and 11 percent were undecided.
Clinton led among Democrats with 35 percent, compared to 25 percent for Obama and 11 percent for Edwards. She also led among independents, drawing 33 percent compared to 26 percent for Obama and 12 for Edwards.
Romney's growing strength in New Hampshire was first indicated in mid-June, when a poll conducted by UNH for CNN and WMUR showed him pulling into the GOP lead, with 28 percent, compared to 20 percent for Giuliani and 20 percent for McCain.
The UNH Democratic poll had Clinton leading Obama, 36 to 22 percent, with Edwards at 12 percent.
If he loses Iowa he’s toast.
Like I've been saying....
I guess that McRino’s meteoric plunge can, from some pointa of view, make Romney look like he is “pulling ahead”...but pulling ahead of whom, since Fred isn’t really in the race....yet.
Read it and weep:
More bad news for the Mitt bashers!
Isn’t Romney running more ads than anyone up there? Also he’s the former MA Gov. Means nothing. Frankly, NH should be dropped or ignored. Who gives a crap what they think anyway, or in Iowa? Sick of those puny states lording it over the rest of us for the past 50 years.
Too bad there isn’t a national primary.
Let Precious win New Hampshire. Fred will win everything else that’s actually important. ;-)
Nothing to weep about here. Romney has been consistent and risen steadily. I believe he will continue to do so. What will be interesting is to see if it is enough. Adding 80,000 new supporters is quite the accomplishment. Kudos to Thompson (Yes some of us here do observe Reagan's 11th commandment).
Mitt needs to be close in the national polls by January, but he's got lots of time.
The reality is that the nomination race is between two people - Rudy and Fred. Everyone else is either a niche player or statistically irrelevant.
Kerry was trailing badly in national polls in early 2004. It’s all about Iowa and New Hampshire, and both appear to be trending toward Mitt.
Right. Mitt's leading in the first two primary states, and yet he's irrelevant. Your impeccable logic leaves me speechless./sarcasm.
Actually I’d put him in the niche category. NH and Iowa really don’t matter now, hate to break it to you.
I’ll be happy to remind you again after the convention.
I can’t account for it logically, but I have a weird feeling that this guy is going to win the Presidency in 2008 with Thompson as his VP.
Right, they don't matter. That's why all the candidates are spending so much time and money campaigning there.
If they're so irrelevant why did John Kerry move from 3rd place to the front-runner position after winning both states back in 2004?
Look, I don't like it that these two little states have such a disproportionate say in our presidential elections, but the fact is they do. I suggest you deal with that reality.
Indeed, 2008 may be the last election cycle in which much weight and attention is given to either of them.
Neither state is politcally/demographically what it once was, particularly New Hampshire, which will be a "full blue" state in 20-25 more years. Not quite as bad as Vermont, of course, but probably more resembling Maine just to the northeast. Voter pollution from the Gay state!
- John
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.