Rasmussen Daily Poll (Romney takes 2nd place/16%)

Rasmussen Reports ^ | 13 November 2007 | Rasmussen Reports

[Spiff]

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows Rudy Giuliani on top, Mitt Romney in second, and Fred Thompson sinking in the race for the Republican Presidential Nomination. Giuliani attracts 27% support from Likely Republican Primary voters nationwide while Romney has moved up a couple of points to 16%. John McCain remains in third at 13% while Thompson is now tied with Mike Huckabee at 11%. Ron Paul's support fell a point to 5% and no other Republican tops 2% (see recent daily numbers).

In the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination, Senator Hillary Clinton is the top choice for 41% of Likely Democratic Primary Voters. Senator Barack Obama earns the vote from 20% while former Senator John Edwards attracts 17%. Bill Richardson is preferred by 5% and no other candidate tops the 3% level among Likely Democratic Primary Voters (see recent daily numbers).

Just 25% of Americans believe Democratic candidates have been “piling on” Clinton and attacking her unfairly. Democrats are more likely to believe that to be the case, but there is no gender gap on the issue.

New state election polls show Giuliani and McCain competitive with Clinton in Connecticut, Clinton competitive in Georgia, and Clinton doing well in Tennessee against anyone but Thompson. Georgia Senator Saxby Chambliss has solid leads over three potential challengers in his bid for re-election and former Senator Bill Frist is a very early favorite for the 2010 Governor’s election in Tennessee.

Romney is now seen as the most conservative Republican candidate, a crown previously worn by Thompson. Huckabee is gaining fast, hampered only by a relatively low level of name recognition. Polling data from the past week has been kind to Romney, Huckabee, and McCain.

Among Democrats, the campaign has become a tale of two narratives that will collide in Iowa on January 3. In one narrative, Clinton’s campaign has been hurt by the stumbles of recent weeks while the other considers her the dominant frontrunner. Both have the virtue of being true.

Finally, 61% of Americans now want U.S. troops to come home from Iraq within the year.

The Rasmussen Reports Election 2008 Presidential Tracking Poll is updated daily, Monday through Friday. The Presidential Tracking Poll will be updated seven days a week beginning Saturday, December 1, 2007. Daily results are based upon a four day rolling average and new results are posted each day by noon Eastern.

Daily tracking results are from survey interviews conducted over four days ending last night. Each update includes approximately 750 Likely Democratic Primary Voters and 600 Likely Republican Primary Voters. Margin of sampling error for each is +/- 4 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

Rasmussen Reports provides a weekly analysis of both the Republican and Democratic race each Monday.

Each Monday, full week results are released based upon a seven-day rolling average. While the daily tracking result are useful for measuring quick reaction to events in the news, the full week results provide an effective means for evaluating longer-term trends.

[Spiff]

+/- 4% works like this: Giuliani 27% (meaning his support falls in the range of 31% to 23%) Romney 16% (support in the range of 20% to 12%) McCain 13% (support in the range of 9% - 17%) Huckabee & Thompson 11% (support in the range of 15% to 7%) So in essence, there is a statistical tie for second place among all the candidates listed except Rudy.

Thank you for your reasonable explanation and response. Because of the criticism I received I looked up the whole "statistical tie" thing in the context of the margin of error in a poll. I found article after article, and explanations from mathmeticians, that say that the statistical tie term is misused more often (especially by the press) than not when referring to political polls. In fact, and I didn't save a link, I found one mathmetician's explanation that disagrees with yours. But I found others that would agree with what you said.

[Reaganesque]

WOOHOO!!

;-)

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

Woo hoo!

[napscoordinator]

Fredheads are truly panicked about Fred. Don’t worry. This happened back in 2006 when people were trying to tell people that things don’t look good for the Republicans. People were called LIARS like crazy. I feel so bad for Fredheads because I think that are coming to the realization that they were snowed. To be honest, I am glad they are finding out now and not when primaries start or we could of had quite a few of them jumping out the window.

[LexBaird]

Most of the base weren't purists to begin with, and so it's entirely plausible that a good chunk of them are now 'national security voters', thus favoring Guiliani.

Yes, but why Rudy? Other than being Mayor when 9-11 happened in his city, what exactly ARE his natl. security creds? What would he do to pursue the WOT that any of the other Republican candidates (putting aside Paul) would not?

It seems to me that Rudy's "security" reputation is more marketing than meat. Frankly, if voters are going to ignore everything but national security, McCain or Hunter have the best military creds.

[CheyennePress]

Yep. Right now, a lot of the middle of the pack is essentially giving the nomination to Giuliani.

I would hope that Huckabee would withdraw if he has a poor performance in Iowa. Likewise, Fred Thompson should withdraw if he finished no better than third in South Carolina and Iowa. And Romney should pull out if he doesn’t win at least one of the early 4 or 5 states—really 2 and no worse than second in the others.

Giuliani can be defeated, but we need to have this field narrowed to two as soon as possible if that’s going to happen.

[CheyennePress]

>>>Over those two I’d take Romney...but I think he’s the least electable in the general.<<<

I’m biased, but I think Mitt is easily the most electable in the general.

First, as opposed to Giuliani, he’s easily distanced from Hillary. He offers a very clear alternative. His squeeky clean family and professional life against her history of corruption. His pro-defense, pro-life stance against her antitheses. His history of private sector success v. her???

As opposed to Thompson, Romney in no way embodies Bush or the old white guy stereotypes. Voters are looking for change. Romney doesn’t fit the mold of the two most negative Republican stereotypes.

And when matched against Hillary, Romney is quick on his feet and speaks well on the cuff. He hasn’t been afraid to attack her when the time comes. Hillary is going to badly dependent on the female vote, as she polls much, much more favorably with women than men. The problem? Mitt will steal these votes away from her just as her husband did in past years and just as John F. Kennedy did. An attractive family man will do that every time.

I’m pretty optimistic about our chances, honestly. I think either Romney or Giuliani would vanquish Hillary in the general. I’d like to think Thompson would, as well, but I’m honestly not so sure with him.

We shall see.

[TheLion]

"WooHoo!"

[Republic If You Can Keep It]

According to this chart, Thompson is tied for last place.

False

No, TRUE.

I recommend a course for you: "Chart Reading 101"

[Swordfished]

Yes, but why Rudy? Other than being Mayor when 9-11 happened in his city, what exactly ARE his natl. security creds? What would he do to pursue the WOT that any of the other Republican candidates (putting aside Paul) would not?

It seems to me that Rudy's "security" reputation is more marketing than meat. Frankly, if voters are going to ignore everything but national security, McCain or Hunter have the best military creds.

I agree with all you said, but perception is reality in politics.

[rhinohunter]

Romney viewed as most conservative? Guess it proves that money can make a lie work.

and -- sad to say -- so do the looks.

The way I look at it, there are 3 possibilities with Mitt.

(A) He was living a lie when he was the liberal governor of Mass and now we are seeing the true conservative Mitt.

(B) He was always a liberal and is lying to us now when he says he's a true Conservative.

(C) He was a liberal and -- at the exact time he switched into Presidential campaign mode -- he underwent a total religious and philosophical conservion.

If you believe (C) then you are complete fool.

Otherwise, you have (A) and (B), but in both cases your man is a liar. And since lying, liberalism, and infanticide go hand in hand, my money is on (B).

[HerrBlucher]

Only psychos like us keep track of this stuff.

The Polls and Intrade are good for daily bragging rights. Rooty tooters would be in our face every day except.....hey where are they?

Right now, even with the statistical margin of error, Mittheads get to cluck n strut, Mitt is doing better, we'll see how long it lasts. The right to life endorse should help Fred a lot and throw in the NRA (hopefully) and Fred should be right back on top of things.

I really don't understand Fred's drop though.....who are these former Fred supporters going to? It has to be back to undecided......what Fredhead worth a dang would go for Mitt or Huckster or Rooty? Now if Hunter took a sudden jump I would say the Fredheads are going to him but he ain't jumpin...

[JCEccles]

Bump.

[ejonesie22]

These polls follow the rule of shinny objects...

Attention spans are short..

Mitt is very pretty...

[JCEccles]

And Fred is ugly.

And slow.

[ejonesie22]

And has the endorsement Mitt was counting on to finally end all the talk about his pro life bona fides, the one Jim Bopp failed to deliver...

Not bad for old ugly, huh...

That's gotta suck...

[CottonBall]

And I think a lot of the first impression stuff about him is true. He’s a little tired and slow, which doesn’t work well in the shark pool.

I happened to catch an old Matlock episode today with Thompson in it. He was more robust and healthy-looking back then. That's the old Fred we need. He seems too thin and unenergetic now, compared to back then. I wish he didn't lose so much weight in an effort to get ready for the campaign. I don't think it helped.

[CottonBall]

1) Rudy is way ahead nationally, anywhere from 6-12 points in most polls;

3) and McCain, in all the SurveyUSA polls, LEADS all Republicans in head-to-head polls vs. Hillary (although Rudy still beats her, only not quite as much as McCain), and Mitt isn't close to beating her.

Both those options leave me nauceous. I could never, ever vote for SantuaryRudy or McAmnesty. I am deeply saddened that the GOP base thinks they're ok (if that's truly the case).

[redangus]

A lot of Republican voters the last few elections are like my sisters. They were both moderate Democrats, in fact my younger sister worked for the Dems in many local races.Then the Monica thing happened followed by 9-11. They were so repulsed by the whole Monica thing they voted for GW because he seemed to be a decent family man. Then after 9-11 they really started to vote based on terrorism. They are not hard core conservatives though they are nominally pro-life, low tax voters. These are your Bushbots that used to inhabit FR. They are not interested in the hard right positions on guns, gays or abortion and are not likely members of FR. They are America however and are moderate to moderately conservative in their lifestyle and economically conservative. These are the people we have to get to win in 2008. They will vote for a president that convinces them he/she will keep the country safe and keep the taxes low. They are sour on the Iraq war and need to be convinced that it part of the larger battle against terrorism. They get their news passing through the family room in the evening and by reading the paper. They are busy with their lives, they are not terribly political though they are getting tired of being over taxed and under served. Many are starting to understand that government isn’t the answer for everything, but accept that it has a place at the table.

If we want to win we need somebody who can make his positions known in simple, direct terms. They do not like being lied to or talked to down to. They want someone who looks presidential, speaks well, is successful and is energetic. They won’t vote for their grandfather. The candidate must be economically conservative, strong on immigration(the sleeper issue of this campaign) and strong on defense/terrorism, abortion and gay issues will not move many of them either way unless someone goes to the extremes.

I am not choosing a candidate, but I really believe this is where we stand as a party based on my conversation with friends and family.

[CottonBall]

Most of the base weren't purists to begin with, and so it's entirely plausible that a good chunk of them are now 'national security voters', thus favoring Guiliani.

Yes, but why Rudy?

Fixing our porous borders SHOULD be a huge part of national security. It should've been done on 9/12, as well as determining who the 12-30million illegals are that are within our borders. The two issues cannot be separated - else our national security and the WOT are a joke.

That said, Rudy should be the last GOP candidate anyone would feel safe with. Well, perhaps he'd be tied with a few others for last place.