Rasmussen: Wisconsin 2008 Presidential Election (Rudy over Hillary)

Rasmussen ^ | 12/11/07

[LS]

Giuliani 44% (+2 from early October) Clinton 42% (-1)

Clinton 46% (+1) Romney 40% (+5)

Clinton 45% (not polled) Huckabee 39%

[Lexinom]

Say what? Duncan has introduced the Right to Life Act many times and he’s in the race. How is he not a social conservative?

[LS]

Huh? The only Republican to poll higher than Hillary in WI, and who (to be fair, along with McCain) consistently beats Hillary in FL, NM, IA, CO, and (depending on the poll) OH? Fred gets creamed in these. So do Mitt and Huck. Like or dislike Rudy, but you cannot reasonably challenge the polls that show him running strongest against Hillary (again, with some showing McCain slightly better).

[LS]

Yes. It is posted already, and I didn't want to re-post it.

I try to post only two national polls (just overwhelming to post all of them): Ras and SurveyUSA. If Mason-Dixon does one, I'd post it too. Otherwise, for a composite, go to www.realclearpolitics.com.

[LS]

A couple of months ago, SurveyUSA had IA and NM polls showing McCain and Rudy beating Hillary. Those are red/blue, having gone to Gore in 2000 and Bush in 2004. About two months ago, SurveyUSA did a Washington poll that had both McCain and Rudy down about 5 in WA. That's pretty darn good. The SurveyUSA MI polls have Hillary up by about 5-6, depending on the GOP candidate.

The point is, given that most polls have Rudy winning FL, holding all the other "red" states, with OH being a tossup (some polls have Rudy and/or McCain down, some up, always close in OH), WI would constitute in important "swing."

[LS]

I think Fred's support (and a tad of Rudy's and Mitt's) has already SWUNG to Huck, and will likely move around again when the bloom is off the Huckster's rose.

While he is doing worse in the primaries, Fred would do much better in a national race (but still lose, probably pretty badly, to Hillary). Currently he and Mitt are polling about 10 points below Hillary; Rudy and McCain even or ahead in electoral college state polls.

[LS]

They aren't trying to forget he exists, but the fact is he's stagnant in almost every state (a recent good burst in ONE poll in WI). Politics is like show-biz: you create your own buzz. Rudy managed a two-week high with his anti-"General Betray-us" ad, which was brilliant. Fred could have done the same thing, but didn't.

I said months ago that Fred was too late. He has no organization to speak of in SC (last week, it was about 12 people). Romney, on the other hand, has armies on the ground. I don't see how you get out the vote without mass organizations.

[mathluv]

'I don't see how you get out the vote without mass organizations.'

Evidently the huckster is.

[LS]

No, he has gotten out the buzz. Big difference. Remember Howard Dean? Remember 1988 and Jesse Jackson, who had all the buzz, and good poll numbers, and was smashed in the actual vote? You gotta have organization, as John Kerry well knows now.

[codercpc]

I just don't think you can automatically blame the MSM. It is the fault of the campaign if he isn't seen.

Good campaigns send out press releases to every major news organization, good campaigns call the MSM and set up interviews, good campaigns set up news conferences, good campaigns print full page ads in the NYT (and demand comparable rates) to counteract the moonbats calling a military hero General BetrayUS.

Fred was on the Glen Beck show yesterday and Glen Beck said they had been trying to book him for months but never got feedback from the campaign. That is why a campaign has a press person, they send good items to Drudge, they call Fox News and set up the interviews (I have heard many talking heads say that candidates have open invitations.)

Let's face it Fred has a sucky campaign staff, and now he has to scramble in Iowa to get up to pace doing things other campaigns have been doing for months.

[wardaddy]

these polls are everywhere but it’s indisputable for now that Huckabee has risen and Fred is in the doldrums....unfortunately to me.

[Diana in Wisconsin]

And I’m swinging for far right field, Baby! :)

[LS]

The polls have been pretty consistent if you look at "realclearpolitics.com," which has a composite. Rudy hasn't moved much, remains ahead in Michigan (by a couple over Romney, Fred #3 but far back), Florida (by 15), New Jersey (by 41%), Pennsylvania (14), and California (14.5).

Romney up 14 avg. in NH, with McCain and Rudy tied at #2; Huck up 10 over Romney in IA, with Romney #2 and Rudy and Fred tied for #3; Rudy and Romney tied in NV with Huck at #3; Huck leading in SC, with Fred and Mitt tied at #2. Fred doesn't lead in a single state. He has to hope for a #3 in IA, a win in SC, and a miracle #2 in MI to really have a shot.

[wardaddy]

wasn’t Fred ahead in SC till Huck’s ascension?

[LS]

Depends on the poll, but it’s been a jumble. If you go to Realclearpolitics.com, you can see by the date of the poll who was ahead, when, and in which poll.

[wardaddy]

Where do you see this all heading LS?

with so much at stake, it seems like we are not doing great...maybe I’m just old and crotchety

[LS]

I don't know. I do think reports of Mitt's IA and NH demise are premature. I have never thought Fred had an organization to do much of anything.

We have a strange dichotomy in the polls where one of several candidates wins each of the early primaries (all the way through Super Tues.---still think Mitt will win IA, NH, maybe SC; Mitt or Huck will win MI; Rudy will win FL, NY, IL, CT, RI, PA, NJ, AZ, and some other midwest-eastern primaries)---and another candidate, McCain, shows up in SurveyUSA as consistently the strongest candidate against Hillary! So go figure.

If I had to bet right now, I'd probably bet Rudy will win the nomination.