USA Today/Gallup:Giuliani 30 Thompson 20 McCain 16 Romney 10

real clear politics ^ | 6/9/07

[finnman69]

Giuliani 30% Thompson 20% McCain 16% Romney 9% Gingrich 6% Huckabee 2% Hunter 2% Tancredo 2% Brownback 1% Hagel 1% Tommy Thompson 1%. Gilmore 0% Paul 0%

Clinton 37% Obama 21% Gore 16% Edwards 13% Biden 3% Kucinich 2% Richardson 2% Gravel 1% Dodd 0%

[finnman69]

Given that he has been behind Fred Thompson -- a candidate that hasn't spent a single dime or visited any of the primary states -- why on earth would you consider RINO Rudy the frontrunner, let alone one there to stay?

A. Giuliani has the money machine in gear. Thompson has nothing setup.

B. The polls clearly show Giuliani is the stable frontrunner. Giuliani is not behind, except in 1 poll that appears to have been a blip.

[Petronski]

McCain is imploding.

[Ol' Sparky]

No, the poll -- Rasmussen -- measuring the likely voters rather than generic (including Republican-leaning voters) is the most accurate one.

Romney has far more money than RINO Rudy does and the lead in the first two primary states.

Thompson's support is nothing short of amazing considering he has done no fundraising or campaigning, both of which are very likely to increase his poll numbers.

[JohnnyZ]

Yeah, let's talk about that Duncan Express.

Duncan Hunter is in 5th place in this poll

Rudy 32
Fred 21
McCain 16
Mitt 9
Hunter 3

Would that some of the scrub candidates like Gilmore, TT, other TT, Huckabee would drop out so they'd stop cluttering up the field. Hunter's running a decent campaign but it's tough to break through the noise.

[Josh Painter]

curiosity wrote: “Yes, the Thompson supporters would make hay out of it if he were in the lead. But I’m not a Thompson supporter.”

I’m a Thompson supporter, and I have no problem with the poll. Fred will eventually catch and then surpass Rudy. I realize that, unlike Rasmussen Reports, it’s not a survey of likely primnary voters, but there’s still some interesting stuff in there. For example:

“As for the presidential candidates, there is only one leading candidate in either party with a higher unfavorable than favorable rating. And that candidate is…Mitt Romney, at 23-31. Of the other top candidates, Hillary Clinton is at her usual 48-48; Barack Obama is 53-27; John Edwards is 50-32; and Al Gore is 52-42. Rudy Giuliani is 55-31; John McCain is 46-35; and Fred Thompson is 30-19. Michael Bloomberg, in his first Gallup test, is 36-27.”

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YmQ3NmRmOTQ5M2NlOTBhNWM1ZDAyYzgxNWY5NGVhNTQ=

Notice that Fred has the lowest unfavorables of any of the leading candidates.

Still laughing out loud?

[NeoCaveman]

“The key to Giuliani’s ultimate victory is that there be no one consensus conservative that emerges to challenge him; he needs more conservative candidates to split up the vote as you move to Feb. 5 and beyond,” Fabrizio said.

Which is why I'll be supporting whoever can beat Rudy. Wether it be Fred or Mitt or whoever.

[Tall_Texan]

I don’t think polls should include unannounced candidates.

Otherwise, I’d still nominate Ronald Reagan. He’d be a better president NOW than most of the ones running for the job.

[curiosity]

Notice that Fred has the lowest unfavorables of any of the leading candidates.

That's probably because most people don't know very much about him beyond his Law and Order TV persona. It also reflects the fact he hasn't officially announced, so he hasn't experienced the inevitable muckraking yet.

Romney's negatives most likely reflect the fact that nationally most people don't know much about him except that he's a Mormon.