Skip to comments.
Iowa Poll-apalooza! (Updated) (Pollsters May Have Skewed Poll Towards Huckabee)
The Weekly Standard ^
| 12/28/07
| Dean Barnett
Posted on 12/31/2007 6:18:24 AM PST by Reaganesque
The L.A. Times conducted a widely discussed poll of Iowa and New Hampshire voters. In Iowa, the Times had Huckabee leading Romney 37%-23%. In her write-up of the poll results, Times staff writer Janet Hook oddly neglected to mention that the results among likely voters are much closer. Counting only the likely voters, Romney trailed 36%-28%.
Ms. Hooks story on the poll reported Huckabees fourteen point lead as definitive. Why, even Hugh Hewitt didnt notice the discrepancy between the likely voters result and the Times coverage of its own poll. To find the difference, you had to crack the poll's internals and scan all the way down to Question 34. Was it merely a sloppy write-up on Ms. Hooks part or agenda journalism at work? I report, you decide.
There's another interesting aspect of the poll. It appears the LAT labeled 90% of the polled Republicans as likely voters. Given that adding the 10% of unlikely voters to the pool swelled Huckabees lead from 8% to 14%, it looks like the non-voting public absolutely adores Huckabee. One could infer from this result that Huckabee's support is strongest with the members of the public least engaged in the process and, more importantly, least likely to vote. This strange result may mean that as voting time nears and the polling sample narrows from 90% of Republicans with telephones to the relative sliver of the Iowa population that actually caucuses, Huckabee's support will further erode.
Of course, it's impossible (as the above analysis implies) that an unlikely voter pool of only 10% of the total could so dramatically impact the ultimate result. In defense of my obviously faulty analysis, the poll's internals regarding these figures are utterly inscrutable. If anyone can make sense of Questions 33 and 34 and figure out exactly what they're saying, please email me (soxblog@aol.com) or do a post on it. While you're at it, try to make sense of the LAT coverage of its own poll. You'll have mine and the blogosphere's eternal gratitude. I'm not promising anything, but if you do a real good job of it, I may even get you a Weekly Standard coffee mug as a belated Christmas gift.
Regardless of what's going on in Questions 33 and 34, the larger point seems to hold: Huckabee does significantly better among unlikely voters than likely voters. That could be portentous. Or maybe Im a Romney supporter grasping at straws. You'll have to wait until Jay Cost comments to find out what the discrepancy really means.
In other Iowa polling news, Strategic Vision shows Huckabee leading Romney by two points, 29% - 27%. I regret to report, but feel obliged to do so nonetheless, that Strategic Vision's polling history does not jibe with my theory of the Iowa race being extremely fluid. SV has conducted four polls since December 6. Huckabee has led in all of them. His largest lead was six points in their December 18 poll. His smallest is the two point lead registered yesterday. One could view this as a trend, but given the small movements, statistical noise is a distinct (and more likely) possibility.
Nevertheless, I'm sticking to my guns I still sense Huckabees support sliding away.
Posted by Dean Barnett on December 28, 2007 10:35 AM | Permalink
TOPICS: Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: huckabee; ia; ia2008; polls; romney
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61 next last
To: mission9
I know but, if he wins, they’re going to make such accusations regardless of his status so, may as well tell the whole story.
41
posted on
12/31/2007 7:12:20 AM PST
by
Reaganesque
(Charter Member of the Romney FR Resistance)
To: Dick Vomer
If you know any family, friends, or business associates in Iowa, please, call as many as you can and bring them to there senses and try to convince them that Fred is the man to be the President of the USA.
To: Emrys
The National Review endorsed Romney. From National Review's The Campaign Spot
|
Friday, December 28, 2007
2008 HOMEPAGE CAMPAIGN BOX, MITT ROMNEY NR vs. UL, and an Out-of-Whack Assessment of Reagan The editors of National Review take aim at the editors of the New Hampshire Union Leader. This seems to be another useful time to remind folks that the senior editors endorsed Romney, and that I wasn't one of those senior editors, I have no particular interest or intent of arguing with the senior editors on behalf of readers who think it is the wrong choice, and that griping to me about it just pretty much makes me cranky. I see Mitt Romney is getting flak for this statement:
CURRY: Most analysts would say, governor, that the events of yesterday will help your chief opponents Rudy Giuliani and John McCain. Are you concerned, are you worried that your impact, that your campaign will be impacted negatively?
ROMNEY: Oh, I think we have to put the events of the world at a higher level than thinking about local politics. But I do believe as well that people recognize that what we want in a leader is a person who can actually guide America in a very challenging time. You look back to the one of the great foreign policy leaders of our nation was Ronald Reagan. He was a governor, not a so-called foreign policy expert. He was a person who knew how to make difficult decisions and how to lead in times of crisis. And I think if you look at my life's experience you'll recognize that's what I bring to the table.
Romney deserves the grief he'll get, as a very strong case can be made that Reagan was indeed a "so-called foreign policy expert" by 1976, never mind 1980.
12/28 12:56 PM
|
|
43
posted on
12/31/2007 7:19:52 AM PST
by
greyfoxx39
(Mitt willingly gives up his personal freedoms to his church..why would he protect YOURS!)
To: Prophet in the wilderness
Fred is a good man, but I am not convinced he really wants the job. I can’t remember seeing such a lazy campaign.
To: beefree
I put it this way, back in March, I was a strong Duncan Hunter supporter, I like Hunter and his views and policies.
I have nothing against Hunter and would be pleased and happy of him being the next President of the USA.
However, when I saw that there was talk of Fred entering the race, it was a natural choice, I knew we had a winner there.
I think you better go with your gut( your belly ) instints, because my fire in my belly tells me Fred is the one.
Take care and HAPPY NEW YEAR.
Try to get on the phone if you have any family, friends, or bussiness associates in Iowa, NH and SC , and try to bring them to their senses, how can they won't for the RINOS, were we have a fine man to vote for : FRED THOMPSOM
I hope we have a : THOMPSON/HUNTER ticket
To: Old Retired Army Guy
" but I am not convinced he really wants the job. I cant remember seeing such a lazy campaign. "
I hope you bought some ear plugs so you won't here the BS from the MSM.
You got to have some faith, at least give Fred another look and support him.
To: claudiustg
You’re right. The unreported story of IA is that Mitt has a legion of boots on the ground, and no one else does. That’s why I’ve always thought he would win-—but to the issue of the Huckaboom, I also thought he would fade as rapidly as he “surged.” It was a brief back-alley flirtation between voters and Huck, not even a date, and certainly not a conjugal visit.
47
posted on
12/31/2007 7:36:02 AM PST
by
LS
(CNN is the Amtrak of News)
To: Old Retired Army Guy
Bloomie could really hurt Democrats in the NE, esp. NY, CT, and maybe PA. He could possibly take votes from Rudy if Rudy is the candidate.
There are hundreds of thousands of wanna-be "intellectuals" in this country who don't want to vote for the obvious choice---(on the Dem side, Edwards or Hillary, but certainly, they don't want a conservative, nor do they want anyone with common sense or any religious values, i.e., Rudy, Romney, Huck, Thompson, Hunter). McCain is acceptable to them because of his "maverick" positions, but Bloomie would be perfect. So Bloomie would hurt our guys some---Rudy most of all---but would probably hurt the Dems a little more unless it's Obama.
48
posted on
12/31/2007 7:41:32 AM PST
by
LS
(CNN is the Amtrak of News)
To: Dick Vomer
To: 2111USMC; Reaganesque
"the outcome will be determined by who has the resources and organization to get their supporters to the polls on Friday"
(We Thompson supporters are going to get together for our caucus on Thursday Jan. 3) Just shows how much those others really have in common with Hitlery. ;)
YES! McCainiacs; Hucksters, one & all; Romney Ramblers: DON'T FORGET TO CAUCUS FRIDAY!
50
posted on
12/31/2007 8:06:41 AM PST
by
ApplegateRanch
(If God didn't want a Liberal/RINO hanging from every tree, He wouldn't have created so much rope!)
To: Old Retired Army Guy
Maybe because in the past the MSM actually SHOWED candidates campaigning?
Unless they can get a good misquote or dig, Thompson isn’t mentioned by the MSM. It would interfere with their anointed ones.
51
posted on
12/31/2007 8:10:16 AM PST
by
ApplegateRanch
(If God didn't want a Liberal/RINO hanging from every tree, He wouldn't have created so much rope!)
To: Old Retired Army Guy
“Anybody have any comment on the speculation that Bloomberg may take his ‘Billions’ and enter this thing as an Independent? Who does that hurt? Who does that help? Or, can he win it? I havent got a clue?”
If he enters the contest as an independent he hurts the Dim candidate. He’s a liberal, and he’s a Dim himself (only switching parties at the last minute to run for mayor, and then switching fro RINO to independent). Even liberal Republicans are disgusted with the guy for switching parties, as they see that as an insult. The Dims, however, eagerly embrace traitorous opportunists. so many Dims will support him.
To: beefree
Candidate calculator Which one?
I used three, answering as honestly as I could, and they are all gave somewhat different results.
One of them had me "equally" for McCain, Hunter, and Thompson.
Another was 1. Fred Thompson 95.53% match on issues; 2.Mike Huckabee 93.31% match on issues; 3. Mitt Romney 93.21% match on issues; 4. Rudy Giuliani 88.86% match on issues.
A third one gave me Duncan Hunter 88.68% match; Thompson 87.74% (less than 1% difference); Romney 83.02%; Huckabee 81.13%.
Conclussion I: these are as accurate as the various polls; and as unbiased as MSNBC, CNN, and Fox.
Conclussion II: I already supported Thompson, and don't feel Hunter (much as I like him) would stand a chance in the general election.
53
posted on
12/31/2007 8:45:45 AM PST
by
ApplegateRanch
(If God didn't want a Liberal/RINO hanging from every tree, He wouldn't have created so much rope!)
To: Prophet in the wilderness
If you know any family, friends, or business associates in Iowa, please, call as many as you can and bring them to there senses and try to convince them that Fred is the man to be the President of the USA. Boy, that would do me a lot of good!
The only people I know in Iowa are a retired school teacher, and NEA activist; a social worker; a welafare mother; and a Leberal Jewish family.
The only things we really agree about are eating German food at the Amana Colonies; and Star Trek was a good series of series, while they lasted...except ST: Enterprise sucked big time.
54
posted on
12/31/2007 8:52:01 AM PST
by
ApplegateRanch
(If God didn't want a Liberal/RINO hanging from every tree, He wouldn't have created so much rope!)
To: KC_Conspirator
55
posted on
12/31/2007 8:59:40 AM PST
by
Dick Vomer
(liberals suck....... but it depends on what your definition of the word "suck" is.,)
To: Dick Vomer
Did you vote for W? I did, thrice. Looks like I voted for a RINO if we adhere to your definition of RINO.
Sit it out? There are important issues on your ballot besides Presidential preference. I don’t recommend ‘sitting it out’ for anyone here.
56
posted on
12/31/2007 9:24:51 AM PST
by
CARTOUCHE
( The pen is mightier than the sword and so much easier to conceal)
To: Reaganesque
57
posted on
12/31/2007 12:22:32 PM PST
by
TheLion
To: Old Retired Army Guy
Old Retired Army Guy said:
"I cant remember seeing such a lazy campaign." Were you expecting Thompson to visit your home personally?
Are there any issues about which you have any doubt about Thompson's stand? Do you lack sufficient exposure to the man himself to judge his poise and ability to think for himself?
What specifically do you fault him for? What negative outcome do you predict if Thompson is elected based on your observation about a "lazy campaign"?
58
posted on
12/31/2007 1:03:00 PM PST
by
William Tell
(RKBA for California (rkba.members.sonic.net) - Volunteer by contacting Dave at rkba@sonic.net)
To: William Tell
When Thompson did not raise his hand during the "Who wants to kiss Al Gore's arse debate question", that sealed the deal for me.
I also support his federalist philosophy. I'm sick of thinking about supporting the candidate who might have the best chance against the witch.
To: Reaganesque
60
posted on
12/31/2007 4:40:57 PM PST
by
Kevmo
(We should withdraw from Iraq — via Tehran. And Duncan Hunter is just the man to get that job done.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson