Huckabee Loses Lead Iowa
McClatchy reports that the gaffes former Governor Mike Huckabee made in recent weeks, and the attack ads from camp Romney, have had a significant effect on the race in Iowa: Huckabee has lost his lead to Mitt Romney. At the same time, John Edwards is surging in the Democratic field, causing the three main Democratic contenders to be in a virtual tie.
The results of the poll (Democrats):
- Edwards leads with 24%
- He’s closely followed by Clinton with 23%
- And by Obama with 22%
- Governor Richardson (from 8% to 12%) and Senator Joe Biden (from 5% to 8%) are also doing reasonably well
The results for Republicans:
- Romney leads with 27%
- He’s followed by Huckabee who has fallen to 23%
- Fred Thompson is in third place with 14%
- John McCain is fourth with 13%
The battle for third place is significant: both Thompson and McCain are aiming for third place, as to create some momentum.
Romney’s lead has quickly become significant. 4% is, in this Republican field, reasonably much, especially considering the fact that not too long ago, Huckabee was leading Romney by far. All in all, support for him has dropped by some 8%, while support for Romney has increased by approximately 7%.
As we all know, Romney decided to go after Huckabee a week ago or so: his campaign is hitting Iowa’s airwaves with negative ad after negative ad and it’s paying off.
The only problem for Romney at this point in time? 33% of his supporters say they could also vote for someone else, whereas Huckabee’s support is quite solid.
At this point in time, Romney is the favorite in Iowa. Lest we forget, Huckabee prepared his supporters in a blogger’s conference recently for a third place finish. For those who want him to win, that spells trouble. If Romney wins, however, he’ll create some momentum and he’ll have a better shot at winning in New Hampshire as well. If he wins in both Iowa and New Hampshire, he’s suddenly the frontrunner. If he loses in the Granite State, but wins in Iowa, well, we’ll suddenly have two main contenders (him and McCain).
For those who haven’t seen it yet, here’s one of the ads the Romney camp uses in Iowa (first aired December 28) called “Ready”:
And here’s another one (first aired December 18) called “Choice: Judgment”:
Good for Romney, he is clearly the best candidate.
Romney is the only candidate that can remedy the economic threat of China. He will bring back jobs that have been lost overseas and turn us back into the economic power house we once were.
So in the mean time, the AOL Straw Poll just keeps on churning along, now with 387,000 votes casts, evenly distributed (4.39% spread) between DEM and REP votes.Elections are decided by those who are enthusiastic and committed enough to go out there and actually vote. This makes me wonder how a so called "scientific poll" of a mere 1,000 to 2,000 people, selected by the pollsters, can be a more accurate reflection of voter sentiment than a supposedly unscientific "straw poll" where so far over 300,000 people have voted voluntarily because they are enthusiastic and committed enough to go out there and actually vote.
Go figure.
What happened to Giuliani? Why is he neck and neck with fringe candidate Paul at 5%?
David, in Iowa you mean? He isn’t campaigning there, and Iowans aren’t really the Giuliani kind of Republicans.
Yes in Iowa. I was a little surprised by the poll that you linked to. I haven’t been following the primaries much, so I didn’t realise that he wasn’t campaigning in Iowa. Even taking this into account, 5% still seems very low if he wishes to remain a leading candidate.
Yes, and that’s what most people say, but he’s gambling on doing better in New Hampshire and, especially, on the big states. He hopes to win (and frankly, he probably has to, or at least do very well) in Florida. Then on Super Tuesday, well, he’s currently leading in polls in most states that’ll hold their primaries on Super Tuesday, so he hopes to cash in on that. The problem for him, of course, is that the other candidates will create momentum and that support for them will grow once they start winning (that’s Romney’s bet).
What happened to Giuliani?
Giuliani never put any effort into Iowa at all, and very little into New Hampshire (a Romeny stronghold). Paul and others have poured in many millions hoping to get national momentum out of the results–and in running so close together, are possibly killing off the momentum potential they crave. Close races don’t confer the Big Mo to anyone. Blowouts do. But the back-tier candidates HAVE to compete in those states, to keep the money coming in.
Giuliani is running a "Super Tuesday" strategy instead, working the big-delegate states.
EX: Iowa, 41 delegates. NH, 24 delegates. Florida, 114 delegates. California, 173 delegates. Guess which states Giuliani has major leads in? I’m sure you get the idea.
Not in Florida anymore Tully. And although that’s indeed his strategy, it’s a major gamble (he would write history if he succeeds). He’s still one of the candidates with a good shot at winning the nomination, but it’s getting more difficult for him each and every day. Especially if the early primaries result in one or two clear frontrunner: at that moment, all the attention will focus on them and Giuliani will have a major problem.
As an aside, I like Giuliani a lot, if it weren’t for his somewhat authoritarian streak and his uberhawkish foreign policy views I could support him if I were American for the Rep. nomination.
Um, Michael, I’m looking at the most recent Florida polls including unreleased party internals, and Giuliani’s got a fairly solid lead there. Huckabee or Romney have to have early blowouts to get the Mo to challenge in Florida, and it’s not looking like blowout country in Iowa and NH. Florida has become a bit de-emphasized with losing half their delegates, but barring those early-state blowouts it’s the totals after Super Tuesday that will supply any real Mo for the front-runners.
It’s not really that odd a strategy. The last guy to try it and succeed was a real nobody who was way back in the pack at the time. You might have heard of him. Fellow named Clinton.
December 14: "The latest Rasmussen Reports polling in the state of Florida suggests that Giuliani might need to work on a “Plan B.’ Mike Huckabee now leads in the Sunshine State Primary with 27% of the vote. He is trailed closely by Romney at 23% and Giuliani at 19%. Fred Thompson is at 9% in the poll, John McCain at 6%, and Ron Paul at 4%. Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter each attract 1% and 8% are undecided."
And, you can say that you think that Giuliani could pull it off, but you can’t possibly say it’s not a gamble. It is.
This one, then, has Giuliani in the lead, but it’s safe to conclude that Florida will be hotly contested state and that Giuliani could very well lose.
Especially when the other candidates have the momentum going.
I’m not saying that Giuliani has no chance of winning, I’m saying it’ll be difficult for him – extremely difficult – and that he may very well look back in March and say "I should’ve done things slightly differently."
We’ll see.
In Iowa (caucuses, which have some very big distinctions from actual elections), they have predicted the actual party nominee 3 times out of the past 7 elections since 1972 (when they started caucuses for Dems) that did not have a Democratic incumbent. In 2 of the 3, they had semi-incumbents in Mondale & Gore. Since 1976 when they started Republican caucuses, they have predicted 2 of 4 elections that did not have a Republican incumbent. In NH, since 1952 when they passed the law to be first in the nation they have picked the eventual nominee 50% for Dems, and 62% for Repubs where no incumbent ran. Those are not really stellar track records for the amount of press that they get. And the polls have proven just as inneffectual. I posted a few weeks back about the 2004 Iowa lead-up — it was all about the union clout and who – Gephart or Dean, old or new union support was going to prevail. The unions have basically zero pull these days, even in Democratic primaries & caucuses.
Don’t waste you time & breath on the polls and how important these early primaries are. Keep exposing us to the issues and how each of these people stack up to the issues.
But they do have money.
And you’re right; the polls don’t have to be right. But they’re fun and I do think that they’re right about the state of the Republican race and the Democratic one. You know: too close to call. If, in effect, there was a clear frontrunner on the Republican side, the polls would’ve shown that. Instead, the polls confirm what we all think: that the top 5 can, in theory, win it.
they do have money, but I believe that, like celebrities, normal people are put off by their endorsements, and more will vote to spite them than be swayed by them. As I said, the biggest spenders by far in 2004 were the unions and if anything, it hurt the front runners. I work in industry, with a lot of union people. They definitely vote with the union on local issues, but most are more hard nosed on foreign affairs, illegal immigration, etc and tend to vote republican nationally.
For political junkies, like you seem to be, they must be fun – I find them to be just terribly inacurate, ever changing, inconsistent and don’t put much stock in them. Seen them disproved to many times.