August 5, 2007 - August 11, 2007
Additional analysis from the recent USA Today/Gallup national survey of 1,012 adults (conducted 8/3 through 8/5) finds:
- Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani has the highest favorable rating (55%) and the highest net favorable rating (+23) of eight possible presidential candidates. Sen. Barack Obama has a net favorable rating of +14, former Sen. John Edwards +12, and former Sen. Fred Thompson +11.
Combined results from the four most recent Gallup surveys finds 92% of Democrats with a post-graduate education rate Sen. Barack Obama favorably while 86% rate Sen. Hillary Clinton favorably. Among Democrats with a high school education or less, 66% rate Obama favorably while 86% rate Clinton favorably.
A recent Hart Research (D) and McLaughlin & Associates (R) statewide survey of likely voters in New Hampshire (conducted 7/24 through 7/26) and sponsored by One Vote 08 finds:
- Among 504 likely Democratic primary voters, Sen. Hillary Clinton leads Sen. Barack Obama (36% to 19%) in a statewide survey, former Sen. John Edwards trails at 15%, Gov. Bill Richardson at 12%. All other candidates receive less than 5% each.
- Among 500 likely Republican primary voters, former Gov. Mitt Romney leads former Mayor Rudy Giuliani 33% to 17% in a statewide primary; Sen. John McCain trails at 16%, former Sen. Fred Thompson at 13%. All other candidates receive less than 5% each.
View all New Hampshire Primary poll data at Pollster.com:
Additional results from the new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation national survey (story, results) of 1,029 adults (conducted 8/6 through 8/8) finds:
- Among 357 registered Republicans, former Mayor Rudy Giuliani leads former Sen. Fred Thompson (27% to 19%) in a national primary; Sen. John McCain trails at 14%, former Speaker Newt Gingrich at 12%, former Gov. Mitt Romney at 11%. Without Gingrich, Giuliani leads Thompson 29% to 22%. All other candidates receive less than 5% each.
- 44% of Republicans say Giuliani has "the best chance of beating the Democratic nominee in the general election next November;" 17% say Thompson, 11% say McCain, 8% say Romney.
A few additional notes on the poll of
likely Iowa caucus-goers from the University of Iowa
that we linked
to earlier, based on information provided via email by U. of Iowa Assoc. Prof. David
First, the survey used a sample drawn from a list
households listed in telephone directories. As such, it has a potential coverage problem because it misses Iowans with unlisted
telephone numbers. The survey screened to interview 907 self-reported
Second, "because of a programming glitch," Redlawsk said he "cannot
distinguish the 'no registered voters' from other refusals." However, we know
that as of the fall of 2006, 84% of Iowa's
adults were registered voters (1.9 million** registered
voters divided by 2.26 million voting
Based on that statistic, we can make the following
assumptions about the percentage of adults represented by the various subgroups
reported on for this survey:
Democratic Caucus Goers = 40% of adults
"Most Likely" Democratic Caucus Goers = 29% of adults
- 306 Republican Caucus Goers = 28% of adults
- 223 "Most Likely Republican Caucus Goers = 21% of
In short, the various subgroups of likely caucus goers in
the U. of Iowa
poll represent a much broader slice
of Iowa voters
than the recent ABC/Washington Post survey or the Des
Moines Register survey from last year.
Put another way, even the "most likely" caucus-goer
definitions for this survey project to a combined Democratic and Republican
turnout of 1.1 million participants -
half the adults in Iowa.
By comparison, Democratic turnout was an estimated 124,000
147,000 in 2004, and estimated Republican turnout
was 108,000 90,000 in 1988.
Finally, even putting screening issues aside, this survey
used an entirely open-ended vote preference question. Respondents had to
volunteer the name of their choice without prompting. This method undoubtedly provides a tougher test of voter commitment, but also produces a much
bigger undecided and renders the results incomparable to other Iowa polls. As
such, we have not included either of the U.
of Iowa polls in our Iowa charts.
**UPDATE: In doing these calculations, I should have added a decimal to the registered voter number (i.e. 1.97 voters rather than 1.9) which would have shown 87% as registered to vote rather than 84%. That change would increase my estimate of the percentage of adults represented by each sample to 30.6% for the "mostly likely" Democratic caucus goers and 21.4% for the "most likely" Republicans.
A new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation national survey of 1,029 adults (conducted 8/6 through 8/8) finds that 36% approve of the job George Bush is doing as president; 61% disapprove.
UPDATE: Additional results (bridge safety; Iraq/Dem Primary) find:
- 54% to 43% think the U.S. "can win" the war in Iraq; 42% to 55% think it "will win."
- Among 458 registered Democrats, Sen. Hillary Clinton leads Sen. Barack Obama 40% to 21% in a national primary; former Sen. John Edwards trails at 13%, former V.P. Al Gore at 11%, Gov. Bill Richardson at 5%. Without Gore, Clinton leads Obama 44% to 24%. All other candidates receive less than 5% each.
Gallup Guru Frank Newport followed up on the discussion here
and elsewhere about "possible differences between broad samples of voters and
likely voters" when Gallup
asks about the 2008 party nomination contests on national surveys. His conclusion:
[O]ur analysis suggests at this point there is
little difference at the national level in candidate preferences even when we
analyze smaller groups of more hard-core voters. For our latest national poll,
we narrowed the sample down to those Democrats who said they were "extremely
likely" to vote in the Democratic primary in their state next year. No
difference. Hillary Clinton heads by 20 points over Obama. We also looked at
"pure Democrats" -- excluding those independents who lean Democratic. Hillary
does even better among her party faithful, beating Obama by 30 points.
What about likely voters on the
Republican side? Fred Thompson picks up a little among Republicans who are
extremely likely to vote in the Republican primary, such that Giuliani's lead
is trimmed to 8- points, 32% to 24%. Among hard-core Republicans -- excluding
independents who lean Republican -- Giuliani is ahead of Thompson 30% to 20%.
Bottom line: The basic structure of
the national presidential race for both parties appears to be similar
regardless of whether one looks at all voters, or just those voters who are
most likely to actually vote.
A further analysis of the same data
posted this morning by Gallup's Lydia Saad provides
more numbers for the Democrats, plus more information on the subgroups that Newport examined. First,
for the Democrats:
Democratic identifiers and "leaners" (initially independent adults that
say they lean to the Democratic Party) - 48% of adults.
Democratic identifiers and "leaners" that also say they are "extremely
likely" to vote in the Democratic primaries or caucuses" - 27% of adults; 58% of all
Democrats & leaners.
Democrats" (excludes independent "leaners") - 30% of adults.
- Pure Democrats
that are registered to vote plus registered Democratic "leaners" that say
they are "extremely likely" to participate in the Democratic primaries or
caucuses - 30% of adults; 63%
of all Democrats & leaners.**
The table below shows the full results included in the Saad
report for the first and last groups, plus the Clinton
margins reported in Newport's
Gallup Guru post. As Saad notes, looking at the last group (registered
Democratic identifiers plus "extremely likely" registered leaners):
Clinton still dominates the field, although
by a bit smaller margin than among all Democrats. Support for Clinton remains about the same, at 47%, but
the percentage choosing Obama is slightly higher, at 31%.
One take-away point from these data. How the pollster defines a "likely voter" matters as much as how tightly they screen. Notice that the third and fourth columns above capture slices of Democrats that are the same size (30% of adults) but with very different compositions. Clinton leads Obama by 30 points among "pure Democrats," but remove non-registrants and add back indpendents that are "extremely likely" to vote in a Democratic primary, and Clinton's lead drops to just 16 points.
Also, bear in mind that the actual turnout in all of the 2004 Democratic primaries and caucuses amounted to less than 10% of adults in the United States.
**The definition of the fourth subgroup in the Gallup report is a bit ambiguous.
I emailed Gallup
to request confirmation.
Two new Rasmussen Reports automated surveys find:
- Among 800 likely voters, Sen. Barack Obama edges out former Mayor Rudy Giuliani (44% to 43%) and leads former Sen. Fred Thompson (46% to 39%) in nationwide general election match-ups (conducted 8/6 through 8/7).
- Among 1,200 likely voters, Thompson edges out Gov. Bill Richardson (41% to 40%) while Giuliani leads Richardson him (47% to 39%) in nationwide general election match-ups (conducted 8/3 through 5/5).
Via OpenLeft, A new University of Iowa statewide survey of likely caucus goers in Iowa (conducted 7/29 through 8/5) finds:
- Among 319 "most likely" Democratic caucus goers, former Sen. John Edwards edges out Sen. Hillary Clinton (26% to 25%) in a statewide caucus; Sen. Barack Obama trails at 19%, Gov. Bill Richardson at 9%. Including "less likely" caucus goers (425 total), Clinton runs at 27%, Edwards and Obama both at 22%.
- Among 223 "most likely" Republican caucus goers, former Gov. Mitt Romney leads former Mayor Rudy Giuliani (28% to 12%) in a statewide caucus; former Sen. Fred Thompson trails at 8%, Rep. Tom Tancredo at 5%, Sen. Sam Brownback at 4%, Sen. John McCain at 3%, former Gov. Mike Huckabee at 2%. Including "less likely" caucus goers (306 total), Romney leads Giuliani 27% to 11%.
Note: According to the University of Iowa release, all candidate names were "given by respondent" on the presidential preference question, which appears to indicate an open ended question in which respondents had to volunteer the candidate name without prompting.
It was probably Murphy's Law. Within hours of my posting a
review of the sorry state of disclosure of early primary poll methodology, ABC
News and The Washington Post released
a new survey of likely caucus goers in Iowa
that disclosed the two critical pieces of information I had searched for
elsewhere. The two ABC News releases posted on the web (on Democratic
caucus results) disclosed both the sample frame and the share of the voting age
population represented by each survey. ABC News polling director Gary Langer also
devoted his online
column last Friday to a defense of his use of the random digit dial (RDD)
methodology to sample the Iowa
Let's take a closer look.
Langer concluded his column with a note on "likely voter
screening," a subject I have been posting on lately.
Some polls of likely caucus-goers, or likely voters
elsewhere, may include lots of people who aren't really likely to vote at all.
Drilling down, again, is more difficult and more expensive. But if you're
claiming to home in on likely voters, you want to do it seriously. Anyone
producing a poll of "likely voters" should be prepared to answer this
question: What share of the voting-age population do they represent?
The good news is that Langer and ABC News also provided an
answer. For the Democratic
This survey was conducted by telephone calls to a random
sample of Iowa
homes with landline phone service. Adults identified as likely Democratic
caucus goers accounted for 12 percent of respondents; with an adult population
of 2.2 million in Iowa,
that projects to caucus turnout of 260,000.
In 2004, by comparison, just over 122,000 Democrats (5.5% of
the voting age population) turned out for the caucuses.
And for the Republicans:
Adults identified as likely Republican caucus-goers accounted
for seven percent of respondents; with an adult population of 2.2 million in Iowa, that projects to
caucus turnout of 150,000. That's within sight of the highest previous turnout
for a Republican caucus, 109,000 in 1988.
The estimated turnout for the 2000 Republican caucuses was
lower (approximately 86,000), partly because John McCain focused his campaign
on the New Hampshire
primary. Thus, Republican turnout amounted to 4% to 5% of the voting age
population in the last two contested Iowa
So first, let's give credit where it is due. Of the thirteen organizations
that have released surveys in Iowa
so far this year, only ABC News has published full information about how tightly
they screened likely caucus voters.
Having said that, two questions remain: First, is the screen
used by the ABC/Washington Post poll
screen tight enough? After all, their
screen of Democrats projects to "likely voter" population of 260,000, a number more
than double both the 2004 turnout (122,000) and the all-time record for
Democrats set in 1988 (125,000). The ABC release seems to anticipate that
question with the following passage:
A more restrictive likely voter
definition, winnowing down to half that turnout, or about what it was in 2004,
does not make a statistically significant difference in the estimate --
Edwards, 28 percent; Obama, 27 percent; and Clinton, 23 percent, all within
sampling tolerances given the relatively small sample size. The more inclusive
definition was used for more reliable subgroup analysis.
The full sample had Obama at 27% and Edwards and Clinton at
26% each. While the release does not specify the "more restrictive" definition
they used, The Washington Post's version
of the results indicates that exactly half (50%) of the likely Democratic
caucus goers indicated that they are "absolutely certain" they will attend.
release makes essentially the same assertion: "A more restrictive likely
voter definition, winnowing down to lower turnout, makes no substantive
difference in the results."
So ABC's answer is: We could have used a tighter screen but
it would have made no significant difference in the results.
Their decision is reasonable considering that the Des Moines Register poll used
essentially the same degree of screening for their first
poll of Democrats in 2006, using a list based methodology that nailed the final result in 2004. Also keep in mind that no screen based on
self-reports of past behavior or future intent can identify the ultimate
electorate with anything close to 100% accuracy. Pollsters know that some
respondents will falsely
report having voted in the past, and that respondents often provide wildly
optimistic reports about their future vote intent that typically bare little resemblance to what they actually do on Election Day. And while we know what
turnout has been in the past, we can only guess as to the Iowa Caucus turnout
this coming January (or, perhaps even December). The ideal methodology defines turnout a bit more broadly than expected...[Oops, forgot to finish that sentence: An ideal method defines turnout a bit too broadly but also looks at narrower narrower turnout groups within the sample as this survey did].
The second and more complex question involves the ABC/Washington Post to use a random digit
dial (RDD) sample frame rather than a sample drawn from a list of registered
Langer makes the classic case for RDD, by pointing out the
potential flaws in samples drawn from the list of registered voters provided by
secretary of state. Roughly 15% of the voters on the Secretary of State's list lack
a telephone number and about as many will turn out to be non-working or
business numbers (according to data he cites from a Pew Research Center Iowa
poll conducted in 2003). Include the traditionally small number of Iowans that
may still register to vote (or participate after having been inactive for many
years), and we have, he writes, "a lot of noncoverage - certainly enough,
potentially, to affect estimates." Langer acknowledges that RDD samples now
face their own non-coverage problem due to the growth of cell phone only households
(12-15% now lack landline phone service), but concludes that RDD "produces far
less noncoverage than in list-based sampling."
True enough. But Langer leaves out some pertinent
information. First, campaign pollsters that make use of registered voter lists
typically use a vendor that attempts to match the names and the addresses on
the list to telephone listings. Two vendors I spoke with today tell me that they
are able to use such a process to increase the "match rate" to over 90%, a
level that makes Iowa's
lists among the best in the nation for polling.
Second - and this is a more complicated issue that really demands
another post - the potential value of sampling from a registered voter list is
not the ability to call only registered voters with the confidence that "people
are reporting their registration accurately." It also allows pollsters to use
the rich past vote history data available on the list for individual voters to
inform their decisions about which voters to sample and interview. Pollsters can
also make use of data providing the precise geographic location, party
registration, gender and age of each sampled voter provided on the list to
correct for non-response bias.
Finally, the campaign pollsters on the Democratic side that shell
to $100,000" to the Iowa Democratic Party for access to the list do not
conduct polls that "entirely exclude" first time caucus goers (as Langer
suggests). The Iowa party appends past caucus vote history to the full list of
registered voters, and pollsters can use the additional data to greatly inform
their sample selection methodology (Democrat Mark Mellman gives a hint of how
this works here;
Mellman's complete procedure probably resembles the methodology proposed by
Yale political scientists Donald Green and Alan Gerber here
Ultimately, the decision about what sample frame to use
involves a trade-off between the potential for greater coverage error (when
using a list) and greater measurement error in identifying true likely voters
(when using RDD). The decision between the two is ultimately a judgment call for the pollster. Those of us who have grown
comfortable with list samples believe that the increased accuracy in sampling true
likely voters offsets the risk of missing those without accurate phone numbers
on the lists. But the choice is not obvious. The fact that ABC and the Post
have gone in a different direction -- and have disclosed the pertinent details --
will ultimately enrich our understanding of both the poll methodology and the Iowa campaign.
Three new Quinnipiac University statewide surveys of registered voters in Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania (conducted 7/30 through 8/6) finds:
General election match-ups:
FLORIDA, 962 RV
Giuliani 44%, Clinton 46%
Giuliani 44%, Obama 41%
F. Thompson 40%, Clinton 49%
F. Thompson 37%, Obama 43%
OHIO, 974 RV
Giuliani 43%, Clinton 43%
Giuliani 42%, Obama 39%
F. Thompson 36%, Clinton 47%
F. Thompson 32%, Obama 44%
PENNSYLVANIA, 1011 RV
Giuliani 44%, Clinton 45%
Giuliani 45%, Obama 39%
F. Thompson 38%, Clinton 50%
F. Thompson 36%, Obama 44%
A new SurveyUSA automated survey of 613 likely voters in Kentucky (conducted 8/4 through 8/6) finds Steve Beshear leading Gov. Ernie Fletcher (58% to 37%) in a statewide gubernatorial general election match-up.
The Clinton and Obama campaigns released dueling memos yesterday, each touting their standing in some polls and dismissing evidence to the contrary. The Clinton memo is here and the Obama memo is here thanks to our friends at MSNBC. Both memos, not surprisingly, selectively interpret the polls to their advantage. But let's look at the data and see who has the better evidence at this point.
The national polls have shown a long period of stability. Obama enjoyed a nice rise in the polls after he became a candidate following the 2006 election. He had a rapid rise to 23% by April 1 and it was nearly impossible to read a news article about him during this period without encountering the phrase "rock star". But perhaps he was a "one-hit-wonder" because since April 1 there has been no further upward movement in his national support. If anything there has been a negligible decline to a current estimated support of 22.6%. That has put him solidly in second place since November, but he has failed to close the gap with Clinton since April.
The Clinton campaign also experienced a long period in the doldrums. After entering 2006 at about 37% support, Clinton declined slightly to 35% just after the November elections. And there she sat until May. There were hints of tiny increases and tiny declines, but she remained well within a point of 35% during the spring. This stability could be interpreted as evidence of strength because her support was sustained throughout the period of Obama's rise. I think this reflects the power of Clinton's hold on her core supporters. At the same time, during this period of ramping up of the campaign there was no detectable improvement in Clinton's standing with Democratic primary voters.
That began to change by early June and has accelerated a bit since. My best estimate of Clinton's current support is 38.8%, a rise of nearly 4 points since the end of April. That four point rise won't sound like much to those accustomed to the noisy variation from poll to poll, but the trend estimator I use has the advantage of aggregating across many polls and hence has a much smaller range of random variability. A move of this much is certainly not negligible.
The blue line in the figure is my standard trend estimator. The red line is more sensitive to short term trends, but also more easily fooled by random noise. I provide both so you can judge for yourself any differences between the more solid blue estimator and the more rapid change of the red estimate. In this case, the red estimator is in complete agreement with the blue for Obama, but suggests a slightly greater surge for Clinton recently.
Of the 90 national polls included in my data, Clinton has led Obama in 89. But the more important point is that gap has not closed since April 1, and since May the gap has widened a bit with Clinton's move up and Obama's stagnant polling.
The Obama memo characterizes the " irrelevant and wildly inconsistent national polls" as meaningless. As the figure above makes clear, there is indeed considerable variation across national polls, but the story they tell is not inconsistent except when cherry picking results. The polling varies in about the random pattern around the trend that we would expect from surveys based on probability samples of the electorate.
On the other hand, the Obama memo is quite correct that nomination races are about performance in individual states, not national polls. The early primaries have carried great weight in the modern period since the reform of the primary system in 1972. There is great debate this year about whether this will continue or if the massive February 5th primary day will fundamentally alter the traditional dynamics. But everyone agrees that it is better to do well in the pre-February 5 primaries than to do badly in them. So let's see where the Democratic campaign stands in the first five caucus and primary states.
The available state polling substantially agrees with the national polling in putting Clinton ahead of Obama in all five of the first states, based on my trend estimate that incorporates all polls. Moreover, Clinton's support is stable or rising in all five states, while Obama has risen substantially in only South Carolina, and perhaps a bit in New Hampshire. In Iowa Obama's support has clearly fallen off, while Nevada and Florida appear essentially flat.
The important caveat here is that state polling is more limited than national, and that the numerous polling organizations vary in their results with some sometimes substantial "house effects". Either campaign can (and both do) select individual polls in the states to make the case for their improving standing. But this is pure cherry picking of data. With the variability clear in the plot, it is easy enough to pick the poll that puts your candidate at the highest mark while finding one that minimizes your opponent's standing. That is the reason we use all the data here and let the trend estimates fall where they may.
So where does this leave the race? A clear Clinton advantage and strong evidence of some recent improvement in both national and state polls. For Obama, there is no comparable upturn nationwide and the picture in the states is mixed at best. The Clinton upturn is of interest because some argued that her support was solid but had little or no upside. "Everyone" has already decided about Clinton, this line of argument goes, and so while her base is rock solid she is vulnerable to a coalition of "anybody but Clinton" voters. That vulnerability remains a real liability, but the recent upturn suggests the upside for her is not as limited as some analysis suggested.
The bright side for Obama is that he still has a considerable upside in public awareness and in favorability, an area where Clinton does indeed seem in some peril among the general electorate. Obama also has very impressive fundraising success which indicates support among more engaged partisans.
The critical question is what happens to the roughly 60% of Democratic voters who currently do not support Clinton. Can they be won over or can Obama (or someone else) become the focus of an "anybody but Clinton" coalition? Until that dynamic is sorted out, and until some candidate other than Clinton starts to move up (none, so far) the advantage has to go to Clinton.
Cross-posted at Political Arithmetik.
A new Cook Political Report/RT Strategies national survey of registered voters nationwide (conducted 8/2 through 8/5) finds:
- Among 376 Democrats and those who lean Democratic, Sen. Hillary Clinton leads Sen. Barack Obama (39% to 21%) in a national primary; former V.P. Al Gore trails at 10%, former Sen. John Edwards at 8%. All other candidates receive less than 5% each. Without Gore, Clinton leads Obama 43% to 23%.
- Among 308 Republicans and those who lean Republican, former Mayor Rudy Giuliani leads Sen. John McCain (26% to 16%) in a national primary; former Sen. Fred Thompson trails at 14%, former Speaker Newt Gingrich at 8%, former Gov. Mitt Romney at 7%. All other candidates receive less than 5% each. Without Gore, Clinton leads Obama 43% to 23%.
New American Research Group statewide surveys of likely voters in Georgia and Missouri (conducted 8/2 through 8/6) finds:
- Among 600 Democrats in Georgia, Sen. Hillary Clinton leads Sen. Barack Obama (35% to 25%) in a statewide primary; former Sen. John Edwards trails at 17%. Among 600 Democrats in Missouri, Clinton leads Edwards (40% to 22%) in a statewide primary; Obama trails at 15%, Sen. Joe Biden at 5%. All other candidates receive less than 5% each.
- Among 600 Republicans in Georgia, former Sen. Fred Thompson leads former Mayor Rudy Giuliani (27% to 20%) in a statewide primary; former Gov. Mitt Romney trails at 14%, former Speaker Newt Gingrich at 13%, Sen. John McCain at 7%. Among 600 Republicans in Missouri, Giuliani edges out Thompson (23% to 22%) in a statewide primary; McCain trails at 14%, Romney at 11%, and Gingrich at 10%. All other candidates receive less than 5% each.
A new USA TODAY/Gallup national survey (Gallup results; USAT story, results) of 1,012 adults nationwide (conducted 8/3 through 8/5) finds:
- 34% approve of the job George Bush is doing as president; 62% disapprove.
- Among 406 Republicans and those who lean Republican, former Mayor Rudy Giuliani leads former Sen. Fred Thompson (30% to 19%) in a national primary; Sen. John McCain trails at 14%, former Speaker Newt Gingrich at 10%, former Gov. Mitt Romney at 6%. All other candidates receive less than 5% each.
- Among 490 Democrats and those who lean Democratic, Sen. Hillary Clinton (at 42%) leads Sen. Barack Obama (19%), former V.P. Al Gore (18%), and former Sen. John Edwards (10%). Without Gore, Clinton leads Obama 48% to 26%. All other candidates receive less than 5% each.
A new Public Policy Polling (D) automated survey of likely primary voters in North Carolina (conducted 8/1 through 8/2) finds:
- Among 659 Democrats, Sen. Hillary Clinton and former Sen. John Edwards both run at 29% in a statewide primary; Sen. Barack Obama runs at 23%.
- Among 609 Republicans, former Sen. Fred Thompson leads former Mayor Rudy Giuliani (30% to 20%) in a statewide primary; former Gov. Mitt Romney trails at 12%, Sen. John McCain at 7%.
A new SurveyUSA automated survey of likely primary voters in California (conducted 8/2 through 8/5) finds:
- Among 520 Republicans, former Mayor Rudy Giuliani (at 39%) leads former Sen. Fred Thompson (19%), Sen. John McCain (16%) and former Gov. Mitt Romney (10%) in a statewide primary.
- Among 764 Democrats, Sen. Hillary Clinton (at 51%) leads Sen. Barack Obama (27%) and former Sen. John Edwards (14%) in a statewide primary.
View all California primary poll data at Pollster.com:
A new Rasmussen Reports automated survey of 800 likely voters nationwide (conducted 8/1 through 8/2) finds:
- Sen. Hillary Clinton edges out Sen. John McCain (45% to 43%) in a nationwide general election match-up; Sen. Barack Obama leads McCain 46% to 40%.
- The Democratic candidate leads the Republican candidate (47% to 37%) in a nationwide generic ballot for U.S. Congress.
Additional results from the recent ABC News/Washington Post statewide survey (ABC story, results; Post story, results) of likely caucus goers in Iowa (conducted 7/26 through 7/31) finds:
- Among 402 Republicans, former Gov. Mitt Romney (at 25%) leads former Mayor Rudy Giuliani (14%) and former Sen. Fred Thompson (13%) in a statewide caucus; Sen. John McCain and former Gov. Mike Huckabee both trail at 8%, Sen. Sam Brownback and Rep. Tom Tancredo both at 5%. All other candidates receive less than 5% each.
- 19% of likely Republican caucus goers are "very satisfied" with the choice of candidates for the Republican nomination, 55% are "somewhat satisfied," 22% are "somewhat dissatisfied," and 3% are "very dissatisfied."
- Among 500 likely Democratic caucus goers, 53% are "very satisfied" with their choice of candidates, 36% are "somewhat satisfied," 9% are "somewhat dissatisfied," and 1 % is "very dissatisfied."
Survey results testing Democratic candidates in Iowa are available here.
It has been a busy week for presidential approval polls. Newsweek is the latest to report. Their survey taken 8/1/07 finds approval at 29% and disapproval at 63%. This is Newsweek's second consecutive poll at 29%, but up from the two previous Newsweek polls both at 26%.
With the new data the approval trend estimate stands at 30.7%.
None of the diagnostics change significantly since the previous approval updates this week here and here, which offer more discussion of recent trends and the timing of the recent upturn in approval.
Cross-posted at Political Arithmetik.