Pollster.com

October 7, 2007 - October 13, 2007

 

POLL: Washington Post Virginia Senate, President


A new Washington Post statewide survey of 1,144 adults/993 registered voters (story, results) in Virginia (conducted 10/4 through 10/8) finds:

  • Former Democratic Gov. Mark Warner leads both former GOP Gov. Jim Gilmore (61% to 31%) and GOP Rep. Tom Davis (63% to 28%) in statewide general election match-ups for U.S. Senate.
  • Among 504 Democrats and those who lean Democratic, Sen. hillary Clinton leads Sen. Barack Obama (45% to 27%) in a statewide primary; former Sen. John Edwards trails at 11%.
  • Among 508 Republicans and those who lean Republican, former Mayor Rudy Giuliani (at 47%) leads Sen. John McCain (16%) and former Sen. Fred Thompson (15%) in a statewide primary; former Gov. Mitt ROmney trails at 5%.
  • All other candidates trail with less than five percent each.


"Priceless" Polling Leftovers**


Mark Mellman - in a must read that deserves more discussion than I've had time to give- tells us that the Democratic presidential nomination "ain't over yet," and that the Iowa caucuses "stand as a potential choke point on [Sen. Clinton's] march to the nomination."

The LA Times' Hook and Barabak report on how "Clinton built her lead," with quotes from various pollsters including unaligned Democrat Geoff Garin arguing that "the thing is not a done deal."

David Hill sees American public opinion "stuck in a rut," particularly on the issues that Americans rate as most important.

Kathy Frankovic reminds us of the limits of exit polls: good at "helping us understand what an election means," not so good at assessing "whether or not vote fraud has taken place."

Dante Scala has been checking the log books at New Hampshire television station WMUR and reporting on the ad buys of Republican candidates (via Jon Martin).

**"Leftovers," because I'm feeling guilty about borrowing "Remainders" from the Politico bloggers, and "priceless" because, once again, you can take the boy out of Cleveland...


Al Gore Roundup

Topics: 2008 , The 2008 Race

As just about everyone knows by now, former Vice President Al Gore was named the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize earlier today. Inevitably, political observers have started to speculate about the impact of this event, including those with access to polling data. Here are two examples, plus some thoughts of my own.

ABC's Gary Langer looks at poll questions on global warming that "show levels of alarm below Gore's own." Langer is dubious that Gore's award will move public opinion:

What ultimately could move public opinion on the issue may not be so much whether scientists are seen to agree about it, or whether Gore's group itself can change public attitudes, but personal experience. Forty-one percent of Americans in our poll last spring said average temperatures in their area seem to have been going up lately; more, 54 percent, said overall weather patterns where they live have been "more unstable." To the extent that these experiences evolve, public attitudes well may follow.

Meanwhile, Gallup Guru Frank Newport sees no "pent-up demand" in Gallup's data for a Gore presidential candidacy:

As I have pointed out, we simply don't find - at this point - any strong indication that Democratic voters are waiting desperately for Gore to enter the race. Hillary Clinton has an 84% favorable, 11% unfavorable rating among Democrats. Gore? He does less well, pulling in 73% favorable, 20% unfavorable ratings from his fellow Democrats.

Plus, when we included Gore in our list of potential nominees in this past weekend's poll, only 10% of Democrats said he was their first choice for their party's nomination. Hillary was the first choice of 43%.

So we just don't see in the data any evidence that Gore would transform the race overnight should he jump in.

An analysis by Gallup's Jeff Jones presents the same data in more detail.

Gallup's data is consistent with other national surveys showing Gore's support at about 10% in trial heat questions (our own estimates show Gore at 10.8%). That number probably reflects that many potential Gore supporters are taking him at his word, accepting that he will not be a candidate and opting for others on poll questions.

Back in August, however, when the Michigan polling firm EPIC/MRA asked the vote questions a little differently, they showed much more potential for Gore. They first asked about the declared candidates and then played "what-if" and presented an "expanded list" that included Gore. Where Clinton led the declared field with 45% of the vote, she trailed Gore narrowly (36% to 32%) once the former Vice President's name was included among the candidates. As I wrote back in August, EPIC/MRA's question order said to respondents, in essence (though not in so many words), "imagine that Al Gore decides to run." The results - in a state presumed to be less enthusiastic about Gore's calls to reduce greenhouse emissions -- were very different that what the national polls have been showing.

08-23%20mi%20epic%20mra.png

All of this is interesting, but probably irrelevant. In a recent and widely quoted interview with 02138 magazine published last month, he seems to come as close as ever to ruling out a White House bid:

A recent poll shows that if you entered the presidential race, you would handily win the New Hampshire primary**. Isn't that tempting?

Sure. But I am old enough and have been a candidate enough times to have a very high level of resistance to temptations of that sort. I trust my instincts, and it doesn't feel like it's the right thing for me.

But if you believe global warming is such a crisis, wouldn't you be more effective within the White House than outside it?

I'm under no illusion that there's any position in the world as influential as that of president. But it doesn't feel like the right thing for me to be a candidate at this point...

[snip]

Will you endorse a candidate in the primary?

Odds are that I will.

Who?

I haven't made that decision yet.

Do you feel some obligation to endorse the wife of your
former boss?

Uh ... no. I have friendships with her and with the other candidates,
and they're all on equal footing at this point as far as I'm concerned.

What we probably should be considering is what poll data have to say about the potential power of Gore's endorsement to reshape the race. For those interested in speculation about Gore's endorsement having nothing to do with survey data, see Marc Ambinder, Ben Smith and Chris Cillizza. Readers, any thoughts?

**I have no idea what "New Hampshire poll" they were referring to.

Oops: As James points out with his comment, the New Hampshire poll in question was conducted by Suffolk University back in June. What's truly embarrassing is not just that I could have discovered it with a quick search of the Web, but that I wrote about it back in June (Gore did better there for essentially the same reason as in the Michigan survey).

Needless to way, Friday's post was a bit rushed. MysteryPollster needs a vacation. Sorry about that.


POLL: Greg Smith & Associates Idaho Primary, Craig's Decision


A new Greg Smith & Associates statewide survey (Craig release; Primary release) of 300 adults in Idaho (conducted 10/8 through 10/9) finds 51% opposing Sen. Larry Craig's decision to stay in the U.S. Senate while 21% favor it.


POLL: Fox National Survey


A new FOX News/Opinion Dynamics national survey (story, results) of 900 registered voters (conducted 10/9 through 10/10) finds:

  • 35% approve of the job George W. Bush is doing as president; 56% disapprove.
  • Among 337 registered Democrats, Sen. Hillary Clinton leads Sen. Barack Obama (50% to 18%) in a national primary; former Sen. John Edwards trails at 11%. With former V.P. Al Gore included, Clinton leads Obama (44% to 17%) with Gore at 10% Edwards at 9%.
  • Among 316 registered Republicans, former Mayor Rudy Giuliani leads former Sen. Fred Thompson (29% to 16%) in national primary; former Sen. John McCain trails at 12%, former Gov. Mitt Romney at 11%, and former Gov. Mike Huckabee at 5%.
  • All other candidates receive less than five percent each.


Iowa: 2% Under Age 25?

Topics: 2008 , Iowa , The 2008 Race

An attentive reader noticed my reference yesterday to David Yepsen's report that "only 2 percent of likely Democratic caucusgoers" surveyed in the recent Des Moines Register poll "are under age 25." My reader asked simply, "is 2% under 25 a problem?" Put another way, my reader is asking, what is the expected age composition of "likely caucus goers" and how does this poll compare? Unfortunately, for reasons I'll explain below, that is a tough question to answer, although the 2% estimate does appear low in comparison to 2004.

Let's set aside for a moment the nearly impossible task of guessing the demographics of the voters that will turn out this coming January. Consider instead what ought to be a much easier question: What were the demographics of the Democratic caucus goers in 2004? Even that question, it turns out, leads to series of riddles.

The table below shows the age composition of the Democratic caucus participants measured in two ways. On the left, courtesy of the Iowa Democratic Party, we have the age composition of the actual participants, based on matching those who signed in at their local precincts to the list of registered voters provided by the Iowa Secretary of State (which includes the age of each voter). On the right is the age distribution of voters surveyed in the network "entrance poll."

10-11%20iowa%20age.jpg

The caucus goers interviewed in the entrance poll are significantly younger than those on the list of past caucus goers. But wait! The reported ages are (roughly) four years apart. The entrance poll shows the age of the respondent on Caucus day 2004, but the data from the voter list reflects the ages of 2004 participants as of today. In other words, those who were 17 to 24 years old in 2004 are now mostly age 21-25. So the 17-24 category in the age breakout on the left is missing at least half of those who were 17-24 four years ago (I don't have access to the file, and so cannot attempt to recalculate ages to reflect their age as of January 2004).

However, the four year shift in age does not appear to explain everything, and the roughly ten percentage point difference carries though to the over 50 category.

In thinking about the differences between these two age estimates, we should probably consider some of the potential shortcomings of both data sources.

Let's start with the entrance poll, conducted by the National Election Pool. In many ways, their procedures for the Iowa caucuses are similar to those used for election exit polls. They start with a random sample of precincts (50 in this case) and send interviewers out to each location with paper questionnaires to be filled out by randomly selected voters.

In Iowa, however, the unique nature of the Iowa caucuses require different procedures. Since the caucuses are meetings that begin at 6:30 p.m., all voters arrive shortly before that hour rather than streaming in throughout the day. The pollsters send two interviewers to each sampled Iowa caucus location with the task of gathering as many completed interviews as possible as the participants arrive. We call it an entrance poll since they interview voters on their way in.

Given the time crunch, they do not attempt to record the observed gender, race and approximate age of those who refuse to be interviewed. They also have no official headcount to compare to the precinct level result (results are based on estimated state delegates chosen and reflect two rounds of voting where the supporters of those with less than fifteen percent of the vote are forced to "realign" with a different candidate). So the pollsters cannot use their standard procedures to attempt to "correct" either the demographics at the precinct level (against their observations of all randomly selected voters) or the vote preferences of sampled voters (at sampled precincts or in the state as a whole).

Moreover, many of us learned in the aftermath of the 2004 exit pool controversies about a potential source of error that might introduce error into their age estimates. In 2004, at least, exit pollsters depended mostly on younger interviewers that had a much harder time completing interviews than their older colleagues. So the potential for a skew to younger respondents is real, especially without any record of the approximate age of voters that refuse to participate in the survey.

We should also consider that the adults streaming into each caucus location included some out of state organizers (most famously the thousands of young Howard Dean Perfect Storm volunteers) and others who could not participate in the caucus vote but may have been willing to fill out an exit poll questionnaire when approached.

Now consider the actual vote history data. The Iowa Democratic Party reports that 124,000 Iowans participated in the 2004 Democatic caucus, but at least three campaigns have confirmed for me that on the vaunted Voter Activation Network (VAN) list maintained by the Party, only about 95,000 voters are identified as 2004 caucus participants. What happened to the roughly one participant in four that seems to be missing?

I put that question to Carrie Giddins, the communications director for the Iowa Democratic Party. Here is her response:

1. There were some caucus goers from 2004 who did not sign in. In 2004, we had one of the largest caucuses in history and the sheer volume of people was more than some precincts had experience dealing with. Because of this, there were caucus goers who did not get fully signed in before they caucused and therefore we did not have enough information to identify them after the fact.

2. The New Democratic Caucus Attendee forms required individuals to write down information about themselves so that we could identify those caucus goers after the caucuses were over. Not all of that information was completed in its entirety and some of the completed forms were simply illegible. This left us no way to identify those caucus goers in our records.

3. Some caucus goers may not have been entered into our records due to data entry errors.

4. The VAN is a dynamic environment. It is not intended to show historically what the attendance was at the 2004 Caucus. Therefore, anyone who has been removed from the SOS rolls, including people who are deceased or who have moved, is no longer included in the VAN. At this time, if we turn off the suppressions that we have internally in the VAN the number of caucus goers goes up by about 7,000 people, so the number of 2004 caucus goers whose status may have changed in 4 years to the extent that they have been removed from the SOS is likely not an insignificant amount of this discrepancy.

Chris Sullentrop's 2004 dispatch for Slate confirms that in one Des Moines precinct, there were "so many" new and first-time caucus participants "that the organizers ran out of forms to register them."

I should add here that least one 2008 campaign tells me they consider the reported 124,000 turnout too optimistic. They believe the real total was closer to 105,000.

But either way, we can easily hypothesize a number of reasons why the past caucus goers identified on the VAN list may be older than those who actually participated. Based on the accounts above, it appears as if the voters that never signed in were more likely to be first time caucus goers (who tend to be younger). Other missing voters may have registered elsewhere since (and more mobile voters tend to be younger). On the other hand, those 2004 participants purged because they are no longer living probably skewed older.

So what is the precise age composition in 2004? We have a general sense, but precise percentages are unknowable. What is the "right" percentage of 17-24 year olds? Your guess is as good as mine, although it was probably somewhere in the range of 6% to 14%. As such, the 2% on the Register poll does look a bit low by comparison.

But even if we knew the precise age composition for the 2004 caucuses, we would have only a general sense of the potential demographic composition this time around. Only 60,000 Iowa Democrats participated in the 2000 caucuses, so using their demographics as a model would have been misleading four years later.

We also know that several campaigns are spending heavily to identify and motivate potential supporters among the hundreds of thousands of registered voters (and potential registrants) that have not participated before. Those they persuade to caucus will not make up their minds about participating until the final weeks of the campaign. Thus, when it comes to younger Iowa voters, as reader "FlyOnTheWall" put it earlier today, "we don't have the first f---ng clue what voters younger than 25 are likely to do."

10-11%20IATopzDems_400.jpg

If you remember nothing else about this post, remember this: Since late July, we have seen 13 different Democratic polls in Iowa taken by eleven different pollsters. Each pollster does things differently, so we have eleven different conceptions of Iowa's "likely caucus goers." Take a look at our Iowa chart (above), take into account the up-or-down, overlapping spread in the results for each candidate, and the only sensible conclusion is that Iowa is currently a competitive three-way race. The varying conceptions of the likely electorate create a margin of potential real world error far more important here than mere sampling error. And of course the results may look very different in early January.


POLL: SurveyUSA Kentucky Gov


A new SurveyUSA automated survey of 571 likely voters in Kentucky (conducted 10/8 through 10/9) finds Democrat Steve Beshear leading incumbent Republican Gov. Ernie Fletcher (56% to 40%) in a statewide general election match-up for Governor.


POLL: Quinnipiac FL/OH/PA Surveys


Three new Quinnipiac University statewide surveys of registered voters in Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania (conducted 10/1 through 10/8) find:

  • Among 345 Republicans in Florida, former Mayor Rudy Giuliani (at 27%) leads former Sen. Fred Thompson (19%), former Gov. Mitt Romney (17%), and Sen. John McCain (8%) in a statewide primary. Among 337 Democrats, Sen. Hillary Clinton leads Sen. Barack Obama (51% to 17%) while former Sen. John Edwards trails at 10%. All other candidates receive less than five percent each.
  • General Election Match-ups:

    Florida (n=869)
    Clinton 46%, Giuliani 43%
    Giuliani 42%, Obama 39%
    Giuliani 43%, Edwards 41%

    Clinton 48%, Romney 37%
    Obama 43%, Romney 36%
    Edwards 47%, Romney 33%

    Ohio (n=946)
    Clinton 46%, Giuliani 40%
    Obama 44%, Giuliani 38%
    Edwards 46%, Giuliani 36%

    Clinton 51%, Romney 34%
    Obama 47%, Romney 31%
    Edwards 50%, Romney 28%

    Pennsylvania (n=878)
    Clinton 48%, Giuliani 42%
    Giuliani 45%, Obama 43%
    Giuliani 44%, Edwards 43%

    Clinton 49%, Romney 37%
    Obama 49%, Romney 33%
    Edwards 49%, Romney 32%

More results available here.


POLL: Gallup Democratic Primary


New results from the recent Gallup national survey of 1,010 adults (conducted 10/4 through 10/7) finds:

  • Among 488 Democrats and those who lean Democratic, Sen. Hillary Clinton leads Sen. Barack Obama (47% to 26%) in a national primary; former Sen. John Edwards trails at 11% -- "each candidate's support is the same or varies by only 1 percentage point compared with a Sept. 14-16, 2007, poll." All other candidates receive less than five percent each.
  • Favorable - Unfavorable Ratings

    Democrats and Democratic Leaners (n=488)
    Clinton: 81% - 14%
    Obama: 70% - 17%
    Edwards: 69% - 14%

    All Adults (n=1,010)
    Obama: 54% - 27%
    Clinton: 51% - 44%
    Edwards: 48% - 31%
  • "Notably, the current poll finds Clinton with a favorable rating above 50% among all Americans for the first time since May."


About that Des Moines Register Iowa Poll

Topics: Disclosure , Iowa

NBC's First Read said it best: No Iowa poll "gets (and deserves) more attention than the Des Moines Register poll by ace Iowa pollster Ann Selzer." That reputation was earned, in part, from their final 2004 pre-caucus survey, the only public poll to correctly predict the rank order of the top four Democratic candidates. Political web sites have been buzzing since Sunday about their latest release, which to the credit of all involved includes a "methodology and questions" page that answers many of the questions asked by our Pollster Disclosure project. Today, Ann Selzer provides us with a few additional answers.

Their methodology page includes the full text of the substantive questions asked, plus a reasonably complete general description of how they selected "likely caucus goers." Follow the link for full details, but the gist is that they started with a random sample of telephone numbers drawn from "the Iowa secretary of state's voter registration list." They then interviewed those who said they would "definitely" or "probably" attend the caucuses on a question that offered those two choices plus one more ("probably not").

Selzer also informs us via email that their completed interviews included a small number of voters interviewed on their cell phones. They sent their original sample to a service that identified the known cell phone numbers among those provided by the secretary of state. Selzer dialed those numbers separately.

The data released on the Des Moines Register site did not address two questions we have been asking pollsters as part of our Disclosure Project. The first involves the percentage of adults represented by the each sample. In other words, how tight was the screen?

Ann Selzer has provided an answer via email. I will spare you the wonky math: The Democratic sample represents roughly 12%, and the Republican sample 10%, of Iowa's voting age population.

While the Register did not include data on the demographic composition of their samples on their results pages, the Register's David Yepsen (via First Read), included some of this information in his Sunday column:

Among likely Democratic caucusgoers, 62 percent are women, and Clinton carries more of them - 34 percent - than any other candidate...

Only 2 percent of likely Democratic caucusgoers are under age 25, while 51 percent are over age 55. On top of that, only 23 percent of the Democrats say this will be their first caucus...

[T]he poll shows 49 percent of the likely Democratic attendees are from rural and small-town Iowa. Among Republicans, 54 percent say they live in those places...

Among likely Republican caucusgoers, 51 percent describe themselves as "born again" or fundamentalist Christians...

A majority of GOP caucusgoers - 58 percent - are men, a contrast with the 62 percent female majority among Democrats...

Among Democrats, 76 percent have at least some college or more and 56 percent of them earn more than $50,000 a year. Among Republicans, 80 percent have some college or more and 60 percent earn more than $50,000.

We will have more on returns from the Disclosure Project later in the week.


How Many Calls Per Minute?

Topics: 2008 , Disclosure , The 2008 Race

Last week, the InsiderAdvantage poll released new surveys of 6,357 likely Republican primary voters in five states all conducted in just two nights, October 2-3, 2007. This feat prompted reader Chantal to ask some reasonable questions:

Maybe I'm missing something, but how many phone calls per minute do you have to make in order to get 1,339 likely Republican caucus attendees [in Iowa] over the course of just two nights? What kind of incidence rate are we talking about?

And this doesn't take into consideration the fact that InsiderAdvantage was also polling in four other states these evenings. Who is paying for this? Are these robopolls? Was the call center in the North Poll?

I forwarded Chantal's question to InsiderAdvantage CEO Matt Towery, along with a request to provide answers to our Disclosure Project questions for the Iowa survey.

Regarding the number of calls made, Towery replied on Saturday that he does not have "the exact number on a weekend, but clearly they are [in the] thousand[s]." He added, "we have a very high completion rate on these because we ask only a very few questions."

Towery did not mention that his surveys typically sample from lists of registered voters and make use of past vote history to help select "likely voters," so that they need to screen out relatively few contacted respondents.

How many interviewers would it require to complete 6,357 interviews with likely Republican primary voters? In the absence of a more specific answer from Towery, we can guess, but the answer will depend on a variety of issues involving how the poll was fielded: The exact length of the interview, how many "unlikely" voters they terminated, how many "call backs" they made to phone numbers yielding no answer on the first dial, whether they called during the day or just during early evening hours and whether they used a "predictive" auto-dialer that waits until a human being answers the phone before connecting an interviewer (something many pollsters avoid but that can certainly boost interviewer productivity).

Given the sort of incidence that InsiderAdvantage reported for their recent Florida survey and the variables mentioned above, a single interviewer might be able to complete anywhere from 5 to 15 interviews per hour. If we assume the more conservative estimate of 5 an hour, such a survey could require roughly 1300 interviewer hours. If we assume they dialed during evening hours only, the project would require somewhere between 100 and 150 interviewers. That's not an implausible number, especially if the interviews were farmed out to more than one call center. And obviously, any number of compromises in methodology (daytime interviewing, predictive dialers, and so on) could enable completion of a project like this with far fewer interviewers.

As for the question of who is paying for the interviews, Towery had this reply:

We are, as I noted, owned by a holding company (Internet News Agency, LLC) which is comprised of investors including the family owners of one of the nation's largest privately owned newspaper chains, the largest privately held real estate development fund in the Southeast, as well as numerous other investors. We employ some of the region's top journalists such as Tom Baxter, former national editor and chief political correspondent for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution; Hastings Wyman, founder of the Southern Political Report in D.C.; Lee Bandy, 40 year political editor for The State newspaper in South Carolina and the like. I myself am syndicated by Creators Syndicate, the largest independent newspaper syndication company in the nation. We also have a non-political research/consulting divisions with clients primarily composed of Fortune 500-1000 publicly held companies, as well as large associations, such as the Florida Chamber of Commerce. We started in January of 2000 and were founded by a Democrat and a Republican. I hope this sheds some light on who we are and how and why we are able to poll so frequently.

Readers - does this information answer your questions?

PS: Other than the answers above, I have received no response from Insider Advantage to our Disclosure Project questions regarding their Iowa poll.


POLL: Gallup Bush, GOP Primary


A new Gallup national survey (Bush analysis, GOP analysis) of 1,010 adults (conducted 10/4 through 10/7) finds:

  • 32% approve of the job George W. bush is doing as president; 64% disapprove.
  • Among 409 Republicans and those who lean Republican, former Mayor Rudy Giuliani (at 32%) leads former Sen. Fred Thompson (20%) and Sen. John McCain (16%) in a national primary; former Gov. Mitt Romney trails at 9%, former Gov. Mike Huckabee at 7%. All other candidates receive less than five percent each.
  • Favorable-Unfavorable ratings (n=409):
    Giuliani (72-15)
    McCain (61-24)
    Thompson (53-10)
    Romney (45-15)
    Huckabee (26-9)
    Paul (14-14)


POLL: PPP (D) North Carolina Primary


A new Public Policy Polling (D) automated survey (story, results) of likely primary voters in North Carolina (conducted 10/3) finds:

  • Among 621 Democrats asked to choose between three candidates, Sen. Hillary Clinton edges out former Sen. John Edwards (32% to 31%) in a statewide primary; Sen. Barack Obama trails at 20%.
  • Among 755 Republicans asked to choose between four candidates, former Sen. Fred Thompson leads former Mayor Rudy Giuliani (31% to 20%) in a statewide primary; Sen. John McCain and former Gov. Mitt Romney both trail at 11%.


POLL: SurveyUSA New Mexico Senate


A new SurveyUSA automated survey of 514 registered voters in New Mexico (conducted 10/5 through 10/7) finds:

  • Gov. Bill Richardson and Rep. Tom Udall both lead Rep. Heather Wilson and Rep. Steve Pearce** by more than 15 points each in hypothetical match-ups for U.S. Senate.
  • Other Senatorial Match-ups:
    Pearce 54%, Patricia Madrid 38%
    Pearce 56%, Marty Chavez 35%
    Pearce 58%, Don Wiviott 23%
    Wilson 46%, Madrid 45%
    Wilson 48%, Chavez 44%
    Wilson 51%, Wiviott 34%

Correction: Steve Pearce is now correctly labeled as as U.S. Representative and not a New Mexico State Representative.


POLL: SurveyUSA 9 Statewide Presidential GEs


Full crosstabs are now available for nine new SurveyUSA automated surveys testing general election match-ups for U.S. President in Florida, Oklahoma, Massachusetts, New York, California, Washington, Oregon, Minnesota, and Wisconsin.

Previous results from eight other statewide surveys are available here and here.


POLL: InsiderAdvantage National Primary


A new InsiderAdvantage/Majority Opinion national survey of likely presidential primary voters (conducted 10/4 through 10/7) finds:

  • Among 910 Democrats, Sen. Hillary Clinton leads Sen. Barack Obama (31% to 16%) in a national primary; former Sen. John Edwards trails at 12%, Sen. Joe Biden at 6%, Gov. Bill Richardson at 5%.
  • Among 844 Republicans, former Mayor Rudy Giuliani leads former Sen. Fred Thompson (25% to 16%) in a national primary; Sen. John McCain trails at 13%, former Gov. Mitt Romney at 10%, former Gov. Mike Huckabee at 6%, and Rep. Ron Paul at 5%.
  • All other candidates receive less than five percent each.


POLL: AP-Ipsos National Survey


A new AP-Ipsos national survey (Bush results, 08 results, Dem story, Rep story) of 1,005 adults (conducted 10/1 through 10/3) finds:

  • 31% approve of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president; 66% disapprove.
  • Among 482 Democrats and those who lean Democratic, Sen. Hillary Clinton leads Sen. Barack Obama (46% to 25%) in a national primary; former Sen. John Edwards trails at 11%. With former V.P. Al Gore included, Clinton runs at 42%, Obama at 20%, Gore at 12%, and Edwards at 9%.
  • Among 358 Republicans and those who lean Republican, former Mayor Rudy Giuliani edges out former Sen. Fred Thompson (25% to 22%) in a national primary; Sen. John McCain trails at 12%, former Gov. Mitt Romney at 9%, and former Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Gov. Mike Huckabee both trail at 7%.
  • All other candidates receive less then five percent each.

View all National Primary poll data at Pollster.com:

AUSTopDems190.png AUSTopReps190.png
Democrats Republicans


POLL: Des Moines Register/Selzer Iowa Survey


A new Des Moines Register Iowa Poll (Dem story, Rep story, results, preference by gender/age, candidate liabilities, final choice, best president, methodology and question wording) of registered voters in Iowa who say they definitely or probably will attend the Iowa caucus (conducted 10/1 through 10/3 by Selzer & Co) finds:

  • Among 405 Republicans, former Gov. Mitt Romney leads former Sen. Fred Thompson (29% to 18%) in a statewide caucus; former Gov. Mike Huckabee trails at 12%, former Mayor Rudy Giuliani at 11%, Sen. John McCain at 7%, Rep Tom Tancredo at 5%.
  • Among 399 Democrats, Sen. Hillary Clinton narrowly leads former Sen. John Edwards (29% to 23%) in a statewide caucus; Sen. Barack Obama trails at 22%, Gov. Bill Richardson at 8%, Sen. Joe Biden and 5%.
  • All other candidates trail at less than five percent each.

View all Iowa Caucus poll data at Pollster.com:

AIATopDems190.png AIATopReps190.png
Democrats Republicans


 

MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR