October 14, 2007 - October 20, 2007
Clinton pollster Mark Penn claims, at a reporter breakfast, "I think you’re going to see as much as 24% of Republican women defect and make a major difference nationwide in terms of, I think, the emotional element of potentially having the first woman nominee."**
Obama pollster Joel Benenson (once a principal in Penn's firm) quickly responds with a memo calling Penn's claim "entirely baseless and refuted by a number of public polls."
The Washington Post's Jon Cohen provides some context, including the finding that a 24 percent showing among Republican women "would significantly outperform any Democratic candidate since 1972."
Mark Penn then blogs back: An unspecified internal poll shows Clinton's support increasing "to 13 percent" among Republican women, while undecided "surged to 11 percent, so a total of 24 percent would either vote for her or consider voting for her."
Ben Smith, who followed the story all day, concludes: "if we can get Joel Benenson and [Edwards pollster] Harrison Hickman blogs, this could get fun." Amen brother. Or maybe just occasional "Guest Pollster" gigs at a certain poll obsessed web site?
First Read reports a memo by Biden campaign manager Luis Navarro that cites recent polling to claim his candidate is sneaking up on Bill Richardson.
Marc Ambinder shares a memo from McCain advisor Rick Davis that "pours water on Giuliani's electability argument…or tries to anyway."
And in other news…
Frank Newport reviews "where things stand" in campaign 2008.
Gary Langer looks at the President's ratings and tells us "where he's at."
Kathy Frankovic considers Al Gore and the way perceptions can change as former presidents and vice presidents shift from political figures to "elder statesment" and back again.
Mark Mellman shares results showing Americans "overwhelmingly oppose key elements of the Bush administration's surveillance agenda."
David Hill argues that, despite "growing evidence that the Democratic Party will expand its majorities in both the House and Senate," voters will resist one-party control by the Democrats.
Evan Tracey reports that two thirds of the television ads of the Democratic presidential candidates have focused on health care and Iraq.
As for the boy from Cleveland, to quote Ebby Calvin LaLoosh in Bull
Durham, "Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, sometimes it rains."
**The quotation comes from Ben Smith's blog and now reflects his "slightly corrected" version that is "slightly more hedged." The original version read: "You're going to see 24 percent of Republican women voters defect because of the emotional element of having a woman nominee." Thanks to reader rilkefan for the edit.
Additional results from the most recent CBS News national survey (story, results) of 1,282 adults (conducted 10/12 through 10/16) finds:
- Among 372 likely Republican primary voters asked to choose among five candidates, former Mayor Rudy Giuliani leads former Sen. Fred Thompson (29% to 21%) in a national primary; Sen. John McCain trails at 18%, former Gov. Mitt Romney at 12%, and former Gov. Mike Huckabee at 4%.
- 27% of likely Republican primary voters would "definitely" vote for Giuliani if he is the Republican Party's nominee for president in 2008; 36% would "consider" voting for him, 11% "definitely would not" vote for him.
While pondering some new poll results from Iowa last night, MyDD's Jon Singer asked some good questions:
How do you come up with a turnout model when you
don't know what day the caucuses are going to be held? Specifically, does
anyone actually believe that turnout for a Thursday night January 3 caucus,
when many voters just won't have the time to take two hours to participate,
would be the same as the turnout on a Saturday afternoon January 5 caucus, when
significantly fewer voters will be working or have just gotten off of work?
Might not the turnout also be different were the Democratic caucuses to be held
on Tuesday night January 14, which Ben
Smith says is a possibility?
It could be the case that the sentiments of voters
1 through 125,000 are not terribly different from those of voters 125,001
through 150,000 or 175,000 or 200,000. But then again, it also could be the
case that those going to caucus for the first time ever or even the first time
in many years are a whole lot different from those who are already pretty
determined to keep up their streak of making it to the caucuses every four
So do we need to consider a "pollster Grinch
Effect? Does uncertainty surrounding
the date of the Iowa
caucuses make it even more difficult for pollsters to identify and sample "likely
caucus goers?" Yes and yes, but...
While Singer is asking all the right questions, he is probably giving pollsters too much credit for our ability to divine likely caucus goers with laser-like precision, regardless of our assumption about the level of turnout. A public
opinion poll is basically a blunt instrument when it comes to "modeling" likely
caucus participants. The primary measures that most public pollsters use to
select likely caucus goers are self-reports of interest in the caucus, and
intent to participate and (in a few cases) self-reports of past participation. Unfortunately, respondents
notoriously overstate their intent to vote. Most want to show an interest in
doing their civic duty, especially when asked by a stranger on the telephone. So
rather than take responses at face value, most pollsters use several different questions in combination to try to narrow their "likely
voter" subgroup to some reasonable number.
A few public polls in Iowa have sampled from lists of registered voter lists, a procedure that at least provides an accurate way to screen out non-registrants and sort out those registered as Democrats, Republicans
or with no affiliation. But as ABC's Gary Langer points
out, those lists only eliminate the roughly 17% of the adult population
that is either not registered or identified as "inactive" voters by Iowa's
Secretary of State. The record of actual party affiliation is helpful to
pollsters but not a conclusive indicator of their caucus of choice, since Iowa voters can register or declare their party affiliation on caucus night.
Only one or two public Iowa polls have used actual vote
history to select their respondents, and -- except for the recent polls
conducted for the One Campaign -- none have used past caucus participation to select their likely caucus-goer samples.
So the bottom line is that even if we knew exactly how many voters planned to participate, modeling
the likely caucus goers comes down to methodology decisions that amount to an
educated guess, at best. And even then, we have very little idea how many Iowans
will participate. Consider the estimated turnout from past years (from an
offline source: Rhodes Cook's invaluable Race
for the Presidency: Winning the 2004 Nomination):
Look closely at the contested Democratic races, 1980, 1984,
1988, 2000 and 2004. "Estimated" turnout varied enormously, from an estimated 60,000
to 124,000. And as we learned last week,
some have expressed doubt about the 2004 estimate, since caucus organizers ran
out of sign-in sheets and failed to record name and address information for
nearly twenty thousand participants.
And finally, we have to consider that every campaign is
doing everything it can to identify and, ultimately, turn out voters who are
not typical caucus goers. Some are devoting literally millions of dollars to microtargeting,
field staff and various forms of "voter contact" to alter the turnout in their
So - before we contemplate the Grinch Effect - what level of
turnout is likely in 2008? Who knows?
What this means for the polls we plot and obsess over is
that they are, at best, blunt measures of voter preferences based in Iowa, and no two pollsters
define "likely caucus goers" alike. They do give us a decent sense of trends -
who is gaining or falling -- especially for surveys done by the same pollster
using a constant methodology. However, the "point estimate" for
any candidate on any one poll has a lot of room for error, the kind that has absolutely nothing to do with the
statistical "margin of error."
[This Guest Pollster's Corner contribution comes from Lydia Saad, Senior Editor of The Gallup Poll, responding to criticism posted earlier today by Alan I. Abramowitz.]
Alan, I see your point about how Gallup's question explaining the difference between Bush's income threshold and the Democrats' threshold could have confused respondents. You overlook the fact that we set up the question with this introduction to the series: "As you may know, Congress is considering a bill that would increase the number of children eligible for government subsidized health insurance, but the Democrats in Congress and President Bush disagree on how much to increase the program." But your point is well-taken.
However, our question measuring concern about the Democrats' bill being a step toward socialized medicine isn't "biased" -- it was intentionally written to convey Bush's counterargument. That was the intent -- to test the strength of socialized medicine as a counterargument. And indeed we found a slim majority willing to say they are concerned. We didn't conclude from this that Americans think the bill WILL lead to socialized medicine. As you note, we merely said that Americans are sympathetic to the argument: "Americans are also generally sympathetic to Bush's concern about the program leading to socialized medicine."
It is always a challenge to write clear and balanced questions about complex policy issues. Along those lines, I would go further than your critique of Gallup, and submit that all of the public polling on SCHIP I've seen thus far can be criticized in one regard or another. Yesterday I saw this question by CNN which seems to suggest that SCHIP is a new $35 billion program for children in middle income families, and that Bush opposes the program. I see what CNN was trying to do (isolate the question to the program expansion) but their wording just doesn't succeed at accurately describing what the veto/override conflict is all about.
26A. As you may know, President Bush vetoed a bill passed by Congress that would create a program to spend 35 billion dollars to provide health insurance to some children in middle-income families. Do you think Congress should vote to create that program by overriding Bush's veto, or do you think Congress should vote to block that program by sustaining Bush's veto?
The ABC question you applaud is another reasonable attempt, but still conveys the sense that the policy choice is between supporting the Democrats' plan and not providing any insurance coverage for "millions of low-income children." And since they ask if Congress should vote to override Bush's veto, they should have a follow-up asking what should happen if that override fails: i.e. Now that Bush has vetoed the bill, should the Democrats and Republicans in Congress work together to pass a new compromise bill, or should they let the program expire?
Otherwise we are just falling into the same political traps the Democrats and Republicans are setting for each other, and not really finding out what kind of government sponsored children's health care coverage Americans want for the country.
Americans probably don't have a great command of the details of the SCHIP debate, but half say they are paying very or somewhat close attention to it. That's about the midpoint for public attention to policy-debates in Washington. Americans clearly have some opinions worth tapping, and the challenge is to probe further for a more thorough and accurate understanding of whether Americans would rather have the existing program that covers families earning up to twice the poverty level, or whether the program should be expanded to include families earning more than that. Separately, we can find out who Americans would blame if the program expires: Bush for vetoing the congressional bill, or the Democrats for not being willing to pass a compromise bill.
None of the polling I've seen thus far -- neither on a question by question basis, nor in its totality -- answers those questions for me.
Senior Editor, The Gallup Poll
A new Christopher Newport University's Center for Public Policy statewide survey of 700 registered voters in Virginia (conducted 9/27 through 10/1) finds:
- 55% approve of the job Gov. Tim Kaine is doing; 25% disapprove, 10% are mixed.
- Former Democratic Gov. Mark Warner leads both Republican Rep. Tom Davis and former Republican Gov. Jim Gilmore (51% to 27% each) in statewide general election match-ups for U.S. Senate.
A new CBS News national survey (story, results) of 1,282 adults nationwide (conducted 10/12 through 10/16) finds:
- 30% approve of the way George Bush is handling his job as president; 61% disapprove.
- 81% favor expanding a governmend program that "provides health insurance for some children in low-income families;" 15% oppose.
- 74% say they would be willing "to pay more in taxes in order to fund the expansion of this program;" 17% say they would not.
[Today's Guest Pollster's entry comes from Alan I. Abramowitz, the Alben W. Barkley Professor of Political Science at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia. He has also been a frequent contributer to the blog Donkey Rising.]
The Gallup Poll has just released a report on public attitudes regarding President Bush's recent veto of a bill expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Gallup reports that a majority of Americans trust the Democrats in Congress more than President Bush on this issue. That's consistent with what other polling organizations have found. However, Gallup reports that a majority of Americans support the President's position on where to set the income threshold for SCHIP eligibility and that "Americans are also generally sympathetic to Bush's concern about the program leading to socialized medicine." A close examination indicates however, that the questions on which these conclusions are based are clearly biased.
Here's the question concerning the income threshold:
As you may know, the Democrats want to allow a family of four earning about $62,000 to qualify for the program. President Bush wants most of the increases to go to families earning less than $41,000. Whose side do you favor?"
The problem, of course, is that the question implies that the Democrats, in contrast to President Bush, do not want most SCHIP funds to go to families earning less than $41,000. But this is not true. In fact, under the legislation passed by Congress, the large majority of SCHIP funds would go to families earning less than $41,000.
The second question is even worse:
How concerned are you that expanding this program would create an incentive for middle class Americans to drop private health insurance for a public program, which some consider to be a step toward socialized medicine? Are you very concerned, somewhat concerned, not too concerned, or not concerned at all?"
Here the respondents are presented with a totally one-sided argument using the loaded term "socialized medicine." It is actually surprising, given this wording, that a substantial proportion of the respondents indicated that they were not concerned.
Given the biased wording of this question, it is not surprising that the results are out of line with those of other recent polls on this topic based on a more balanced wording. For example, an ABC-Washington Post Poll conducted from September 27-30 of this year asked the following question:
There's a proposal to increase federal spending on children's health insurance by 35 billion dollars over the next five years. It would be funded by an increase in cigarette taxes. Supporters say this would provide insurance for millions of low-income children who are currently uninsured. Opponents say this goes too far in covering children in families that can afford health insurance on their own. Do you support or oppose this increased funding for this program?"
Seventy-two percent of the respondents in this survey favored the proposed expansion of the SCHIP program.
Update: Gallup's Lydia Saad responds
A new Strategic Vision (R) statewide survey of likely caucus-goers in Iowa (conducted 10/12 through 10/14) finds:
- Among 600 Republicans, former Gov. Mitt Romney (at 27%) leads former Mayor Rudy Giuliani (13%), former Gov. Mike Huckabee (12%), and former Sen. Fred Thompson (10%) in a statewide caucus; Sen. John McCain trails at 5%.
- Among 600 Democrats, Sen. Hillary Clinton narrowly leads Sen. Barack Obama (28% to 23%) in a statewide caucus; former Sen. John Edwards trails at 20%, Gov. Bill Richardson at 9%, Sen. Joe Biden at 6%.
- All other candidates trail at less than five percent each.
A new NPR/Kaiser Family Foundation/Harvard School of Public Health national survey of 1,527 adults (conducted 10/8 through 10/13) finds:
- After hearing that supporters say the expansion of the Children's Health Insurance Program "would prevent children who are already covered from losing their coverage and provide health insurance for millions of low-income children who are currently uninsured" and "the program has been shown to be effective over the past ten years" and that opponents say "the expansion would encourage some families who have private health insurance to drop it in favor of government-funded coverage" and "the expansion will wind up covering some children in middle-class families," 65% support the expansion while 28% oppose.
- 64% think Congress should vote to overturn President Bush's veto of the expansion of the Children's Health Insurance Program; 30% think Congress should not.
- 14% say they would be more likely to vote for his or her Member of Congress if he or she opposed the expansion; 35% say they would be less likely to vote for him or her; 46% say it wouldn't make much difference.
Additional results from the most recent USA Today/Gallup national survey of 1,009 adults (conducted 10/12 through 10/14) finds:
- Among a half-sample of 507 adults, 52% of adults say they have "more confidence" in the Democrats in Congress to handle the SCHIP issue; 32% say George W. Bush.
- Among a different half-sample of 502 adults, when prompted with "As you may know, the Democrats want to allow a family of four earning about $62,000 to qualify for the program. President Bush wants most of the increases to go to families earning less than $41,000," 52% favor Bush's position while 40% favor the Democrats'.
- "At this point, the Democrats seem to be winning -- though not dominating -- the public relations battle."
A new Rasmussen Reports automated survey (Dem results, Rep results, methodology) of likely caucus goers in Iowa (conducted 10/10 and 10/14) finds:
- Among 650 Republicans, former Gov. Mitt Romney (at 25%) leads former Sen. Fred Thompson (19%) and former Gov. Mike Huckabee (18%) in a statewide caucus; former Mayor Rudy Giuliani trails at 13%, Sen. John McCain at 6%.
- Among 1,007 Democrats, Sen. Hillary Clinton (at 33%) leads former Sen. John Edwards (22%) and Sen. Barack Obama (21%) in a statewide caucus; Gov. Bill Richardson trails at 9%.
- All other candidates receive less than five percent each.
View all New York State Primary poll data at Pollster.com:
Three new Quinnipiac University statewide surveys of registered voters in New York State, New Jersey, and Connecticut (conducted 10/9 through 10/15) find:
- Among 468 Democrats in New York State, Sen. Hillary Clinton (at 49%) leads Sen. Barack Obama (12%), and former Sen. John Edwards (11%) in a statewide primary. Among 316 Republicans, former Mayor Rudy Giuliani (at 45%) leads former Sen. Fred Thompson (12%), Sen. John McCain (9%), and former Gov. Mitt Romney (7%). All other candidates receive less than five percent each.
- General election match-ups:
Connecticut (n=1,391): Clinton 44%, Giuliani 42%
New Jersey (n=1,004): Clinton 44%, Giuliani 44%
New York State (n=1,063): Clinton 50%, Giuliani 36%
More results available here.
View all New York State Primary poll data at Pollster.com:
A new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation national survey of 1,212 adults (conducted 10/12 through 10/14) finds:
- Among 485 registered Democrats and those who lean Democratic, Sen. Hillary Clinton leads Sen. Barack Obama (51% to 21%) in a national primary; former Sen. John Edwards trails at 15%. When former V.P. Al Gore is included, Clinton runs at 46%, Obama at 17%, Gore at 14%, and Edwards at 12%. All other candidates trail at less than five percent each.
- Among 374 registered Republicans and those who lean Republican, former Mayor Rudy Giuliani leads former Sen. Fred Thompson (27% to 19%) in a national primary; former Sen. John McCain trails at 17%, former Gov. Mitt Romney at 13%, and former gov. Mike Huckabee at 5%. All other candidates trail at less than five percent each.
- General Election Match-Ups:
Clinton 49%, Giuliani 47%
Gore 52%, Giuliani 46%
Two weeks ago, a new ABC News/Washington Post poll showed
Hillary Clinton "surging:"
She has 53 percent support in the
latest ABC News/Washington Post poll, up 12 points from early last month, vs.
20 percent for Barack Obama (down seven points to his lowest of the year), and
a stable 13 percent for John Edwards.
In a blog
post on that poll, I noted the dramatic interpretation of these results in
various corners and then looked at how the poll compared other results (based
on trial heats omitting Al Gore as an option). I wrote:
[T]he 53% result for new Post/ABC
poll is more of an "outlier" from the regression trend line than any
poll conducted this year (it's the purple dot at the extreme top right of plot
area). At 53%, the polls estimate of Clinton's
support falls a full ten percentage points higher than our current estimate of
the trend (42.5%) even without Gore in the race.
Since then, six new national polls have been released, and
all but one** show support for Clinton
above the 42.5% trend estimate we reported ten days ago. With the addition of
those new polls, the trend line below, based on trial heat results that do not
include Gore now shows an expanding Clinton lead, with her support increasing
roughly 3 percentage points since August.
The 53% result for Clinton on
the ABC/Post poll remains on the high end of support for Clinton compared to the trend line, but is no
longer "more of an outlier" than various other polls conducted earlier in the
ABC's Gary Langer also sent a table this morning to point
out something I overlooked two weeks ago. I've reproduced it below (splitting it
into two parts to better fit this space). He first reproduced the results as
reported by the pollsters - the same results plotted in our chart above:
Notice that the ABC/Post result for undecided (2%) is lower by far than any of the other results in the table. That difference is not unusual, in that the ABC/Post poll typically shows a smaller "don't know" result than other polls. Langer then recalculated each
result as a percentage of those with a preference. Calculated this way, the
ABC/Post results look much closer to the average of all six poll and not at all
like an "outlier."
So point taken.
But let's also remember that the typically lower than
average undecided on the ABC/Post poll did not produce a similarly discordant
estimate for Clinton
in early September. Their September 4-9 survey put her
support at 41%, within a percentage point of our trend estimate at the time. So
we cannot explain away the apparently dramatic 12 point increase as an artifact
of a small undecided.
Finally, about my speculation twelve days ago:
Of course, we do not yet know
whether this poll is really a statistical outlier. Other polls have obviously
been showing a more gradual increase in her support recently, and it is still theoretically
possible that Clinton's
support suddenly lurched up ten points last week...
So we will wait and see. But I'll
wager that a month from now the real trend will not look nearly as dramatic as
the one suggested by yesterday's news.
A month has not yet passed and the trend line for September
might still change, but I stand by my wager.
**The Insider Advantage national
poll of Democrats, not included in Langer's chart, looks far more deserving
of the "outlier" label if only because of its huge 23% undecided produced by
informing respondents that "no opinion" is an option.
President Bush's approval trend has been relatively flat in recent weeks. For the last month the estimated approval has held between 32% and 33% and currently stands at 33.0%, which includes Gallup's 32% approval from polling done 10/12-14/07.
There was a fairly sharp upturn that started in July, which has tapered off but not yet disappeared. Poll to poll fluctuations have pulled the trend estimate around a bit in the 32%-33% range but without clear evidence of significant change.
The last six polls also demonstrate some persistent differences between polls. The NPR Poll, conducted by Public Opinion Strategies (R) and Greenberg Quinlan Rosner (D) has a persistent positive house effect, making NPR one of the higher measures of Bush approval. In the opposite direction, Harris has a persistently negative reading of approval. In the figure below, we see that both are outliers in the current approval trend.
But this is a good example of when being an "outlier" doesn't necessarily mean anything is wrong with the polling. NPR samples "likely voters" and we know from other analysis that samples of likely voters are generally more approving of President Bush. Likewise, Harris (along with Zogby) uses a four point approval scale, "Excellent", "Good", "Fair" and "Poor" while everyone else uses "Approve" or "Disapprove". Harris and Zogby (and me) arbitrarily map "excellent" and "good" into "approve", and "fair" and "poor" into "disapprove". But is that the right way to make different answers comparable? Do the first two of these choices mean exactly what "approve" means? No. This is just the best categorization possible for mapping these four response options into two. And one consequence is that Harris and Zogby tend to come in below the estimated trend.
The choices these polling organizations make to sample likely voters rather than adults, or to use a four choice approval measure, are not in any sense "wrong" decisions. But they do mean that the results these pollsters get will be somewhat different from what others, using different samples and different questions, will find. But the choices DO make these polls more likely to be "far" away from the trend which is based on all pollsters.
So why call them outliers? Simply because they are, in fact, well away from the trend and the distribution of everyone else. In some cases that might indicate a "bad" poll, a sample that for some reason is far from what we would normally expect, or perhaps a biased question wording or sequence of questions. But being an outlier can also result from making choices of sample or question or other procedures which are different from most. Different yes, not necessarily bad.
But different is surprising, nonetheless. My goal here is to put everyone's polling in perspective, and these two do deserve to be labeled "outliers" because they are in fact different. A normal reader of polls without benefit of the perspective we provide here, would reasonably ask how can NPR get Bush at 38% and Harris have him at 27% (and the trend estimator be at 33%?) That surprise factor is also part of what being an outlier means. Without some further explanation (sample, question wording) the results appear puzzling. An outlier may be understandable or explicable, as both of these appear to be. Or in may not. Either way outlier detection draws attention and asks for an explanation or a discounting of the finding.
Cross-posted at Political Arithmetik.
A new SurveyUSA automated survey of likely voters in California (conducted 10/12 through 10/14 for KABC-TV, KFSN-TV, KGTV-TV, and KPIX-TV) finds:
- Among 519 likely Republican primary voters asked to choose between four candidates, former Mayor Rudy Giuliani (at 39%) leads former Sen. Fred Thompson (18%), former Gov. Mitt Romney (14%), and Sen. John McCain (13%) in a statewide primary.
- Among 782 likely Democratic primary voters asked to choose between three candidates, Sen. Hillary Clinton (at 57%) leads Sen. Barack Obama (20%) and former Sen. John Edwards (13%) in a statewide primary.
View all California Primary poll data at Pollster.com:
Congratulations to the Colorado Rockies for their four game
sweep of the National League Championship Series. What does this have to do
with Pollster.com (other than the author's own hometown
The answer is Rockies pitcher Jeff Francis, a physics and astronomy major at the
University of British Columbia, who proved himself a pollster's pitcher who with
in the New York Times on Sunday:
They continued their remarkable run, riding Francis's six
and-two-thirds innings and a two-run single by Brad Hawpe to win for the 18th
time in 19 games, defeating the Diamondbacks, 5-1. Francis allowed one run and
seven hits, improving to 4-0 with a 1.35 earned run average this season at
"I think it's just a small sample size of me not
being here that long and having a good run against one team," Francis said.
Thanks to my friend Rick Ridder, both a pollster and devoted
Rockies fan, for sending that clip my way.
in yesterday's Des Moines Register
includes some additional results profiling the contact that the "likely caucus
goers" they surveyed have had with the campaigns and the news media. Quoting
- More than three-fourths have been contacted by a presidential campaign.
- Forty-three percent have been to a campaign event where a candidate appeared.
- Sixteen percent have donated money to a candidate.
- Seven percent have been interviewed about the first-in-the-nation caucuses by
the news media.
The story also restates some of the demographic results
included in an earlier David Yepsen column,
as well as one additional detail about those who say this will be their first
For 25 percent of likely Republican
caucus participants and 23 percent of likely Democratic caucusgoers, January
will bring their first experience at the party events, according to the poll.
However, party officials and campaign organizers shouldn't get too excited yet
about the attendance plans of all these newcomers. Roughly one-fourth say
they're definitely going to attend a caucus, while the other three-fourths say
they probably will attend.
I have written about this survey in greater detail here and here.
A new USA Today/Gallup national survey (USAT story, results; Gallup Gore analysis, Giuliani analysis) of 1,009 adults (conducted 10/12 through 10/14) finds:
- Among 411 Republicans and those who lean Republican, former mayor Rudy Giuliani leads former Sen. Fred Thompson (32% to 18%) in a national primary; Sen. John McCain trails at 14%, 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.
- Among 500 Democrats and those who lean Democratic, Sen. Hillary Clinton leads Sen. Barack Obama (50% to 21%) in a national primary; former Sen. John Edwards trails at 13%. With former V.P. Al Gore included, Clinton runs at 44%, Obama at 19%, Gore at 14%, and Edwards at 10%. All other candidates receive less than five percent each.
- 58% of all adults have a favorable view of Gore -- "up from 50% in the prior reading taken in August;" 37% have an unfavorable view.
- 41% say they would like to see Gore run for president; 54% say they would not.
While it may have gone unnoticed by all but our most devoted
readers, we made a small change earlier today to the charts that display
results for Republican presidential candidates nationally and in each of the
early primary states: We dropped the trend line for Newt Gingrich and added a
trend line for Ron Paul.
Newt Gingrich has finally made it clear he will not be a
candidate, and so the many pollsters that had included his name on trial heats
will now stop. Meanwhile, Ron Paul's support in New Hampshire now increased to 3.8% on our
trend estimate, within a whisper of Mike Huckabee (at 4.2%).
This change is part of our ongoing effort to keep the graphics
both informative and readable within a few operational constraints. The
constraints (for now) are that our charts can handle a maximum of six trend
lines and that our system plots the same lines for all states and the nation.
Please keep in mind that, as we wrote back in
July, we include on our "top contenders" chart those candidates with enough support
to provide legible trend lines above the low single-digits. It is not a
statement about which candidate resides in which "tier." We also continue to
provide a set of "small multiple" charts for each state that plot the
trend for all candidates in small
A new Marist College statewide survey of likely primary voters in New Hampshire (conducted 10/4 through 10/9) finds:
- Among 444 Democrats, Sen. Hillary Clinton leads Sen. Barack Obama (43% to 21%) in a statewide primary; former Sen. John Edwards trails at 12%, Gov. Bill Richardson at 8%.
- Among 366 Republicans, former Gov. Mitt Romney narrowly leads former Mayor Rudy Giuliani (27% to 21%) in a statewide primary; Sen. John McCain trails at 17%, former Sen. Fred Thompson at 10%, former Gov. Mike Huckabee at 8%.
- All other candidates recieve less than five percent each.
View all New Hampshire Primary poll data at Pollster.com:
A new American Research Group national survey of likely primary voters nationwide (conducted 10/9 through 10/12) finds:
- Among 600 Democrats, Sen. Hillary Clinton leads Sen. Barack Obama (45% to 20%) in a national primary; former Sen. John Edwards trails at 13%, Sen. Joe Biden at 5%.
- Among 600 Republicans, former Mayor Rudy Giuliani (at 24%) leads former Sen. Fred Thompson (16%), former Gov. Mitt Romney (15%), and Sen. John McCain (14%) in a national primary; former Gov. Mike Huckabee trails at 6%.
- All other candidates receive less than five percent each.
View all National Primary poll data at Pollster.com:
A new InsiderAdvantage national survey of 408 likely Democratic primary voters nationwide (conducted 10.13) finds Sen. Hillary Clinton leading former V.P. Al Gore (43% to 15%) in a national primary, while Sen. Barack Obama trails at 13%, former Sen. John Edwards at 10%, and Sen. Joe Biden at 7%; all other candidates receive less than five percent each.
View all National Primary poll data at Pollster.com:
A new Las Vegas Review-Journal/Mason-Dixon statewide survey of likely caucus-goers in Nevada (conducted 10/9 through 10/11) finds:
- Among 300 Republicans, former Mayor Rudy Giuliani edges out former Sen. Fred Thompson (28% to 23%) in a statewide caucus; Former Mayor Mitt Romney trails at 17%, Sen. John McCain at 9%.
- Among 300 Democrats, Sen. Hillary Clinton leads Sen. Barack Obama (39% to 21%) in a statewide caucus; former Sen. John Edwards trails at 9%, Gov. Bill Richardson at 8%.
- All other candidates trail at less than five percent each.
View all Nevada Caucus poll data at Pollster.com: