Hillary And Romney Coming Back In Iowa?
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in 2008 Election, Barack, Hillary, Huckabee, Iowa, RomneyRecently, Barack and Hillary were tied and Huckabee led Romney. Well, things have changed, at least according to one poll.
In the new ARG survey, conducted December 20-23, she leads the Illinois senator by 15 percentage points, 34 to 19 percent. Obama is now in a statistical tie for second place with John Edwards, who has 20 percent of the vote. [...]As Hillary Clinton appears to be breaking away from the pack, the Republican race may be tightening up: just a few days after Mike Huckabee appeared to lead Mitt Romney by an 11-point margin among likely Republican caucus goers, the two are back in a statistical tie, 23 to 21 percent. John McCain has 17 percent of the vote, Rudy Giuliani has 14 percent — and Ron Paul has 10 percent in the latest poll, up from 4 percent last week.
So what’s causing this? In short, men. They’re coming back to both in a big swing. Maybe it’s the foreign policy experience.
Whatever it is, I bet Huckabee and Obama wish they knew.
UPDATE:
I fixed the CNN link and I think what happened is CNN changed the title of the post a day after they posted it, thereby changing the timestamp. So instead of it being 12/24 in the url string, it was 12/25.
Tsk, tsk CNN editors…you should know better!
This entry was posted on Tuesday, December 25th, 2007 and is filed under 2008 Election, Barack, Hillary, Huckabee, Iowa, Romney. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
December 25th, 2007 at 12:59 am
The only people who pay attention to ARG is Hillary Clinton herself. ARG has never in Iowa by less than 9%, nationally nearly always double the other polls. ARG has been discredited over the owner’s political ties to the Clinton campaign. Oops! He is a main contributor. Could that be why every ARG poll is an ‘outlier’, just when Clinton is receiving bad press coverage and falling poll numbers? Hmmm…
December 25th, 2007 at 1:57 am
I love how obviously incorrect these polls are, If i am to believe them that means that one week only 4% of Iowans support Paul, and now this week 10%. Last week 9% supported McCain, this week 17%, last week 30-some percent supported Huckabee and this week only 23%.
I think the polsters would be just as accurate if they were throwing darts at a board full of random numbers.
My Prediction for Iowa as I have maintained for 4 weeks
December 25th, 2007 at 2:01 am
My Prediction for Iowa as I have maintained for 4 weeks:
Romney 23%
Huckabee 21%
Paul 16%
McCain 13%
Thompson 12%
Guliani 10%
Hunter 2% (I originally predicted less than 1% before Tancredo dropped out)
Keyes < 1%
December 25th, 2007 at 2:04 am
I have to go with Romney, too. He is simply the best qualified, and has the money and talent to beat Hillary.
December 25th, 2007 at 2:37 am
I agree with Michael Cathcart… These polls are so obviously flawed and inaccurate as to be virtually meaningless. The wide swings from week to week and the sudden rises and falls are statistically improbable even in a volatile election scenario such as we are seeing. Their methodology is flawed and the sample pool way too small.
It is curious how the ONE candidate who is left off of many polls, and is marginalized by the ‘harmonization’ correction process they utilize (You know who!) continues to double his numbers every week even in these flawed polls. This comes with virtually NO mainstream press coverage (he was interviewed on Meet The Press, then NEVER MENTIONED in the ‘Roundtable’ discussion afterward!).
The polls are subject to such bias and manipulation it is ludicrous that the Mainstream Media puts nearly ALL their eggs in that basket. Then again, these manipulated polls allow them to creat the false drama of a ‘Horse race’ that they need to capture viewers. It’s been downhill ever since the entertainment divisions of all the major networks took over the news divisions.
xtrabiggg
++++++++++++++
December 25th, 2007 at 6:55 am
Here are the problems with election polling:
1. Sophisticated, successful, educated people have Caller ID. When they see a number the do not recognize, they do not answer it. This means that your polls are being answered by the least sophisticated, least successful and least educated portion of the electorate.
2. People in Iowa and NH are being called 20 times a day by campaigns and pollsters. Either they don’t answer, of it fthey do, they may give intentionally misleading information out of spit.
3. Only 5% of the electorate actually votes in Iowa, so it is impossible to poll those people.
Kerry came from single digits to a win in Iowa because of one reason - he had the best organization on the ground to get out the vote. No one else in Iowa even comes close to Romney. Mike Huckabee is illegally trying to get “tax-exempt” churches to be hsi “organization”, but that won;t work as pastors fear having to pay taxes.
Huckabee needs to be 15 points ahead on all the polls election day to win by 2 points.
December 25th, 2007 at 8:23 am
I dont think people realize that Iowa is not a primary. Romney is back in a tie with Huckabee and has a far larger and far superior organization which is very important for a caucaus. Getting out the vote will be easier for him. I think Romney could come back and win this state. His so called attack ads are really Truth ads, not insulting Huckabee but pointing out his liberal record on crime and illegal immigration, something Huckabee hasnt really answered and so Huckabee is back down to a tie and will lose.
December 25th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
Your CNN link doesn’t work.
Can’t find a reference to this ARG poll anywhere else online.
Please find an accurate link or delete this article. It really discredits you as a writer and your hosting site.
December 25th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Joshua you have a very good point. Romneys ads are not making Huckabee out to be Satan. They aren’t attacking his family or his religion they attack his positions on the issues which last I checked was fair game in an election. Xtrabigg has a very interesting point too. Romney is not a good investment for the media. The best they can get out of this guy is who is working on his front lawn and how he tied a dog in a kennel to the top of his car. No ratings minded media person wants a boyscout in the Oval Office. Bill in the White House=what mistress is he going to have up in there this time around we don’t need that humiliation or scandal anymore. Philanderers rarely change and Bill has an established record as a philanderer.
December 25th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
I believe Romney is much stronger than what the Iowa polls have recently shown. He’s ran a very solid campaign here with a solid platform backed with solid experience. As people starting seeing more clearly who Huckabee really is, Huckabee will continue his slide.
Romney wins by a 10+ point margin.
December 25th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
After reviewing each candidate’s “resume,” I’ve concluded that Mitt really is the most qualified candidate for President. He also governed as a conservative in an extremely liberal state, and has the ability to unite this great country. He walks the walk - check out one of his latest ads:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjwWVWkPr-4
http://www.evangelicalsformitt.org
Here’s a Mitt vs. Mike comparison - see if you can figure out who’s who:
One Pardoned Zero criminals during his term as governor; the other Pardoned or commuted the sentences for 1033 Criminals in his state.
One is endorsed by 68 current or past members of Congress - the other is endorsed by 4.
One kept spending increases during his term in office to a low 2%; the other increased spending in his state 140% from $6 Billion annually to $16 Billion.
One says that illegal aliens should not have tuition breaks that allow them to have lower tuition than citizens; the other as Governor supported a failed measure that extended in-state tuition and scholarships to the children of illegal aliens.
One is widely acknowledged as one of the most successful businessmen in America; the other was a paid minister and worked for a televangelist before becoming a politician.
One has wide-spread support across a number of American Constituencies; the other has the wide-spread support of one - the Evangelical movement.
One spent years in volunteer service leading a worldwide effort to rescue the 2002 Winter Olympics, the other has not served in any similar capacity.
Both served for 12 years as leaders of their respective Churches - one took zero salary for his years of service; the other was paid.
One took zero salary for his years in Government service; the other took full salary, gifts, and more (for which he was fined).
Only one has a chance of beating Hillary or Obama in the “blue” seaboard states that will be critical to win in the next election and demonstrated his electability in the most liberal of States—Massachusetts. The other will not be taken seriously in any of the critical blue states.
One has shown respect for the other candidate’s faith and beliefs; the other has used less than subtle methods, to criticize the faith of the other candidate, while at the same time conspicuously elevating his own religion above others.
In recognition of his outstanding leadership, one was elected by his fellow Governors as Chairman of the Republican Governors’ Conference; the other was not.
http://blog.electromneyin2008.com/2007/12/19/the-governor-game/
December 26th, 2007 at 1:18 am
My daughter just returned from Iowa campaigning for RON PAUL. She did not see any billboards other than Pauls, and Pauls campaign signs also dominated others. My original hopes for Paul was to finish 3rd in Iowa, but considering that he is drawing many non-republicans, independents, democrats and first-time voters, I now expect a second or even a win in Iowa. Then its on.
December 26th, 2007 at 9:24 am
Cameron,
You’re kidding, right?
Romney is a boyscout? Not likely. He is a candidate as close to Bill Clinton as I’ve seen in a while, parsing words, and statements and then explaining them away to simple misunderstandings. I mean, the man has overstated his own accomplishments to the point of outright lies, saying that he “saw” his father march with Martin Luther King, Jr. only to backtrack when confronted to say that in the form he used “saw” it could mean, in terms of pursuing the same aims, and not necessarily requiring him to physically see him do it. I mean, if that doesn’t sound Clintonesque, in the whole what is the meaning of the word “is,” then I don’t know what else could.
Romney has done himself no favors recently. I’m currently not backing any top tier candidates on either party, but I know two things, I would never back Mitt Romney nor John Edwards because they are just charlatans (more so than the rest) who will say anything to get elected.
As a recent Concord Monitor article noted:
If you followed only his tenure as governor of Massachusetts, you might imagine Romney as a pragmatic moderate with liberal positions on numerous social issues and an ability to work well with Democrats. If you followed only his campaign for president, you’d swear he was a red-meat conservative, pandering to the religious right, whatever the cost. Pay attention to both, and you’re left to wonder if there’s anything at all at his core.
As a candidate for the U.S. Senate in 1994, he boasted that he would be a stronger advocate of gay rights than his opponent, Ted Kennedy. These days, he makes a point of his opposition to gay marriage and adoption.
There was a time that he said he wanted to make contraception more available - and a time that he vetoed a bill to sell it over-the-counter.
The old Romney assured voters he was pro-choice on abortion. “You will not see me wavering on that,” he said in 1994, and he cited the tragedy of a relative’s botched illegal abortion as the reason to keep abortions safe and legal. These days, he describes himself as pro-life.
There was a time that he supported stem-cell research and cited his own wife’s multiple sclerosis in explaining his thinking; such research, he reasoned, could help families like his. These days, he largely opposes it. As a candidate for governor, Romney dismissed an anti-tax pledge as a gimmick. In this race, he was the first to sign.
People can change, and intransigence is not necessarily a virtue. But Romney has yet to explain this particular set of turnarounds in a way that convinces voters they are based on anything other than his own ambition.
December 26th, 2007 at 9:54 am
Romney is clearly a skilled and proven leader. Romney’s success in his private career, as Governor of liberal Mass. In raising his 5 boys. It seems clear to me that Romney is the smart choice. In 8 out of the 10 past elections, the party who nominated their candidate first was the party to win the general election. Romney is the candidate who could win in Iowa and New Hampshire. If Romney won in Iowa and New Hampshire, Republicans might be able to get behind Romney while democrats fight it out between Clinton and Obama. The worst thing that could happen for Republicans would be to have to go to convention while the democrats have selected their candidate. The Democrats will be so far ahead of us in their campaign by the time we pick our nominee that the contest will already be over before it has started. We should nominate Mitt Romney and put everything we have behind the smart choice.