Gallup Polling: The Rich Get Richer ...
... and the challengers fall back. According to Gallup's latest surveys on the presidential primaries, Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton put more distance between themselves and their nearest challengers, despite missteps by both candidates since the last polling. The results tend to contradict some of the analyses published since the first-quarter fundraising numbers got released last week.
First, the GOP:
The April 2-5 Gallup Poll finds 38% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents favoring Giuliani for the 2008 nomination, well ahead of his closest pursuer, McCain (16%). Two unannounced but potential candidates -- Gingrich and Thompson -- tie for third at 10%. The remaining 10 candidates tested in the poll all score below 10%, led by Mitt Romney at 6%.
Romney had drawn the most money out of Republican donors in the last cycle, while McCain had finished weakly, but it has not changed Romney's relative position at all. Despite his $23 million, Romney has not bounced back to his previous high-water mark of 8%. Leading the second tier might sound nice, but it isn't what the Romney campaign should have expected after all of their efforts in Q1.
McCain's results, though, reflect the mild disarray of his campaign. His disappointing fund-raising numbers seems to track with the arc of his support in the Gallup polling. He has now come almost within the margin of error of Fred Thommpson's support -- before Thompson even forms an exploratory committee. Giuliani has lapped McCain at this point, and even with the abortion bobble last week (in the middle of the polling) appears to have achieved cruising altitude. The rest of the Republicans can't beat the No Opinion mark.
And so far, it looks like a Subway Series as the other New Yorker (cough) has distanced herself from her energetic challenger:
Sen. Hillary Clinton remains the dominant presidential front-runner among Democrats nationally, with twice the support as her nearest challenger. Sen. Barack Obama, former Sen. John Edwards, and former Vice President Al Gore are tightly bunched in second place, with all other candidates in low single digits. If Gore is removed from the ballot and his supporters' second-place choices substituted, Clinton's lead becomes even more dominant, with Obama and Edwards tied far behind.These data were collected April 2-5, just as reports of Obama's first-quarter fundraising success were made public. The survey results suggest that while Obama may have had a great deal of financial momentum in the past quarter, it was not matched by any increase in voter support.
Well, ouch. It does come at the same time that many have questioned Obama's substance, however. His lack of policy depth and his inexperience has begun to show through the charm offensive that Obama has made into a presidential campaign. Even Edwards outdoes him on policy on the stump, and more people have begun to notice. Obama's support has drifted back down to the level he had when he first announced his entry into the race in January, while Hillary has rebuilt her support almost to its February peak.
Interestingly, Gore has also declined in the last two surveys. Many thought he would get a huge boost from the Oscars, where his documentary won an Academy Award at the end of February. He peaked at 18% then, but now has dropped to 14%. Edwards managed to dig himself out of a mid-quarter hole to finish about where he began it. Similar to the GOP, the rest of the pack can't beat No Opinion.
What does this mean? It gives an aura of inevitability to the Madison Square Garden general election, and that does not bode well for Hillary. Her high negatives will not do well against Rudy's low negatives, and the Democrats can expect to lose the middle in a head-to-head matchup. It's a long way before November 2008, but her high negatives have not decreased at all over the last couple of years, and she's unlikely to become more likable as a national campaign wears on her.
Posted by Ed Morrissey on April 10, 2007 5:37 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBacks (1)
Comments (6)
Posted by trapeze![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/nav-commenters.gif)
| April 10, 2007 6:02 PM
Hillary's problem is one that she will never get away from...the sound of her voice in speeches....it is shrew-like. Subconciously or consciously most independent voters must absolutely dread the thought of having to listen to her shrill whinings and shriekings for four or more years. That this is unfair does not make it any less true...oratory skills do count and she just doesn't have them.
Obama is an empty suit...so barring a miracle it will be Hillary as the Dem nominee...reminds me of the Bob Dole nomination...she is, in her mind and others, due to be nominated.
Posted by JEM![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/nav-commenters.gif)
| April 10, 2007 6:56 PM
Clinton is in the position of needing to carry a lot of constituencies by thin margins, so she's carefully avoiding saying much of substance in order to avoid chasing anyone away.
Obama has the advantage of no history; based on his stated positions I think there's no doubt that he'd have voted for the AUMF had he been in the Senate at the time, but he wasn't so didn't so he can get away with dodging that issue and he will consequently carry by a large margin those for whom The Bush War is a litmus-test issue. His base is more solid, but it's narrower, probably too narrow to get nominated for the number-one seat.
The fact that Obama collects so much acclaim for his ability to actually form thoughts and speak the English language in complete sentences says, I think, more about the limitations of our political class as a whole than about Obama himself.
Posted by conservative democrat![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/nav-commenters.gif)
| April 10, 2007 7:50 PM
Don't like Hillary but I wouldn't put the crown on Rudy's head just yet, lots of skeletons in that ole boys closet, and the Clintons are ruthless. Rudy won't be facing a meek Kerry type, the gloves will come off. Can handle Rudy as president and I think my dems will gain seats in the Senate and House.
Posted by NoDonkey![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/nav-commenters.gif)
| April 10, 2007 9:21 PM
How exactly does Ms. Rodham have any more substance than Borat?
The last time Ms. Rodham had a real job, she was making up lies about Richard Nixon during Watergate.
What since? Professional doormat for her tomcat of a husband. Ran on her husband's name and was elected Senator, a job a stray dog could do and do well.
So Ms. Rodham has every bit the thin resume Borat has. At least Borat served on the town council and made a funny movie.
Let's see, we have a guy who brought down the mob or a war hero, to run against Ms. Rodham with an empty resume and a surly disposition, Borat with an empty resume and a silly movie and a Shyster Fop.
I like the GOP's chances in '08. Not even the predictable media fawning can drag the three awful Dem candidates across the finish line this time.
Posted by viking01![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/nav-commenters.gif)
| April 10, 2007 10:52 PM
The non-Hollywood or non-senatorial "rich" generally get that way by disciplining spending to be less than they've earned and investing any remainder. The Left tends to improve their station by voting COLA (cost of living adjustments), expanding entitlements, government graft, playing a victim racket or bloating their own salaries through political patronage and tenure such as the teachers unions do.
By contrast the non-Hollywood "rich" generally get richer by investing in the growth of free enterprise, in real estate or in private (i.e. accountable) education for their kids. By living within their means they acquire wealth which the Marxists having no financial discipline will always attempt to confiscate through entitlements, higher taxation, or in the urban ghettoes via outright theft or Naginesque embezzlement.
Posted by Gary Gross![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/nav-commenters.gif)
| April 11, 2007 12:03 AM
Simply put, Hillary's worst enemy is Hillary.
Her negatives rise anytime she's in the spotlight. Don't expect that to change. EVER