Poll: Mike Huckabee Takes National Lead -- And Rudy Drops To Second -- For First Time
Okay, this could be significant. For the first time, a reputable poll has found that Rudy is behind, and Mike Huckabee has edged into a slight lead, in the national GOP primary.
The GWU Battleground poll finds that among likely voters, Mike Huckabee is first with 24%, Rudy is second with 22%, Mitt Romney has 16%, John McCain has 15%, and Fred Thompson has nine percent.
Though Rasmussen has found Huckabee with a national edge, those are robo phone polls; the GWU poll is a reputable telephone survey. Several other polls have found the two tied.
But now, for the first time, Huckabee has earned more respondents in a reputable poll.
Comments (25)
Anonymous wrote on December 21, 2007 3:14 PM:Fold up the tent, Rudy!
MarcNYC wrote on December 21, 2007 3:37 PM:When will Rudy break out the cross?
Ni Daye wrote on December 21, 2007 3:42 PM:All the turmoil on the right side may make it possible for McCain to emerge as the Republican nominee. The media will abondon your loveboy Obama for McCain wiht abondon. Be careful with what you wish for!
Mary wrote on December 21, 2007 3:50 PM:Huckabee has something else going for him, too. Most of the polls show that his support is firm, his supporters very unlikely to change their minds.
That's the way our family feels, and we're definitely not alone...
Go Huckabee!
Can someone please tell me if Huckabee supports rapists.
I've heard he let them free when he was governor.
My family certainly will vote against him if it is true.
Mary
It is true - he is very soft on crime.
Not only did he let rapists go free -
they then raped and murdered again.
And lock your dogs up when his sons are
around
STUDENT: Recent polls show you surging… What do you attribute this surge to?
HUCKABEE: There’s only one explanation for it, and it’s not a human one. It’s the same power that helped a little boy with two fish and five loaves feed a crowd of five thousand people. (Applause) That’s the only way that our campaign can be doing what it’s doing. And I’m not being facetious nor am I trying to be trite. There literally are thousands of people across this country who are praying that a little will become much, and it has. And it defies all explanation, it has confounded the pundits. And I’m enjoying every minute of them trying to figure it out, and until they look at it, from a, just experience beyond human, they’ll never figure it out. And it’s probably just as well. That’s honestly why it’s happening.
Matt wrote on December 21, 2007 4:37 PM:He's soft on crime at all, unless the victim of the crime is somehow connected with his political rivals. The rape victim in this case was a distant cousin of Bill Clinton, so the Rep machine decided it must be a set up and had Huckabee pressure the parole board to release the rapist (Wayne Dumond) early. The punch-line is, the freed rapist then raped and murdered another woman, named Carol Sue Shields. Go to Democracy Now! for the facts http://www.democracynow.org/2007/12/20/he_should_have_known_mother_of
I can't think of a Republican candidate in the top tier who doesn't give me the chills, but Huckabee might be the worst of them all. He's the divinely inspired leader Bush just pretended to be in between drinks. God help us!
john mccutchen wrote on December 21, 2007 4:39 PM:Only Hanoi John can stop him now and either will take out Mrs. Bill
Poor Sgt Kleefeld and his HillClimbing NY Claque ...they've been running Mrs. Bill v. Rudi...running in circles
Only Hanoi John can stop him now and either will take out Mrs. Bill
Poor Sgt Kleefeld and his HillClimbing NY Claque ...they've been running Mrs. Bill v. Rudi...running in circles
I like how Governor Huckabee wants a fair tax. That way everyone one will pay into the system, including illegals, tourists, and big wigs that have there money hidden from the IRS. I like Mike.
Hank Essay wrote on December 21, 2007 5:33 PM:Hey, who let in all the right-wing cranks? Can someone shut whatever door they came in?
-
I can't actually think of one candidate that is not an asshole.
http://athyrius.com/romney_cnn.html
Chicago Policy Wonk wrote on December 21, 2007 6:47 PM:Greg,
Statistics are of vital importance in neuroscience, my field, so I am well versed in them. They are similarly important in journalism. When I get some time I am going to write a letter to you and the rest of the TPM staff, with the help of a mathematician I know, about the proper use and understanding of statistics. I consider TPM's reporting on domestic politics to be the very best available in the US, and mean absolutely no disrespect, but you make an important mistake in your reports of polling results that is ubiquitous in journalism today. For now, suffice it to say that the data from the GWU poll does NOT show Mike leading Rudy. Rather, it shows them in a tie--that is the only conclusion that can be drawn from it; any claim that one leads the other is completely false. I want the letter to be as helpful as possible so I am going to spend considerable time on it; I hope to have it written before Christmas.
A statistics course really should be a requirement for a degree in journalism.
RM
I wrote "any claim that one leads the other is completely false." I should have said "any claim that this poll shows one leading the other is completely false" because that is what I meant and, unlike my initial statement, it is correct.
Sorry.
steve wrote on December 21, 2007 8:45 PM:McCain/Huckabee.
A republican dream ticket.
And it will get DESTROYED in a national election.
McCain, Huckbee, Giuliani. . .doesn't matter.
Repeat after me:
Katrina. Stagflation. No port security. Quagmire. Greed. Corruption. Blackwater. Lies to get us into war. Torture. Environmental desecration. Abramoff.
Rumsfeld. No WMD. No WMD. Cronyism. Deception. Abu Ghraib. Terry Schiavo. Ted Haggard. Immigration. No energy policy.
After a while, you realize it's over for the Republican party. Over.
The question is, who will the Romney and Giuliani voters go to when those two non-starters drop out?
Huckabee is a complete an utter fraud, which means he more than qualifies for the nomination. Still it seems there are still a majority of Republicans who prefer the pandering, torture-mongering, apostate pro-abortionists like Rudy, Mitt, and McCain.
Though Huckster is already selling out his principles as fast as he can to the Republican power elite, they probably trust him even less than McCain. Since Rudy and Mitt are out of it now, where will they turn? Thompson seems to be too boneheaded even for Republicans (Nixon got one right!). So I guess it's McCain, and there's no reason in the world to think Hillary can beat him. In fact, given his clear superiority in "hard work and experience", she'll probably vote for him!
Richard L. Adlof wrote on December 21, 2007 11:20 PM:Steve,
Clinton is killin' off DEM candidates in other races through association with their family members . . . Don't count the Republicans out yet! Our favorite Goldwater Girl may save her party of choice . . .
Algernon wrote on December 22, 2007 2:09 AM:Greg,
Why are robo-polls disreputable? Rasmussen pretty much nailed their 2006 Senate polling, and my understanding is that studies have found robo-polls to be no less accurate than so-called "reputable" polls. A poll's accuracy depends more on its sampling and likely voter models, and plenty of "reputable" live survey pollsters perform very poorly in these categories.
Do you have any basis whatsoever for the casual pronouncement that robo-polls are disreputable and your implication that a live survey is automatically reputable?
William wrote on December 22, 2007 3:18 AM:I'm with Algernon. I remember a fascinating piece on Slate.com which convinced me that Rasmussen's robo-polling is (surprisingly) MORE accurate than other polling operations.
markg8 wrote on December 23, 2007 9:38 AM:"Though Rasmussen has found Huckabee with a national edge, those are robo phone polls; the GWU poll is a reputable telephone survey. Several other polls have found the two tied."
Didn't at least one post 2004 election analysis find Rasmussen's robo polls to be more accurate than others with live polltakers? Some say people are more likely to respond honestly to a machine than a judgmental human.
William wrote on December 23, 2007 11:02 AM:I went back and looked this up. From the article "Let's Go to the Audiotape" (www.slate.com/id/2110860), which was Slate.com's 2004 post-election analysis of polling:
"Before the election, we publicly doubted and privately derided Rasmussen and SurveyUSA, which used recorded voices to read their poll questions....
Look who's laughing now. Rasmussen and SurveyUSA beat most of their human competitors in the battleground states, often by large margins....
How did the robots largely beat the humans? For starters, they aren't robots. They're recordings of human voices. Pollsters who use this technology argue that the uniformity achieved by automation -- every respondent hears the questions read exactly the same way -- outweighs any distortions caused by people hanging up or lying to the recordings."
Lewsir wrote on December 23, 2007 11:36 AM:So, A deeply religious guy with absolutely no foreign policy experience and, basically, not a clue about how the world works, is now in the lead? Someone tell me how he is going to fix all of Bush's mistakes?
Still Surprised wrote on December 23, 2007 11:22 PM:Hillary Clinton is a solid 37% "will never vote for". The next closest candidate (Giuliani) is at 15%.
So at least the GWU poll continues to demonstrate this startling statistic with perfect clarity.
Hillary Clinton is a solid 37% "will never vote for". The next closest candidate (Giuliani) is at 15%.
So at least the GWU poll continues to demonstrate this startling statistic with perfect clarity.
