MyDD :: AP-IPSO: Nothing much has changed (except Huckabee)

AP-IPSO: Nothing much has changed (except Huckabee)

by Jerome Armstrong, Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 08:41:51 AM EST

Just when you think that December's come and changed everything, IPSO comes out with a poll that says nothing much has changed.

Democrats

Clinton          45 (45)
Obama            23 (22)
Edwards          12 (12)
Richardson        4  (3)
Biden             2  (2)
Dodd              1  (1)

Well, at least on the Democratic side. On the Republican side, things have been shaken up:

Republicans

Giuliani         26 (29)
Huckabee         18 (10)
McCain           13 (13)
Romney           12 (12)
Thompson         11 (10)
Paul              3  (0)

The casualty of Huckabee's rise is Thompson's demise. This poll is from Dec 3-5, so it's pre-Romney's war on non-believers in the US.

This is a national poll of registered voters, so the net is awful wide. That makes Huckabee's rise nationally all the more impressive. I had missed the weekend news that Huckabee had gotten a hold of the massive evangelical list early marketing efforts for Gibson's film "The Passion of the Christ.":

Brinson's list numbers about 71 million contacts, with 25 million identified as belonging to "25 and 45 years old, upwardly mobile, right-of-center, conservative households," he said. In other words, a target-rich environment for a candidate such as Huckabee, who is preaching a compassionate conservative message heavily infused with religious sentiment.

...In Iowa alone, Brinson's list has produced 414,000 contacts for the Huckabee campaign, a stunning number given that less than one-quarter of that total is expected to vote in January's Republican caucuses.

There's reason, but I would agree, it's not all the list; just as Howard Dean getting a little help from MoveOn wasn't just the list. The man matched up with the list.

The evangelicals have their man, and he's not the darling of either the neo-cons or the corporate-cons. Between the candidacy of Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee, who probably will be the 1-2 leaders in fundraising for the Republican party in the 4th quarter, neither of whom is a favorite of the corporate media (which likes to cater to but not give power to evangelicals and libertarians), and we have the makings of a real shake-up among the Republican Party coilition that might not be resolved before the election.

Meanwhile, at least according to this poll, Clinton will be waiting.

Tags: 2008 election, Mike Huckabee (all tags)

Permalink :: 39 Comments :: Post a Comment

Huckabee's fundraising (none / 0)

"Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee, who probably will be the 1-2 leaders in fundraising for the Republican party in the 4th quarter,"

I doubt it. Huckabee has shown a lazyness for fundraising. He'll still get beat...

But we won't find out until Jan 31st anyway...

Democrats Against Hillary

by wahoopaul on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 09:14:27 AM EST

Re: Huckabee's fundraising (none / 0)

You following their blog? They just got 100,000 new letters to friends inviting them into the campaign in a single day!

Huckabee will raise more in December than he has then entire previous 11 months-- even though he's already raised more in Oct-Nov than he had in the previous 9 months.

It's like watching the Dean moment all over again over there, only with onlin evangelicals instead of online progressives.

by Jerome Armstrong on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 09:33:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

We'll see (none / 0)

Maybe the fact that Huckabee had not been briefed that the papers and cable were all over the NIE news can be blamed on poor staff work, but it came off as pretty sloppy.

And the Wayne DuMond story won't go away. First Huckabee was wrong on the substance and just ran with some wingnut smear against Clinton and personally intervened with the parole board. Second he came out and lied about it. That is you can maybe survive saying "It was a tragic error" but lying and saving "I didn't do it, this is just a political smear' when the facts are pretty clear is a lot more risky.

That is I think people more or less expect Giuliani to lie about their records to one degree or another, but Huckabee is relying on projecting integrity, the small town Baptist minister thing, once he loses that he might well not pick up support (or money) at the rate he has in recent weeks.

AP via TPM: Huckabee new in spotlight, finds it hot lays it out in an easy to understand way, meaning this story is out there for any editor or columnist who wants to take it on.

(And from the gutter level of crassness the DuMond story has everything: cheerleader rape victim, real creepy looking perp, Clinton connection, history of rapes ignored, subsequent rape/murders, castration (revenge or self-inflicted?) I suspect that if Huck was a Dem that Nancy Grace would be all over this, shaking in rage for weeks on end. And given how close Rudy and pal Roger A are it may well happen yet.)

by Bruce Webb on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 03:09:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We'll see (none / 0)

"I suspect that if Huck was a Dem that Nancy Grace would be all over this, shaking in rage for weeks on end. And given how close Rudy and pal Roger A are it may well happen yet.)"

How true. It's just the sordid kind of stuff that Nancy lives for, yet somehow it's not relevant for the man seeking the GOP nomination for POTUS. I think that why Huck had nothing to say about Giudy's tryst on the city, because his own skeletons may start rattling and catch the MSM's eye.

by Kingstongirl on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 03:27:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: AP-IPSO: Nothing much has changed (except Huck (none / 0)

Sure Jerome. And if someone other than Hillary takes the first three states I'm sure the national polls will hold up.

You know better than that.

"Well Hillary, I looking forward to you advising me as well." - Barack Obama

by General Sherman on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 09:16:41 AM EST

Nothing much has changed (none / 0)

What? Obama leading on intrade in Iowa, and being on Clinton's heels in New Hampshire and South Carolina doesn't mean anything because he's still 20 points down in a national poll? Awww damnit. Silly me. I should have known we have a national primary.

by JeremiahTheMessiah on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 09:27:11 AM EST

Re: Nothing much has changed (none / 0)

I agree. A ridiculous statement indeed. I doubt that HRC's campaign would agree with the idea that "nothing has changed."

"Well Hillary, I looking forward to you advising me as well." - Barack Obama

by General Sherman on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 09:29:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nothing much has changed (2.00 / 1)

It's worth not making that note in the post just to see heads explode.

by Jerome Armstrong on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 09:29:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nothing much has changed (none / 0)

What note?

by JeremiahTheMessiah on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 09:31:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nothing much has changed (none / 0)

lol....good point. some things are too predictable.

by CalDem on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 09:45:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nothing much has changed (2.00 / 2)

Going with the style of argumentation here and the rejoicing over a couple of polls we can say with this result that Clinton is surging dratatically while Obama is falling apart. I just love how Obama posters are suddenly all over national polls when they show something they like (see the diary that highlighted a Rasmussen DAILY.)

BTW, we DO have a national primary in the Feb. 5 states. Also, you may not want to rely on ONE poll to make your bold proclamations (i.e. Rasmussen's SC poll) when just a few days earlier another poll showed the exact opposite. The national polls show a strong picture for Clinton (recently AP, LATimes,) and with other states showing Clinton extremely strong against Obama (i.e. Quinnipiac's Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania polls, Survey USA's California poll, etc.) the Rasmussen national findings make no sense at all. Just don't tell Obama fans. They like to delude themselves with that one poll that shows something different. Always have, always will. It will make Feb. 5 so the more sweeter. :-)

by georgep on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 09:58:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SOME THINGS HAVE CHANGED GEORGE (none / 0)

I am not going to argue over the different polls of which is better or not.

The change I have seen is that now the national Polls are split on the national race whereas approximately 5 weeks ago they were consistent.

Rasmussen, USA today and ZOGBY SEE CLINTON'S SUPPORT IN THE 30'S and Pew, AP/IPSO and LA /BLOOMBERG IN THE MID 40'S

by BDM on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 11:50:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (2.00 / 2)

The polls are back to where they were in June/July with people arguing whether the Rasmussen, Zogby, Gallup, AFG or Ipsos polls are the best ones to look at. We had become spoiled with Clinton's surge from September on, but the race is where it was pretty much all year. I think Clinton is in the strongest position to win the nomination, and Intrade bettors agree. The only difference compared to June/July to now is that instead of Edwards showing slightly ahead in Iowa it is Obama.

by georgep on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 12:01:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re RASMUSSEN'S TRACKING POLL (none / 0)

Rasmussen's tracking poll has now shown for (9) straight day's that Clinton's support is in the 30's.

Her un-favorables are now at 55% in Rasmussen her highest ever and at 50% in the USA TODAY POLL.

by BDM on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 12:18:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NOTHING HAS CHANGED (none / 0)

The trend lines for Clinton is not good and Obama could very well win IA and NH. hE IS AHEAD IN ia AND WITHIN STRIKING DISTANCE IN NH RCP avg. 9.6% AND WITHIN 2 PTS IN sc ACCORDING TO THE LATEST POLL IN sc.

by BDM on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 12:21:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NOTHING HAS CHANGED (2.00 / 1)

You are banking on RASMUSSEN for all of this. What about the SC poll just a few days ago that showed a Clinton edge of 24%? What about the national polls that show Clinton in the 20s? What about polls everywhere showing Clinton way up (Quinnipiac for Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Survey USA for California, today's Nevada poll, etc.) Rasmussen seems way, way off, showing her not even in the teens nationally, but single-digits, when compared to the other polls. I could buy their numbers if it were just a bit off, but 22% and 24% to this? No way.

by georgep on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 12:42:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NOTHING HAS CHANGED (none / 0)

Rasmussen had the best record in 2004

by BDM on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 01:59:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NOTHING HAS CHANGED (none / 0)

They were terrible in 2002 and 2000, in 2006 they were not that great either. Point is that any one poll can be off or wrong. Banking on it is ridiculous. Go with aggregates. Clinton is at 19.2 in the aggregate nationally, almost 20%. Seems like a massive lead to me.

by georgep on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 03:03:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nothing much has changed (none / 0)

Really? We have a national primary? So why does Iowa vote before them? New Hampshire? What about my state, which votes after them?

by JeremiahTheMessiah on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 12:31:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nothing much has changed (2.00 / 1)

The Feb. 5 states are a de-facto national primary. These polls are important for the Feb. 5 states. If the national polls don't change favoring Obama right before Feb. 5, you will have that "national" result pretty much across the board. Given that Florida will most likely go to Clinton and is the last state right before Feb. 5, it is probably likely that the national polls will be in Clinton's favor right before Feb. 5. Add to that that most states don't allow Independents to participate in the party primaries, and Obama has big problems on his hands, unless he can win every single early state, which is highly unlikely - Nevada, Michigan and Florida will more than likely go for Clinton, as will at least one of the other 3 early states, probably NH.

by georgep on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 12:49:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nothing much has changed (none / 0)

Clinton v Dodd won't be marked by the media for Michigan and it's entire 0 delegates. The big bad media has it out for Clinton, a couple wins could sink her if they continue to be bad.

And you must be misinterpretting me. When I say national primary? I mean national primary. The entire nation, indulges in a national event, where they vote in the party's primary, and we all at once, nominate a candidate. A de-facto national primary isn't a national primary.

by JeremiahTheMessiah on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 01:02:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nothing much has changed (none / 0)

As we have seen, the makeup of the Feb. 20 states mirrors almost exactly the entire national picture. In other words, take a national poll and parse it down to just the 20 Feb. 5 states, and you get the same exact read. That indicates that whatever you see in national polling (aggregates) is more than likely the way the 20 Feb. 5 states vote. If after the Florida results national polling shows Clinton with a, say, 10% lead, that is most likely the valid lead she will be going into the Feb. 5 states with.

Michigan is a huge state, and the results there will be talked about. I am a Clinton supporter, and I don't buy that the big media has it in for her. Some, sure, but the media is so varied and huge, that there will be plenty of talk about the MI caucus, especially because of the juicy angle for the media to highlight that Edwards and Obama decided to back out because they saw no chance in the state in the first place (some pundits will be talking "cowardice".) If Obama and Edwards have not taken their names off the ballots in Florida it will then also be talked about in terms of major "hypocrisy," as there is no logical way you can justify getting off the Michigan ballot but staying on the Florida ballot, other than pure cowardice.

by georgep on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 01:50:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nothing much has changed (none / 0)

Michigan caucus should have read Michigan primary

by georgep on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 01:51:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nothing much has changed (2.00 / 1)

Obama leading on intrade in Iowa, and being on Clinton's heels in New Hampshire and South Carolina doesn't mean anything because he's still 20 points down in a national poll? Awww damnit. Silly me.

Em since you used intrade to justify Obama's lead in Iowa , intrade doesn't show him close to her heels in New hampshire or South Carolina

Intrade NH

Clinton 70

Obama 35

Intrade South Carolina

Clinton 70

Obama 40

Thats not close to her heels to me.

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 11:49:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nothing much has changed (2.00 / 1)

I wondered why Jeremiah made that statement, since Obama is really not at all close on Clinton's heels in New Hampshire or South Carolina, via Intrade. He is quick to use the word "lie." Should that word not fit his post, then?

by georgep on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 11:54:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nothing much has changed (none / 0)

When I checked intrade, South Carolina was actually 65-45

But even then, if you talk about trends, he is closer than he was.

by JeremiahTheMessiah on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 12:32:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nothing much has changed (2.00 / 1)

Are you saying that within mere minutes Clinton gained back 10% in SC from when you looked at it? How does that fit in with your stated theme that she is losing support everywhere?

by georgep on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 12:36:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Nothing has changed? (none / 0)

The Clintons campaign would tell you they do not agree with this "nothing has changed and Hillary is still inevitable"

The race in Iowa is a pure coin flip where Hillary could easily lose.

The race in NH is tightening up and according to realclearpolitics average , Obama is within single digits.

Clinton double digit lead in South Carolina has basically disappear and the state is now a coin flip between Obama and Hillary.

So , i think Jerome is wrong when he states that nothing has changed....If nothing had changed , Hilary would not have to go on the attacks would she jerome?

A win by Obama in Iowa could be very troubling for Hillary.

Also , Jerome seemed to forget that we're nnot having a national election.

A back to back win in IA AND NH could lock up the nomination for Barack since he has the money to go the distance.

by Prodigy on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 09:45:28 AM EST

Re: Nothing has changed? (none / 0)

Obama and his fans including Oprah are pretty much deluded as I have said over and over again. Not for their faith in the polls though..them thinking that in this country (where at least a significant minority of whites are racists, and where Hispanics detect this racism and bolt the GOP) that a black man has a chance of getting elected President. Yes, in a country that reinstates Don Imus!!

by Boilermaker on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 10:56:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nothing has changed? (none / 0)

I am not a Hilary supporter. I really think Romney will pull it off in the end and could get elected President. It is the money machine. He has loads of it. But, Hilary will keep it close. Let us not forget the fact that this is still a racist country particularly the south. People who think that race has nothing to do with it, are simply on crack cocaine. I am not playing any race card. This is the reality. If Hilary attracts all the anti-Clinton forces to the polls..Obama will attract racists who have never voted before, the stormfront folks, council of conservative citizens, the league of the south among others. No wonder black politicians are running away from him like scalded individuals run from hot water!

by Boilermaker on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 12:41:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nothing has changed? (none / 0)

One more thing..with all except one GOP candidate the race would be close..all except McCain. As the polls indicate McCain would break her like a twig. But, I do think the GOP is too racist to nominate him due to his pro-Hispanic and pro amnesty stance!!

by Boilermaker on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 12:47:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nothing has changed? (none / 0)

If you are a Hillary supporter you should be ashamed of yourself. You are saying that because Obama is black he wouldn't be elected? It looks like Hillary supporter is trying to play the race card against Obama.

So if he's not a Clinton supporter then his comment is alright? Grow up, everything isn't partisan.

I think that regardless of who he supports his comments are out of line

by world dictator on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 05:27:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: AP-IPSO: Nothing much has changed (none / 0)

"If Hillary was still the favorite her poll #s would have gone up a lot, but they didn't."

Gone up from 22%, 24% margins in an 8-man race? Preposterous.

by georgep on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 10:43:29 AM EST

Re: AP-IPSO: Nothing much has changed (2.00 / 3)

I feel like I am dealing with novices here at times. Don't you realize that ~30% leads are huge, any way you slice it? Heck, 10% leads are HUGE. We have become accustomed to Clinton leading with these bizarre 30%, 35% leads in some of the states, that it seems that everytime a polls shows a lead under 30%, her detractors jump up for joy. Seems very weird to me. A 12% lead is huge and, given a certain amount of presence in a given state by the leading candidate, would be very hard to overcome for anyone in this case. And, organzationally, neither Edwards nor Obama come close to Clinton in NV.

BTW, since you are in FL, the latest Quinnipiac Florida poll must come as a horrendous shock for you. Within one month Hillary added 11% to her already very considerable lead in this state.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x2881.xml

Clinton 53%, Obama 17%, Edwards 7%

Clinton stomps your candidate, Edwards, into the ground in this state. What happened to the theme that Clinton is losing support left and right? Here and in a bunch of other states she has added a lot of support since last month. Edwards is dead in the water in Florida, finding himself behind now by a whopping 46%. Comical, actually, since I recall your claim that Edwards is "beloved" in Florida.

by georgep on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 12:35:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: AP-IPSO: Nothing much has changed (none / 0)

In the new ARG poll Hillary still leads in Nevada, but her lead over Obama from the last poll that ARG did has come down from 37 to 27. I would say that is a big change.

That the equivalent of calling a game close because "Oh we're only down by 27 instead of 37"

by world dictator on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 05:32:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

hey (none / 0)

This is trivial, but

What is your religious preference? Is it Protestant, Catholic, Mormon, Jewish, Muslim, some other religion, or
don't you belong to any religious denomination? (IF "SOME OTHER RELIGION, ASK) Is that a Christian
denomination, or not? (IF YES, CODED AS "PROTESTANT".)

Let me go on the record as saying that coding Eastern Orthodox Christians as Protestant is absurd.

New Jersey politics and news

by John DE on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 10:48:28 AM EST

Re: AP-IPSO: (2.00 / 1)

I don't think Jerome is saying 'nothing has changed,' as people are complaining about, he is saying that is what the poll says. I don't even think he supports Clinton.

At any rate, thanks for putting this up, the only bit of 'real' good news I've heard for awhile.

by reasonwarrior on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 11:02:57 AM EST

Re: AP-IPSO: (none / 0)

Yea, that's what a colon tends to mean, "AP-IPSO:"

by Jerome Armstrong on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 03:15:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: AP-IPSO: Nothing much has changed (except Huck (none / 0)

I'm uppity too.

"Well Hillary, I looking forward to you advising me as well." - Barack Obama

by General Sherman on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 12:57:33 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.