Polling Shows Mr. Undecided Leads GOP Race
Monday, September 17, 2007 10:02 AM
By: Ronald Kessler Article Font Size
As many as 26 percent of likely Republican voters in key states have not decided which candidate will get their vote in 2008.
That conclusion comes from ccAdvertising, which conducts polls for a range of candidates and members of Congress.
“Undecided is winning,” Gabriel Joseph III, president of ccAdvertising, tells me. “The largest group of voters are people who just haven’t made up their minds yet.”
According to ccAdvertising’s latest poll, Rudy Giuliani challenges Mr. Undecided. Giuliani leads with support from 25.5 percent of those who say they will vote in Republican caucuses or primaries in California, Florida, Iowa, New Hampshire, New York, and South Carolina. Th next three candidates are essentially tied — Fred Thompson with 15.4 percent, Mitt Romney with 14.2 percent, and John McCain with 13.2 percent. Final results will be released Wednesday.
Most pollsters do not emphasize how many people are undecided. Given that recent presidential elections have been won by a margin of 5 percent of the tally or less, the number of undecided votes spotlights how ephemeral polls are.
Confirming that, pollster Joseph notes that polls are nothing more than a quick snapshot of voter sentiment. In fact, he says that polls right now mostly measure name recognition.
“What you’re seeing at this point is a popularity contest,” Joseph says. “The polls are measuring name-awareness. I believe that people are telling our surveys who they’re going to vote for by what they hear. Whether it’s good or bad right now, all they do is hear the names. Fred Thompson’s name has been bandied about a lot. People have heard Fred Thompson, Fred Thompson, Fred Thompson. So they’re more likely to say they’ll vote for him.”
Romney campaign operatives have been banking on Joseph’s take. They point out that in the states where they have focused their efforts — Iowa and New Hampshire — Romney is winning. But only 64 percent of Americans have heard of him.
On the other hand, John McCain’s name recognition is 87 percent, according to a Gallup Poll, and the fact that McCain has been going down in the polls suggests that more than name recognition is at stake. Just before he declared his candidacy, Thompson’s name recognition was a surprisingly low 56 percent.
Early presidential front-runners litter the political landscape — Elizabeth Dole, Howard Dean, and Edward M. Kennedy, to name a few. But it’s not in the interests of either political reporters or pollsters to emphasize their uncertainty in calling the horse race.
On top of these considerations, polling has been facing growing voter concerns about privacy.
“Pollsters right now are struggling to get people to respond to their surveys,” Joseph says. “Because fewer and fewer people are responding to their surveys, two things are happening: They’re going back to a pre-existing survey base — people that have answered before, will answer again. Number two, because when they get somebody willing to talk to them, they want to gather a lot of other data at the same time, the surveys are getting longer.”
When surveys become longer, fewer people complete them, and the results are not counted. So, Joseph says, polls are becoming less reliable as more responses are discarded. Joseph’s company asks a limited number of questions over the telephone using a computerized voice-recognition system for calling people.
“We have the databases and the speed to just keep going until we get the number of respondents that our company and our clients need,” Joseph says.
“What we are doing is measuring what people’s attitudes are today,” he says. “And right now, Mr. Undecided is the winner.”
Alan Greenspan’s Confusion
Alan Greenspan may have been a great Federal Reserve Board chairman, but his take on national security issues seems confused at best. First, Bob Woodward reported last week that Greenspan’s new book "The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World" refers to what Greenspan calls the “politically inconvenient” fact that the Iraq war was “largely about oil.”
Subsequently, Woodward interviewed Greenspan, who said it was he who believed that removal of Saddam Hussein was “essential” to secure world oil supplies, a point he emphasized to the White House in private conversations before the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
“I was not saying that that’s the administration’s motive,” Greenspan told Woodward for a Washington Post story. “I’m just saying that if somebody asked me, ‘Are we fortunate in taking out Saddam?’ I would say it was essential.”
Now, in a Wall Street Journal interview, Greenspan says he is puzzled over President Bush’s and Vice President Cheney’s continued advocacy of aggressive anti-terrorism policies that he says have the effect of curtailing civil liberties. If there had been additional terrorist attacks in the U.S. after Sept. 11, he said, “Cheney’s and Bush’s view would be now far more prevalent" in the U.S. But “when events changed, they held the views that they previously held.” He added that while he doesn’t like their stance, “I don’t know what should have been done otherwise” because he lacks the access to classified information that they have.
It doesn’t require a security clearance to know that al-Qaida and its franchises are plotting to wipe out the U.S. As FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III has told me, bin Laden and his terrorist group desperately want to obtain nuclear devices and explode them in American cities, especially New York and Washington, D.C.
The primary reason we have not been attacked in more than six years is Bush’s aggressive policies and the hard work of the FBI and CIA, which constantly roll up plots and terrorists. Thus, the fact that we have not been attacked points to the success of Bush administration policies. Presumably, if Greenspan’s home alarm system never went off, he would drop the service because events had changed, and he no longer perceived a threat from intruders.
If Greenspan had applied the same heads-in-the-sand approach to the economy, we would be in big trouble.
Ronald Kessler is chief Washington correspondent of NewsMax.com. View his previous reports and get his dispatches sent to you free via e-ma
Monday, September 17, 2007
Stand up against defeat
Senator Clinton said recently that believing General Petraeus' testimony requires a 'willing suspension of disbelief.' I think it willingly suspends disbelief to not repudiate an advertisement run by a radical left wing organization that impugns and dishonors the integrity of a man who has served his nation with dedication all of his life. If you're not tough enough to repudiate a scurrilous, outrageous attack such as that, then I don't know how you're tough enough to be President of the United States.
I am prepared to be Commander-in-Chief and tough enough to face the challenges presented by a dangerous world. In fact, I'm the only candidate in this race prepared to be Commander-in-Chief from day one.
The choice we are presented with could not be more clear. Will we continue to support our new strategy in Iraq and the fight against Islamic extremists, as I've long advocated, or will we surrender in disgrace as the Democrats want us to do? For four years I've fought for more troops in Iraq, fought for the right strategy, and I will not give up the fight today as we are finally making progress on the ground. I will lead.
Right now I'm traveling through Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina talking about the success of the surge and countering the shameless propaganda being put forth by the extreme left, and I need your financial support to continue. I believe it is critical for voters to hear the truth about this new strategy and the success of our troops in Iraq, and your help will allow me to continue bringing this message to voters.
Unlike my opponents in the Democratic Party, I have absolutely no trouble denouncing this ad for what it is - an ill-informed, partisan attack ad that has no place in this serious debate about the safety and security of our nation.
America needs serious leaders ready to stand up to the tough challenges facing our nation. I'm running for President of the United States because I am prepared to lead and I understand the grave threats our nation must face.
I am out on the road, on the No Surrender Tour, spreading this message of support for our troops and support for the surge, and I need your help to get this message out. With your support, I will continue to stand strong.
Sincerely,
John McCain
I am prepared to be Commander-in-Chief and tough enough to face the challenges presented by a dangerous world. In fact, I'm the only candidate in this race prepared to be Commander-in-Chief from day one.
The choice we are presented with could not be more clear. Will we continue to support our new strategy in Iraq and the fight against Islamic extremists, as I've long advocated, or will we surrender in disgrace as the Democrats want us to do? For four years I've fought for more troops in Iraq, fought for the right strategy, and I will not give up the fight today as we are finally making progress on the ground. I will lead.
Right now I'm traveling through Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina talking about the success of the surge and countering the shameless propaganda being put forth by the extreme left, and I need your financial support to continue. I believe it is critical for voters to hear the truth about this new strategy and the success of our troops in Iraq, and your help will allow me to continue bringing this message to voters.
Unlike my opponents in the Democratic Party, I have absolutely no trouble denouncing this ad for what it is - an ill-informed, partisan attack ad that has no place in this serious debate about the safety and security of our nation.
America needs serious leaders ready to stand up to the tough challenges facing our nation. I'm running for President of the United States because I am prepared to lead and I understand the grave threats our nation must face.
I am out on the road, on the No Surrender Tour, spreading this message of support for our troops and support for the surge, and I need your help to get this message out. With your support, I will continue to stand strong.
Sincerely,
John McCain
DEMS' GREAT SENATE HOPES
DEMS' GREAT SENATE HOPES
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published in the New York Post on September 12, 2007.
Democrats may hold up to 57 U.S. Senate seats after the 2008 election - almost enough to block a Republican filibuster and likely enough to assure passage of most of the Democratic program.
Last week was a bad one for the GOP. Longtime Sens. John Warner (R-Va.) and Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) announced that they wouldn't seek re-election in '08, joining Sen. Wayne Allard (R-Colo.) in voluntary retirement. Add to that Sen. Larry Craig's (R-Idaho) involuntary retirement.
Republicans may well lose the Warner seat - Sen. George Allen lost in '06 to Democrat Jim Webb in Virginia. The most likely Democratic candidate, ex-Gov. Mark Warner, probably can't be beaten.
The Colorado seat is likely to go Democratic, too. The strongest GOP candidates aren't running; ex-Rep. Bob Schaffer will likely face off against the Democrats' Rep. Mark Udall. With major Hispanic immigration, Colorado has become more and more blue: Witness the election of Democrat Ken Salazar to the Senate in '04.
The GOP should hold Nebraska and Idaho. Only popular ex-Sen. Bob Kerrey could win Nebraska for Democrats, and he'd have to leave his job at the New School University. Idaho's in play only if Craig recants his resignation and stays in office until his term is up in '08.
But four other GOP incumbents are in big danger next year. Oregon's Sen. Gordon Smith boasts a job approval below 50 percent. He's already the only Republican senator on the West Coast.
Nearly as endangered a species is the New England Republican. Sens. John Sununu of New Hampshire and Susan Collins of Maine face '08 jeopardy, too. Sununu narrowly defeated ex-Gov. Jeanne Shaheen in '02; she might well win in '08. In the American Research Group poll, she beats Sununu by 57 percent to 29 percent; in the University of New Hampshire poll, it's 54-38.
Collins will face a tough challenge from Democratic Rep. Tom Allen. Her support of the Iraq War will likely cost her in Maine, one of the most liberal states.
Meanwhile, in Minnesota, Democrat-turned-Republican Sen. Norm Coleman faces a tough fight for his second term. He has backed the war and opposed abortion, unpopular positions in liberal Minnesota. His approval rating has dropped below 50 percent, with only 43 percent having a favorable opinion of him. And it looks like he won't be lucky enough to draw comedian Al Franken as his opponent after all: Attorney Mike Ciresi will likely beat Franken in the Democratic primary.
Finally, Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) may be under federal indictment by next November. The FBI recently raided his home in a bribery scandal. His seat would likely stay Republican, but might slip away.
The GOP might pick up some Democratic seats, too - as long as the presidential race is not a Democratic landslide. Sens. Mark Pryor (D-Ark), Mary Landrieu (D-La.) and Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) could all be in danger. And Joe Biden (D-Del.) may retire. But, in a Democratic year, all these seats may be safe.
If the Republicans lose Virginia, Nebraska, Colorado, New Hampshire, Maine, Oregon and Minnesota - and pick up no new seats - the Democrats will have 57 votes in the Senate (counting Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman, who votes with them). It's enough to let a new Democratic president have her way legislatively without too much trouble.
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published in the New York Post on September 12, 2007.
Democrats may hold up to 57 U.S. Senate seats after the 2008 election - almost enough to block a Republican filibuster and likely enough to assure passage of most of the Democratic program.
Last week was a bad one for the GOP. Longtime Sens. John Warner (R-Va.) and Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) announced that they wouldn't seek re-election in '08, joining Sen. Wayne Allard (R-Colo.) in voluntary retirement. Add to that Sen. Larry Craig's (R-Idaho) involuntary retirement.
Republicans may well lose the Warner seat - Sen. George Allen lost in '06 to Democrat Jim Webb in Virginia. The most likely Democratic candidate, ex-Gov. Mark Warner, probably can't be beaten.
The Colorado seat is likely to go Democratic, too. The strongest GOP candidates aren't running; ex-Rep. Bob Schaffer will likely face off against the Democrats' Rep. Mark Udall. With major Hispanic immigration, Colorado has become more and more blue: Witness the election of Democrat Ken Salazar to the Senate in '04.
The GOP should hold Nebraska and Idaho. Only popular ex-Sen. Bob Kerrey could win Nebraska for Democrats, and he'd have to leave his job at the New School University. Idaho's in play only if Craig recants his resignation and stays in office until his term is up in '08.
But four other GOP incumbents are in big danger next year. Oregon's Sen. Gordon Smith boasts a job approval below 50 percent. He's already the only Republican senator on the West Coast.
Nearly as endangered a species is the New England Republican. Sens. John Sununu of New Hampshire and Susan Collins of Maine face '08 jeopardy, too. Sununu narrowly defeated ex-Gov. Jeanne Shaheen in '02; she might well win in '08. In the American Research Group poll, she beats Sununu by 57 percent to 29 percent; in the University of New Hampshire poll, it's 54-38.
Collins will face a tough challenge from Democratic Rep. Tom Allen. Her support of the Iraq War will likely cost her in Maine, one of the most liberal states.
Meanwhile, in Minnesota, Democrat-turned-Republican Sen. Norm Coleman faces a tough fight for his second term. He has backed the war and opposed abortion, unpopular positions in liberal Minnesota. His approval rating has dropped below 50 percent, with only 43 percent having a favorable opinion of him. And it looks like he won't be lucky enough to draw comedian Al Franken as his opponent after all: Attorney Mike Ciresi will likely beat Franken in the Democratic primary.
Finally, Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) may be under federal indictment by next November. The FBI recently raided his home in a bribery scandal. His seat would likely stay Republican, but might slip away.
The GOP might pick up some Democratic seats, too - as long as the presidential race is not a Democratic landslide. Sens. Mark Pryor (D-Ark), Mary Landrieu (D-La.) and Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) could all be in danger. And Joe Biden (D-Del.) may retire. But, in a Democratic year, all these seats may be safe.
If the Republicans lose Virginia, Nebraska, Colorado, New Hampshire, Maine, Oregon and Minnesota - and pick up no new seats - the Democrats will have 57 votes in the Senate (counting Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman, who votes with them). It's enough to let a new Democratic president have her way legislatively without too much trouble.
Alert! Bill would eliminate birthright citizenship!
Alert! Bill would eliminate birthright citizenship!
HR 1940 would end the practice of granting automatic citizenship to the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens. Nearly every other country, including all members of the European Union, requires that at least one parent be a citizen or permanent resident for a child to automatically become a citizen.
The Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007, by Representative Nathan Deal (R-GA), would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to eliminate birthright citizenship.
Our current policy results in over 300,000 additional citizens from anchor babies each year. The demographic impact is far greater because their families stay and bring in additional relatives. Anchor babies are eligible to sponsor their illegal alien parents and other relatives when they turn 21. Moreover, taxpayers pick up the tab for the medical costs and subsequent welfare outlays because of the child's citizenship status.
HR 1940 would end the practice of granting automatic citizenship to the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens. Nearly every other country, including all members of the European Union, requires that at least one parent be a citizen or permanent resident for a child to automatically become a citizen.
The Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007, by Representative Nathan Deal (R-GA), would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to eliminate birthright citizenship.
Our current policy results in over 300,000 additional citizens from anchor babies each year. The demographic impact is far greater because their families stay and bring in additional relatives. Anchor babies are eligible to sponsor their illegal alien parents and other relatives when they turn 21. Moreover, taxpayers pick up the tab for the medical costs and subsequent welfare outlays because of the child's citizenship status.
85,000 petitions to be delivered to save American jobs!
Alert! 85,000 petitions to be delivered to save American jobs!
AMERICAN WORKERS TO DELIVER 85,000 PETITIONS TO
HILLARY CLINTON AND JOHN EDWARDS SATURDAY
Will Call For Clinton And Edwards To Sign Petition And
Stand Up For The American Worker
Saturday, American workers will gather in front of Presidential candidates John Edwards Des Moines, Iowa campaign headquarters and Hillary Clinton's Columbia, South Carolina campaign headquarters to deliver 85,000 petitions to save American jobs. The workers will ask the candidates to sign the petition and stand up for the American worker.
The petitions were signed by Americans across the country who object to Big Business hiring foreign workers here at home without even giving American workers a fair chance at the jobs. The petitions were gathered over a short period around Labor Day as the result of a Coalition for the Future American Worker TV ad. The TV ad shows actual footage of a Pittsburgh law firm teaching its corporate clients how to hire foreign workers and avoid American workers with no consequences. The petitions are being delivered as 27 million US jobs are occupied by foreign workers here at home, millions of Americans can’t find jobs and many are losing their homes.
AMERICAN WORKERS TO DELIVER 85,000 PETITIONS TO
HILLARY CLINTON AND JOHN EDWARDS SATURDAY
Will Call For Clinton And Edwards To Sign Petition And
Stand Up For The American Worker
Saturday, American workers will gather in front of Presidential candidates John Edwards Des Moines, Iowa campaign headquarters and Hillary Clinton's Columbia, South Carolina campaign headquarters to deliver 85,000 petitions to save American jobs. The workers will ask the candidates to sign the petition and stand up for the American worker.
The petitions were signed by Americans across the country who object to Big Business hiring foreign workers here at home without even giving American workers a fair chance at the jobs. The petitions were gathered over a short period around Labor Day as the result of a Coalition for the Future American Worker TV ad. The TV ad shows actual footage of a Pittsburgh law firm teaching its corporate clients how to hire foreign workers and avoid American workers with no consequences. The petitions are being delivered as 27 million US jobs are occupied by foreign workers here at home, millions of Americans can’t find jobs and many are losing their homes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)