« The winning Iowa campaigns embraced the UK media (Hillary Clinton didn't) | Main | Do American political trends cross the Atlantic? »



The latest (1/5/2008) Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in New Hampshire:
- John McCain: 31%
- Mitt Romney: 26%
- Ron Paul: 14%
- Mike Huckabee: 11%
- Rudy Giuliani: 8%
- Fred Thompson 5%
- other: 2%
- not sure: 3%.

After having received the strongest support among the Independents voting in the GOP caucus in Iowa (ttp://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#val=IAREP), it seems that Ron Paul is headed for a strong showing in New Hampshire, known for its independent streak.


The Iowa winner only gonna come 4th here?

Is New Hampshire a very different sort of place to Iowa?

Yes, New Hampshire is different in political views to Iowa. The east and west coasts of America seem to be different to to mid-America.
However, Mike Huckabee has moved up the Real Clear Politics average polling score for New Hampshire - from 9.5% a couple of days ago, to 12% now (3rd place). Huckabee is leading in some other states, eg. South Carolina which has its election on the 19th January.


Some interesting numbers in New Hampshire from Greg Mitchell courtesy o Acropolis Review: http://acropolisreview.com/2008/01/new-hampshire-primary-poll-status.html

Frogg, USA

It should also be noted that Romney won the Wyoming Republican caucuses today with 67% of the vote. Romney, Thompson, and Hunter were the only candidates to receive delegates from Wyoming. Wyoming Dem caucuses don't take place until March.

Cummulative delegates won by each candidate so far (Iowa and Wyoming):


Republican Totals

Candidate Delegates

Mitt Romney 20
Mike Huckabee 17
Fred Thompson 6
John McCain 3
Ron Paul 2
Duncan Hunter 1
Rudy Giuliani 0
Unpledged 3

Democratic Totals

Candidate Delegates

Barack Obama 18
John Edwards 17
Hillary Clinton 16
Bill Richardson 0
Mike Gravel 0
Dennis Kucinich 0
Unpledged 6

Martin Wright

Matt Thanks for that poll update. I've been complaining here for a few days about the lack of coverage for Ron Paul and it's good to see his prospects in NH. My main gripe is with Fox TV for excluding him from their debate on the grounds that "their trailer is too small"! But they have room for Guiliani who came last in IA and Thompson who is trailing badly in NH. The reason couldn't be that Rupert Murdoch dislikes Dr Paul's anti-war, anti neocon and pro-liberty stance?

Frogg, USA

No Martin, the reason FoxNews excluded Ron Paul was limited space (true); but, mostly that he polls low in "national polls".

I think it was wrong for Fox to exclude him at this point, also (Duncan Hunter is excluded wrongly as well). And, Ron Paul has some things to add to the political debate. But, don't fool yourself.....he isn't going to win any states and has no chance nationally.

RCP Average 12/14 - 12/30

Giuliani 20.8
McCain 17.6
Huckabee 17.6
Romney 14.4
Thompson 11.4
Paul 3.6

Frogg, USA

The Iowa Curse
By Susan Estrich

LOS ANGELES -- Call it the curse of Iowa.

If you don't believe me, go back 40 years and name a Democrat who has actually won in Iowa and gone on to be elected president.

There's only one, and no, it's not Jimmy Carter. Actually, he finished second in Iowa, behind uncommitted.

The right answer is Bill Clinton, and it was in 1996, when he ran unopposed, not in 1992, when he lost the state, ceding it to its favorite son, Tom Harkin, and then lost New Hampshire as well before going on to win the presidency.

On the Republican side, the right answer is one, as well: George W. Bush, in 2000, who did win Iowa, but then lost in New Hampshire before winning the nomination.

Why such a record of failure for a state that claims such legitimacy in the process and captures the eyes of the nation every four years?

Part of the answer is because what it takes to win Iowa is not necessarily what it takes to win a nomination or general election.


Martin Wright

Frogg USA,
But those poll figures are way out of date. Paul is vying with Guiliani in NH so why include one and exclude the other? Get a bigger trailer or even hire a proper studio.

There's been a lot of press criticism of Fox over this. The New Hampshire Republican Party has withdrawn its sponsorship of the debate because of FoxNews' "censorship".


Personally, I think it's WAY too early to "call" the results of a nominee process.

It may be TRADITIONAL to look at it that way, but the fact is that this year's primaries are UN-traditionally early.

People are still winding down from the holidays. Very few that I know, aside from those who are ALWAYS thinking about politics, are even thinking about the primaries.

The states who put in the rush to be "first" in the primaries may have made a grave error.

In any case, I don't think it would be reasonable to even think about who will be the eventual winners of the primaries until later.

No one is really ready for this.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad


  • Tracker