See new December 2007 polls, days before the Iowa primaries!
One of the most popular posts on this blog the past couple months has been my analysis of the latest poll data for the 2008 United States presidential election. I thought it a wise idea to follow up that post with the latest August polling.
Republicans
Romney's poll numbers paint him out as the underdog. Not so. The under-polled former Massachusetts governor is looking stronger than ever, and is probably going to win one, if not two, of the big upcoming party primaries: Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. Giuliani — the frontrunner so far — is also looking at at least one primary win. Over-hyped, little-substance star Fred Thompson better get in the game or he will soon find himself unable to win his party's nomination. 
My bet right now is that Romney will win Iowa and New Hampshire, and Giuliani will take home South Carolina. That will pit them against each other for the Republican Party's presidential nomination, a nomination that may break precedent from the look of things. Romney has a near-perfect track record, whereas Giuliani has spotty social views and a poor political history of bullying, cronyism, thinking of himself as above the law, and political mongering and showboating.
At this time we know almost nothing about Thompson or his political views, which is probably the reason he is doing so well. Once he does truly enter the race, expect his numbers to fall. The Republicans have not done as well in their campaign fundraising as their Democratic counterparts; John McCain seems to be almost out of the race because of his lack of funds. McCain's campaign has fallen apart these past few months and it is very unlikely that he will bounce back in full.
Democrats
Not much has changed on the Democratic front. Obama and Clinton are still duking it out for the rights to the presidential nomination, with Sen. Hillary Clinton coming out on top still. Sen. Barack Obama has made plenty-a-gaff while Clinton still acts like a political robot with more shallow policies than her Illinois senatorial counterpart (i.e. Obama).
John Edwards, who actually has a plan for healthcare in America as opposed to his Democratic opponents, is still stuck in third place and foreign policy guru Bill Richardson, blaming jet lag for him saying that he thinks homosexuality is a choice (I'll have to dock him a few points in my book), is staying pretty far down there when it comes to popular support.
Graph data source: RealClearPolitics poll averages, as of 17 August (note: since all the poll numbers did not add up to 100%, I entered the remainder in as "[Other/Undecided]".). For more election 2008 polls, see Polling Report. To see the candidates' stance on various issues, check out this helpful table — it's a good political resource for a hot election season (even though the election is over a year away).
Friday, 17 August 2007
Now who's leading in the 2008 US presidential polls?
Wednesday, 11 July 2007
481 days 'til election
The leading Democrat in the 2008 presidential race, Hillary Clinton, has been dwarfed by her husband, former President Bill Clinton, as the pundits go wild on America's biggest political couple. Let the gender role debate commence. The headline best summing all of this up: "Hillary's man trouble", referring not only to Clinton's attention magnet hubby but to male voters who are, well, sexist. It's sad, not just for America but for the state of our civilization, that even in the richest and one of the freest and most educated countries enough people still have problems with a black or a woman running for political office. A homosexual or atheist wouldn't stand a chance.
I've come to the conclusion that an Obama-Richardson would be a good ticket (Dodd is not bad either, but he is all the more less known).
However much Obama is shallow (see post), Hillary Clinton is robotic — a political chameleon of sorts whose policies seem to sometimes veer to the right, though she pleases as many as possible in her target demographics. Why, again, does she draw so much contempt from conservatives?
Obama and Clinton — the Democratic heavyweights in the '08 race — both try to kiss up to the special interests fueling the Democratic Party and Washington as a whole while imposing a sort of populism seen often enough in campaigns (see: the irrational electorate). This race, like any other in the United States, is fueled greatly by money. Money might not be able to buy you love, per se, but it can sure help launch you into political office!
McCain and Romney are practically bending over backwards for the GOP base(s). McCain, the senior-most member of the race, second-place to Giuliani, faces the ire of the religious right; anger from some moderates and liberals over his diehard support for the Iraq war and the Bush administration's war policy; and bad feelings from Republican Party partisans and anti-immigrant xenophobes over his moderate immigration views and ability to be bipartisan. Being able to jump across the isle and work with the other side is not always a good thing in American politics, oddly enough.
Selling out hasn't really helped Sen. McCain, but former Massachusetts governor and multimillionaire Mitt Romney's sharp-right-turn transformation is far, far more extreme than McCain's ass kissing. Romney is behind in the polls, but has loads of money, which is more than McCain can say. Social liberal Giuliani — though he has been trying his best to please both sides on abortion — still leads the Republicans in the polls; McCain follows. Poll ratings haven't swayed much for the Democrats either. Clinton leads, then Obama, then Edwards. See this post for more.
Tuesday, 10 July 2007
The candidates take on Iowa...
...and show off their millions.
Many of the candidates for the American presidency are campaigning as heavily as ever, with the election less than a year and a half away. More than a handful — including Democrat Barack Obama (see this post) — went to Iowa for and around Independence Day.
Recently the Q2 fundraising numbers came in, making US$10 million look like pocket change. Obama came up ahead in the first quarter of the year with over $25 million, proving to be a master of the all-important art of raising money for the election. Even though Hillary Clinton was able to raise millions by shoving her ex-president husband onto the lecture circuit, it was still not enough to catch her chief Democratic rival.
This quarter Obama raised over $30 million. Clinton collected over $20 million for the primary, an additional $7 million or so for the general election. Edwards could barely manage $9 mil. On the Republican side the figures are more telling. Poll leader Giuliani came up with $17 or so million in total ($15 million raised for primary) this past quarter; lagging McCain got barely over $10 million ($11.2 million) and the perhaps under-polled Romney reached roughly $20 million after he gave $6.5 million to himself ($14 million raised for primary). That means the three Democratic frontrunners dwarfed the Republican presidential candidates with $68 million compared to the GOP's $42 mil.
The Economist has a feature on the fundraising and the presidential nomination poll numbers. Clinton is polling around 37% for the Dems and her "future odds" for getting the Democratic nomination are 42%; Obama is polling 23% with odds of 38%; Edwards is polling 12% with odds of 6%. For the GOP Giuliani is polling less than he was before: 26% with future odds of 36%; McCain is polling a lackluster 17% and has the unthinkably low odds of 5% for the nomination; Romney is polling 10% with a surprising 17% odds. See here (Wikipedia) for more polls.
Friday, 11 May 2007
Breaking the GOP mould
Two Republican candidates are starting to try to break free from their party's unofficial but common political principles as the race for the presidency in the 2008 election intensifies. Poll leader Rudy Giuliani is still emphasizing his liberal stance on issues like abortion; and Mitt Romney, seen recently kissing up like many of his peers to the religious right, bashes the Bush administration on Iraq.
John McCain appears to represent a conservative faction, not to extreme. He also still seems content with keeping the status quo on issues like Iraq — many voters won't like that. Just as Giuliani is pro-choice on abortion, and believes in gun control and gay rights, McCain has a traditional American center-right viewpoint on such issues, often not describing his true policy and saying political decisions like the aforementioned should be left to the individual states to decide.
Monday, 7 May 2007
Back in the US...
Now that the French presidential election is over, there's another leadership race to focus on. Although it is still far away, the 2008 US presidential election is kicking into gear, with headline-grabbing (inter-party) debates already grabbing headlines — and fundraising through the roof.
Here's an update on what the candidates have been doing...
Campaign-hardened Republicans used to treat the phrase "global war on terror" so casually, even affectionately, that they talked about "the G-WOT," after the four-letter abbreviation used in White House calendars to denote Iraq messaging meetings. Democrats embraced it, too, with John Kerry asserting during his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention: "We are a nation at war, a global war on terror."
But increasingly the phrase is being regarded with hostility by many Democrats, who view it as little more than propaganda, and with a degree of skepticism by some Republicans, who consider it tired and vague. The left lobe of the blogosphere roared its approval in March when the House Budget Committee directed its staff to eschew "global war on terror" and instead use more precise language like "the war in Iraq" and "ongoing military operations throughout the world." And last month the British government announced that it too had retired the phrase.
Now Kerry's former running mate is declaring his independence from a phrase that politicians have been brandishing with brio for more than five years. At last month's Democrat debate in South Carolina, moderator Brian Williams asked the eight candidates: "Show of hands question: Do you believe there is such a thing as a global war on terror?"
Senator Hillary Clinton's hand shot up. After hesitating noticeably, Senator Barack Obama joined her. Edwards did not, even though he has used the phrase himself and a policy paper on his Web site refers to "winning the war on terror." And now, in his first interview to explain his turnabout, Edwards tells TIME that he will no longer use what he views as "a Bush-created political phrase."
"This political language has created a frame that is not accurate and that Bush and his gang have used to justify anything they want to do," Edwards said in a phone interview from Everett, Wash. "It's been used to justify a whole series of things that are not justifiable, ranging from the war in Iraq, to torture, to violation of the civil liberties of Americans, to illegal spying on Americans. Anyone who speaks out against these things is treated as unpatriotic. I also think it suggests that there's a fixed enemy that we can defeat with just a military campaign. I just don't think that's true."
technorati tags: john+edwards, hillary+clinton, war+on+terror, 2008+US+presidental+election, rudy+giuliani, mitt+romney, john+mccain, fred+thompson, republican+debate, time+100, politics, barak+obama, race
Thursday, 5 April 2007
'08 candidates score high in early fund-raising
Around US$130 million was raised by United States '08 presidential candidates in the first three months of this year — a new, mind-blowing record. In addition, many candidates have their Senate or House campaign finance accounts. Democrat Hillary Clinton still has $10m to transfer from her Senate account, Dodd $5m, and Biden $4m (the latter two are going to need it). Clinton already scored $26m in fund-raising. Her closest rival, Democrat Barak Obama, was only $1m away from matching her (i.e. he got $25m). The Democrats scored a campaign finance victory, but the battle is far from over. Democratic candidates got a total of $78m in this quarter, compared to the Republican $51m.
Republican Mitt Romney’s surprisingly high $23m included $2.35m of his own money. Brownback already transferred over half a million from his Senate account to his meek presidential war chest. It looks like the social ultra-conservative from Kansas will not end up well. John McCain did horribly. There were some high hopes for Huckabee a few months ago, but he failed to build a foundation for his campaign. Out of all the aforementioned candidates, he is least likely to make it.
In American politics, it all comes down to money — and, to an extent, personality. Even to make it past the beginning stages of the primaries candidates need massive amounts of money. A lot of it is a waste. Just think of all the better uses for hundreds of millions of dollars. Also do not forget the massive and oft-ambiguous corporate donors and campaign lobbyists. If a company were to donate a generous amount to a campaign, chances are they get some sort of incentive if that candidate makes it into office. Obama did pretty well, especially considering he doesn’t have a popular former president as a spouse like in Hillary Clinton's case.
Mitt Romney is a former governor of Massachusetts, a Mormon, and has stances both socially liberal and socially conservative. He is defiantly an interesting candidate to watch.
technorati tags: obama, clinton, democrats, 2008+election, presidential+08, hillary+clinton, barak+obama, huckabee, john+mccain, mccain, republicans, politics, american, united+states, usa, news, campaign+finance, fund-raising
