There has been enough time passed after the Republican and Democratic Debates to access if there's been any real movement in the polls, and what's happened has been extremely strange. It either calls conventional wisdom or polling methodology into serious question.
On the Republican side, polls and pundits show Romney has been the leader in the debates. Rudy Giuliani has been seen as the big loser. What's happened in the national polls? Giuliani is down, but still in the lead. Romney doesn't appear to have had that much movement. Fred Thompson hasn't announced or raised any money but is about even with Romney already. But in the Iowa and New Hampshire polls, Romney has for the first time taken the lead. So although he doesn't appear to be making much traction nationally (in a tie for third place), he seems to be doing well in the early states that will count for more.
On the Democratic side, Hillary's and Edward's numbers are stable and Obama's numbers are slighlty down nationally, but Obama has leapt over Hillary to get to 2nd place in Iowa, behind Edwards, whose lead has shrunk slightly. It was difficult to tell who was percieved to have won the first debate.
What does this mean? I have no idea. It's possible that Romney could take the early states and overcome his national deficit with a lot of media fanfare. He, by far, has the most money raised of any Republican. If Edwards holds onto his lead in Iowa and wins the state, he'll get some fanfare as well - but unlike Romney, he has less than half the money raised of his challengers. Is a strong second place enough for Obama in Iowa? Will third place be too big a black mark on Hillary's campaign theme of inevitability? Howard Dean was finished after a third place showing in Iowa.
It's certainly going to be an interesting election.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment