The NY Times poll is out:
Three weeks before the Iowa caucuses, Republican voters across the country appear uninspired by their field of presidential candidates, with a vast majority saying they have not made a final decision about whom to support, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.
Not one of the Republican candidates is viewed favorably by even half the Republican electorate, the poll found. And in a sign of the fluidity of the race, former Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, who barely registered in early polls several months ago, is now locked in a tight contest nationally with Rudolph W. Giuliani and Mitt Romney.
By contrast, Democrats are happier with their field and more settled in their decisions. For all the problems Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton appears to be having holding off her rivals in Iowa and New Hampshire, she remains strong nationally, the poll found. Even after what her aides acknowledge have been two of the roughest months of her candidacy, she is viewed by Democrats as a far more electable presidential nominee than either Senator Barack Obama or John Edwards.
Interesting - despite a grim debate at the end of October, Ms. Clinton is still at 68% favorable / 14% unfavorable among likely Dem primary voters, down just a bit from 72/15 in mid-October.
Staying on the favorable/unfavorable results among likely primary voters, Giuliani slipped from 48/20 to 41/28 in December; McCain dropped from 37/22 to 37/32 (maybe he should just keep quiet and stop annoying us?); and Fred Thompson swooned from 32/11 to 20/16.
Romney and Huckabee were the gainers - Romney from 28/16 to 36/16 and Huckabee from 12/9 to 30/10.
A lot of the poll results serve as an assurance that a notable fraction of poll respondents have no idea what they are talking about. Hillary is more likely to unite the country than Obama? C'mon, Hillary is the only major candidate who can not only speak with confidence on the Shiite/Sunni schism but sees it as a role model for the US.
And Romney is more of a straight-shooter than McCain? Please. Fred Thompson does well in this question (43% think he says what he believes, 23% think he panders, for a plus 20%) but the straightest shooter of all is Huck at 47/16. Groan.
That's the beauty of moving the primaries up so early. None of the voters knows what he's voting for!
Posted by: clarice | December 11, 2007 at 01:02 PM
I like Rudy, Mitt, Fred and even McCain so it's fairly instructive that "Not one of the Republican candidates is viewed favorably by even half the Republican electorate".
I can't bear Huck. I'm not sure I could bring myself to pull the lever if he is the nominee.
He should be tanking. The real question is why he isn't.
Posted by: Jane | December 11, 2007 at 01:36 PM
Apparently you're not the only one. From Ace ...
Perhaps the religious "right" is a little bigger than some have thought. Maybe they are a little more religious than right. OTOH relying on hostility from the left to keep them as part of a winning coalition may not be that wise.
Posted by: boris | December 11, 2007 at 02:35 PM
Let's hope the choice is not between religious socialism and secular socialism.
I'm hoping for a shift in the wind now that the spotlght is on this nutter.
Posted by: clarice | December 11, 2007 at 02:42 PM
Huckabee is Dead Candidate Walking. When he was down in the polls, nobody bothered to look at his record in Arkansas. Romney is starting the negative commercials this week, and there is a hell of a lot of negative to go after, beginning with his pardons.
The Democrates pray nightly to Gaia that the Huckster is the Republican nominee. He's proof positive that the fly-over evangelical community is Wingnut Central.
Posted by: Crunchy Frog | December 11, 2007 at 02:44 PM
If we're going to have eight years of liberal rule, I'd rather the Democratic Party be governing, so at least they can take the blame.
He has a point - one that I hadn't considered, altho I'm pretty sure I could not vote for Hillary no matter what.
Posted by: Jane | December 11, 2007 at 02:45 PM
Huckabee will tank. Right after he wins the republican nomination. ::sigh::
Posted by: Sue | December 11, 2007 at 02:47 PM
He's proof positive that the fly-over evangelical community is Wingnut Central.
Crikey.
Posted by: Sue | December 11, 2007 at 02:51 PM
Ha, Sue!
I really worry about Michigan. Will puckish democrats cross over and vote Huckabee, will they stay home, or will they make a Dem vote that won't count for anything?
Posted by: MayBee | December 11, 2007 at 02:54 PM
It will be decided by the time I get to vote. So, I will vote for Gravel so that my local paper, when they list the polling by district will show 1 vote in my district for Gravel. That way I always know my vote was counted even though it meant squat. ::grin::
Posted by: Sue | December 11, 2007 at 02:57 PM
In 04 I voted for Sharpton. Someone else voted with me. There were 2 votes. I said district above, but it is actually called precinct. I'm hoping whoever voted for Sharpton with me really wanted Sharpton and wasn't on to my trick. I will be sorely disappointed if Gravel gets more than 1 vote in my precinct.
Posted by: Sue | December 11, 2007 at 03:00 PM
Gov. Huckabee can't win despite the fact that he's smart, personable, a good speaker, and a good campaigner--probably the best on either side.
He can't win because he doesn't have the bucks or the organization. His policy positions are suspect, but his likability makes it a little tougher to negative. Mitt can pull that off, though, and I think we'll see plenty of "discrete" piling on from Rudy, et al.
Gov. Huckabee may possibly survive Iowa, but can implosion be far behind?
Nope. It's Mitt or Rudy.
Posted by: Old Dad | December 11, 2007 at 03:25 PM
I really don't believe that Dems are hoping for Huckabee to be the candidate to face off against Hillary, or that Huckabee can't continue to surmount his rather picayune "problems" that his opponents would like to focus on, or that he's not being exactly a First-Class Straight Shooter when he says he previously was against a Cuban embargo but now supports it precisely because he's running for President of the United States, that Huckabee at all resembles a liberal more than, say, McCain or Guiliani, or that anyone who's a lifelong Republican or conservative could possibly vote for Hillary over Huck. We'll see.
Posted by: hrtshpdbox | December 11, 2007 at 03:53 PM
Haven't campaign polls done by News outlets been hideously wrong for a long time? I don't doubt Huck made some headway, but I just think his super hype is all trumped up what the media wants.
Interesting they haven't learned that no matter how hard they try and create the point advantage it never works.
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | December 11, 2007 at 04:15 PM
Des Moines Register Presidential Debate information:
I know I'll be unable to liveblog on Thursday and I doubt I can do the one tomorrow. I hope Jane isn't busy!
Posted by: Elliott | December 11, 2007 at 04:18 PM
Perhaps Huckabee's rise reflects the possibility that not all pro-lifers are Conservative; it would appear many pro-lifers are Porker Progressives.
In any case, it show once again why Roe vs Wade was a terrible decision enacting a horrid law, nobody was allowed to voice their choice on that particular issue which has yet to even define what is a fetus.
One thing is clear, Progressive are masters at manipulating words and their meanings and one of these days religious people will find out that in order for Progressives to maintian their place of powers they will have twisted the words 'endowed by our creator' to mean 'Progressives are the peoples God'.
Posted by: syn | December 11, 2007 at 04:21 PM
I said in these comments last week that Huckabee's poll standings had given me a stomach ache. Well, I am now at full bore nausea! I have no idea how accurate the polls are, but I really feel that our Republican version of a religious, slick Willy from Arkansas has a lot of the so-called evangelicals in some sort of thrall.
I am also sensing that most of the political pundits/analysts on our side are pretty aghast at the thought of a President Huckabee too. Problem is, they don't know if they should come out and say so, since they may not be in tune with fly-over country, outside the beltway voters, etc. etc.
I just hope that somebody, somewhere has a magic dart to burst this over-inflated balloon of Huckstermania. Please, God? I am a Christian, too!
Posted by: centralcal | December 11, 2007 at 04:57 PM
Here's my question:
With "a vast majority saying they have not made a final decision about whom to support" how can anybody be "locked in a tight contest nationally"?
I'm not part of the vast majority very often, but maybe when they hear the word "Iowa" or campaign or debate, their eyes positively glaze over like mine do.
Posted by: JM Hanes | December 11, 2007 at 05:06 PM
A point of interest: last year I was watching Tim Russert interview Markos M. (Daily Kos guy) on his talk show on Saturday night. Markos said that the one potential GOP candidate that had him and his people worried was Huckabee!! And this predated any kind of serious buzz about Huckabee. For some reason, he was perceived as a threat to the liberal Dems. Maybe it was his ability to win midwestern states, I don't know. But he was very serious about this.
Posted by: bio mom | December 11, 2007 at 05:16 PM
Stuart Taylor, Jr relives the good ol' days of cattle futures, Arkansas real estate, and travel office firings.
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | December 11, 2007 at 05:18 PM
Stuart Taylor, Jr relives the good ol' days of cattle futures, Arkansas real estate, and travel office firings.
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | December 11, 2007 at 05:19 PM
I hate to be crass and materialistic about something as spiritually driven as national politics but a short perusal of money raised, spent, on hand and borrowed suggests that Huck isn't quite as popular as the Democratic organ (complete with monkey and grinder) would lead (drive?) us to believe.
Ron Paul outraised the Huckster by 5/1 in the last quarter. If he can't even beat a loon like Paul, why should anyone be the least bit concerned about his soft as a feather impact on the race?
The battle between the Red Witch and Hussein Il Jong is much more interesting. In a "Godzilla v Mothra" sense, of course.
The Times is pimping Huck to pull down Romney. Not that Mitt needs much help.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | December 11, 2007 at 05:24 PM
I don't understand this,once George Bush was re-elected was he supposed to have canceled elections and become President for Life? All the leftists said so.
Posted by: PeterUK | December 11, 2007 at 05:55 PM
Peter - he was supposed to have done all things evil, for he is evil. That he has actually not done anything evil is proof of his incompetence.
I'll write in Fred! if Huckabee gets the nomination.
Posted by: bgates | December 11, 2007 at 06:07 PM
"Pump up Huck" was in the same memo where they said "he who shall not be named" should no longer ever be mentioned in MSM. Has anyone seen Fred's (who?) name anywhere in MSM since the "Pump up Huck" meme started? They're scared to death of him since their candidates are so lame. Can't inflate one of their own with so many holes in them, so they have to pump up our lamest one.
Posted by: Bill in AZ | December 11, 2007 at 06:52 PM
Fred? Who's Fred?
Posted by: Crunchy Frog | December 11, 2007 at 06:59 PM
I am an independent and I would consider voting for Huckabee, or even Ron Paul, over Hillary.
And don't get me wrong. I am voting for Huckabee or Gravel to get us out of Iraq. Huckabee gives us the added bonus of badly needed domestic spending. Both offer some relief from corruption and ineptitude.
Huckabee shot up so fast because most Republicans are fairly disgusted with Romney's naked pandering, Rudy shameless fear mongering and Thompson's stupidity.
Posted by: Garth | December 11, 2007 at 07:28 PM
Yikes!
That's really all I can say Garth.
Posted by: Jane | December 11, 2007 at 08:25 PM
Sorry to interupt the beauty contest,but diplomats are worried that the NIE has scuppered any sanctions on Iran
Posted by: PeterUK | December 11, 2007 at 08:27 PM
Jane-
Don't worry Garth got his "independent" talking points from Townhouse...once the shine of the Huckabee moment passes they will moveon to another target.
Posted by: RichatUF | December 11, 2007 at 08:39 PM
Jane, since you asked---the Chantix works quite well though it leaves a truly dreadful taste ..
Posted by: clarice | December 11, 2007 at 08:53 PM
"though it leaves a truly dreadful taste .."
Really hard to light too...
Posted by: Rick Ballard | December 11, 2007 at 09:00 PM
Miserable to light. Keep burning my fingertips.*thwack*
Posted by: clarice | December 11, 2007 at 09:03 PM
The trick, clarice, is to find the right food to drown out the taste. Or at least to have fun trying!
Posted by: cathyf | December 11, 2007 at 10:12 PM
Jane:
"I'm not sure I could bring myself to pull the lever if he is the nominee."
No need to borrow trouble. If Huckabee gets the nomination, it won't matter who you vote for.
Posted by: JM Hanes | December 12, 2007 at 04:05 AM
Clarice,
Is Chantrix worse than waterboarding?
Posted by: PeterUK | December 12, 2007 at 06:42 AM
Clarice,
Nicorette gum tastes like an ashtray - which one learns to find remarkably refreshing.
Posted by: Jane | December 12, 2007 at 07:23 AM
Well for the past few days rum and coke has helped I don'tknow what'll work when I return home tonight. But Chantix does make your mouth taste like an ashtray and it does upset my stomach but it sure reduces the craving to smoke.
Posted by: clarice | December 12, 2007 at 08:06 AM
Clarice,
Port and Brandy.
Posted by: PeterUK | December 12, 2007 at 12:19 PM
I once heard alli referred to as "antabuse for fat" -- at least the ash-tray taste isn't as bad as alli, or antabuse for that matter!
Posted by: cathyf | December 12, 2007 at 02:02 PM