Wide Open

The Democratic race has gotten a bit tedious to think about since the arguments are all so well-trod, but Rasmussen's national daily tracking poll shows the Republican race in all its fascination:

In essence, the candidates all seem to be close enough in national polling -- and the situation sufficientlly fast-changing -- that nobody's far enough ahead to have a meaningful advantage and nobody's so far down as to be out of it. It seems to me that if Huckabee wins Iowa, that still would leave ample time for an establishment rally around John McCain if they want to go in that direction.

Comments

Are those trends supposed to be progressing from right to left, as the dates indicate?

Posted by Senescent | December 5, 2007 4:29 PM

What direction are the dates on the bottom of the chart supposed to be going in? They seem to be backwards.

Posted by Alex | December 5, 2007 4:30 PM

"The Democratic race has gotten a bit tedious to think about since the arguments are all so well-trod"

Perhaps you actually find the Democratic race a bit tedious since you've worked yourself into a corner where you're fighting against universal healthcare, Matthew.

If you were to reconsider your opposition to universal healthcare, you might find the Democratic race a bit more fun.

Personally, I'm enjoying the Democratic race since I'm fighting for what I actually believe.

Posted by Petey | December 5, 2007 4:34 PM

Matt Y. has the dates backward. As of 12/5, Huckabee is ahead of Giuliani.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | December 5, 2007 4:38 PM

Petey-

What, from your point of view, is the big substantive difference between the HRC and Edwards health plans?

Serious question -- I'm ready to believe there is one and I'm just not aware of it.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | December 5, 2007 4:41 PM

Yes, yes. Dates backwards. Chart otherwise correct.

Wide open race with only fools counting out McCain and Thompson.

Third place in Iowa will likely be a valuable prize.

Similarities to the Democratic race in '04 overwhelming, with Giuliani and Romney in the Dean and Gephardt roles.

Posted by Petey | December 5, 2007 4:42 PM

Doesn't Thompson's trend line pretty closely resemble the trajectory of a yawn?

Posted by Toady | December 5, 2007 4:47 PM

I don't think Matt's fighting against UHC so much as the idea that the mandates found in the HRC and Edwards plans aren't, like, the most important elements of a good healthcare policy, and that dismissing Obama's plan for that reason isn't warranted. Which is right, I think. I would prefer a mandate of some sort, and I'm not unsympathetic to Edwards's approach (except for the IRS part).

I do think the Democratic race is plenty interesting. Obama has been steadily rising in Iowa for a month now, and it seems like Clinton is starting to take his success personally. This kintergarden essay would be late-night gold if there were any late-night shows going.

Posted by Lev | December 5, 2007 4:49 PM

"What, from your point of view, is the big substantive difference between the HRC and Edwards health plans?"

HRC has been unwilling to provide crucial details. She won't be clear about where the funding is coming from for subsidies. She won't be clear about the mechanisms for automatic enrollment.

Edwards, on the other hand, has been willing to specify these things.

This lack of details strikes me as important. Putting the most difficult elements of the plan out before the election strikes me as crucial for the legislative battle of 2009.

When Clinton copied the broad strokes of the Edwards universal healthcare plan, it was her best move of the campaign. But her unwillingness to have the political courage to spell out the difficult details before facing the electorate is more than slightly problematic.

-----

I also have doubts about Clinton's willingness to put her political capital on the line in 2009 to get a good plan passed, but that's a different objection than one strictly about their plans.

At the end of the day, I have a very low level of trust in Clinton's intentions. Her lack of political courage is not encouraging for someone who wants to see a good universal healthcare program enacted into law.

Posted by Petey | December 5, 2007 4:53 PM

Judging by the NIE thing the establishment doesn't want hawks anymore, so McCain probably is not their man. Huckabee might be the establishment candidate now.

Posted by abb1 | December 5, 2007 5:01 PM

"I don't think Matt's fighting against UHC so much as the idea that the mandates found in the HRC and Edwards plans aren't, like, the most important elements of a good healthcare policy, and that dismissing Obama's plan for that reason isn't warranted."

Matt's fighting against UHC because, like, his candidate has come out against UHC and because Matt doesn't, like, care very much one way or another about UHC.

Dismissing Obama's plan since it doesn't cover everyone is very warranted if, like, you think UHC is important.

Posted by Petey | December 5, 2007 5:10 PM

dude, english goes from left to right!

it looks like someone's been hanging around all those arabic polling institutes.

Posted by upyernoz | December 5, 2007 5:15 PM

At the end of the day, Huck doesn't stand a chance. He's made it clear in the last week with comments on immigration, Guantanamo, Iran and torture that he just doesn't hate brown people enough for today's Republican party.

Posted by Doug-E-Fresh | December 5, 2007 5:17 PM

It seems to me that if Huckabee wins Iowa, that still would leave ample time for an establishment rally around John McCain if they want to go in that direction.

McCain? Looks like Romney would be more likely.

Anybody else having Pat Robertson flashbacks?
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | December 5, 2007 5:26 PM

Fucking thing doesn't even *mention* Ron Paul?!?! The guy's only outshone **all** of the other GOP fossils in fundraising and "momentum" -- and that's not significant?

Posted by sglover | December 5, 2007 5:44 PM

Also worth noting in the Rassmussen tracking poll:

Clinton today was at 34%. That's her lowest number in the history of the Rassmussen tracking poll, which dates back to July.

Posted by Petey | December 5, 2007 5:57 PM

At the end of the day, Huck doesn't stand a chance. He's made it clear in the last week with comments on immigration, Guantanamo, Iran and torture that he just doesn't hate brown people enough for today's Republican party.
Posted by Doug-E-Fresh

Insipid Lefty logic. Not only wrong on the Aryan Persians being a "brown people" but insinuating that a good little Lefty, to prove their love of Brown People, must be Open Borders, Terrorist-Loving, in league with the Mullahs of Iran in "Brown Folk Solidarity". And of course against any questioning of a brown-skinned, oppressed Jihadi caught trying to murder us who doesn't want to talk to us...

Is it any wonder that so many people that hate Bush and prefer Democrats on most counts -hesitate because Dems include people like Doug-E-Fresh, who cannot be trusted to defend the country and The People of America?

Posted by Chris Ford | December 5, 2007 6:22 PM

Clinton today was at 34%. That's her lowest number in the history of the Rassmussen tracking poll, which dates back to July.

Nope, sorry. The daily tracking poll starts in July, but the weekly tracking poll goes back to January, at which point Clinton was at only 22 percent. Compare last February-March to today -- the numbers are basically unchanged.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | December 5, 2007 6:35 PM

That's pretty funny Chris. Project much?

The problem is that Huck has expressed a more nuanced approach to the problems you allude to than "bomb-em, torture-em, ship-em-home." And you know nuance doesn't fly on Fox.

I think most good lefty's would be perfectly happy with an approach that is, you know, plausible and effective.

Posted by Doug-E-Fresh | December 5, 2007 6:40 PM

To me this is less interesting than the dem race only because a dem is going to win in the end, unless maybe it's hillary.

Having seen a bunch of these graphs the conclusion i've now jumped to is that the past and present thompson and huckabee supporters are all the same people, and ditto the guiliani and romney supporters. in large part. what a boring thing to have typed, btw.

Posted by Phoebe | December 5, 2007 6:43 PM

Wide open race with only fools counting out McCain and Thompson.

Third place in Iowa will likely be a valuable prize.

Similarities to the Democratic race in '04 overwhelming, with Giuliani and Romney in the Dean and Gephardt roles.

Quick: Who finished third in Iowa in '04?

Who finished second in New Hampshire?

If Romney wins Iowa and NH this race is over. (Of course, depending on how the Mormon speech goes, he could be 4th in Iowa.)

Posted by right | December 5, 2007 7:29 PM

Why people trust a cherry picked single poll for anything escapes me. I like Rasmussen, but jeez. Take a look at the Gallup poll or the LAT poll, both during the same time period (through 12/3) and Giuliani has a clear lead. The only way to get good info from the polling is not to look at any individual poll but rather to look at a number of polls taken together. Maybe Huckabee has caught up to Rudy - who knows. The Politico smear about expenses may very well have caused some damage. But drawing that conclusion from a single poll is dumb.

Posted by Al | December 5, 2007 9:10 PM

So Al, why do you prefer Giuliani to Huckabee?

Posted by lemuel pitkin | December 6, 2007 12:03 AM

And Matt:

FIX THE FUCKING DATES!

Ok?

Posted by lemuel pitkin | December 6, 2007 12:16 AM

Random thoughts:

1) Didn't we do (to death) the overanalyzing of the Rasmussen daily trackers back in fall 2004?

2) I'd be delighted if it turned out to be true, because like most of Matt's commenters, Rudy scares the shit out of me. But I just don't believe he's really dropped 10% in 5 days in terms of his actual support. Did Sex On The City and the last YouTube debate hit him that hard? (If you're reading the WaPo, you'd not know that the SOTC story even existed.) It just has that 'too good to be true' quality to it.

3) Yes, McCain really is out of the race. Here's why:

a) Anyone who doesn't win an early primary (or caucus) is pretty much dead on Super Tuesday, Feb. 5.

b) There's nowhere but NH where McCain's got a decent chance of winning an early primary.

c) Lightning isn't gonna strike for McCain in NH. Even if the Huckster beats Romney handily in Iowa, Mitt still has a nice lead in NH which won't collapse in just a few days. McCain's appeal to independents this time is muted by (i) more reason for independents to vote in the Dem primary, and (ii) Ron Paul, who's not going to outpoll McCain, but will siphon off enough 'maverick' voters in NH to keep McCain from doing too well.

d) The guy's just getting old and losing his zip. He's not as bad as Gramps Thompson, but still.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | December 6, 2007 6:21 AM

So Al, why do you prefer Giuliani to Huckabee?

In a sentence: Because Rudy was a great Mayor, was great on 9/11 and in the aftermath, has the right positions on the war and terrorism, has the right positions on economics and social issues, and Huckabee has the wrong positions on economics and social issues and probably the war.

Posted by Al | December 6, 2007 10:00 AM

was great on 9/11 and in the aftermath

You mean, he made a lot of money giving speeches?

Posted by Bill | December 6, 2007 10:03 AM

Also, "mayor" isn't capitalized, though I'm sure that suits an authoritarian like Rudy.

Posted by Bill | December 6, 2007 10:05 AM

Also, "mayor" isn't capitalized

Huh?

Posted by Al | December 6, 2007 10:14 AM

Depends on if it's a title or a role... for example, you might say "Mayor Giuliani," and also "Giuliani's term as mayor."

Posted by BCupp | December 6, 2007 10:54 AM

Unless they changed the rules of capitalization, Al, it is correct to capitalize, or not capitalize, the word "mayor" thusly:

I think that Mayor Giuliani is the greatest mayor ever.

Or, as you put it (corrected): Rudy was a great mayor.

Posted by Bill | December 6, 2007 10:56 AM

I think that Mayor Giuliani is the greatest mayor ever.

I agree with this 100%. Thanks for the correction.

Posted by Al | December 6, 2007 11:14 AM

I like Rudy as Howard Dean better. And Romney as Gephardt. Really good.

Rudy has the same phoniness, the same hysteria, the same intellectual dishonesty, but adds a whole new dimension with bewilderingly bad judgement in appointments and sleazy abuses of power.

Romney has the same obsequious pandering approach, and the same smell of a loser about him. One election, right?

If someone waves the smelling salts around the Republican brain trust, they'll get behind a McCain/Huckabee ticket and kick ass.

Posted by bob powell | December 6, 2007 12:19 PM

It's the individual states that matter, and I still don't see how McCain or Huckabee come back to beat Romney in NH, even if Romney loses Iowa to Huck (but see Wayne Dumond scandal).

If it's Huck in Iowa and Romney in NH, then SC is the big one, and I think that's likely one or the other of those two based on their winning momentum.

In that scenario, McCain, Thompson and Giuliani never get any traction.

Posted by bob | December 6, 2007 4:43 PM