Pro-Rudy/Anti-Mitt Polling Conspiracy?
OK, “conspiracy” is probably too strong. However, consider the following figures in early state polling courtesy of Real Clear Politics’ and Pollster.com’s 2008 Polling sites (other resources used: Electoral Votes from FEC website; Primary calendar from About.com):
Iowa–Jan 3rd (7 electoral votes) has been polled:
- 9 times in the last 7 weeks.
- 27 times in the last 6 months– 4.5X/mo
- Romney leads RCP average by 14%
Wyoming–Jan 5th (3 electoral votes–only a fraction of state’s primary delegates up for grabs on this date though):
- No polling that I could find
- Conventional wisdom is that Romney will win here solidly (he just got 61% of vote in a straw poll last weekend)
New Hampshire–Jan 8th (4 electoral votes) has been polled:
- 10 times in the last 7 weeks.
- 27 times in the last 6 months– 4.5X/mo.
- Romney leads RCP average by 8%
Nevada–Jan 12th (5 electoral votes) has been polled:
- 2 times in the last 7 weeks.
- 6 times in the last 6 months–1X/mo.
- No RCP average calculated . . . but Romney leads Rudy by 1% over last 6 polls (though many expect Romney to do much better in the caucus format than Rudy)
Michigan–Jan 15th (17 electoral votes) has been polled:
- 2 times in the last 7 weeks.
- 7 times in the last 6 months–1.2X/mo.
- Romney leads RCP average by 5%
South Carolina–Jan 19th (8 electoral votes) has been polled:
- 6 times in the last 7 weeks.
- 19 times in the last 6 months– 3.2X/mo.
- Statistically a 3 way tie for first (Romney,Rudy, Fred)
Florida–Jan 29th (27 electoral votes) has been polled:
- 11 times in the last 7 weeks.
- 27 times in the last 6 months– 4.5X/mo.
- Rudy leads RCP average by 11%
Some observations:
- The traditional “Big Three” early states (IA, NH, SC) have a long history of being frequently polled and this remains the case.
- MI and FL seem like they should be polled similarly to me (the two largest states prior to Feb 5th). However, where Romney leads and is expected to win there is a paucity of polls but where Rudy leads and is expected to win there’s over a poll per week (and nearly two per week over the last 7 weeks)
- There seems to be a polling firm “blind spot” to WY (completely) and Nevada (relatively) when these are two of the first 4 contests . . . and (”coincidentally”???) where Romney is leading polls or expected to win.
Now, moving on to Feb 5th (”Tsunami Tuesday”) some of the polling trends borderline on comical. Here are all the states going that date:
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado (caucuses), Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota (caucuses), Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah
New Jersey (15 electoral votes) has been polled:
- 5 times in the last 7 weeks.
- 12 times in the last 6 months– 2X/mo.
- Rudy leads by OVER 40%!!.
WHY IS NJ BEING POLLED MORE THAN MICHIGAN?!?!? Rudy’s never led by less than 32% in any of these copious NJ polls. Who’s wasting all this money polling a state that’s never been close when it’s just another Feb 5th state? Something’s fishy there.
California (51 electoral votes) has been polled:
- 5 times in the last 7 weeks.
- 15 times in the last 6 months–2.5X/mo.
- Rudy leads RCP average by 19%
CA is the biggest prize and so I see why it’s polled frequently
Moving on:
Pennsylvania–April 11th (YES, that’s over 2 months AFTER Tsunami Tues!; 21 electoral votes) has been polled:
3 times in the last 7 weeks.
11 times in the last 6 months– ~2X/mo.
Rudy leading by about 22%
Again, why in the world is this state being polled more than MI!? Don’t you think the results of the early states and the results of Tsunami Tuesday just might have a little effect on how Penn votes on April 11th? That’s called wasted money.
Conclusions/Questions:
So, is this ample evidence that there is an over-abundance and over-representation of polls for states where Rudy leads strongly? Or is there an ignoring of non-traditional early states where Romney is leading? Is this an attempt to get repeated positive news/headlines for Rudy and/or to downplay/diminish Mitt’s potential?
Why the huge disparity between MI and FL? Why more NJ and Penn polls than MI? Why is NV being largely ignored? Am I missing something? Am I doomed to become a “conspiracy theorist?”
Thoughts? Comments?
Jeff Fuller
November 6th, 2007 at 1:07 am
Those are interesting statistics, but not surprising. All you have to do is watch “Hardball with Chris Matthews” to see that the media is dead set on a Hillary/Giuliani race, and they will do whatever they can to manipulate those results — even if it means elevating Huckabee above Romney (how demeaning). I’m pretty sure the bias against Mitt is due not only to the fact that he’s Mormon, but also that he appears unreal. His careful, polished, demeaner makes him seem fake to those who don’t know any better. The superficial media only understands “tough guys” like McCain and Rudy. But this I know for sure: underneath the gentlemanly veneer, Mitt is tough as nails. He will compete until the bloody end, and he will go through every last million of his to secure victory, if he has to. (He can always just make more). My theory about Mitt is that he is secretly in this to seek revenge for the humiliating defeat of his father in the 1968 election. His dad got over it, but I don’t believe Mitt ever did. This time it’s personal. I just feel sorry for anybody (Rudy) who tries to stands in his way. Go Mitt!!
November 6th, 2007 at 1:19 am
Leslie,
I agree with you about the Rudy/Hillary “subway series” that the liberal media establishment would just love.
You’re dead on with them pumping up Huckabee to try to take down Mitt in Iowa.
The media knows better than to believe that Mitt is really “too polished” or “plastic” or “robotic”. They’re inventing this persona for him because they don’t have many angles to attack him on. How do you attack the guy who has no history of personal, business, or political scandal? Who’s been faithful and has an amazingly successful family? Paint him as “too perfect”, or “plastic” or “overly polished”. It will be sad if too many people buy into this media creation.
November 6th, 2007 at 3:02 am
One only has to spend some time in NY City or S. Florida to understand the “New York is the center of the universe mentality” of those unfortunate pin-heads! What a FOUL and odorous bunch! While Giuliani can and probably will win in Florida because of all of the misdirected transits from the NY area, Mitt can take 4 blue states from the lib-dems, WI, MI, OR, and for sure IA, which goes with the WINNER most of the time!
I’m getting GREAT reports from my relatives in SC! The prized Evangelicals are slowly but SURELY coming to Romney! Where else can they go?!
November 6th, 2007 at 9:12 am
Jeff,
Excellent stats and analysis. There is no doubt in my mind that the MSM would love nothing better than a Giuliani/Hillary match-up, not only from the New York centric media establishment’s perspectives and their own self-interest in selling newspapers and in television ratings, but because in such a scenario, they can’t lose! No matter who wins, they get a socially liberal, pro-abortion, open borders, sanctuary city guy or gal.
November 6th, 2007 at 9:59 am
Wolfagain, “While Giuliani can and probably will win in Florida because of all of the misdirected transits from the NY area” is not quite realistic. NYC has like the ratio of 8 Democrats for every 1 Republican. And those who wants to live in more than one place are more likely to be liberal than conservative (Trump, anyone?). Finally, Florida is a closed primary, meaning you must be affiliated with a party for a certain time (30 days in case of Florida, I think). True, the Democrats may re-declare their party affiliation because they won’t have their own primary they could vote in and they still want to help their candidates wins by voting for a Republican candidate most likely to lose to their choosen candidates. But this is not likely. My point is that they may not help Giulani as much as some of us may think.
November 6th, 2007 at 10:46 am
Part of the MSM and Fox News support of Rudy has to do with its New York base. Another part is the fact that people, like Romney, who have extraordinary success without the baggage create a gulf in teh views of some by thier acheivements.
Consider this setup, which seems like a perfect protagonist for a Hollywood blockbuster.
1. Male lead, 6′1″ tall, model good looks, lean, uber smart and a face that defies his 60 years. Fuent in french as a result of spentding two and half years living in France from 19 - 21 years of age, he quickly learned the social graces that make him comfortable among heads of state or in among factory workers in Michigan. Watching and taking in what his father who was Governor and President of one the USA’s largest car companies gives our male lead a good foundation - newly married to his high school sweet heart he graduates as valedictorian of his undergraduate class, later he attends Harvard and earns an MBA / Law Degree, he and his wife have 5 sons, one of whom is a music producer, another attends a top medical school, the remaining earn Harvard MBA’s like thier Dad. The male lead also becomes a multi millionare by leading a start up capital equity firm in Boston, later on he takes on the Kennedy establishment with a run for Senator of Massachusetts - gets schooled - loses the election for the senate, refocuses / engages in his own personal strategic analysis of his situtation, continues to make boat loads of money, however, still being very successful, but getting restless with the success, looks for a new challenge? - out of the blue he gets a call to turn around the Olympic games in 2000, the games are a great success, then he gets drafted to run for Governor of a liberal state, Massachusetts, where he lost against Kennedy- its payback time - this time his political game is on and he wins - - now, he is taking a shot at the Presidency in a country, America, that is largely divided at 50 / 50 liberal / conservative. Most have never heard of him, even those within his own party chip away at him - he is too much of a good thing - it can’t be real - they cast doubt and try to undermine him every step of the way . . . He assembles a crack team of elite business and academic people to evaluate the political landscape and assess what his chances are and what it will take to win the White House. Is this destiny or just another day in the life of Mitt Romney. . . . it reads like a Vince Flynn or Ben Mezrich novel.
November 6th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
I’ve picked up on the bias against Mitt as early as January. The news media is dead set on a Rudy/Hillary race. It would be viewed as the two titans from New York. It would be seen as tough guy against tough girl. The media is also all New York based. MSNBC, FOX, I think CNN, etc. are all based in New York, so they tend to like the New Yorkers, obviously. But you can see when you watch Brit Hume and Hannity and Colmes, that they always have the Giuliani supporter, the Thompson supporter, Dick Morris who likely hates Mitt, based on how he downplays him every chance he gets. They NEVER have the Romney supporters. NEVER. It’s totally unfair. And all the pundits downplay Mitt, say all these things that make it seem that Rudy is the frontrunner. They all say Rudy leads “all the polls” but they know damn well Mitt leads in the polls that matter.
This is disgusting. The news media is disgusting. And I will be sickened on January 3rd when Mitt Romney wins, they will IGNORE HIM ALMOST ENTIRELY. They will focus on how amazing it was that Huckabee came in second. They will have Huckabee on all the talk shows. They’ll invite no Mitt supporters. They’ll spend their time in the headlines saying “Can Rudy Win?” It’s going to be a travesty. They are going to downplay Mitt left and right. They are going to pump up Huck left and right. They are going to probably focus more on the Dems too. And it’s going to make me furious and it’s going to be a travesty. It’ll be the most disgusting pig example of media bias and unfairness the free world has ever seen. You just wait. You’ll see. And I’ll be on here again. And I’ll post this again. And you’ll remember me. And the Republicans will lose the white house to a cold, calculating, scheming, shady, secretive, flip-flopping woman with her own ambitions trumping everyone and everything. You’ll see.
I just hope I’m wrong, guys.
November 6th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
VERRRRY interesting. Can’t say I’ve seen any pieces hitting this angle thus far but it rings true. Go MITT.
November 6th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
As for Rudy, I think the democrats are not attacking him because they can’t wait for him to be the nominee. Then they will pounce, and I mean really pounce. I’m sorry, but if it’s between Hillary and Rudy, it will be President Hillary in 2008. (But doesn’t anybody who’s been paying attention already know that?) Furthermore, the media are mostly liberal. They want to see a Rudy/Hillary race because either way, they win. One more thing, whatever happened to Judith Giuliani? Did the campaign send her on some expedition to Antarctica? She is a major liability, and at some point she will become a focal point. If Rudy is the nominee, she will be part of the reason he loses the election, and then it’s bye bye White House. Go Mitt/Ann 2008!!!
November 7th, 2007 at 10:04 am
sam,
I have also tried to forsee how the MSM will cover Mitts sweep in IA. I don’t see them covering it the same way they did the values voter straw poll as you have forseen. The basis for my reasoning is look at the huge boost he received after winning the IA strawpoll and he was the only top tier candidate competing.
November 7th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
but even then, they downplayed his victory by saying, “oh, well, uh, Romney has spent millions on Tv advertising, which has given him a boost, and uh, um, Rudy hasn’t spent a dime and look where he is, cough, sniffle” Of course, implying the twisted logic that Rudy doesn’t have 100% name recognition already. And disregarding the fact that Romney’s advertising is to boost his own name recognition, because the media has given him no coverage until August in comparison to Rudy’s presentations after 9/11 when everyone in the world was watching.
November 8th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
What I think would be useful is to determine how much advertising dollars are spent by the MSM on Rudy’s behalf by promoting him at the national level. Is every time Rudy’s name is mentioned in a little blurb or scenario is it equivalent to a 15 to 30 second commercial?
November 10th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
After reading your article, I e-mailed several pollster companies and a couple news organizations to point out the imbalanced and thus biased polling that excludes WY. I suggest others do this, too, calling media attention to that early primary state. I wish Texas had a caucus because while Romney is my #1 choice, I would rather have Ron Paul or McCain take the nomination than RG.
How much would it cost to have an independent, unbiased poll done of the state of Wyoming? It would be a worthwhile campaign investment for M. Romney or R. Paul to finance.