New Hampshire Poll: Good News For Romney
By jbonham76 Posted in Archived — Comments (26) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Franklin Pierce College and WBZ-TV New Hampshire telephone survey March 7-12. (link)
| Giuliani | 29 |
| McCain | 28 |
| Romney | 22 |
| Gingrich | 5 |
| Huckabee | 2 |
| Brownback | 1 |
| Hagel | 1 |
| Hunter | 1 |
| Paul | 1 |
| Tancredo | 1 |
| Gilmore | X |
| Pataki | X |
| Thompson | X |
| Undecided | 9 |
The last New Hampshire poll posted here by Suffolk University had Guiliani at 37% McCain at 27% and Romney at 17%.
According to a political scientist interviewed in context of the WBZ-TV News poll:
How has Romney done it? By running to the right and convincing conservatives he really means it.
"There's been a lot of concerns about his flip-flopping on issues, a lot of people have raised that, this may be an indicator that he's starting to overcome that and establish more conservative credentials with voters," said R. Kelly Myers of Franklin Pierce College.
Romney polls third in experience, with McCain the leader there, and second in leadership, well behind Giuliani. But he finishes first in personal character and, by a wide margin, on his issue positions.
"John McCain and Rudy Giuliani are not natural conservatives, and Romney does very well among self-identified conservatives," Myers said.
If these numbers are any indication, Mitt Romney's best friend in New Hampshire may be Barack Obama. Why? If he draws more-liberal independent voters into the democratic primary, that leaves the GOP call to mostly-conservative rank-and-file republicans. And that scenario is Romney's dream come true.
Ahh, Romney's in 3rd in New Hampshire when he should be in first since they already know the guy up there. Its god news for him but, not great news for his campaign.
Who decided who "Should" be where?
I live in Illinois, 20 miles form WI. If Tommy Thompson runs I doubt people in Illinois would be any more likely to vote for him. It's really a DUMB DUMB DUMB argument based on nothing substantive.
Maybe this poll wasn't such good news for Romney. However I still think his numbers will rise some.
Eye on 08 is a questionable site, it's almost nearly all Anti-Romney all the time. Not to mention Romney has an RCP average in NH of around 17.5% and has been working there heavily. 22% isn't that crazy of a number.
In my opinion Eye on 08 is pretty hard on everybody not just Romney. However there is a new site that is very hostile to Romney.
You must be reading an different EyeOn08. He has admitted to being anti-Romney and Until he was linked to by Pat Ruffini a week or so ago he was averaging 7/10 negative stories on Romney. I keep track of these things.
So are you disputing the fact that Killion used to run Franklin Pierce polling? Because if you don't like eyeon08, it's also on the company's own website.
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
That the fact he used them before does not negate the quality of the poll. Not to mention it was also in conjunction with a local TV station.
I find this really funny Leon that you are making hay of this when you tried to push that asinine "Brownback" Iowa poll that was never linked and only reported by you and Students for Brownback. As I recall when I called that polling company they did not return my calls either. Didn't stop you. I think you have very little credibilty on the issue of polling after that song and dance.
For a Brownback staffer like yourself to question this poll along with avowed Anti-Romneyite Soren Dayton makes me wonder why? Are you worried that Brownback is failing at his losing strategy of being the Anti-Romney? By all accounts he seems to be.
This Poll fits closely the RCP margin of error, Romney has scored 22% before in NH and Romney is gaining in nearly every poll.
Not to mention it was also in conjunction with a local TV station.
Television stations sponsor these polls, they don't conduct them. When you see a poll that, for instance, says "Reuters/Zogby," it's Zogby doing the crappy polling, and Reuters is paying for it. Even if it were true that a local station somehow collaborated in the polling effort, that would actually serve to dilute the accuracy of the polling, not strengthen it.
I find this really funny Leon that you are making hay of this when you tried to push that asinine "Brownback" Iowa poll that was never linked and only reported by you and Students for Brownback.
ccAdvertising is a real polling company, and the polling results were real. You can tell pretty clearly from their website who their clients generally are (hint, not media), but we were being 100% honest when we said that we did not commission those polls. All of that is certainly on the table when it comes to evaluating a poll's credibility, and I've never said anything different. I reported it, people drew their own conclusions, and everyone moved on.
As I recall when I called that polling company they did not return my calls either. Didn't stop you.
I'm actually laughing as I type this. Is it your contention that I'm supposed to question the results of a poll because the company who conducted the polling didn't return the phone calls of a guy who's a blogger for a non-affiliated website called MyManMitt? Gee, I wonder why that didn't stop me at all. I'll tell you what. You call up Gallup, or Zogby, or whoever you like; I don't care. Correctly identify yourself as Mr. Bonham from the blog "My Man Mitt," complain about some random poll (pick one, I don't care), and see if you get a call back. Then come back to me.
In point of fact, the fact that they didn't return your phone call tends to make them more credible, in my opinion.
For a Brownback staffer like yourself to question this poll along with avowed Anti-Romneyite Soren Dayton makes me wonder why?
I have no real opinion on the poll; I haven't studied it to the extent that Soren has. Clearly, he has, and he has some problems. I've not yet evaluated what he has to say, because Brownback hasn't even been to New Hampshire yet, so we don't really have a lot of expectations there. Soren seems to question the poll because he thinks it's crap. I notice that you don't dispute any of the information contained in the post, you instead say only, "Soren Dayton is anti-Romney."
That's called argumentum ad hominem, in case you're wondering. And it's a logical fallacy. That's all I'm pointing out here.
Are you worried that Brownback is failing at his losing strategy of being the Anti-Romney? By all accounts he seems to be.
That isn't Brownback's strategy, as the differences between them are facially obvious and on the record; but "worried about Romney" is the last thing you can say about Camp Brownback.
This Poll fits closely the RCP margin of error, Romney has scored 22% before in NH and Romney is gaining in nearly every poll.
Good for him. That doesn't addres the issues with this particular poll, which was the only thing my post addressed.
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
I'll tell you what. You call up Gallup, or Zogby, or whoever you like; I don't care. Correctly identify yourself as Mr. Bonham from the blog "My Man Mitt," complain about some random poll (pick one, I don't care), and see if you get a call back. Then come back to me
I actually have and have heard back with Rasmussen. I will forward you the email if you would like, just tell me where. When I called CCAdvertising I just said I was a blogger with some q's on the poll. Not a word.
but we were being 100% honest when we said that we did not commission those polls.
Would you like to share who did? Would you like to share why the only information on this poll was controlled by you and no one else? Thanks for the duck.
I notice that you don't dispute any of the information contained in the post, you instead say only, "Soren Dayton is anti-Romney."
Actually I did, you just don't read the first sentence. Soren is anti-Romney- everything he writes is Anti-Romney. Look at his blog. Every positive for Romney he spins to a negative. We have caught him directly lying on his blog. Leaving out facts, and misreporting facts. Nearly everything the guy posts is on Romney. Give me a break. To try and suggest he is a good source for something like this is joke.
Just saw on your Brownback blog that CCAdvertising does some more great polling for Brownback. Can you provide a link for these polls beyond your own blog and Students for Brownback? Can you tell me who is paying for them and letting only you and Students for Brownback have the results if it's not the campaign?
You'll notice, first of all, that this time, they show us behind (slightly) in Iowa - dead last out of five, in fact. So, if we're paying them to make up results in our favor, they're doing a crappy job. But they're not. As I've said in another comment downthread, I honestly don't know who's paying for them, except that it's not us. Now, I've been posting here for over two years, and I think everybody here knows I'm not just going to offer a bald-faced lie like this, so if you want to just call me a liar go ahead and do it and see where it gets you. But as I explained in the other comment, this company has done a lot of work for a lot of candidates, and if your assertion is that they're just making stuff up, or that they're lying about the methodology that they use, you've got a pretty high burden of proof.
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
Starbucks coffee cups are dangerous, but
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
The HinzSight Report
The Minority Report
Race 4 2008
Did you see, by the way, that Vandy is no. 2, and the Gamecocks no. 3, in baseball? Gonna be a great SEC season.
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
sports program consolidation a few years ago. They are doing well, and very well for a major academic powerhouse. They have their football program getting more competitive as well.
As to USC, will it be 2 or 3 years before Spurrier takes us all the way!
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
Starbucks cups hurl
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
I actually have and have heard back with Rasmussen. I will forward you the email if you would like, just tell me where. When I called CCAdvertising I just said I was a blogger with some q's on the poll. Not a word.
Thus being a fundamental difference between a company that does polls primarily for a public audience and one that, you know, doesn't. I was talking about a phone call besides.
Would you like to share who did?
I would, but I don't know, and that's the honest truth.
Would you like to share why the only information on this poll was controlled by you and no one else? Thanks for the duck.
Other people have the information, but they're not dispensing it. As for why we have it for public release, it's not that hard to figure out, but it's not something I'm at liberty to divulge. If your contention is that they just make up polls out of thin air, I'd suggest you notivfy these people immediately (among others, who I know aren't on the list), because I'm sure they'll be pissed.
Actually I did, you just don't read the first sentence. Soren is anti-Romney- everything he writes is Anti-Romney. Look at his blog. Every positive for Romney he spins to a negative. We have caught him directly lying on his blog. Leaving out facts, and misreporting facts. Nearly everything the guy posts is on Romney. Give me a break. To try and suggest he is a good source for something like this is joke.
You seem to be unable to separate "disputing information in the post" from "disputing the reliability of the source of the post." Which means that, surprisingly in this day and age, argumentum ad hominem really is a logical fallacy, and not just a dishonest debating technique.
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
The problem is with these polls is that you make insinuations that the NH poll is somehow questionable because some guy once worked for them, yet you use polls (today no less) that are more than questionable. How you have them is more than questionable. The fact that you give weight to Soren's argument when it clearly can be used to discredit your own use of polls is questionable. I know you are an overall upstanding guy, but no one is free from criticism- even if you were blogging here in '57.
Thus being a fundamental difference between a company that does polls primarily for a public audience and one that, you know, doesn't.
Apparently you forgot that you asked me to ask any reputable polling places- you issue the challenged,and lost sorry. Here it is in case you forgot it:
I'll tell you what. You call up Gallup, or Zogby, or whoever you like; I don't care. Correctly identify yourself as Mr. Bonham from the blog "My Man Mitt," complain about some random poll (pick one, I don't care), and see if you get a call back. Then come back to me.
Sounds like public companies, sounds like I fit your requirements. I can still email the results if you would like.
You seem to be unable to separate "disputing information in the post" from "disputing the reliability of the source of the post."
I don't dispute the fact of whether the gentleman in question worked for the company in question. What I do question is if that fact has any bearing to the poll itself which (according to your previous arguments on the polls you use) it doesn't. I stated this in the first sentence in the original comment. I clearly showed by the RCP average and the amount of time Romney has spent in NH recently leaves this poll well within the realm of possibility. Soren suffers from a bad case of sour grapes.
*I* did not cast aspersions on the veracity of the poll. I asked *you* whether you had anything to factually refute any of the points which Soren raised - which appear, on the surface, to be potential problems with the poll. As I've said repeatedly in this thread, I'm agnostic on the poll. I was *curious* to know whether you had some information that whatever Soren said was not true. I think, after a great many back-and-forths, that the answer to this question is "no," but that you nonetheless feel confident that it's accurate because it jibes with what you see elsewhere, which is fine, and a plausible argument. As I've said, I have no reason to believe that Romney isn't somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 per cent in New Hampshire. So, I think my questions here have been answered.
I would also point out that I said "call" not "email," which is what you claimed that you did with ccAdvertising. Response rates here differ. For instance, Gallup does not give you a hint as to their phone number.
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
1. Sounds like you agree (to a degree) and I apologize if I misread your comments. But considering that eye on 08 is devoutly negative to Romney and you are negative to Romney (and officially represent a candidate who directly attacks Romney by sending people to follow him around and chant at CPAC- and has been reported as having the strategy of trying to be the anti-romney in several publications) and you asked me to prove something with the poll, the inference is easily made that you doubt the poll. But if that wasn't the case please accept my apologies.
2. Call, email, why would there be any difference? That's not a good out. Are you suggesting that CCAdvertising would respond to an email and not a phone call? They didn't even know who I was when I called them. Just a guy named Jason leaving a message with some more questions.
They [ccadvertising] didn't even know who I was when I called them. Just a guy named Jason leaving a message with some more questions.
Do you really expect polling companies to know who you are? Do you expect them to return your calls to answer questions about their polls?
If the answer is "yes" I'd suggest that you have an inflated opinion of you and your blog's importance in the journalistic world.
If the answer is "no" then you would appear to have been hypocritical in criticising the polling company and its poll for not returning your call.
I'm curious as to which one it is.
I see that he got no votes, but I thought that Pataki was officially no longer a candidate as of a while ago. Can anyone back me up on this?
Jason-
This is a good sign!
Thanks for posting this info.
God Bless,
Jim
www.iowansforromney.com