Morris on State Vs. Federal Polls
National surveys of the presidential races in each party have remained relatively consistent since early in the year. As soon as Giuliani announced his candidacy, he jumped out to a big lead in the Republican primary, an advantage he still enjoys, although recent signs indicate a possible tightening of the contest. John McCain continues to run second, with Mitt Romney mired in a distant third placeI have a lot of respect for Dick Morris, but I am not in full agreement. I see the disparate poll results on the GOP side as little more than an indication of name recognition. Rudy likely took the early lead predominantly because of name recognition, which is precisely the reason that Gov. Romney has lagged. However, Romney was able to take the lead in raising funds. When one is ready to donate money to a political campaign, they do so after reviewing all of the choices--the other candidates. Thus, those willing to donate money to any campaign are more informed than the average American. Romney's massive fund-raising is a sign that those who have done their research have come to the conclusion that Mitt has the best message and is most worthy of their money. At least, this is the conclusion I came to.
But the state-by-state surveys show a very different picture. Romney, buried in the national polls, not only shows the expected lead in his neighboring state of New Hampshire, but also leads the pack in Iowa, while John McCain shows unusual strength in South Carolina. On the Democratic side, Edwards runs ahead in Iowa and Hillary often polls a distant third.
So which set of polls is predictive — the national surveys or the polling in the early-primary states?
My bet is that the national will trump the local.
Labels: Romney 2008