To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

Statewide opinion polling for the 2008 Republican Party presidential primaries

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is a collection of statewide public opinion polls that have been conducted relating to the Republican presidential primaries, 2008, typically using standard statistical methodology.

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/4
    Views:
    1 614
    17 003
    502
    428
  • ✪ Rep. Jamie Raskin and Trent England Debate "Electoral College v. Popular Vote"
  • ✪ Jay: A Rockefeller's Journey
  • ✪ United States presidential election, 1960
  • ✪ United States presidential election, 2016

Transcription

- My name's Eric, I'm the president of Georgetown Law Students for Democratic Reform. We're excited to be hosting this debate with the Georgetown Federalist Society, on a very critical topic, how we elect U.S. presidents, and I'm gonna let our expert speakers tell you a lot more about that, but I just wanted to briefly introduce our moderator, Professor Paul Smith, he is the resident election law expert here at Georgetown. Distinguished career in a public practice in numerous electoral cases of the Supreme Court. - Most of which I lost. (audience laughing) - Including the recent Wisconsin (cough drowns out speaker) case (mumbles) this last fall you probably thought about. He's the VP of the Litigation and Strategy at the Campaign Legal Center and we're very happy to have him here. So please give him and our debaters a round of applause, and let's get started. (audience applauding) - Thank you, Eric. Let me introduce our speakers briefly, we are really lucky to have both of them here. To the further left, Congressman Jamie Raskin of the 8th district in Maryland. He was elected to the House in 2016, so he's kinda new. Previously served three terms as state senator in the Maryland General Assembly, where he's also the Senate Majority Whip. And for more than 25 years, Congressman Raskin's also been professor of Constitutional Law at American University, Washington College of Law. And he is a long-time advocate for electoral and campaign finance reform. Including having served on the board of FairVote and is a strong supporter of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which we're gonna hear more about in this conversation. Trent England is the executive vice president at the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, a state-based public policy research organization that analyzes issues from the perspective of limited government, individual liberty, and free market economy. Mister England directs both the Center for the Constitution and Freedom and the Save Our States project. He is also the David and Ann Brown Distinguished Fellow for the Advancement of Liberty as well as an adjunct fellow of the Freedom Foundation, and he is a strong supporter of the electoral college, which is why he's here. So, let me start things off. With the congressman, since he's a congressman, you know. We've had the Electoral College Congressman for now 229 years, or whatever it may be. And what's so bad about it, why should we do something about it? - Well, the first thing I gotta say is that, well, first, thank you for having me, I'm delighted to be here, and thanks to the Students for Democratic Reform, and also to the Federalist Society for putting it together. The National Popular Vote plan does not abolish the Electoral College. It changes the way we're using the Electoral College to advance a national popular vote. If you consult your Constitutions, you'll see that in Article II, Section one, the states are given what the Supreme Court has described as exclusive and absolute plenary power to decide how to award their electors. And in the last few centuries, states have used everything from awarding electors by Congressional district, to, which a couple of states still do today, mainly in Nebraska. To doing it by specially appointed presidential districts, which a lot used to do to naming specific people in state law as the electors to the system that most states use today, which is winner take all. But it's up to the legislatures to do it and the Supreme Court re-emphasized that as recently as 2000 in Bush versus Gore. So, the National Popular Vote campaign starts with that insight, that it's up to the legislature side to do it. And we say that we're gonna appoint our electors according to who wins the national popular vote, not who wins the vote in our state. And I'm proud that I was the first state legislator to introduce this in the state of Maryland, which became the first state to pass the National Popular Vote Agreement, the Interstate Compact, they're now about a dozen states on it, and the District of Columbia, we're more than halfway there in terms of getting to 270 electors, which of course is the number you need to win in a presidential contest and the Electoral College and that activates the compact. Why do we need to do it? Well, I've got a whole little presentation about that, should I wait to give it to you? - Yeah, go for it. - Or should I go for it? Basically. - You each have a little bit of chunk of time up front here to state your positions. - Okay. The problems I think are both intuitive and obvious, but then, also quite subtle and complex. Let's start with the intuitive and obvious ones. Our elections are not democratic. They don't choose the candidate who wins most votes. We don't guarantee a majority vote winner. We don't even guarantee a plurality vote winner. Because of the way that the elections are designed, so in two of our last five elections, the popular vote loser, George W. Bush in 2000, and Donald Trump in 2016, has prevailed in the Electoral College, so we don't have a democratic system for electing the president, which comes as quite a shock to maybe a majority of the American people who think that we've got one, and certainly, when you ask people, do you wanna use an electoral college system, state-based electors? Or do you wanna just have the person who gets the most votes win? Overwhelming majority say, in every poll, that they want to have a national popular vote plan. Now think about it. This is how we elect governors, this is how we elect U.S. senators, this is how we elect U.S. representatives, it's how we elect mayors, council members, everybody's elected that way. Think of it this way, which is the way that the founders invited us to think of it, like Thomas Jefferson, who always said, "Think anew." If you were to set up presidential elections today, would you have a national popular vote for president? Or would you come up with something like the Electoral College vote system? And I daresay the vast majority of people would say, let's just do it the way we do everything else, whoever gets the most votes wins. One person, one vote, every vote counts, and every vote counts equally, everywhere in the country. Well, what's the effect of not doing it that way? Well, there are bizarre perversities that arise within our system. In 2016, 95% of campaign resources and campaign visits went to a dozen states. And 2/3 of the resources went to six states. Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, you know what the swing states are. As millennials, you make your decisions about where to register to vote based on the electoral college in your state, and the closeness of the election, people understand exactly how the system works if they're politically engaged and sophisticated. But in the vast majority of the country, there's no presidential election. So, think of our four biggest states, New York, Florida, Texas, and California. Three of the four are safe blue or red states, so there's no presidential election to speak of in New York. There's no presidential election to speak of in California. Everybody knows those two states are blue. There's no presidential election to speak of in Texas, everybody knows it's red. Only Florida, one out of the four top states, has a real competitive election, where the resources the campaigns are put in to set up offices, to have door knocking, to have campaigning TV ads and so on, and it's a total shut down and flyover territory in other places. So you say, aha! It works the way the founders wanted it to work. It works for the small states. Not at all. If you look at the dozen smallest states, 11 of the 12 are themselves flyover territory. So think about Rhode Island or Delaware or the District of Columbia or Hawaii, small blue states. They're ignored by the Democrats, they're ignored by the Republicans because if you think like a campaign strategist, you gotta put your resources where the real election is happening. Similarly, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Idaho, flyover red states. Neither party goes to compete there. That's true of most of the states in the country and it's true of most American people. We're just bypassed by the election. I'm from Maryland, a blue state, and proudly so. I chaired the Obama campaign in 2008 as a state senator in Montgomery County, which has a million people in it. We could not get campaign lawn signs in Montgomery County from the campaign. They said, "No, we're sending everything to Virginia. "You send all your volunteers to Virginia "and you send all your money to Virginia." And it's not because they had contempt for Maryland. It's not because they wanted to undernourish our campaign organizations and our campaign activity, although that was the clear result of it. It was because of the strategic necessity to go to the swing states. And that's a tiny minority of the states. And that's the way the system works. And it's just bizarre and perverse and nobody would set it up that way. In fact, we spend millions or tens of millions of dollars teaching other countries about how to write a constitution, how to set up elections. One thing we never export is the electoral college. No other country would ever say, oh yeah, let's do our elections the way you do your presidential elections in America. It just doesn't happen. This is an artifact, it is a relic. And I can get into the history if you're interested. But it's not working for us anymore. It invites strategic mischief and corruption at the state level, which it very clearly did in 2000. As in Florida where the Bush campaign chair doubled as the state election supervisor, Katherine Harris, and managed to oversee strategic vote suppression from the beginning of the campaign to the end of the campaign. And if you can settle an election in Florida by 537 votes, which they did, out of tens of millions cast, you get all the electors in the state. That also escalates the possibility and the invitation, the moral hazard of strategic mischief from abroad now. In 2016, Vladimir Putin showed himself to be extremely savvy about how our electoral college works. And the Russian trolls tried to get into 21 state election computer systems. As far as we know, unsuccessfully, but they tried to hack in. If you can hack in to one or two states, you could decide the entire election because of the way that it works. As opposed to having a real national election where the chances of a tie or an election being settled by a few hundred votes is almost nil. And mathematicians can explain to you why that's the case. So, basically, this system is obsolete. It's creaky, it's vulnerable, it's inefficient, it's un-Democratic, it's un-Republican. Sometimes they say, this is the great wisdom of the founders. They wanted to deliberate about who should be president. It doesn't work like that, right? No electors deliberate, in fact, most states have laws against deliberation. They're saying, you've gotta vote automatically, robotically for whichever state electoral delegation you're put on and so you've gotta vote for whoever wins in that state. So, it's explicitly opposed to deliberation. And let me just, final point, is that the way that democratic change has taken place in America. And it's always in a democratic direction if you look at our Constitution, right? So you look at the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery, the 14th Amendment equal protection. 15th Amendment extends voting rights regardless of race. The 17th Amendment shifted mode of election of U.S. senators from the legislatures to the people. The 19th Amendment gives us woman suffrage. 23rd Amendment gives people in D.C. the right to participate in presidential elections. 24th Amendment abolishes the poll tax. 26th Amendment lowers the voting age to 18. All of them are opening democracy up and they're replacing indirect filters that were put into the original Constitution. And it is almost always by state legislative action first. Like what we're doing with the National Popular Vote, it bubbles up from the states. People say, this is ridiculous, what's going on? For example, in the 17th Amendment, direct election of U.S. senators before it got into the Constitution in the 17th Amendment, was done by the way of state legislators saying, we will be bound by the popular vote in the states. And that's essentially what we're doing in the National Popular Vote Campaign. We're saying the state legislators will be bound to give their electors to whoever wins in the nationwide vote. It's not ideal, because it's never ideal because it's messy trying to replace a really broken and corrupted system like this. I think that once we have one or two election cycles like that, we will then be able to force Congress to go ahead and to amend the Constitution. It'll be sent out to the states and it'll be passed unanimously or overwhelming by the states. And we've got Democratic and Republican support, including Newt Gingrich, who has spoken out for it. It's passed mostly in blue states so far, but a number of Republican held state legislative chambers have passed it, including the New York Senate, the Oklahoma House and a number of other Republican. We've got bipartisan support across. - [Paul] Including Oklahoma apparently. - Yeah. And let me close with Donald Trump quotes. 'Cause (audience laughing) Donald Trump said. Let me just read you, he said, this was in 2012 when he believed, wrongly, but he did believe that Romney was about to lose to, that Romney was gonna win in the popular vote but lose in the Electoral College vote and he wrote or he tweeted, "The Electoral College is a disaster for democracy. "A total sham and a travesty "that makes us the laughingstock of the world." And on that point, I do agree with Donald Trump. (audience laughing) - Thank you, Congressman. Mister England, you have a lot to respond to there, so I guess we'll give you the floor. - I do and I'm glad to see Donald Trump support to that side of the table. (audience laughing) That's okay with me. - [Paul] I think that was rhetorical. (audience laughing) - So, yeah, I wanna respond to a few things, but I wanna talk just at the very beginning about how to think about the Electoral College, just how to think about an electoral system because I think sometimes we make a lot of assumptions, and frankly, I mean a couple of things that were stated just simply aren't true, I think helps to walk me into that. There are other countries that use electoral colleges, there are other countries that use systems that are maybe even more counterintuitive according to the rationale just described to select their chief executive. They're called parliamentary systems. India, which if you wanna look around the world and look for nations with large, diverse populations, a lot of risks of regionalism, India has, you know what they have? They have an electoral college, actually call it that. Other countries have multi-step selections of their chief executive that actually have been found, I think maybe both of us were at an MIT conference where they talked about elections a few years ago and one of the points some of those researchers have identified is that systems like France, depending on how you look at it, there are different ways to think about electoral legitimacy. But multi-stage direct election schemes actually oftentimes have less legitimacy because of that first step weeding out candidates who would have won had they made it to the final round, if you will, relative to the electoral college. So it's not even obvious that this is some outlier, actually it's obvious this isn't some outlier, right? Parliamentary systems as I mentioned are found all around the world. And when we talk about a national executive and we talk about representing a large and diverse nation, right, we're talking about something that is obviously inherently more complicated than a state legislative district or even a governor's race. So I wanna put that out there first. Secondly, this whole law school exists because we don't make decisions in the United States simply based on public opinion polls. Right? And I daresay that there's not a single person in this room who thinks that every provision of the Bill of Rights should be subject to majority will, right? That is one of the things that we value as Americans is majority will. And is our electoral process, it's not the only thing. And I often, I'll tell people, people will say, "Oh the Electoral College is not perfectly democratic." Say look, if you're upset about that, let me show you some things in the Constitution that aren't just imperfectly democratic, let me show you some things in the Constitution that say to majorities, you can never do this and you can never do that and of course, it starts in the Bill of Rights. Well, it starts before the Bill of Rights. But it's explicit in the Bill of Rights. Right? We don't say that majority will is the only thing we value as Americans, so there must be some other ways to think about a presidential election process. And I'm gonna suggest a couple of these. One of 'em I already alluded to. That is legitimacy. That is perceptions of legitimacy and also how many people actually buy into and support the winner of the election. And as I say, it is obviously when you just go and ask people, how should we run elections in the United States? Right, people tend to just have this idea about maybe how they work or how they should work. But when you dive into public opinion polling, you dive into how elections work, not just in the United States, but in other places. It is not obvious, right, that Electoral College is this outlier, there are a lot of people, majorities of people in many cases, who are upset with the way their systems work in places, like France and places like Britain and places like India. So, other questions. Fundamentally, does it work? Does it work, is it stable, does it function? I wanna come back to that with a historical story when I close. Finally, incentives. What are the incentives created by the electoral system? And by the way, I'm not gonna sit here and tell you that the Electoral College is perfect with regard to any of these. Right, I tend to agree with Winston Churchill when it comes to the idea of elections in general. He said, "Democracy is the worst way to run a government "except that every other way that's been tried "is even worse," right? There's no perfect system, I think sometimes it's easy to say, well, the Electoral College some people don't like it and people disagree with it and there's been fraud and there's been this and there's been that. Well, those things happen, fraud happens in county commissioner races. Fraud happens in state legislative races, right? The idea that fraud is something unique to the Electoral College, obviously, is just flat wrong. But what are the incentives that an electoral system creates? And when we think about national politics, one of the challenges of the Electoral College is that it's been so successful. The incentives created by the Electoral College have been so successful. I'll talk about regionalism, right, and one of the great concerns of the founders, read George Washington's farewell address. That was his big concern, right, it was regionalism. And people don't, I'll throw this out, nowadays people say, "Well, we don't have that." So why don't we have that? It's sort of counterintuitive. We used to have a lot of regionalism. I mean a lot of really nasty regional politics in the United States. Why is we don't have that anymore? And let me give you one historical example of how this played out. That goes directly to the Electoral College. I mean I'd love to hear if somebody has some other explanation for this. But think about, I don't have to have electoral maps for post Civil War American politics, right? Everybody knows. Democratic party, very strong in the South. Republican party, strong in the North, not as strong as the Democrats were in the South, but dominant in the North, right? This was the party divide post Civil War in the United States. And long story short, there were two elections where the Electoral College came into play in the obvious way. Obviously the incentives it creates are effective to some degree in every election. But 1876, the Democrats almost win. Historians have looked back at that and say, some people say, "Oh, it's a corrupt bargain." Historians have looked back at that and said, actually, the Electoral College swung the election away from the person who committed fraud, away from the party that committed fraud. If you don't want the fraudster to win, it was a right winner election, not a wrong winner election. 1888, however, when historians look at that, they see Grover Cleveland losing reelection in 1888 because even though he won the most raw popular votes, he did not win the geographically distributed majority that the Electoral College requires. What was the effect of that? People will say, "Wrong winner election." "Bad for legitimacy." "Wrong winner election." What was the effect of that? The Democrats in that election got 84% in South Carolina, over 70% in four other southern states. Right. The Democratic party coalition in 1888 is very easy to understand. Right? It was a coalition built around the deep South, cranking out popular votes in the deep South. Suppressing minority votes and suppressing Republican votes in the deep South. And I'm not saying this to make a partisan point 'cause obviously, a lot of things have changed since then. But that was how they got a raw popular vote majority. And it didn't work. The Electoral College said that doesn't work. Cranking out votes in South Carolina and in Georgia and Florida, that's not enough. You have to have better geographical distribution than that. Somehow this political party that was very regional, that could've won popular vote elections based on that regional strength had to do something really strange. Had to reach out to northern Catholics in particular. Right, that's really weird. Right, that's actually, when you think about who is supporting the Democratic party in the South in the 1880s, that's actually very counterintuitive. Why would they do that, right? Well, they notice that the Republicans were lazy, the Republicans said, we've got this thing locked down, and so we can be bigots to these new immigrants from places like Ireland and places like Italy in the North. And the Democrats said, look we'd love to keep our 84% in South Carolina, but look, we can lose. We can lose 10%, 20%, right, from the extreme if we can pick up enough votes in the North and in some of these new western states to win elections. The Electoral College creates incentive, right, that force parties not just to (mumbles) up as much intensity as they can in their strongest areas, but forces the kind of fifty state strategy that former DNC chairman talked about. I think is good for our country. And is at least something that you should weigh in the balance against all of the rhetoric about how, well, you know, we should just have a raw vote system and wouldn't that be more straightforward. I've got a lot more things to say, but National Popular Vote Interstate Compact specifically I think I'll hold that off because I suspect we'll get to that. - Right. - A lot of risks inherent in that way of trying to address things. - [Paul] We'll definitely get to that. - But, yeah, I'll leave it there. - So just so I understand it. I get the incentive not to just get all your votes from South Carolina, or in this case, it would be California. But what is the perception of legitimacy that comes from the Electoral College. - Well, so. - Seems so counterintuitive. - The test, I mean there are different ways to think of legitimacy, right? How many people are sort of happy with the election outcome? How many people voted for the winner? How many people supported the winner at the beginning? I think that was the test that where the Electoral College tended to do better than systems like the French system. - As compared to a national popular vote system, it's. - Well, the French system is a national popular vote system, right. - Yeah, I know. - And the problem there is when you have a bunch of, and parliamentary systems all have this, but, if, I mean, what's funny is people don't think about prime minister elections even in this way because it's so obviously undemocratic. Right? That people get away saying, well, we're an outlier around the world all the other countries do it this other way, because they forget that every prime minister is elected through a system that's clearly less representative of popular will than - In England. - It's a parliamentary system but we don't have a parliamentary system. - Yeah. - And that was rejected by our founders. - Well, it. - We have a president. - But it's misleading to say. - Well. - That we're an outlier when most of these other countries that we think of as functioning democracies around the world are parliamentary. - Of those countries who elect presidents we're an outlier in using electoral college rather than a direct popular vote. And again, I would challenge you to find one country that has written a constitution over the last several decades with American help that has adopted an electoral college system. - Well, India's a little older than that. - It is much older than that. Can I respond to some of this historical stuff? - I think the historical stuff's real interesting. - Yeah. - I think it would be good to get a response. - Yeah, okay. Well, let's grab the bull by the horns. The history of the Electoral College is completely intertwined with slavery and race. And the Three-Fifths Compromise plays the central role here. And if you haven't studied this in your Com Law classes tell your Com Law professors you need to spend some time with it. The Southern states took the position at the Constitutional Convention that the African American slaves should count 100% for purposes of reapportionment. Now they didn't want them to count for anything else, they didn't wanna give them the right to vote or to run for office, but they said they should count 100% that way they would inflate the power of the Southern congressional delegations. The anti-slavery Northerners said this is ridiculous. You don't allow them to vote, you're not gonna allow them to run for office. Why should they count at all? And after going back and forth they arrived at the Three-Fifths Compromise which was based on a figure that was actually in the Articles of Confederation with respect to taxation. But they came up with the Three-Fifths Compromise. What was the effect of that? The effect of it was basically to take a million slaves in the South and to count them, 600,000 of them, for the purposes of increasing the congressional delegations from Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, and so on, through the southern states. There were more than a dozen new representatives elected in 1800, the first census that took place after the Constitution was developed and they got going. Okay. This is why, as you know the Electoral College follows the number of representatives you have. So if you get a dozen extra representatives from the southern states, that's a dozen extra electors that go to the southern states. This is why Thomas Jefferson was called, was the so-called negro president because his critics said that he was elected on the power of the slave representation in the southern states. And there's a book of that title by Garry Wills, which is all about the Three-Fifths Compromise, okay. Four out of our five first presidents were slave masters from Virginia who brought slaves with them into the White House. Seven out of our first 10 presidents were slave masters who brought slaves with them into the presidency. The Electoral College has always had this Dixie accent to it, this kind of Southern accent, even after the Civil War. Even in the 20th century a number of Southerners when the Democratic Party began to move left on civil rights, a number of Southern Democrats left the Democratic party and ran as Independents, like Strom Thurmond, like George Wallace, like Harry Byrd from Virginia, in order to send a very sharp signal to the Democratic party about what the cost would be politically if they didn't keep that Electoral College coalition intact. Now, your whole presentation, of course, was based on the historical, I already, the two sides have flipped. Today, of course, the solid South is a Republican phenomenon. Now, the Democrats have been able to eat into it in Virginia and a couple of other states. But basically the Deep South from the Confederacy remains together in the party of white supremacy, which is the party of the president today, of Donald Trump. Okay, so they just switched sides which is all that you were explaining in your discussion a bit. Legitimacy, I think it's had very little legitimacy at all. I mean why do you think Donald Trump has been talking from the very first day about how there were five million people who voted illegally? He understands intuitively, instinctively, it's not a legitimate result, which is why he had to say, there were millions of people who voted mysteriously and somehow got Hillary Clinton three million more votes than he got in the presidential election. So I think everybody senses that a minority vote winner, or a majority vote loser who becomes president starts off at a huge disadvantage in terms of legitimacy. And oftentimes takes the country in directions the country doesn't wanna go. Like George W. Bush did in the Iraq war or Donald Trump and his party did in trying to repeal Affordable Care Act So. - So, what's your response to the argument? Which I think bears response that if we didn't have the Electoral College, the Democratic party would basically just rack up votes in California and New York. - Can I make? - And stop trying to represent North Carolina, South Carolina. - I want everybody to think of this question like a political campaigner. If you were a campaign manager, okay? Has anybody here ever managed a campaign? Where did you manage campaigns? - [Audience Member] South Carolina. - South Carolina, okay. Was it a statewide campaign? - Yeah. - Oh, for governor or? - [Audience Member] Oh, no, no, I'm sorry. It was representative for state (mumbles). - Okay. Did anybody ever manage a statewide campaign? Well, let's go back to South Carolina. If you were managing a gubernatorial campaign in South Carolina, wouldn't you say, let's figure out. Are you Republican or Democrat or? - [Audience Member] I am a Republican. - Okay, if you were trying to figure out where to go get votes, wouldn't you say, we're just gonna go to the counties that are majority Republican? Or would you say, let's go find all the Republican votes we can and let's try to campaign among the Independents and Democrats too? And of course, everybody understands that's how you run for statewide office. When you're in California, you don't say, I'm just gonna campaign in the two biggest cities, L.A. or San Francisco and write off the other 50% of the state. The state I know best is Maryland. You'd be crazy if you thought you were gonna run for governor of Maryland as a Democrat and say, "I'm just gonna go to Baltimore and Montgomery County, "and Prince George's County." Or, I'm just gonna run as a Republican and I'm gonna go to the eastern shore in western Maryland, and I'm gonna, I mean it just doesn't work like that. Do you know what I mean? So, I challenge the premise that any campaign manager or candidate would do anything other than go out and try to get votes everyplace the best they can. Now, if there's limited resources there will be a proportionate allocation of the money. But we've got eight congressional districts in Maryland and both parties would have every incentive to go and try to get votes in each one of them. - Okay, let's let Mister England respond. - Pollsters and consultants make millions of dollars on statewide races trying to figure out where to spend marginal campaign dollars and it's not, obviously, a question of if there are limited resources, there always are limited resources. And I mean, it's sort of hard to understand why pollsters and consultants make so much money on these statewide races in places like California, but also places like Maryland, if they're not really doing anything other than just telling the candidate where the population base is. Obviously, there's a little more going on even in these direct election systems. - Will you yield so I can respond to that? - Hang on. - Okay. - Let me get back to the history. Look the historical argument seems to come down to this, between what I said, what Representative Raskin said, is, think of it this way, right. If you had a political system set up somewhere on some island by some vicious, racist bastard and you go there 20 years or 200 years later and you look at how that system's functioning. Would you ask the question, was the guy who set this up a vicious, racist bastard or would you ask the question, is this system producing results that are better for equality or not? But look, you would ask the later question, right? You would not say, well, actually this system has produced this growing, I mean, we heard about this expansion of democratic rights in the United States of America under this system where we had the Electoral College and everything's wonderful and we talk about expanding democratic rights and all of this. And we've got a Bill of Rights written by, actually the same people who designed the Electoral College, and the Electoral College is actually just based on Congress. So if we're concerned about the Three-Fifths Compromise and all that, we should go back and look at Congress before we look at the Electoral College. But I think just, again back to how we think about these questions. I love the Electoral College because it takes me to these kind of, how do we actually evaluate this, right? Do we care more about the fact that Thomas Jefferson was a racist and a slave owner or do we care more about the fact that the reason why the Democratic party became the party of F.D.R. and the party of J.F.K. is because of incentives built into the system by the Electoral College. Thomas Jefferson didn't understand that. I'm glad he didn't, I'm okay with that. But we can understand that now. We don't have to go back and sort of be so fascinated with the American founding that we miss the bigger picture of what has happened since then. I think when you look at what's happened since then and the incentives created by the Electoral College, the system at least makes a lot more sense than the kind of ad hominem approach to. - Could I ask a question back, Professor Smith, just about the targeting race? - [Paul] Be my guest. - Well, what I'm saying is that under national popular vote there will be an allocation of resources proportionate to where the votes are. And in fact, one of the dramatic things that's taking place today is that you get 10% higher turnout in swing states than you get in safe states, where there's no campaigning, there's no offices set up, there's no TV ads, and so on. But there's huge turnout in Ohio and Florida, but much less so in California or Texas or New York 'cause nobody's telling you to go vote and nobody's organizing you, right? So there's proportional allocation and where is it? It goes to the states that just by coincidence happen to have relatively equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans, okay? That's where the targeting goes. Under a national popular vote plan, the targeting will go to where all the voters are. So everybody's part of it, every vote will count equally. The Republicans will have to go to California and try to build the Republican party and that'll be good for political competitiveness in California. The Democrats will go to Texas to look for votes there and to try to, if they get an extra 100,000, 200,000 votes there, even if they lose in Texas, those votes still count for the overall total. - So what you're saying is that there's an incentive to go to a red state for the Democrats, even if they don't get over the 50% line, but if they can get 30 or 40% that's valuable. - Yeah, but also, the Republicans take Texas for granted like the Democrats take California or Maryland for granted. We had no visits from either Republicans or Democrats in the entire state of Maryland, five million people. I'm not saying we're as big as California or we're as big as Florida, but we're big enough to have somebody come there and talk to us about what we're concerned with. The FairVote book, which you should check out, called "Every Vote Equal" talks about some of the policy distortions that take place because of the focus on the swing states and the way that there's a huge amount of federal resources that are channeled before presidential elections into Florida, in Ohio, in order to move them. And you get distortions in the right wing Cuban vote in Florida because it's a swing constituency within a swing state, and so a lot of people, Democrats and Republicans go and pander to them, even if they're representing a position that's a tiny minority in terms of what the rest of the country feels. - [Paul] Alright, so Mister England, you can respond to that. But let me ask you another question as well. What do you say to the fact that the Electoral College has worked tolerably well, 'cause most of the time it follows popular vote and then we have this kind of bizarre random exceptions which happen, 13,000 vote margins in one state or another. That's what makes the thing seem so bizarre, that it, people don't pay any attention to it until you have this essentially accidental crack up every. - Well, see. - [Paul] Sometimes, it's starting to happen more often, of course. - I mean I disagree with a little bit of the premise of the question. - That's fair. - For this reason, right. Well, I mean the problem is the incentives in the Electoral College operate in every election. But we only see, and the Electoral College decides every election, right, every election is decided by the Electoral College outcome, it's just that usually the popular vote outcome is the same. And I mean you go back to, you go back to 2000, people have said this, obviously after this last election and I think it laughable. But after the 2000 election Karl Rove said, and I think this is probably true, but impossible to prove the counter factual, that if the rules had been different, they would've ran a different campaign. - Sure. - They would've won the most popular vote, right, I mean that's obviously at least possible. - Give him the chance to do it. - If not, but that's, again, the question is, right. - Yeah. - What are those incentives that we only wind up talking about when we see this contrast, we see this difference. - Do you care that the election takes place in, at most a dozen states and usually six states. - Yeah, let me talk about that because. - [Paul] 'Cause that's important, yeah. - I mean, it is important, but again it's misleading. I have read the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact material on this targeting the swing states. And what's so funny to me, and about the whole conversation around it is, what's a swing state? A swing state's a state that tends to be politically evenly divided, right? Well, what does that mean you have in swing states? That means you have, you tend to have more swing congressional districts, potentially. You certainly have swing U.S. Senate seats, in many cases at least, right? And there's a lot more going on in our electoral system than just the presidential election and. - So you mean they're like little laboratories for the whole country? - Well. - Instead of having direct democracy, everybody vote, those states are like a proxy. - Well, I'm not defend, I'm just pointing it out. I'm just pointing out. - Oh. - There's something a little bit disingenuous about saying, the Electoral College is the reason for pork. Right? Obviously there are a lot of things going on there. I mean you and I would probably agree on things like gerrymandering that are, I think much more corrosive to our system. I'm sorry. - It's the same problem. - Yeah, well, it's related to why elections have become so close. We have much better technology, micro-targeting, and just the way campaigns are run today. But look, the fact is, I've run for office, much less successfully than you have. But campaigns are always making decisions, I mean, other than the very smallest. Look, this is part of why I'm a conservative, I'm a localist, subsidiary, federalism, push the power down, right? Because ultimately when you push the power up the whole idea of representation becomes very fuzzy and almost spiritual rather than actual in my opinion. But, the reality is that campaigns are always making decisions about who to talk to. I mean I was told, yeah, the reason you lost that election, one of the times that I ran was 'cause you tried to, I just literally told this. You tried to treat every voter equally. You didn't focus on the people who, you could've told, you could've hired a better consultant to tell you, you should focus on these people and ignore all these people, right? And this is the standard reason why first time candidates get shellacked is because they don't understand that. They wanna live in this world where I just talk to everybody, I just treat everybody equally, and that's how you lose elections, right? The fact is if you abolish the Electoral College under any system you will get a shuffling of the deck when it comes to things like pork, when it comes to which voters get focused on. You will shuffle that all up. You will not have the same political map, but you will still have a political map and it won't just be this smooth purple map of the whole country. That's not how elections work, right? That's not why Karl Rove and David Plouffe and all those guys make a lot of money, right? They make money micro-targeting Americans whether it's a presidential race or a gubernatorial race. And I just, I worry, I guess I feel like that's not the right conversation, right? There's a legitimate debate, Electoral College or not. But that's a false promise. That if you do away with it you'll have what we have in Congress, right? You'll have swing areas of the country. You're still gonna have a lot of people left behind because they. - Let me ask a different question. - Limited resources. - To change the subject a little bit. I think a lot of people have the assumption that the reason we have an Electoral College was that they were supposed to a bulwark against popular will and that they were supposed to deliberate in some way and decide that the person chosen by the majority was bad. Is there any historical validity to that at all? - That is what they assumed. - Well. - And not what they did from the very first election. - Okay if you reconstruct what was taking place back in the 18th century. First of all, there was no right to vote in the Constitution. It was not government of the people, by the people and for the people as our last great Republican would come to describe it as. It was a slave republic of white male property owners in most places. It didn't even make sense to talk about a popular vote. And they wanted to make sure that every part of the country got to participate the way it could. Now there were proposals for state legislatures electing the president. There were proposals for members of Congress electing the president. And then they ended up using the Electoral College system allowing the legislatures to come up with it in order to incorporate whatever the values of the state were. And we're remaining faithful to that purpose at this point. We're saying, let's have the state legislatures get together using their powers both to create an interstate agreement and to appoint electors as they see fit in order to say, we're beyond this and let's try a real national popular vote election. So, the curious thing is that the way it's practiced today, winner take all in the states, only three states did in the first presidential election that took place after 1789. Most states were either using the main Nebraska system, make congressional districts or they set up special presidential districts. So there's some myth out there that this is the way it's gotta be done. It's not even being done that way today, much less historically. - Right. - There's been tremendous variety. - [Paul] Do you want to comment on that? - Well, I mean just two things on the history. One is that the legislature does have the power to award the electoral votes, but if you look at the language in Article II. The electors belong to the state, right, as a polity, right, the people of the state. And then the legislature is empowered to decide how to represent them with the electors. In every system that's every been used has been ostensibly to represent the political will of that state. National Popular Vote Interstate Compact would be the first time the language in Article II has been interpreted to allow the legislature to explicitly ignore the political will of the state, whose electors they are and award those electors based on something extrinsic to the state. - [Paul] Right, but they don't have to have an election, right? - Right, that's true, but if the legislators are. - If ignoring the political will of the state is the way that it's worked most of the time. It's worked by, a lot of states used to just appoint electors, wise elders who would decide when the Constitution first was written. The first several elections there were particular people who were named electors. The fact that we've gone to majority vote in most states today, of the state is gray. But there's nothing that binds the state legislature not to say, we will be bound to choose the Electoral College slate that was pledged to the winner of the national election. - Well, it is though, even when legislatures directly appoint electors that ostensibly is representing, if there was two stage election process, right, the political will of that state. NPV is still, it's not just a different thing on that spectrum, right, it's a totally different, we're going to do something extrinsic. - That's argument that was made against states before the passage of the 17th Amendment saying, we're gonna have a popular election for U.S. senator and we'll be bound by the result. - Yeah. - Which is what the state legislatures did. People said, you can't do that, you've gotta use your expertise as state legislatures to pick the senator for the people and the Supreme Court said, no, that's, there's no problem. - So, say the National Popular Vote thing works and you get over 270. Are there, how many lawsuits are gonna be filed the next day to prevent that. What do you see as the risks to this system from operating and going forward? - You know, hey, this is America. These guys know people can come up with. - [Paul] That's what we're training them to do here. - That's right, so this is part of the solution then. Look, there are lawsuits under the current system. We saw Bush versus Gore which demonstrated the profound problems and inadequacies of the system. And we've seen the vulnerabilities as recently as 2016 of now cyberinvasion and sabotage being a possibility. So there's real problems in our elections. I'm for a national electoral commission, the kind that exists in Canada or in Mexico to make sure that we don't have political actors in charge of our elections, but we've got independent, non-partisan body doing it. But having said that, I think that this is great fertile material for law review articles for those of you interested in it, but I think there are answers to any complaint that anybody can make that this somehow defies either the founder's design or the structural design of the Constitution. And it really doesn't. And it is the way historically that we've made our way to more democratic processes in the country. - And do you have, aside from the fact that you think it doesn't reflect the original idea that each state's supposed to have a separate political will, is there something else wrong with this that makes it not workable? - Well, I mean I do think that it requires the consent of Congress because it does, it is directly relevant to federal office and how a federal official is selected. So I think a lot of the arguments made about how compact laws, jurisprudence, I think don't come to bear on this. But I mean obviously, there is jurisprudence all over the place on compact laws. I do think that issue of just whether there are any boundaries at all on the state legislature disregarding the will of the people, I think that's an issue there. But I don't, setting that aside, I think that the greater concern here, and this is an area where we're just gonna disagree, 'cause you'll probably like this scenario. But the reality is the country we live in today, right, when you have a presidential election under this system, if it's at all close, and yeah, as we learned from Twitter, close is a relative thing. What you're gonna have is, you're gonna have whoever loses, right, say Bernie Sanders becomes president in 2020, right. You're gonna have people in Texas watching a certain cable news channel that's saying, we've heard reports that in Los Angeles and Chicago there's the potential that there were tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands or however many votes you need, right, to pull the election into contention or the other way around. Donald Trump wins reelection and you've got people watching another cable news network, saying, we've heard that this happened in Texas or this happened in Oklahoma or whatever. The problem is, right, the system we have today as imperfect as it is, swing states tend to be states where you have the most political accountability by virtue of the fact that you have the closest thing to political parity, right? That you have less political accountability where you have one party control, you tend to see more. I used to work on election fraud and this is something most of the people who talk about election fraud get totally wrong. Most election fraud happens in places in one party control in primaries. It doesn't happen in these closely, yeah, anyhow. Another topic, right? - Another topic, yes. - But the problem is, right, you would have people say, well, what's my redress? How do I know this election is fair, right? And the only thing to do is to go to the politicians in Washington, D.C., as happened in 1876, and luckily that sort of worked out relatively well. And I mean the fraud didn't swing the election and any other negative effects. But look, you wanna make the presidency more important. You wanna give political power, more political power of election administration to Washington, D.C. This would create a powerful incentive to do that. I know some people think that's a great thing. I tend, again, I think subsidiary, decentralization, I think that's a safer way to respond to the Russians making it so they can hack one system. - Let me interrupt, let's sort of talk about the elephant in the room and then we'll open it up for questions. I think a lot of people, maybe some in this room, a lot of people around the country think that this has turned into a debate between liberals and conservatives, between Democrats and Republicans because the Electoral College is perceived as, in the current demographic environment, political environment in the country, more likely to elect a minority president who's a Republican than a Democrat. Let me ask you, do you think that's actually empirically true and if so, is that what's really going on here? - So I think that if you take a snapshot of politics right now, I think that's true. I think. - Is there a reason for that? - I think there is. Although let me, the point of caution here. Democrats in 2000, I think 2004. - Four. - Four. - It almost happened in reverse. - Colorado. - Yeah. - Right, in Ohio gone 200,000 votes. - Exactly. And Democrats said, we want to put on the ballot in Colorado a measure, I think after the 2004 or during 2004, to make Colorado's electoral vote proportional because they said, we're never gonna win Colorado, but we at least should get just shy of 50% because we keep getting close there. And of course, they lost. But the next election that would've affected was 2008 when Barack Obama won Colorado. Right, so, partisans are always, they're always fighting the last war, the last election, right? And they're always thinking they can game the system. I think what Republicans have tried to do in places like Michigan and Pennsylvania to jury rig the election system there to their benefit, I think is disgraceful. It also. - Why would it favor in general Republicans in the current environment? - Look, a part of the American founding was agrarianism, especially among the Jeffersonians, right. And there was, I think a recognition that the tendency of political power is that it flows into the cities, right. And the cities tend to be, you go back, we talk about Athens, the great democracy of Athens where the people lived in the city were so excited 'cause they got to go and vote on the hill and they got to survive off of all these slaves in the hoi polloi who lived round and about the city, right. And that was the tendency in the ancient world and even the tendency in the modern world. And we have a constitution designed to try to prevent that, create incentives against it. And it just happens today in American politics, right, that Democrats tend to be more powerful in urban centers and Republicans tend to draw a lot of their support from rural and suburban kind of ex-urban areas. And I mean I think that will change over time. But I do think that has just the, and then you gotta go into individual states and the way it works out in individual states, that has produced a momentary benefit for the Republicans, could flip around. - You know, I guess I have to say, I don't really understand how that's true. But you seem to agree with him, so why don't you tell us. - Well, first of all, there's nothing guaranteed about our particular party system that would suggest that one party's gonna get more votes than the other in the popular vote. In fact when I. - We're pretty strong pattern in one direction. - Well, and I'm gonna suggest why but let me just say as a matter of principle, it shouldn't make any difference. And when I introduced National Popular Vote legislation in Maryland, I was in my caucus and all these senators were coming up to me and saying, "Come on, really, who's this gonna help? "Them or us?" And I'm like, it's gonna help whoever gets the most votes. That's it. You can't jury rig that. Now at a time when one party is identified with a shrinking demographic and another party is identified with expanding demographic groups, immigrant groups, groups that have been traditionally excluded and so on, then you can see that a party, that that party is gonna be more interested in a popular election and the other party is gonna be more interested in figuring out how you jury rig the Electoral College to its favor. And that's basically I think why a lot of Republicans despite the fact that a majority of Republicans support the national popular vote when you do a poll. - Right. - And despite the fact that a lot of prominent Republicans are on its side, still a lot of the strategists are saying, let's stick with what we've got rather than try to. - Do you think that the that perception of disadvantage to the Democrats and advantage to the Republicans is going to make it tough to get any more states to sign on? - No, I think again, Donald Trump is a great example. He's somebody who says, we should just have a popular election. - He said that when he thought a Republican was gonna lose the Electoral College. - But I think he, in his inimitable way, he kind of speaks for people who are gonna bring kind of a fresh look at politics and just say it doesn't make any sense to have this system. And he's said repeatedly, whoever gets the most votes wins. I mean the thing about agrarianism, the Supreme Court addressed that back in Reynolds versus Sims and Wesberry versus Sanders, when it determined the principle one person, one vote in congressional elections and state legislative elections. And it said, legislators don't represent trees and acres or counties, they represent people. And people are gonna be the essence of what democracy is. So all we're trying to do is follow through on the one person, one vote cases to say we should have one person, one vote for the president. I mean sometimes when I debate people about this, they say, well, what about the U.S. senate 'cause the U.S. senate is way malapportioned. California gets the same number of senators as Idaho or Vermont. And I think that that's a stronger argument. But of course, the Senate is a deliberative institution. At least you're getting deliberation out of it. We only have one president. So why does it make sense ever to elect a president who's gonna represent the minority of views of Americans as opposed to the majority of the people. It just doesn't make sense. If we're gonna have a president, that president should be elected the way we elect governors, U.S. senators, mayors, members of Congress, whoever gets the most votes wins. - [Paul] I have a lot more questions, but let me let you guys participate. You've been very anxiously trying to get a question here. So why don't we start with you. - [Bobby] I'm Bobby Lawrence and I'm a candidate for the United States Senate in Pennsylvania. And I have one particular scenario that I want to lay out and I need everybody in the room to understand this. The dangers of the National Popular Vote movement. Let's say that everybody here lives in California. California's gonna vote for the Democrat. By and large your votes go to the Democrat, that's historically accurate. Now, a Republican is the national popular vote winner. That means that the 55 electoral votes that you have will be cast for the Republican, even though the majority of your state voted for the Democrat. The National Popular Vote compact assigns the power to the national popular vote winner to commending your state and remove your elected delegates and replace them with someone who will vote for the national popular vote winner. This is a double edged sword. It effects both Republicans and Democrats. The challenges that the Congressman wishes and the problems that he's laid out are accurate. How we address it, I am 180 degrees opposed to what he says. How we address it is by not winner take all states. We address is by apportionment. A number of counties, if you look at California, the number of counties, the number of cities, a portion is where it's at, not winner take all. That's the way to get more power back to your vote. - [Paul] Are you saying you would do it by congressional district, is that what you're saying? - [Bobby] The way that it is, the way that it is set up in the founding documents is that the state legislatures assign. Now, the people in the state have to lobby their state legislators to make their electoral delegates proportional to the popular vote within the state. That's the way to come to the outcome that the congressman wants. So I'm gonna ask you this folks. Are you okay with you voting one way and having all your electoral delegate votes go another way? - Alright. - Since your state. - That's something you ought to respond to, Congressman. - Yeah, that's an awesome question. - Thank you sir. Let's let the Congressman respond. - Thank you and good luck on your campaign. - [Bobby] Well, thank you. And the challenge you laid out, I agree with. - Yeah. - The way we get to solving it I just don't agree with. - Alright and let me tell you why I dissent from what you just articulated. You said how would the people of California feel if their 55 Electoral College votes, say for Hillary Clinton, were completely overridden and Donald Trump becomes president. It just happened. Despite the fact that they gave their 55. - Sir, with all due respect. - Wait, well let me finish my point. - Let him finish. - Let me finish my point. You'll get used to this in debates. You gotta listen to your opponent. Not only. - [Bobby] (mumbles) this. - That not, you've gotta listen regardless of what you think. - [Bobby] That's why we have politicians. - [Paul] Alright, come on. - 55 Electoral College votes in California were appointed for Hillary and a majority of Americans wanted Hillary and they lost it, okay? So would they be willing to trade that system for a system where the winner of the national popular vote wins, i.e. Hillary beats Trump in 2016, for a system where all of the electors go to the winner, of course, they would. That's just like the changing of the guard. Who cares whether you cast your 55 electors and you lose? What they want is to be able to have the popular will expressed. I don't think the people of California are saying, "Well, we think that our candidate "should become president even if "everybody else in America votes for the other candidate." They're not saying that. They're saying, we think that the winner of the national popular vote should win. And I was amazed at the anti-California propaganda I heard from Republicans around the country after the election saying, "Oh, well, "those millions of votes could've just been in California. "And who cares about them and they're all Democrats." Basically the Republicans are just surrendering California. I mean that's an amazing and kind of undemocratic, maybe even unpatriotic way to think about another state which is part of the United States. Basically, I've heard this argument before, it's sort of the "don't blame me, I'm from x thing "and our electors went in a futile way, another column." Nobody cares about that. What people want is for the winner to win the election. - [Paul] So, there are a lot of half measures out there that you could do along the lines of what the future senator suggested. - Could I address that? - Which is to see. - The congressional, perhaps the worst proposal of all. - [Paul] That's what I was going for. - The worst of all is to allocate electors by congressional districts. And all you gotta think about is the gerrymandering, okay? Because if you could gerrymander Congress the way that the GOP exists behind a wall of gerrymandered districts, which is why we've gotta build a big blue tidal wave in 2018 to overcome that wall. But that will translate into the Electoral College because now they're able to gerrymander the presidential election even worse than it's gerrymandered now. Ohio today has the same population as the dozen smallest states, okay? But those states have an additional, I think it's 18 or 20 electors over Ohio because of the two senator bonus you get for the Electoral College. It's your number of representatives plus the two senators. So the dozen smallest states have the same population as Ohio but they get about 20 more electors than Ohio does. - True. - That. - And it seems like the worse thing you could do is do it by congressional district not consistently. I mean, obviously. - Yeah. - [Paul] It'd be terrible if you did it to the whole country. But if you only do it in states that tend to vote blue, which is what they're. - Yeah. - [Paul] Trying to do a couple years ago. - Well, Jefferson addressed that. - That would be really. - Jefferson addressed that specifically. - But of course, some of those states, at least one of those, wait, two of those states went for Trump, right. I mean that's what's really funny about this. Colorado, the Democrats tried to manipulate it and it would've hurt them. Republicans have tried to manipulate Pennsylvania. - Michigan. - And Michigan. - Let's take the manipulation out. - Florida flipped around and hurt them, right? - Let's just have an election. Let's just have an election, that's all we're saying. - [Paul] What would you think about his suggestion which is all the states basically cast it proportional to the popular vote in the state. - Have an interstate compact for proportional. - So, well let's see. All the problems still exist then. One, the loser in the national popular vote could still win, even if you did it proportionately within each state. - Be unlikely though. - Well. - [Paul] 'Cause it would be pretty closely matched in the popular vote. - If what you're trying to get at is that, why don't we just do it? - Well, fair. - In other words. I've seen these proposals where somebody will get 8.376589 electors from a state, and another will get 4.33. - It's just the same thing as a popular vote then. - I mean, yeah, if we wanna do a popular vote let's do a popular vote. - With incentive on 'em. - Right, with incentive. Alright, you in the back and then we'll come over to (mumbles). - [Audience Member] (mumbles) - No, no, no, we're moving on to the next guy here, sorry. - Oh, I'm sorry. - [Audience Member] Congressman Raskin, thank you so much for coming out. I thought you made some really fine points. I'm not certain that the incentives for campaign strategy is one of them though. So under the current system if you're a campaign strategist you're probably looking at the function of three variables. How many people you get to come out who would otherwise sit on their couch. How many people that are on the fence that you could move over. And then the electoral size, the electoral cut of the pie, which is roughly proportional to the popular vote. So if you change that third variable, I'm not certain the incentive structure would change all that much if you're a campaign strategist. So for instance, it's still ill advised to go to New York 'cause they're solidly blue and very politically active. It's still ill advised. - All of New York? - [Audience Member] Well, I mean upstate New York is not better if you're a campaign strategist than Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio. I'm not certain the incentives would change all that much under that system and even if they did, why would that necessarily be a good thing? - Well, again, I'm a candidate, not a campaign manager. It'd be interesting to call some campaign managers in and say, what would you do differently in a general election if we had a national popular vote? But I can guarantee you, they will not say, let's spend all of our time in Florida and Ohio and North Carolina and Virginia and ignore 46 states. There's just no way. The Republicans would never say, let's ignore all of California, not just the Pelosi Democrats in San Francisco, but everybody in Orange County in Southern California. And the Democrats would never say, let's ignore Texas completely. There's lots, Democrats were governors and U.S. senators from Texas. In fact one way we revive real competition in the country is to move to a national popular vote. Because what happens is that the parties begin to pull the plug on particular states because they've gotta focus their resources in these randomly assigned swing states instead of developing and nurturing organization everywhere. That's why when I first introduced the NPV in Maryland, the first people to get behind it were Republicans saying, we're completely bypassed and ignored in our state. Because they know we're gonna lose, so they say, well, even if we get an extra 100,000 or 200,000 votes, what difference does it make? But in a national popular vote system, it would be a big deal. - [Paul] Right, okay. - [Audience Member] Would there be concentration in the Rust Belt, though? 'Cause people who voted (mumbles) more sensitive to change and. - Yeah. I mean I love your question because what it suggests is that the calculation is gonna change in every election and people will have different theories and they'll see what works, right? And I think every (mumbles) agree, I mean one thing I've not really heard from you, Trent, is a strong defense of the random assortment of swing states where all the resources go and the abandonment of the rest of the country. I guess you were sort of saying that you thought that they were more representative of the rest of the country. They're kind of a barometer. Is that your argument or? - No, that's not what I. I mean you do have higher political accountability, right? Closer parity, I mean any political system that's closer to 50, 50 versus 90, 10, right? The 50, 50 system is likely to have better accountability. I think that's, I mean I've lived in, now I live in a hard red state. I've lived in California. - You do. - I've lived in Washington state. I've lived in Virginia, right, and I think. - I mean Florida has very little accountability. I mean their elections are a mess. You can barely get your votes counted. So I mean. - But they had Democrats running the county election, Republicans running the state. Democrats dominated the state supreme court. - You had a competition between two corrupt groups. - Right. - I mean. - But from both parties. - I don't know. That feels like grasping at straws to me. - [Paul] Let's put in another question here. Our Republican friend here, Gil. (chuckling) - [Gil] That was fun, wasn't it? - [Paul] Yeah. (audience laughing) - So yeah, I guess everyone. - No more secrets around here. (audience laughing) - [Gil] I'm not a fan of the Electoral College actually at all and my question is for you Mister England. I don't understand what the big deal is. What's, I think you've tried to answer the question before and I'd like for you to, for simple minds like myself, what is the big deal of just getting rid of the Electoral College and going to a popular vote like he's talking about. It seems to me being simple, it's fair, it's easy, maybe even more Republican since you're conservative minded, you said maybe more conservatives in states like California and New York and those big blue states would come out because they would feel, well, my vote actually matters now. What's the big, oh my gosh, we can't do this because of this reason. I haven't caught that yet. - So. The Electoral College, I mean there are several things. One is I think that incentive that operate, and this is, I do get disturbed when I hear folks representing the national popular vote, very involved in the movement saying, you know, we've never actually sat down and thought about how this would change our election system. We can poke holes at the Electoral College. And we don't like this and we don't like that, and I agree with them on some of those things. But we've never actually sat down and war gamed out, done this sort of Federalist papers type analysis. What if we change that, what are the new things we don't like? Obviously any system's gonna be imperfect, right. Anybody asks you for any change, the burden of proof is on them. And that's an obvious process to go through. I think that over time, right, it makes regionalism and radicalism somewhat more likely in our politics, right. We have a, I mean I think arguably the last two presidents have been probably further at the ends of the political spectrum in opposite directions, right. And one person saying people who claim to God, guns, or whatever the line was, right. And the other person saying, yeah, I want those votes. And yet still we don't have really regionalism, right. We still have people going to the Rust Belt and that kind of relatively. - Wait, you don't think we have a red state, blue state divide in America under the Electoral College system? If you run for president today, now this is serious business. When you run for president today, what you're doing is saying, I'm gonna get these red states, I'm gonna take them for granted and I'm gonna go for these narrow band of purple states. Or I'm going for these blue states, I'm gonna take them for granted, and this narrow band of purple states. That is all about regionalism. I mean it just strikes me as comical that the argument you would come up against the national vote is regionalism when this whole system is based on regionalism and regional allocation of the Electoral College. - It's based on states. But states are not regionalism the same, I mean again, that's why I give the 19th century story, right. Which is again it's true, it's sort of obvious, right. I mean the powerful incentives built into the system for the Democratic party to say, we don't, we'll let the extreme elements in our party leave us so that we can reach out to people who've been left behind by the other party. I mean that incentive is in play in all these elections. And it's not just about the presidency. It's about what those incentives are that trickle down in the system. I think those are good things, right? I think you lose, well, clearly, you completely lose those incentives in a direct election scheme. You also lose the effect that, I mean today, and there's a downside to this, for sure, but there's an upside, of the fact that states are like watertight compartments in an ocean liner when it comes to elections. States administer their own elections. States are able to experiment with election administration within the bounds of federal civil rights laws. Some states vote entirely by mail, some states vote mostly at the polls. Equal protection laws do not lap over or equal protection does not lap over state boundaries. You go into NPV and you create a need for, I think, a national election administration, more centralization, more control of presidential, by presidential appointees of future presidential election. I actually think that's very frightening. I mean I don't, I'm not a progressive. I don't think that history just always gets better. Actually look at the beginning of the 19th century and we actually became less democratic from the Constitutional period into the 1840s, right. That's actually not, it's not true that the story just always goes in one direction. I think we can actually make mistakes and I don't wanna do that. - [Paul] We have a question over here. - [Audience Member] (mumbles) since I was born. I'm not quite sure I guess ultimately what is the best presidential system, but I'm more concerned not with what's up with campaigns, not with what's up with candidates, but what's up with voters. This whole we the people thing. I ran in Bayonne, New Jersey as a Republican. I was in the Democrat's spot on the ticket. But because people do this, I don't know, label voting, I beat the mayor of Bayonne. (laughing) Scary. I mean, what can we do in a voting system to make people think more (mumbles). I think it's kind of disingenuous to say you campaign only one place, especially with the internet and things like that, that the responsibility on the voter to find out what's going on. It's not all on the campaign, it's not all on the party. And I think that if we start doing that we stop having me going into a race and being (mumbles). - Okay. Alright. - Well, I think it's an awesome point. I mean, what the system owes the people is an electoral process that makes everybody's vote meaningful and valuable. We can't guarantee they're gonna get motivated and go out do it. That's what parties are for. That's what organizations are for. But what we have now is a structure which systematically demobilizes and demoralizes large numbers of voters. And by the way, in Texas, it's not just hundreds of thousands of Democrats who don't turn out. It's hundreds, thousands Republicans who also know their vote isn't really needed anymore. And it's the same thing with Democrats in California. They're like, well, we know we're blue, why do we need to turnout? I mean, hundreds of millions of dollars are spent in every election. Everybody's gotta vote, do your civic duty, patriotic duty, and still we end up with 55 or 60% of the people voting. Why? It's built into the system. Let's have a system where every vote really does count. And I betcha we're gonna see dramatic increases in the number of people going out to vote. Of all parties and Independents and people from left to right, north to south. National popular vote has been passed in California, in New York, in Vermont, in Hawaii. I mean it's picked up tremendous support around the country. And there's just so much going on it's hard to get people to focus on structural change, but that's why. For me it was worth it to come out and talk to you guys because what we need is the young people, especially those who are in law school and college who are studying this stuff to take up the cause. Because we really can move this and make it happen. We're more than halfway there now. - I mean that just can't be right because I mean, turnout has been trending down. We've had periods of very high turnout in this country with an Electoral College. We've had periods of very low turnout in this country with an Electoral College. And when you look at the states that traditionally have the highest turnout, some of them happen to be swing states in some recent elections, but a lot of them don't. They have cultures of civic participation. New England states have tended to be, Maine and New Hampshire whether they're a swing state in that election or not have tended to have extremely high participation rates, right. I just. - But do you agree that there's about a 10 point difference between the swing states and the safe states? I mean I can send you the stuff. - Pretty true on that. - Or would it change your view if you were to learn that? - Well that's, I've looked at some of that research. That's not exact, when you actually disaggregate the states and look at, I mean, there's clearly some more things going on. You have swing. - Fundamentally not a value for you that everybody participate. And I think it is a value that everybody participate, that we get everybody involved. So we've gotta set the incentives up in such a way that everybody's got an incentive to go and vote. - I will say it this way. I would prefer a system where everybody participates, but I don't think voting is a self-esteem exercise for the pollist. I think that what's valuable even about elections, right, and this goes back to my very first point about the Bill of Rights, right? We do not value majority will in this country uber alles. Right, that is not an American value, it's not a constitutional value, it's not taught in this law school. There are other things that we also value. Look, I mean if people who are racist are too lazy to get out and vote, I think that's great. I have no problem with that, I don't want them to turnout and vote. Right, I mean I actually. - What if they stop other people from voting? - Well, and I have a huge problem with that. Right, so. - Well, that's been the American history, not the racist not being politically engaged, but they use their political power to stifle. - But see now you're agreeing with me, right, which is that look, it's not just about majority rule over all, there are other things which are valuable. - But I agree with that. If you look at the Constitution, there are lots of values that are expressed. And one of the values expressed in the Bill of Rights is the protection of individual freedom. And (mumbles) absolutely right. But when you look at elections, everything from the way the Supreme Court counts its votes, to how we generally pass legislation in the House and the Senate. I understand there's exceptions for treaties and impeachment and so on. But in general, the majority prevails in elections across the country. That's how we elect mayors and governors and senators. And the fact that you're pretending it's something else strikes me as off point. - That's not the most, I mean what's the most important election in the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives? It's selection of leadership, right? And is that based on, right, I mean that is a. - And that's a majority vote. - It's a majority vote of the people who are seated. It doesn't, it's a two step election process. It's exactly like the Electoral College, right? When people sit down in the House of Representatives, they don't say, well, I won by 60% and you won by 55%, so we're gonna weight our votes that way, right? The Speaker of the House is elected through a two step process, like the Electoral College. Majority leader of the Senate through a two step process, like the Electoral College, right. I mean every majority vote in the House and the Senate is scheduled by leadership or selected through a system just like the Electoral College. Again I can understand why people have problems with that, but it calls up a deeper question than let's just tinker with the Electoral College through an interstate compact. - The president of the United States, I think, at least in the public imagination, is someone who represents the people of the country. And they even say about Trump despite the fact that he clearly lost the popular vote, that he's the president of the people. They don't say he's the president of the Electoral College. So I think we gotta go one way or the other. I mean, either we put him back in his place or any president back in his or her place and say, all they represent is the Electoral College or if they wanna be president of the people, they should go and run in the popular vote. - Let me bring up another practical question that keys off the point you made very early on, Congressman about how it makes a Florida recount catastrophe less likely. And the point you made about how the majority vote rule would kind of create a hydraulic pressure toward a national administration of the electoral system. One argument that I've seen made against a popular vote system is in the unlikely event we do have a very close national election, then every single precinct around the country has to be recounted and you have this disparate group of abusive, corrupt people around the country looking for votes to try to, so that. - But that's not right. - Their states can be. - There would still be state election laws and there would only be recounts if it's activated under state election law. But look at what the difference is. So take 2000. - But if it's less than 1% than everywhere in the country would be active. - Well, but then that's true today. If you had a 1% result in 50 states today, you'd have 50 recounts automatically. - But this doesn't have to be in every state. Just the total has to be 1%. - Well, right, but that's my point, okay. So if you go back to 2000, it was a 537 vote difference in Florida which determined the election. Had the Florida supreme court had its way, and there'd been a real recount, remember then was shut down by the Supreme Court's decision in Bush versus Gore, it might've gone the other way. It could've been 500 votes for Gore instead of 500 votes for Bush and that would've decided the election. If you went to the national popular vote, Gore beat Bush by around 600,000 votes. So it is a law of electoral arithmetic that when you broaden the pool, you are extremely unlikely to get ties and one vote differences like we just saw in that state legislative race in Virginia. Where you get a tie. So it doesn't make it impossible, but there's a number which is like one over 48,000 or something like that that you get something like a tie and you would. - I mean a question is, what is a tie? In a national vote, you might make an argument that 50,000 is a tie. That people would start recounting everywhere in the country. - But that's not how the national popular vote works. Because the minute, all of the states will certify to the national vote count commission what their state vote was under state law which is what they do now. Once it's certified, the votes are tabulated and added up. And even it's close as an election goes for president, like 600,000 in 2000 which I think was the closest we've had, closer than 2016 which was three million for Hillary. Then you wouldn't, it would not automatically trigger any recount. It would have to be a recount in a state if that remained their state law that it was so close. And maybe you shift a few hundred this way or that. - But this is one of the flaws in national popular vote. I mean not to say it's not fixable, but is a challenge of trying to this through an interstate compact, which is. I mean the flip side of that is you could have an election where the winner is clear, but the margin in the state .2%, and so under state law it triggers an automatic recount as if that state's electoral, if that state's intrinsic vote was relevant, right. Obviously that's not a feature of this system. That's something that would have to change. - It's not definitive, it's relevant, but it's not decisive. - But and the flip side too, right, I mean if you have an election, we've had, I think, the closest president election was just under 11,000 votes. And that goes back a ways. - That was a long time ago. (laughing) - But we've had, I think 1960 was the closest in kind of the modern era. We've had elections that are close. Obviously there seem to be more allegations of fraud today than there probably were 20 or 30 years ago. - Oh no. - Okay. (laughing) There are a lot of allegations of fraud. Well, I mean, this latest one, five million votes, seemed to kind of take the cake. But right. - That was just a joke. - And he won. - But look, there are a lot of things in election administration that NPV does not change, that would need the change. One of the realities of elections is that states issue Certificates of Ascertainment that actually are their official statement of the popular vote results. That would be operative under NPV, but they're not necessary under the system today. They really should be completed by the time the Electoral College meets in a state. But that doesn't happen. Somebody who's doing some preliminary research on this told me about a dozen states do that in time for the last election. I mean there's a lot of mechanics behind the scene that NPV, like recounts, like the Certificates of Ascertainment. Right, I mean the way this would work is you would have 51 state and D.C. election officials who would be certifying the national popular vote total based on their Certificates of Ascertainment sent from the other 50 jurisdictions. And I mean again, what happens when you have a big outcry in Texas, people saying, you can't accept that from Illinois because we say something on the TV that said something's corrupted going on there. Or people in Maryland say, you better not accept that Certificate of Ascertainment for Texas, 'cause we saw that there was some vote suppression there. Right? I mean there's a, partly because this is not a Constitutional amendment, this does not actually remake the system, It leaves the Electoral College and overlays it with something trying to produce exactly sort of opposite result. Yeah, there are a lot of challenges. - Let me squeeze in one more question here. You've been patient. - Okay. Representative Raskin you mentioned earlier the Electoral College might pervert areas like policy considerations like the Cuban embargo has been persistent for 60 years because of (mumbles). What about other structures that we use to select the president like the primary schedule. The fact that Iowa votes first seems to leave us with the corn subsidy or are you also in favor of cleaning? - Yes, I'm totally with you on that. I think that we should alternate and take turns being first. I don't see why Iowa and New Hampshire, which happen to be demographically very unusual states should always be the ones that do the winnowing out for the rest of the country? Why don't we take turns doing it? - [Audience Member] Why not just go at once? - Well, I'm up for that too. All of which is to say, none of this is written in the Constitution, much less in the Bible, much less in people's hearts. We can experiment with the way we're doing it, so we get a more responsive and transparent and accountable system. I mean it's really, I mean New Hampshire gets to be both the first primary and it also happens to be the only one of 12 small states that's a swing state. So they really get disproportionate attention. And more power to them. But I think some other small states would like to have the same opportunity. - [Audience Member] So you are a member of your party have you been asking the Democratic National Committee to broker some kind of truce with the GOP to schedule state primary elections together? Like you have been pushing legislation for the national popular vote. - As a member of Congress, I don't think I've done anything about that yet, but as a member of the board of FairVote, I've been pushing that for a long time. And I definitely will do that. But I think that the national popular vote, I think you're making an excellent point, which is the national popular vote will lead to people trying to talk about how do we modernize our elections. I mean we're way behind the rest of the world. We're way behind Canada and Mexico which have these national electoral commissions. All we've got is the Federal Election Commission which is broken and dysfunctional and only deals with campaign finance. - Or the Election Assistance Commission that does very little. (laughing) - Or the Election Assistance Commission which my friends in the GOP have voted to defund. - Right. - And to get rid of. They wanna turn the clock back at a time that we really need to be investing in the electronic security of our elections. - Right. - So I'm glad we can end on something where we kind of sorta mostly agree, which is, and which should be mentioned in this context. I mean a lot of the problems that people recognize in presidential elections come from the nominating process. They don't come from the Electoral College. And I would suggest a slightly different solution. Having actually gone to New Hampshire and campaigned as a volunteer for a presidential candidate 18 years ago. There is something very beautiful about that process, taking some of our most self-important politicians and forcing them to wander around in Dunkin' Donuts in very cold weather. I like that a lot actually. And again, I talked about smallness, right. I think the better solution, maybe we can build agreement on this, would be to simply have a process that starts with the smallest population states and works its way up. Because I force maximize the amount of retail politics that goes on. - Early on. - In selecting the president, rather than doing it randomly. I mean that actually if you think about it mathematically, it maximizes the likelihood of every state having a role, right, because the big states have the most opportunity to have a role if you make them go last, right, they still. I think that's a solution, but I'm glad. - Well, one caveat to that. - Yeah. - Is that the smallest population states are not necessarily the most demographically representative states. And Iowa and New Hampshire are good examples of that. I think they've got among the smallest African American populations. - Right. - In the country, maybe a little bit better with the Latino or Asian American population, but not much. - Yeah. - And certainly nothing like what the national average would be. So, that's another thing that we've just sort of kind of lunged into or just kind of accidentally or adventitiously embarked upon. It doesn't have to be that way. And the framers themselves were adamant about this. Jefferson said he deplored the sanctimonious reverence with which some people treat the original design of the people who happen to be founders. And he said instead of availing themselves of their own experience, the people who wrote the Constitution and set up the the original institutions, were just like us except they didn't have the benefit of the experiences that we have. We know more than they do about our history and we can make things a lot better. - Okay, on that note, I think we have to cut this off. But let's thank our two wonderful speakers. (audience applauding) Really appreciate it. Thank you all for coming. - Excellent work. - Thanks a lot. - [Audience Member] There's a reception upstairs in the floor atrium for about 45 minutes to an hour.

Contents

Candidates

The known candidates with national campaigns are John McCain, and Ron Paul, and Withdrawn candidates include Jim Gilmore, Tommy Thompson, Sam Brownback, John H. Cox, Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, Alan Keyes and Mitt Romney. Candidates who declined to seek the nomination include George Allen, Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Bill Frist, Newt Gingrich, Chuck Hagel, Condoleezza Rice, Mark Sanford, and Rick Santorum. One candidate included in some polls who said nothing either way, and did not enter the race is George Pataki.

On March 4, 2008, John McCain crossed the delegate threshold and became the presumptive nominee of the GOP in the 2008 election. It is mathematically impossible for Mike Huckabee or Ron Paul, the two remaining candidates on the ballot, to meet or exceed the number of McCain's pledged delegates.

Polling

Alabama

Alabama Winner
Mike Huckabee
Primary Date
February 5, 2008
See also[1]
Poll Source Date Highlights
Actual Result February 5, 2008 Mike Huckabee 41%, John McCain 37%, Mitt Romney 18%, Ron Paul 3%, Other 1%
Insider Advantage

Sampling Size: 566

February 4, 2008 Mike Huckabee 38%, John McCain 29%, Mitt Romney 20%, Ron Paul 6%, Other 1%, Undecided 6%
Survey USA

Sampling Size: 619
Margin of Error: ±4%

February 2–3, 2008 John McCain 37%, Mike Huckabee 35%, Mitt Romney 19%, Ron Paul 6%, Other/Undecided 2%
Rasmussen Reports

Sampling Size: 890
Margin of Error: ±4%

January 31, 2008 John McCain 38%, Mike Huckabee 30%, Mitt Romney 20%, Ron Paul 5%, Other/Undecided 7%
Survey USA

Sampling Size: 629
Margin of Error: ± 4%

January 30–31, 2008 John McCain 40%, Mike Huckabee 31%, Mitt Romney 21%, Ron Paul 5%, Other 1%, Undecided 2%
Capital Survey Research Center

Sampling Size: 371
Margin of Error: ± 5%

January 30–31, 2008 John McCain 42%, Mike Huckabee 28%, Mitt Romney 13%, Ron Paul 4%, Other/Undecided 11%
Capital Survey Research Center January 28–30, 2008 John McCain 34%, Mike Huckabee 27%, Mitt Romney 15%, Ron Paul 3%, Other/Undecided 21%
Rasmussen Reports

Sampling Size: 846
Margin of Error: ± 4%

January 23, 2008 Mike Huckabee 27%, John McCain 27%, Mitt Romney 15%, Rudy Giuliani 8%, Ron Paul 3%, Undecided 20%
Capital Survey Research Center

Margin of Error: +/- 5.6%

January 11, 2008 Mike Huckabee 32%, John McCain 25%, Fred Thompson 10%, Rudy Giuliani 7%, Mitt Romney 6%, Other 4%, Undecided 16%
University of South Alabama/Press Register

Sampling Size: 439
Margin of Error: ±4.7%

January 7–10, 2008 Mike Huckabee 25%, John McCain 22%, Fred Thompson 9%, Mitt Romney 8%, Rudy Giuliani 5%, Ron Paul 3%, Undecided 29%
Capital Survey Research Center

Sampling Size: 431
Margin of Error: ±4.7%

November 19–20, 2007 Fred Thompson 22%, Rudy Giuliani 20%, Mike Huckabee 17%, John McCain 9%, Mitt Romney 5%, Ron Paul 3%, Alan Keyes 2%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Undecided 21%
Capital Survey Research Center

Margin of Error: +/- ?%
Sample Size: N/A

November 1, 2007 Fred Thompson 26%, Rudy Giuliani 24%, John McCain 12%, Mitt Romney 9%, Newt Gingrich 7%, Undecided 18%
American Research Group

Margin of Error: +/- 4%
Sample Size: 600 (511 R, 89 I)

July 30 – Aug 2, 2007 Fred Thompson 31%, Rudy Giuliani 26%, John McCain 16%, Newt Gingrich 8%, Mitt Romney 3%, Sam Brownback 1%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Ron Paul 1%, Mike Huckabee -, Tom Tancredo -, Tommy Thompson -, Undecided 13%
Capital Survey Research Center July 11–13, 16–19, 2007 Fred Thompson 34%, Rudy Giuliani 20%, John McCain 11%, Newt Gingrich 7%, Mitt Romney 5%
Press-Register/University of South Alabama April 21–25, 2007 John McCain 23%, Rudy Giuliani 22%, Mitt Romney 12%, Fred Thompson 10%, Newt Gingrich 7%
Capital Survey Research Center Feb 19–22, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 28%, John McCain 23%, Newt Gingrich 18%, Mitt Romney 3%, Mike Huckabee 3%, Other 2%, Undecided 23%
American Research Group[permanent dead link] Feb 8–13, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 31%, Newt Gingrich 25%, John McCain 19%, Mitt Romney 3%, Mike Huckabee 2%, Sam Brownback 1%, Chuck Hagel 1%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Undecided 16%

Alaska

Alaska Winner: Mitt Romney

Primary Date
February 5, 2008
Poll Source Date Highlights
Caucus Results

Sampling Size: 11,620

February 5, 2008 Mitt Romney 44.1%, Mike Huckabee 21.9%, Ron Paul 16.8%, John McCain 15.5%, Uncommitted 1.6%

Arizona

Arizona Winner
John McCain
Primary Date
February 5, 2008
See also[2]
Poll Source Date Highlights
Primary Results

Sampling Size: 482,343

February 5, 2008 John McCain 47.4%, Mitt Romney 34.1%, Mike Huckabee 9%, Ron Paul 4.2%, Rudy Giuliani 2.6%, Fred Thompson 1.8%, Duncan Hunter 0.2%, Other 0.6%
Rasmussen Reports

Margin of Error: ± 3.9%

January 31, 2008 John McCain 43%, Mitt Romney 34%, Mike Huckabee 9%, Ron Paul 7%,
Behavior Research Center

Margin of Error: ± 6.3%

January 20–24, 2008 John McCain 40%, Mitt Romney 23%, Mike Huckabee 9%, Fred Thompson 7%, Rudy Giuliani 7%, Ron Paul 3%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Undecided 10%
Arizona State

Margin of Error: +/- 5%
Sample Size: 375

January 17–20, 2008 John McCain 41%, Mitt Romney 18%, Fred Thompson 9%, Mike Huckabee 7%, Rudy Giuliani 4%, Ron Paul 2%, Undecided 19%
American Research Group

Margin of Error: +/- 4%
Sample Size: 600 (527 R, 73 I)

October 5–9, 2007 John McCain 26%, Rudy Giuliani 19%, Mitt Romney 18%, Fred Thompson 15%, Ron Paul 5%, Sam Brownback 3%, Mike Huckabee 1%, Tom Tancredo 1%, Duncan Hunter 0%, Alan Keyes 0%, Undecided 12%
ASU/KNXV TV Poll

Margin Of Error: +/- 4.5%
Sample Size: 295

Aug 29, 2007 John McCain 24%, Mitt Romney 19%, Rudy Giuliani 18%, Fred Thompson 17%
American Research Group July 23–26, 2007 John McCain 32%, Rudy Giuliani 23%, Fred Thompson 15%, Newt Gingrich 7%, Mitt Romney 7%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Ron Paul 1%, Tom Tancredo 1%, Sam Brownback 0%, Mike Huckabee 0%, Tommy Thompson 0%, Undecided 13%
Cronkite/Eight Poll April 19–22, 2007 John McCain 32%, Rudy Giuliani 27%, Mitt Romney 11%, Newt Gingrich 9%, Fred Thompson 6%, Undecided 15%
Behavior Research Center March 23, 2007 John McCain 34%, Rudy Giuliani 25%, Mitt Romney 11%, Condoleezza Rice 9%, Newt Gingrich 5%, Chuck Hagel 2, George Pataki 1%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Undecided 18%
American Research Group Feb 8–13, 2007 John McCain 45%, Rudy Giuliani 21%, Newt Gingrich 11%, Sam Brownback 3%, Mitt Romney 2%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Gilmore 0%, Hagel 0%, Mike Huckabee 0%, George Pataki 0%, Ron Paul 0%, Tom Tancredo 0%, Tommy Thompson 0%, Undecided 18%
Cronkite/Eight Poll January 24, 2007 John McCain 54%, Newt Gingrich 14%, Mitt Romney 9%, Duncan Hunter 2%, Undecided 21%

Arkansas

Arkansas Winner
Mike Huckabee
Primary Date
February 5, 2008
See also[3]
Poll Source Date Highlights
Primary Results

Sampling Size: 229,153

February 5, 2008 Mike Huckabee 60.5%, John McCain 20.2%, Mitt Romney 13.5%, Ron Paul 4.8%, Uncommitted 0.4%, Rudy Giuliani 0.3%, Fred Thompson 0.3%
Global Strategy Group

Sampling Size: 608
Margin of Error: ±4.4%

December 12–16, 2007 Mike Huckabee 39%, Rudy Giuliani 13%, John McCain 11%, Mitt Romney 8%, Fred Thompson 4%, Ron Paul 3%, Undecided 22%
American Research Group

Margin of Error: +/- 4%
Sample Size: 600 (448 R, 152 I)

March 16–19, 2007 Mike Huckabee 40%, John McCain 21%, Rudy Giuliani 12%, Newt Gingrich 8%, Fred Thompson 5%, Mitt Romney 4%, Tom Tancredo 1%, Chuck Hagel 0%, Sam Brownback 0%, George Pataki 0%, Jim Gilmore 0%, Duncan Hunter 0%, Tommy Thompson 0%, Ron Paul 0%, Undecided 10%

California

California Winner
John McCain
Primary Date
February 5, 2008

See also[4][5][6]

Poll Source Date Highlights
Primary Results

Sampling Size: 2,351,930

February 5, 2008 John McCain 41.9%, Mitt Romney 34.1%, Mike Huckabee 11.6%, Rudy Giuliani 4.9%, Ron Paul 4.2%, Fred Thompson 1.9%, Duncan Hunter 0.5%, Tom Tancredo 0.1%, Other 0.6%
Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby 

Sampling Size: 833
Margin of Error: ±3.4%

February 3–4, 2008 Mitt Romney 40%, John McCain 33%, Mike Huckabee 12%, Ron Paul 3%, Other 4%, Undecided 8%
Survey USA

Sampling Size: 556
Margin of Error: ±4.2%

February 3–4, 2008 John McCain 39%, Mitt Romney 38%, Mike Huckabee 11%, Ron Paul 5%, Other 5%, Undecided 2%
Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby 

Sampling Size: 915
Margin of Error: ±3.3%

February 1–3, 2008 Mitt Romney 40%, John McCain 32%, Mike Huckabee 12%, Ron Paul 5%, Other 4%, Undecided 8%
Rasmussen Reports

Sampling Size: 652
Margin of Error: ±4%

February 2, 2008 John McCain 38%, Mitt Romney 38%, Mike Huckabee 10%, Ron Paul 6%, Other 6%, Undecided 2%
American Research Group[permanent dead link]

Sampling Size: 600
Margin of Error: ±4%

February 1–2, 2008 Mitt Romney 33%, John McCain 32%, Mike Huckabee 16%, Ron Paul 8%, Other/Undecided 11%
Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby 

Sampling Size: 1185
Margin of Error: ±2.9%

January 31 – February 2, 2008 Mitt Romney 37%, John McCain 34%, Mike Huckabee 12%, Ron Paul 5%, Other/Undecided 13%
McClatchy/MSNBC / Mason Dixon

Margin of Error: ±4.8%

January 31 – February 1, 2008 John McCain 40%, Mitt Romney 31%, Mike Huckabee 13%, Ron Paul 3%, Undecided 11%
Suffolk University

Sampling Size: 500
Margin of Error: ±4.5%

January 31 – February 1, 2008 John McCain 38.5%, Mitt Romney 32.4%, Mike Huckabee 8.2%, Ron Paul 3.5%, Undecided 13.7%, Refused 3.6%
Field

Sampling Size: 481
Margin of Error: ±4.6%

January 25 – February 1, 2008 John McCain 32%, Mitt Romney 24%, Mike Huckabee 13%, Ron Paul 10%, Other 6%, Undecided 15%
Rasmussen Reports

Sampling Size: 652
Margin of Error: ±4%

January 29, 2008 John McCain 32%, Mitt Romney 28%, Rudy Giuliani 14%, Mike Huckabee 11%, Ron Paul 5%, Other 6%, Undecided 3%
Survey USA

Sampling Size: 506
Margin of Error: ±4.4%

January 27, 2008 John McCain 37%, Mitt Romney 25%, Mike Huckabee 14%, Rudy Giuliani 12%, Ron Paul 4%, Other 3%, Undecided 5%
Politico/CNN/Los Angeles Times

Sampling Size: 437
Margin of Error: ±4.5%

January 23–27, 2008 John McCain 39%, Mitt Romney 26%, Rudy Giuliani 13%, Mike Huckabee 11%, Undecided 4%
USA Today/Galup

Sampling Size: 552
Margin of Error: ±5%

January 23–26, 2008 John McCain 36%, Mitt Romney 31%, Mike Huckabee 10%, Rudy Giuliani 9%, Ron Paul 4%, Alan Keyes 1%, Other 1%, Undecided 8%
Field Research

Sampling Size: 377
Margin of Error: ±5.2%

January 14–20, 2008 John McCain 22%, Mitt Romney 18%, Mike Huckabee 11%, Rudy Giuliani 11%, Fred Thompson 9%, Ron Paul 7%, Other 1%, Unsure 21%
Public Policy Institute of California

Sampling Size: 348
Margin of Error: ±5%

January 13–20, 2008 John McCain 29%, Mitt Romney 17%, Mike Huckabee 10%, Rudy Giuliani 10%, Fred Thompson 10%, Ron Paul 5%, Duncan Hunter 2%, Other 3%, Unsure 14%
Rasmussen Reports

Sampling Size: 471
Margin of Error: ±4.5%

January 14, 2008 John McCain 24%, Mitt Romney 17%, Mike Huckabee 13%, Fred Thompson 13%, Rudy Giuliani 11%, Ron Paul 4%, Unsure 16%
Survey USA

Sampling Size: 509
Margin of Error: ±4.4%

January 11–13, 2008 John McCain 33%, Rudy Giuliani 18%, Mike Huckabee 14%, Mitt Romney 13%, Fred Thompson 9%, Ron Paul 4%, Unsure 4%, Other 3%
Politico/CNN/Los Angeles Times

Sampling Size: 255
Margin of Error: ±6%

January 11–13, 2008 John McCain 20%, Mitt Romney 16%, Rudy Giuliani 14%, Mike Huckabee 13%, Ron Paul 8%, Fred Thompson 6%, Unsure 11%
Field Research Corp.

Sample Size: 322
Margin of Error: ± 5.7%

December 10–17, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 25%, Mike Huckabee 17%, Mitt Romney 15%, John McCain 12%, Fred Thompson 6%, Ron Paul 3%, Duncan Hunter 3%, Tom Tancredo 1%, Undecided 18%
Survey USA

Margin of Error: +/-4.5%
Sampling Size: 497

December 14–16, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 28%, Mike Huckabee 20%, Mitt Romney 16%, John McCain 14%, Fred Thompson 13%, Other 7%, Undecided 3%
Survey USA

Margin of Error: +/-4.4%
Sampling Size: 505

November 30 – December 3, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 32%, John McCain 18%, Mike Huckabee 14%, Mitt Romney 14%, Fred Thompson 13%, Other 6%, Undecided 3%
Datamar Inc.

Margin of Error: +/-4.3%
Sampling Size: 514

November 23–27, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 28.0%, Mitt Romney 16.1%, Fred Thompson 14.0%, John McCain 9.9%, Mike Huckabee 7.8%, Ron Paul 4.3%, Duncan Hunter 1.6%, Tom Tancredo 1.0%, Undecided 17.3%
Survey USA November 2–4, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 34%, John McCain 16%, Mitt Romney 15%, Fred Thompson 13%, Mike Huckabee 8%, Other 8%, Undecided 6%
The Field October 11–21, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 25%, Mitt Romney 13%, Fred Thompson 12%, John McCain 12%, Mike Huckabee 4%, Ron Paul 4%, Duncan Hunter 3%, Tom Tancredo 3%, Keyes 1%, Cox -%, Other -%, Undecided 22%
Survey USA October 12–14, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 39%, Fred Thompson 18%, Mitt Romney 14%, John McCain 13%, Others 12%, Undecided 6%
Survey and Policy Research Institute at San Jose State University October 1–8, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 34%, John McCain 17%, Mitt Romney 11%, Fred Thompson 7%, Others 10%
PPIC September 4–11, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 22%, Mitt Romney 16%, Fred Thompson 16%, John McCain 15%, Duncan Hunter 3%, Mike Huckabee 2%, Tom Tancredo 2%, Ron Paul 1%, Sam Brownback <1%, Other 3%, Don't Know 20%
Survey USA September 7–9, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 28%, Fred Thompson 26%, John McCain 18%, Mitt Romney 14%, Other 10%, Undecided 3%
Field Research Corporation

Margin of error: +/- 5.4%
Sampling size: 348

August 3–12, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 35%, Mitt Romney 14%, Fred Thompson 13%, John McCain 9%, Tom Tancredo 3%, Duncan Hunter 2%, Mike Huckabee 1%, Sam Brownback 1%, Ron Paul 1%, Undecided 20%
Survey USA August 2–5, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 39%, Fred Thompson 19%, John McCain 16%, Mitt Romney 10%, Other 11%, Undecided 4%
American Research Group July 30 – August 2, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 30%, Mitt Romney 18%, Fred Thompson 18%, Newt Gingrich 7%, John McCain 7%, Hunter 2%, Paul 2%, Tancredo 2%, Brownback 1%, Tommy Thompson 1%, Huckabee -, Undecided 12%
Survey USA June 29 – July 1, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 32%, John McCain 19%, Fred Thompson 19%, Mitt Romney 9%, Newt Gingrich 6%, Others 9%, Undecided 7%
Survey & Policy Research Institute

Margin of Error: +/- 3.1%

June 18–22, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 25%, Fred Thompson 16%, John McCain 14%, Mitt Romney 5%, Others 11%, Undecided 29%
Datamar Inc.

Margin of Error: +/-4.1%
Sampling Size: 572

June 6–11, 2007 Mitt Romney 32.3%, Rudy Giuliani 14.7%, Duncan Hunter 11%, Tom Tancredo 5.9%, John McCain 5.4%, Fred Thompson 4.9%, Mike Huckabee 3.1%, Ron Paul 3.1%, Tommy Thompson 3.1%, Sam Brownback 2.1%, Jim Gilmore .7%, Undecided 13.5%
Survey USA June 1–3, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 28%, John McCain 21%, Fred Thompson 21%, Mitt Romney 11%, Newt Gingrich 8%, Other 8%, Undecided 3%
American Research Group May 4–8, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 27%, John McCain 24%, Mitt Romney 11%, Fred Thompson 12%, Newt Gingrich 5%, Brownback 1%, Gilmore 1%, Hagel 1%, Huckabee 1%, Hunter 1%, Paul 1%, Tancredo 1%, Tommy Thompson 1%, Pataki -, Undecided 13%
Survey USA May 4–6, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 34%, John McCain 21%, Mitt Romney 12%, Fred Thompson 11%, Newt Gingrich 9%, Other 8%, Undecided 5%
SurveyUSA Mar 30 – April 1, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 43%, John McCain 24%, Newt Gingrich 10%, Mitt Romney 7%, Other 11%, Undecided 5%
The Field (announced candidates) Mar 20–21, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 36%, John McCain 24%, Mitt Romney 7%, Hunter 4%, Tancredo 4%, Huckabee 3%, Hagel 2%, Brownback 2%, Paul 1% Undecided 17%
The Field (prospective candidates) Mar 20–21, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 29%, John McCain 21%, Newt Gingrich 9%, Fred Thompson 7%, Mitt Romney 7%, Hunter 3%, Tancredo 3%, Huckabee 2%, Hagel 2%, Brownback 2%, Paul 1% Undecided 14%
SurveyUSA Mar 3–5, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 41%, John McCain 23%, Newt Gingrich 13%, Mitt Romney 8%, Other 8%, Undecided 7%
Datamar Inc. Feb 9–13, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 40.9%, John McCain 17.4%, Mitt Romney 10.5%, Duncan Hunter 5.9%, Sam Brownback 3.8%, Tom Tancredo 3.9%, Mike Huckabee 1.9%, Ron Paul 0.7%, Jim Gilmore 0.4%, Undecided 14.8%
American Research Group January 4–7, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 33%, Newt Gingrich 19%, John McCain 18%, Chuck Hagel 5%, Mitt Romney 3%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Undecided 22%

Colorado

Colorado Winner
Mitt Romney
Caucus Date
February 5, 2008
See also[7]
Poll Source Date Highlights
Caucus Results

Sampling Size: 56,027

February 5, 2008 Mitt Romney 59.4%, John McCain 19%, Mike Huckabee 13% Ron Paul 8.3%, Others 0.3%
Mason-Dixon

Margin of Error: +/- 3.5%
Sample Size: 800

January 21–23, 2008 Mitt Romney 43%, John McCain 24%, Mike Huckabee 17% Ron Paul 5%, Rudy Giuliani 4%
American Research Group

Margin of Error: +/- 4%
Sample Size: 600 (522 R, 78 Unaffiliated)

September 15–18, 2007 Fred Thompson 25%, Rudy Giuliani 20%, John McCain 12%, Mitt Romney 8%, Mike Huckabee 8%, Newt Gingrich 5%, Tom Tancredo 4%, Ron Paul 1%, Sam Brownback 1%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Undecided 15%
Ciruli Associates for the Economic Development Council Of Colorado September 12–15, 2007 Fred Thompson 27%, Rudy Giuliani 19%, John McCain 11%
American Research Group July 15–18, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 35%, Fred Thompson 20%, John McCain 11%, Mitt Romney 9%, Newt Gingrich 6%, Tom Tancredo 4%, Sam Brownback 1%, Mike Huckabee 1%, Ron Paul 1%, Jim Gilmore 0%, Chuck Hagel 0%, Duncan Hunter 0%, George Pataki 0%, Tommy Thompson -, Undecided 12%
American Research Group March 29 – April 2, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 25%, John McCain 23%, Fred Thompson 10%, Mitt Romney 9%, Newt Gingrich 8%, Tom Tancredo 7%, Sam Brownback 3%, Tommy Thompson 3%, Jim Gilmore 0%, Chuck Hagel 0%, Mike Huckabee 0%, Duncan Hunter 0%, George Pataki 0%, Ron Paul 0%, Undecided 11%

Connecticut

Connecticut Winner
John McCain
Primary Date
February 5, 2008
See also[8][9]
Poll Source Date Highlights
Primary Results

Sample Size: 151,212

February 5, 2008 John McCain 52.1%, Mitt Romney 33%, Mike Huckabee 7%, Ron Paul 4%, Rudy Giuliani 1.6%, Uncommitted 1.6%, Fred Thompson 0.4%, Duncan Hunter 0.1%, Other 0.2%
Survey USA

Sample Size: 333
Margin of Error: ±5.5%

February 2–3, 2008 John McCain 52%, Mitt Romney 30%, Mike Huckabee 7%, Ron Paul 6%, Other 3%, Undecided 3%
Survey USA

Sample Size: 426
Margin of Error: ±4.8%

January 30–31, 2008 John McCain 53%, Mitt Romney 31%, Mike Huckabee 6%, Ron Paul 5%, Other 2%, Undecided 3%
American Research Group

Sample Size: 600
Margin of Error: ±4%

January 30–31, 2008 John McCain 43%, Mitt Romney 25%, Mike Huckabee 12%, Ron Paul 1%, Other 3%, Undecided 16%
Rasmussen Reports

Sample Size: 492
Margin of Error: ±4%

January 27, 2008 John McCain 42%, Mitt Romney 26%, Rudy Giuliani 12%, Mike Huckabee 8%, Ron Paul 4%, Other 5%, Undecided 3%
The Courant/CSRA

Sample Size: 401
Margin of Error: ±5%

January 9–17, 2008 John McCain 39%, Rudy Giuliani 16%, Mitt Romney 11%, Mike Huckabee 8%, Fred Thompson 6%, Ron Paul 2%, Undecided 17%
Quinnipiac University November 1–5, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 41%, Mitt Romney 13%, John McCain 12%, Fred Thompson 7%, Mike Huckabee 4%, Ron Paul 3%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Tom Tancredo -, Someone else 2%, Wouldn't vote 5%, Undecided 13%
Quinnipiac University Oct 9–15, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 42%, John McCain 14%, Fred Thompson 10%, Mitt Romney 9%, Ron Paul 3%, Mike Huckabee 2%, Duncan Hunter -, Sam Brownback -, Tom Tancredo -, Someone else 1%, Wouldn't vote 4%, Undecided 15%
Quinnipiac University May 2–7, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 36%, John McCain 15%, Mitt Romney 9%, Fred Thompson 7%, Newt Gingrich 5%, Ron Paul 2%, George Pataki 1%, Tommy Thompson 1%, Chuck Hagel -, Duncan Hunter -, Sam Brownback -, Mike Huckabee -, Jim Gilmore -, Tom Tancredo -, Someone else 3%, Wouldn't vote 3%, Undecided 17%
Quinnipiac University Feb 9–12, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 43%, John McCain 27%, Newt Gingrich 5%, Mitt Romney 4%, Chuck Hagel 2%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Sam Brownback 1%, Mike Huckabee 1%, Tommy Thompson 0%, Jim Gilmore 0%, George Pataki 0%, Tom Tancredo 0%, Someone else 3%, Wouldn't vote 0%, Undecided 12%
American Research Group Feb 2–6, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 32%, John McCain 21%, Mitt Romney 14%, Newt Gingrich 11%, Sam Brownback 2%, Chuck Hagel 1%, Mike Huckabee 1%, George Pataki 1%, Tom Tancredo 1%, Undecided 16%

Delaware

Delaware Winner
John McCain
Primary Date
February 5, 2008
Poll Source Date Highlights
Primary Results

Sampling Size: 50,237

February 5, 2008 John McCain 45%, Mitt Romney 32.5%, Mike Huckabee 15.3%, Ron Paul 4.2%, Rudy Giuliani 2.5%, Tom Tancredo 0.3%
American Research Group

Sampling Size: 600
Margin of Error: ±4%

January 31 – February 1, 2008 John McCain 41%, Mitt Romney 35%, Mike Huckabee 7%, Ron Paul 5%, Other 2%, Undecided 10%

District of Columbia

District of Columbia Winner
John McCain
Primary Date February 12, 2008
Poll Source Date Highlights
Primary Results

Sampling Size: 5,801

February 12, 2008 John McCain 67.7%, Mike Huckabee 16.6%, Ron Paul 8.1%, Mitt Romney 6%, Rudy Giuliani 1.6%

Florida

Florida Winner
John McCain
Primary Date
January 29, 2008

See also[10][11][12][13][14][15]

Poll Source Date Highlights
Primary Results

Sampling Size: 1,925,728

January 29, 2008 John McCain 36%, Mitt Romney 31.1%, Rudy Giuliani 14.6%, Mike Huckabee 13.5%, Ron Paul 3.2%, Fred Thompson 1.2%, Duncan Hunter .1%, Tom Tancredo .1%, Other .2%
Insider Advantage
Sampling Size: 813
Margin of Error: ±3.5%
January 28, 2008 John McCain 31%, Mitt Romney 30%, Mike Huckabee 15%, Rudy Giuliani 13%, Ron Paul 2%, Other 2%, Undecided 7%
Mitchell Interactive

Sampling Size: 964
Margin of Error: ±3.16%

January 27–28, 2008 Mitt Romney 34%, John McCain 32%, Rudy Giuliani 13%, Mike Huckabee 10%, Ron Paul 3%, Undecided 7%
Reuters/C-Span/Zogby

Sampling Size: 941
Margin of Error: ±3.3%

January 27–28, 2008 John McCain 35%, Mitt Romney 31%, Rudy Giuliani 13%, Mike Huckabee 13%, Undecided 5%
Survey USA

Sampling Size: 979
Margin of Error: ±3.2%

January 27–28, 2008 John McCain 32%, Mitt Romney 31%, Rudy Giuliani 15%, Mike Huckabee 13%, Ron Paul 6%, Other 1%, Undecided 2%
Insider Advantage

Sampling Size: 789
Margin of Error: ±3.5%

January 27, 2008 John McCain 28%, Mitt Romney 27%, Rudy Giuliani 16%, Mike Huckabee 13%, Ron Paul 4%, Other 3%, Undecided 9%
Survey USA

Sampling Size: 608
Margin of Error: ±4.1%

January 27, 2008 Mitt Romney 32%, John McCain 31%, Rudy Giuliani 16%, Mike Huckabee 13%, Ron Paul 5%, Other 1%, Undecided 2%
Rasmussen Reports
Sampling Size: 578
Margin of Error: ±4%
January 27, 2008 Mitt Romney 31%, John McCain 31%, Rudy Giuliani 16%, Mike Huckabee 11%, Ron Paul 4%, Other 4%
ReutersC-Span/Zogby

Sampling Size: 818
Margin of Error: ±3.4%

January 25–27, 2008 John McCain 33%, Mitt Romney 30%, Rudy Giuliani 14%, Mike Huckabee 11%, Ron Paul 2%, Undecided 8%
Suffolk University

Sampling Size: 400
Margin of Error: ±5%

January 25–27, 2008 John McCain 30%, Mitt Romney 27%, Rudy Giuliani 13%, Mike Huckabee 11%, Ron Paul 4%, Alan Keyes 1%, Undecided 16%
Strategic Vision (note)

Sampling Size: 600
Margin of Error: ±4.5%

January 25–27, 2008 John McCain 27%, Mitt Romney 26%, Rudy Giuliani 17%, Mike Huckabee 15%, Ron Paul 5%, Undecided 10%
Quinnipiac University

Sampling Size: 585
Margin of Error: ±4.1%

January 24–27, 2008 John McCain 32%, Mitt Romney 31%, Rudy Giuliani 14%, Mike Huckabee 13%, Ron Paul 3%, Other 1%, Undecided 7%

Insider Advantage
Sampling Size: 657
Margin of Error: ±3%

January 26, 2008 Mitt Romney 25%, John McCain 25%, Rudy Giuliani 17%, Mike Huckabee 17%, Ron Paul 6%, Other 3%, Undecided 7%
Rasmussen Reports

Sampling Size: 500
Margin of Error: ±4%

January 26, 2008 Mitt Romney 33%, John McCain 27%, Rudy Giuliani 18%, Mike Huckabee 12%, Ron Paul 2%, Other 5%, Undecided 13%
Insider Advantage

Sampling Size: 692
Margin of Error: ±4%

January 25, 2008 Mitt Romney 26%, John McCain 24%, Rudy Giuliani 16%, Mike Huckabee 15%, Ron Paul 7%, Other 4%, Undecided 8%
ReutersC-Span/Zogby

Sampling Size: 814
Margin of Error: ±3.4%

January 24–26, 2008 John McCain 30%, Mitt Romney 30%, Mike Huckabee 14%, Rudy Giuliani 13%, Ron Paul 3%, Undecided 9%
ReutersC-Span/Zogby

Sampling Size: 814
Margin of Error: ±3.4%

January 23–25, 2008 John McCain 31%, Mitt Romney 28%, Rudy Giuliani 15%, Mike Huckabee 10%, Ron Paul 5%, Other 2%, Undecided 9%
Insider Advantage

Sampling Size: 420
Margin of Error: ±4.8%

January 24, 2008 John McCain 23.3%, Mitt Romney 23.2%, Rudy Giuliani 15.9%, Mike Huckabee 13.1%, Ron Paul 6.5%, Other 8.3%, Undecided 9.7%
Survey USA

Sampling Size: 550
Margin of Error: ±4.3%

January 23–24, 2008 John McCain 30%, Mitt Romney 28%, Rudy Giuliani 18%, Mike Huckabee 14%, Ron Paul 6%, Other 2%, Undecided 3%
Insider Advantage

Sampling Size: 501
Margin of Error: ±4.4%

January 23, 2008 John McCain 23%, Mitt Romney 22%, Rudy Giuliani 18%, Mike Huckabee 16%, Ron Paul 4%, Other 7%, Undecided 10%
Rasmussen Reports

Sampling Size: 675
Margin of Error: ±4%

January 23, 2008 Mitt Romney 27%, John McCain 23%, Rudy Giuliani 20%, Mike Huckabee 15%, Ron Paul 4%, Other 6%, Undecided 4%
Mason Dixon

Sampling Size: 400
Margin of Error: ±5%

January 22–23, 2008 Mitt Romney 30%, John McCain 26%, Rudy Giuliani 18%, Mike Huckabee 15%, Undecided 10%
Public Policy Polling

Sampling Size: 807
Margin of Error: ±3.5%

January 22, 2008 Mitt Romney 28%, John McCain 25%, Rudy Giuliani 19%, Mike Huckabee 15%, Ron Paul 5%, Undecided 8%
Strategic Vision (note)

Sampling Size: 1450
Margin of Error: ±3%

January 20–22, 2008 John McCain 25%, Rudy Giuliani 22%, Mitt Romney 20%, Mike Huckabee 18%, Fred Thompson 6%, Ron Paul 5%, Undecided 4%
St. Petersburg Times

Sampling Size: 400
Margin of Error: ±5.1%

January 20–22, 2008 John McCain 25%, Mitt Romney 23%, Mike Huckabee 15%, Rudy Giuliani 15%, Fred Thompson 4%, Ron Paul 3%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Alan Keyes 1%, Tom Tancredo 1%, Undecided 13%
Insider Advantage

Sampling Size: 512
Margin of Error: ±4.4%

January 20–21, 2008 Mitt Romney 24%, Rudy Giuliani 19%, John McCain 18%, Mike Huckabee 12%, Ron Paul 7%, Other 5%, Undecided 15%
American Research Group

Sampling Size: 600
Margin of Error: ±4%

January 20–21, 2008 John McCain 29%, Mitt Romney 22%, Mike Huckabee 17%, Rudy Giuliani 16%, Fred Thompson 6%, Ron Paul 6%, Alan Keyes 1%, Undecided 3%
Survey USA

Sampling Size: 518
Margin of Error: ±4.4%

January 20, 2008 John McCain 25%, Rudy Giuliani 20%, Mitt Romney 19%, Mike Huckabee 14%, Fred Thompson 7%, Ron Paul 7%, Other 1%, Undecided 7%
Rasmussen Reports

Sampling Size: 754
Margin of Error: ±4%

January 20, 2008 Mitt Romney 25%, John McCain 20%, Rudy Giuliani 19%, Mike Huckabee 13%, Fred Thompson 12%, Ron Paul 5%, Undecided 6%
Insider Advantage

Sampling Size: 446
Margin of Error: ±4.5%

January 15–16, 2008 Rudy Giuliani 21%, John McCain 20%, Mitt Romney 20%, Mike Huckabee 13%, Fred Thompson 7%, Ron Paul 6%, Undecided 13%
Research 2000[permanent dead link]

Sampling Size: 500
Margin of Error: ±4.5%

January 14–16, 2008 John McCain 26%, Rudy Giuliani 22%, Mike Huckabee 17%, Mitt Romney 16%, Fred Thompson 7%, Ron Paul 5%, Other 2%, Undecided 5%
Strategic Vision (note)

Sampling Size: 577
Margin of Error: ±3%

January 11–13, 2008 John McCain 27%, Mike Huckabee 20%, Rudy Giuliani 18%, Mitt Romney 17%, Fred Thompson 10%, Ron Paul 5%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Undecided 2%
Survey USA

Sampling Size: 542
Margin of Error: ±4.3%

January 11–13, 2008 John McCain 25%, Rudy Giuliani 23%, Mitt Romney 18%, Mike Huckabee 18%, Fred Thompson 9%, Ron Paul 4%, Other 2%, Undecided 3%
Quinnipiac University

Sampling Size: 419
Margin of Error: ±4.8%

January 9–13, 2008 John McCain 22%, Rudy Giuliani 20%, Mitt Romney 19%, Mike Huckabee 19%, Fred Thompson 7%, Ron Paul 5%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Undecided 7%
Rasmussen Reports

Sampling Size: 781
Margin of Error: ±4%

January 9–12, 2008 John McCain 19%, Rudy Giuliani 18%, Mitt Romney 18%, Mike Huckabee 17%, Fred Thompson 11%, Ron Paul 5%, Some Other Candidate 2%, Undecided 10%
Survey USA

Sampling Size: 502
Margin of Error: ±4.5%

January 9–10, 2008 John McCain 27%, Rudy Giuliani 19%, Mike Huckabee 17%, Mitt Romney 17%, Fred Thompson 8%, Ron Paul 5%, Other 1%, Undecided 5%
Insider Advantage

Sampling Size: 340
Margin of Error: ±5.5%

January 7, 2008 Rudy Giuliani 24%, Mike Huckabee 19%, John McCain 19%, Mitt Romney 13%, Fred Thompson 8%, Ron Paul 5%, Duncan Hunter 1%, No Opinion 11%
Quinnipiac University Dec. 12–18, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 28%, Mike Huckabee 21%, Mitt Romney 20%, John McCain 13%, Fred Thompson 8%, Ron Paul 2%
Survey USA Dec. 15–16, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 29%, Mike Huckabee 24%, Mitt Romney 20%, John McCain 10%, Fred Thompson 8%
Strategic Vision (note) Dec. 14–16, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 25%, Mike Huckabee 21%, John McCain 15%, Mitt Romney 13%, Fred Thompson 10%, Ron Paul 4%
Rasmussen Reports Dec. 13, 2007 Mike Huckabee 27%, Mitt Romney 23%, Rudy Giuliani 19%, Fred Thompson 9%, John McCain 6%, Ron Paul 4%, Undecided 8%
Datamar Dec 9–13, 2007 Mike Huckabee 24.8%, Rudy Giuliani 21.0%, Mitt Romney 19.2%, John McCain 9.7%, Fred Thompson 9.4%, Ron Paul 4.5%, Duncan Hunter 1.6%, Tom Tancredo 1.4%, Undecided 8.3%
SurveyUSA Dec 2–4, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 32%, Mike Huckabee 18%, Mitt Romney 15%, Fred Thompson 14%, John McCain 11%, Other 5%, Undecided 6%
Quinnipiac November 26 – Dec 3, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 30%, Mitt Romney 12%, Mike Huckabee 11%, Fred Thompson 10%, John McCain 9%, Paul 4%, Hunter 1%, Tancredo 1%, Other 2%, Undecided 17%
Datamar November 16–21, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 28.8%, Mitt Romney 15.3%, Fred Thompson 13.9%, John McCain 10.4%, Mike Huckabee 6.9%, Ron Paul 4.0%, Duncan Hunter 1.1%, Tom Tancredo 0.9%, Undecided 18.8%
Strategic Vision (note) November 9–11, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 31%, Fred Thompson 13%, John McCain 13%, Mitt Romney 12%, Mike Huckabee 9%, Ron Paul 4%, Tom Tancredo 2%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Undecided 14%
SurveyUSA November 2–5, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 34%, Fred Thompson 22%, Mitt Romney 17%, John McCain 10%, Mike Huckabee 8%, Other 5%, Undecided 3%
Quinnipiac Oct 17–22, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 30%, Fred Thompson 14%, John McCain 14%, Mitt Romney 12%, Mike Huckabee 8%, Paul 1%, Sam Brownback 1%, Hunter 1%, Tancredo 1%, Other 3%, Undecided 11%
Quinnipiac Oct 1–8, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 27%, Fred Thompson 19%, Mitt Romney 17%, John McCain 8%, Mike Huckabee 4%, Paul 2%, Sam Brownback 1%, Hunter -%, Tancredo 1%, Other 2%, Undecided 16%
InsiderAdvantage Oct 2–3, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 29%, Fred Thompson 19%, Mitt Romney 16%, John McCain 10%, Mike Huckabee 6%, Ron Paul 3%, Sam Brownback 1%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Undecided 15%
Strategic Vision (note) Sept 21–23, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 35%, Fred Thompson 24%, Mitt Romney 9%, John McCain 6%, Mike Huckabee 5%, Newt Gingrich 4%, Ron Paul 3%, Tom Tancredo 2%, Sam Brownback 1%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Undecided 10%
Rasmussen Sept 19, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 29%, Fred Thompson 23%, John McCain 12%, Mitt Romney 11%, Mike Huckabee 3%, Others 2%
Mason-Dixon Sept 17–18, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 24%, Fred Thompson 23%, Mitt Romney 13%, John McCain 9%, Mike Huckabee 6%, Ron Paul 1%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Tom Tancredo 1%, Sam Brownback <1%, Undecided 22%
InsiderAdvantage Sept 17-18, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 23.9%, Fred Thompson 23.0%, Mitt Romney 11.9%, John McCain 11.2%, Mike Huckabee 4.7%, Ron Paul 2.5%, Sam Brownback 2.2%, Duncan Hunter 1.1%, Undecided 19.4%
American Research Group Sep 15–18, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 26%, John McCain 18%, Fred Thompson 16%, Mitt Romney 14%, Newt Gingrich 4%, Ron Paul 3%, Mike Huckabee 3%, Sam Brownback 1%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Tom Tancredo -, Undecided 14%
Insider Advantage Sep 6–10, 2007 Fred Thompson 27%, Rudy Giuliani 21%, John McCain 9%, Mitt Romney 8%, Mike Huckabee 4%, Sam Brownback 3%, Ron Paul 2%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Undecided 25%
Quinnipiac Sep 3–9, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 28%, Fred Thompson 17%, Mitt Romney 11%, John McCain 10%, Newt Gingrich 6%, Mike Huckabee 2%, Paul 2%, Sam Brownback -%, Hunter -%, Tancredo -%, Other 4%, Undecided 18%
Rasmussen

(Likely Primary Voters)
Sampling Size: 689

Aug 13, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 30%, Fred Thompson 17%, Mitt Romney 15%, John McCain 7%, Mike Huckabee 5%
Strategic Vision (R) Aug 10–12, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 34%, Fred Thompson 18%, Mitt Romney 10%, John McCain 8%, Newt Gingrich 3%, Mike Huckabee 3%, Tom Tancredo 3%, Ron Paul 2%, Brownback 1%, T. Thompson 1%, Hunter 1%, Undecided 16%
Quinnipiac July 30 – Aug 6, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 26%, Fred Thompson 19%, John McCain 11%, Mitt Romney 9%, Newt Gingrich 6%, Sam Brownback 2% Mike Huckabee 2%, T. Thompson 1%, Gilmore 0%, Hunter 0%, Paul 0%, Tancredo 0%, Other 3%, Undecided 18%
Mason-Dixon July 23–26, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 21%, Fred Thompson 18%, John McCain 11%, Mitt Romney 7%, Mike Huckabee 5%, Tommy Thompson 2%, Sam Brownback 1%, Newt Gingrich 1% (write-in), Undecided 34%
Rasmussen July 18–19, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 22%, Fred Thompson 21%, John McCain 13%, Mitt Romney 13%, Undecided 27%
Quinnipiac July 12–16, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 30%, Fred Thompson 18%, John McCain 10%, Mitt Romney 9%, Newt Gingrich 5%
American Research Group July 12–15, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 33%, Fred Thompson 27%, Mitt Romney 12%, John McCain 7%, Gingrich 3%, Brownback 1%, Hagel 1%, Huckabee 1%, Paul 1%, Tommy Thompson 1%, Gilmore -, Hunter -, Pataki -, Tancredo -, Undecided 13%
Quinnipiac June 18–22, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 27%, Fred Thompson 21%, John McCain 13%, Newt Gingrich 7%, Mitt Romney 6%, Ron Paul 2%, Mike Huckabee 1%, Tom Tancredo 1%, Tommy Thompson 1%, Sam Brownback -, Jim Gilmore -, Duncan Hunter -, Someone Else 2%, Wouldn't Vote 3%, Unsure 18%
Strategic Vision (R) June 15–17, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 30%, Fred Thompson 24%, John McCain 11%, Mitt Romney 8%, Newt Gingrich 4%, Brownback 2%, Tancredo 2%, Huckabee 2%, Paul 2%, T. Thompson 1%, Gilmore 1%, Hagel 1%, Hunter 1%, Undecided 11%
Zogby Poll June 4–6, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 31%, John McCain 12%, Mitt Romney 12%, Fred Thompson 10%, Brownback 2%, Huckabee 2%, Hagel 1%, Paul 1%, Sandford 1%, Gilmore 0%, Tancredo 0%, Tommy Thompson 0%, Other 8%, Unsure 22%
Quinnipiac University May 24 – June 4, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 31%, Fred Thompson 14%, John McCain 10%, Mitt Romney 8%, Newt Gingrich 7%, Brownback 1%, Hunter 1%, Tommy Thompson 1%, Gilmore -, Hagel -, Huckabee -, Pataki -, Paul -, Tancredo -, Other 3%, Don't Know 21%
Strategic Vision (R) May 11–13, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 32%, John McCain 20%, Fred Thompson 10%, Newt Gingrich 7%, Mitt Romney 5%, Sam Brownback 3%, Tancredo 2%, Huckabee 2%, Paul 2%, Tommy Thompson 1%, Gilmore 1%, Hagel 1%, Hunter 1%, Undecided 13%
St. Petersburg Times May 6–9, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 29%, John McCain 15%, Mitt Romney 14%, Fred Thompson 9%, Newt Gingrich 8%, Huckabee 2%, Brownback 1%, Gilmore 1%, Paul 1%, Tommy Thompson 1%, Hunter -, Other 1%, Undecided 17%
American Research Group May 4–8, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 31%, John McCain 18%, Mitt Romney 11%, Fred Thompson 13%, Newt Gingrich 8%, Brownback 1%, Hagel 1%, Huckabee 1%, Hunter 1%, Tancredo 1%, Tommy Thompson 1%, Gilmore -, Pataki -, Paul -, Undecided 13%
Quinnipiac University Mar 21- Mar 27, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 35%, John McCain 15%, Newt Gingrich 11%, Fred Thompson 6%, Mitt Romney 5%, Sam Brownback 1%, Tommy Thompson 1%, Ron Paul 1%, Mike Huckabee 0%, Duncan Hunter 0%, Tom Tancredo 0%, Jim Gilmore 0%, Chuck Hagel 0%, George Pataki 0%, Someone else 3%, Undecided 19%
Strategic Vision (note) Mar 9- Mar 11, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 36%, John McCain 21%, Mitt Romney 8%, Newt Gingrich 6%, Sam Brownback 4%, Tom Tancredo 4%, Mike Huckabee 2%, Tommy Thompson 2%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Jim Gilmore 0%, Chuck Hagel 1%, Undecided 14%
Quinnipiac University Feb 25 – Mar 1, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 38%, John McCain 18%, Newt Gingrich 14%, Mitt Romney 6%, Sam Brownback 1%, Mike Huckabee 1%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Tom Tancredo 1%, Tommy Thompson 1%, Jim Gilmore 0%, Chuck Hagel 0%, Ron Paul 0%, George Pataki 0%, Someone else 2%, Undecided 16%
Elon University Feb 18–22, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 29.5%, John McCain 11.5%, Mitt Romney 4.9%, Newt Gingrich 1.6%, Don't Know/Too Early to Tell 52.5%
Quinnipiac University January 29 – Feb 4, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 29%, John McCain 23%, Newt Gingrich 14%, Mitt Romney 6%, George Pataki 2%, Tommy Thompson 2%, Sam Brownback 1%, Chuck Hagel 0%, Duncan Hunter 0%, Mike Huckabee 0%, Jim Gilmore 0%, Tom Tancredo 0%, Someone else 3%, Wouldn't vote 2%, Undecided 19%
American Research Group January 4–7, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 30%, Newt Gingrich 16%, John McCain 15%, Chuck Hagel 2%, Mitt Romney 2%, Mike Huckabee 1%, George Pataki 1%, Undecided 32%

Georgia

Georgia Winner
Mike Huckabee
Primary Date
February 5, 2008
See also[13][16]
Poll Source Date Highlights
Primary Results

Sampling Size: 960,372

February 5, 2008 Mike Huckabee 34%, John McCain 31.6%, Mitt Romney 30.2%, Ron Paul 2.9%, Rudy Giuliani 0.7%, Fred Thompson 0.4%, Duncan Hunter 0.1%, Others 0.2%
InsiderAdvantage

Sampling Size: 1212

February 4, 2008 Mike Huckabee 32.4%, John McCain 31.5%, Mitt Romney 29.2%, Ron Paul 2.7%, Other .8%, Undecided 3.4%
Strategic Vision (note)

Sampling Size: 600
Margin of Error: ±4.5%

February 1–3, 2008 John McCain 31%, Mitt Romney 29%, Mike Huckabee 26%, Ron Paul 5%, Undecided 9%
Rasmussen Reports

Sampling Size: 783
Margin of Error: ±4%

February 2, 2008 John McCain 31%, Mitt Romney 29%, Mike Huckabee 28%, Ron Paul 6%, Undecided 6%
InsiderAdvantage

Sampling Size: 388

February 2, 2008 Mitt Romney 30.1%, John McCain 28.9%, Mike Huckabee 27.9%, Ron Paul 2.4%, Other 4%, Undecided 10.3%
Public Policy Polling

Sampling Size: 862
Margin of Error: ±3.3%

January 30, 2008 Mitt Romney 32%, John McCain 31%, Mike Huckabee 24%, Ron Paul 3%, Undecided 10%
McClatchy/MSNBC/Mason Dixon

Sampling Size: 400
Margin of Error: ±4.6%

January 30, 2008 John McCain 33%, Mitt Romney 27%, Mike Huckabee 18%, Ron Paul 4%, Undecided 17%
InsiderAdvantage

Sampling Size: 362

January 30, 2008 John McCain 35%, Mike Huckabee 24%, Mitt Romney 24%, Ron Paul 5%, Other 1%, Undecided 11%
Rasmussen Reports

Sampling Size: 768
Margin of Error: ±4%

January 22, 2008 Mike Huckabee 34%, John McCain 19%, Mitt Romney 16%, Ron Paul 12%, Rudy Giuliani 11%, Undecided 8%
Mason Dixon/AJC

Sampling Size: 400
Margin of Error: ±5%

January 7–10, 2008 Mike Huckabee 31%, John McCain 18%, Mitt Romney 14%, Rudy Giuliani 9%, Fred Thompson 8%
Insider Advantage (R)
Margin of Error: +/- 4%
Sample Size: 823
Dec 17 – Dec 18 2007 Mike Huckabee 36%, Rudy Giuliani 14%, Mitt Romney 12%, Fred Thompson 10%, John McCain 10%, Ron Paul 4%, Duncan Hunter 2%, Tom Tancredo 1%, Undecided 11%
Stragetic Vision (R) Dec 7 – Dec 9 2007 Mike Huckabee 23%, Fred Thompson 20%, Rudy Giuliani 17%, John McCain 11%, Mitt Romney 10%, Ron Paul 4%, Tom Tancredo 2%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Undecided 12%
Strategic Vision (R) Oct 19 – Oct 21 2007 Fred Thompson 39%, Rudy Giuliani 20%, John McCain 9%, Mike Huckabee 7%, Mitt Romney 6%, Ron Paul 3%, Tom Tancredo 2%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Undecided 13%
Strategic Vision (R) Sept 7 – Sept 9 2007 Fred Thompson 32%, Rudy Giuliani 17%, Newt Gingrich 9%, John McCain 8%, Mitt Romney 6%, Mike Huckabee 6%, Sam Brownback 2%, Tom Tancredo 2%, Ron Paul 2%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Undecided 15%
American Research Group

Margin of Error: +/- 4%
Sample Size: 600 (509 R, 91 I)

Aug 2–6, 2007 Fred Thompson 27%, Rudy Giuliani 20%, Mitt Romney 14%, Newt Gingrich 13%, John McCain 7%, Mike Huckabee 3%, Sam Brownback 2%, Ron Paul 2%, T. Thompson 1%, Hunter -, Tancredo -, Undecided 12%
Strategic Vision (R) June 27, 2007 Fred Thompson 25%, Rudy Giuliani 20%, John McCain 11%, Newt Gingrich 7%, Mitt Romney 6%, Mike Huckabee 5%, Sam Brownback 4%, Tom Tancredo 2%, Ron Paul 2%, Tommy Thompson 1%, Chuck Hagel 1%, Jim Gilmore 1%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Undecided 14%
Strategic Vision (R) Apr 11, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 23%, John McCain 17%, Fred Thompson 12%, Newt Gingrich 10%, Mitt Romney 5%, Tom Tancredo 3%, Sam Brownback 3%, Tommy Thompson 3%, Mike Huckabee 2%, Chuck Hagel 1%, Jim Gilmore 1%, Ron Paul 1%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Undecided 18%
Insider Advantage Mar 23–25, 2007 Newt Gingrich 25%, Rudy Giuliani 24%, John McCain 13%, Fred Thompson 9%, Mitt Romney 7%, Undecided 20%, Other 1%
Elon University

Sample Size: 47

Feb 18–22, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 25.5%, John McCain 12.8%, Newt Gingrich 2.1%, Bill Frist 2.1%, Too Early to Know/Undecided 57.4%
Strategic Vision (note) January 12–14, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 27%, John McCain 24%, Newt Gingrich 12%, Mitt Romney 7%, Mike Huckabee 3%, Sam Brownback 2%, Tom Tancredo 2%, Tommy Thompson 2%, George Pataki 1%, Chuck Hagel 1%, Jim Gilmore 1%, Duncan Hunter 0%, Undecided 18%

Idaho

Idaho Winner
John McCain
Primary Date
May 27, 2008
Poll Source Date Highlights
Primary Results May 27, 2008 John McCain 69.7%, Ron Paul 23.7%, None of the Names Shown 6.6%
Greg Smith & Associates July 11–13, 2007 Mitt Romney 38%, Rudy Giuliani 20%, Fred Thompson 18%, John McCain 14%, Other 3%, Undecided 7%

Illinois

Illinois Winner
John McCain
Primary Date
February 5, 2008
See also[17]
Poll Source Date Highlights
Primary Results

Sampling Size: 895,247

February 5, 2008 John McCain 47.4%, Mitt Romney 28.7%, Mike Huckabee 16.5%, Ron Paul 5%, Rudy Giuliani 1.3%, Fred Thompson 0.8%, Others 0.3%
American Research Group 

Sampling Size: 600
Margin of Error: ±4.0%

January 30–31, 2008 John McCain 48%, Mitt Romney 34%, Mike Huckabee 3%, Ron Paul 3%, Undecided 9%, Other 3%
Chicago Tribune/WGN TV

Sampling Size: 500
Margin of Error: ±4.4%

January 29–31, 2008 John McCain 43%, Mitt Romney 20%, Mike Huckabee 15%, Ron Paul 4%, Undecided 17%
Rasmussen

Sampling Size: 504
Margin of Error: ±4%

January 29, 2008 John McCain 34%, Mitt Romney 26%, Mike Huckabee 16%, Ron Paul 10%
Research 2000

Sampling Size: 500
Margin of Error: ±4.5%

January 21–24, 2008 John McCain 31%, Mitt Romney 20%, Rudy Giuliani 13%, Mike Huckabee 11%, Ron Paul 7%, Undecided 18%
Chicago Tribune

Margin of Error: ±4.4%
Sample Size: 500

December 9–13, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 23%, Mike Huckabee 21%, Mitt Romney 14%, John McCain 12%, Fred Thompson 11%, Ron Paul 3%, Tom Tancredo 1%, Other 1%, Undecided 14%
American Research Group

Margin of Error: +/- 4%
Sample Size: 600 (522 R, 78 I)

July 6–9, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 30%, Fred Thompson 21%, John McCain 12%, Mitt Romney 11%, Newt Gingrich 5%, Mike Huckabee 2%, Sam Brownback 1%, Chuck Hagel 1%, Ron Paul 1%, Tom Tancredo 1%, Tommy Thompson 1%, Gilmore 0%, Duncan Hunter 0%, Pataki 0%, Undecided 14%
Capitol Fax/Ask Illinois April 27–30, 2007 John McCain 26.1%, Rudy Giuliani 25.7%, Fred Thompson 17.7%, Mitt Romney 10.2%, Tommy Thompson 3.3%, Undecided/Other 17%
American Research Group January 11–14, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 33%, John McCain 24%, Mitt Romney 12%, Newt Gingrich 8%, Sam Brownback 4%, Tommy Thompson 4%, Chuck Hagel 3%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Gilmore 0%, Mike Huckabee 0%, Pataki 0%, Undecided 11%

Iowa

Iowa Winner
Mike Huckabee
Caucus Date
January 3, 2008[18]

See also[13][19][20][21]

Poll Source Date Highlights
Caucus Results

Sampling Size: 118,696

January 3, 2008 Mike Huckabee 34.4%, Mitt Romney 25.2%, Fred Thompson 13.4%, John McCain 13.1%, Ron Paul 10%, Rudy Giuliani 3.5%, Duncan Hunter .4%
Insider Advantage January 1, 2008 Mike Huckabee 30%, Mitt Romney 24.1%, Fred Thompson 11.3%, John McCain 10.9%, Ron Paul 7.1%, Rudy Giuliani 4.8%, Duncan Hunter 1.3%, Undecided 10.5%
American Research Group

Sample Size: 600
Margin of Error: ±4%

December 31, 2007 – January 2, 2007 Mike Huckabee 29%, Mitt Romney 24%, Fred Thompson 13%, John McCain 11%, Rudy Giuliani 8%, Ron Paul 6%, Duncan Hunter 4%, Alan Keyes 1%, Undecided 4%
Zogby International

Sample Size: 914
Margin of Error: ±3.3%

December 30, 2007 – January 2, 2008 Mike Huckabee 31%, Mitt Romney 25%, Fred Thompson 11%, John McCain 10%, Ron Paul 10%, Rudy Giuliani 6%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Undecided 6%
Zogby International

Sample Size: 882
Margin of Error: ±3.3%

December 29, 2007 – January 1, 2008 Mike Huckabee 28%, Mitt Romney 26%, John McCain 12%, Fred Thompson 12%, Ron Paul 9%, Rudy Giuliani 7%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Undecided 6%
Zogby International

Sample Size: 903
Margin of Error: ±3.3%

December 28–31, 2007 Mike Huckabee 29%, Mitt Romney 25%, John McCain 12%, Fred Thompson 10%, Rudy Giuliani 8%, Ron Paul 7%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Undecided 6%
Strategic Vision (note)

Sample Size: 600
Margin of Error: ±4.5%

December 28–30, 2007 Mitt Romney 30%, Mike Huckabee 28%, John McCain 16%, Fred Thompson 13%, Ron Paul 4%, Rudy Giuliani 4%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Undecided 4%
Des Moines Register

Sample Size: 800
Margin of Error: ±3.5%

December 27–30, 2007 Mike Huckabee 32%, Mitt Romney 26%, John McCain 13%, Ron Paul 9%, Fred Thompson 9%, Rudy Giuliani 5%, Alan Keyes 1%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Undecided 4%
Zogby International

Sample Size: 876
Margin of Error: ±3.3%

December 27–30, 2007 Mike Huckabee 29%, Mitt Romney 27%, John McCain 13%, Fred Thompson 8%, Rudy Giuliani 7%, Ron Paul 7%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Undecided 6%
CNN/Opinion Research Corp.

Sample Size: 373
Margin of Error: ±5%

December 26–30, 2007 Mitt Romney 31%, Mike Huckabee 28%, Fred Thompson 13%, John McCain 10%, Rudy Giuliani 8%, Ron Paul 8%, Duncan Hunter <0.5%
Zogby International

Sample Size: 867
Margin of Error: ±3.4%

December 26–29, 2007 Mike Huckabee 29%, Mitt Romney 28%, John McCain 11%, Fred Thompson 8%, Rudy Giuliani 8%, Ron Paul 8%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Undecided 6%
MSNBC/Mason-Dixon

Sample Size: 400
Margin of Error: ±5%

December 26–28, 2007 Mitt Romney 27%, Mike Huckabee 23%, Fred Thompson 14%, John McCain 13%, Rudy Giuliani 5%, Ron Paul 5%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Undecided 12%
American Research Group

Sample Size: 600
Margin of Error: ±4%

December 26–28, 2007 Mitt Romney 32%, Mike Huckabee 23%, John McCain 11%, Fred Thompson 7%, Rudy Giuliani 6%, Ron Paul 6%, Duncan Hunter 2%, Undecided 11%
Research 2000/Sioux City Journal

Sample Size: 500
Margin of Error: ±4.5%

December 26–27, 2007 Mike Huckabee 34%, Mitt Romney 27%, Fred Thompson 11%, John McCain 8%, Rudy Giuliani 8%, Ron Paul 8%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Undecided 3%
Strategic Vision (R)

Sampling Size: 600LV
Margin of Error: ± 4.5%

December 26–27, 2007 Mike Huckabee 29%, Mitt Romney 27%, Fred Thompson 15%, John McCain 14%, Rudy Giuliani 4%, Ron Paul 4%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Undecided 6%
LA Times/Bloomberg December 20–23, 26, 2007 Mike Huckabee 37%, Mitt Romney 23%, John McCain 11%, Fred Thompson 11%, Rudy Giuliani 6%, Ron Paul 2%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Undecided 9%
American Research Group

Sampling Size: 600
Margin of Error: ± 4%

December 20–23, 2007 Mike Huckabee 23%, Mitt Romney 21%, John McCain 17%, Rudy Giuliani 14%, Ron Paul 10%, Fred Thompson 3%, Duncan Hunter 2%, Alan Keyes 2%, Undecided 8%
American Research Group

Sampling Size: 600
Margin of Error: ± 4%

December 16–19, 2007 Mike Huckabee 28%, John McCain 20%, Mitt Romney 17%, Rudy Giuliani 13%, Fred Thompson 5%, Ron Paul 4%, Tom Tancredo 1%, Alan Keyes 1%, Duncan Hunter -%, Undecided 11%
Strategic Vision (R)

Sampling Size: 600LV
Margin of Error: ± 4.5%

December 16–18, 2007 Mike Huckabee 31%, Mitt Romney 25%, Fred Thompson 16%, John McCain 8%, Rudy Giuliani 6%, Ron Paul 5%, Tom Tancredo 2%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Undecided 6%
Rasmussen Reports

Sampling Size: 496
Margin of Error: ± 4%

December 17, 2007 Mike Huckabee 28%, Mitt Romney 27%, John McCain 14%, Rudy Giuliani 8%, Fred Thompson 8%, Ron Paul 6%, Tom Tancredo 2%, Duncan Hunter 1%
Strategic Vision (R)

Sampling Size: 600LV
Margin of Error: ± 4.5%

December 8–10, 2007 Mike Huckabee 30%, Mitt Romney 25%, Fred Thompson 13%, Rudy Giuliani 10%, John McCain 5%, Ron Paul 4%, Tom Tancredo 3%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Undecided 9%
Rasmussen Reports

Sampling Size: 789

December 10, 2007 Mike Huckabee 39%, Mitt Romney 23%, Fred Thompson 8%, Rudy Giuliani 8%, John McCain 6%, Ron Paul 5%, Tom Tancredo 3%, Duncan Hunter 1%
Newsweek

Sampling Size: 540
Margin of Error: ± 3%

December 5–6, 2007 Mike Huckabee 39%, Mitt Romney 17%, Fred Thompson 10%, Rudy Giuliani 9%, Ron Paul 8%, John McCain 6%, Tom Tancredo 2%, Duncan Hunter 0%, Other 1%, Undecided 8%
Mason-Dixon

Sampling Size: 400
Margin of Error: ± 5%

December 3–6, 2007 Mike Huckabee 32%, Mitt Romney 20%, Fred Thompson 11%, John McCain 7%, Rudy Giuliani 5%, Ron Paul 2%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Alan Keyes 1%, Undecided 19%
Strategic Vision (note)

Sampling Size: 600
Margin of Error: ± 4.5%

November 30 – December 2, 2007 Mike Huckabee 27%, Mitt Romney 24%, Rudy Giuliani 13%, Fred Thompson 11%, John McCain 6%, Ron Paul 5%, Tom Tancredo 2%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Undecided 11%
American Research Group

Sampling Size: 600
Margin of Error: ± 4%

November 26–29, 2007 Mitt Romney 28%, Mike Huckabee 27%, Fred Thompson 14%, Rudy Giuliani 9%, John McCain 9%, Ron Paul 3%, Tom Tancredo 1%, Duncan Hunter -%, Alan Keyes -%, Undecided 9%
Des Moines Register November 25–28, 2007 Mike Huckabee 29%, Mitt Romney 24%, Rudy Giuliani 13%, Fred Thompson 9%, John McCain 7%, Ron Paul 7%, Tom Tancredo 6%, Duncan Hunter 1%, John Cox -%, Alan Keyes -%, Undecided 4%
Rasmussen November 26–27, 2007 Mike Huckabee 28%, Mitt Romney 25%, Rudy Giuliani 12%, Fred Thompson 11%, Ron Paul 5%, John McCain 4%
Strategic Vision (note)

Sampling Size: 600
Margin of Error: ±4.5%

November 23–25, 2007 Mitt Romney 26%, Mike Huckabee 24%, Rudy Giuliani 14%, Fred Thompson 10%, John McCain 7%, Ron Paul 5%, Tom Tancredo 3%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Undecided 10%
Pew Research Center

Sampling Size: 264
Margin of Error: ±7%

November 7–25, 2007 Mitt Romney 25%, Mike Huckabee 24%, Rudy Giuliani 14%, Fred Thompson 12%, John McCain 5%, Ron Paul 5%, Tom Tancredo 3%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Other 10%
ABC News/Wash Post November 14–18, 2007 Mitt Romney 28%, Mike Huckabee 24%, Fred Thompson 15%, Rudy Giuliani 13%, John McCain 6%, Ron Paul 6%, Tom Tancredo 2%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Undecided 4%
KCCI Des Moines

Sampling Size: 600
Margin of Error: ± 4%

November 12–14, 2007 Mitt Romney 27%, Mike Huckabee 18%, Rudy Giuliani 16%, Fred Thompson 10%, John McCain 6%, Ron Paul 5%, Tom Tancredo 2%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Undecided 15%
American Research Group[permanent dead link]

Sampling Size: 600
Margin of Error: ± 4%

November 10–14, 2007 Mitt Romney 26%, Mike Huckabee 24%, Rudy Giuliani 11%, Fred Thompson 11%, John McCain 10%, Ron Paul 3%, Tom Tancredo 1%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Keyes -, Undecided 13%
Rasmussen Reports

Sampling Size: 825
Margin of Error: ± 3.5%

November 9–12, 2007 Mitt Romney 29%, Mike Huckabee 16%, Rudy Giuliani 15%, Fred Thompson 14%, John McCain 6%, Ron Paul 4%, Tom Tancredo 4%, Duncan Hunter 2%, Undecided 9%
Strategic Vision (note)

Sampling Size: 600
Margin of Error: ± 4%

November 9–12, 2007 Mitt Romney 30%, Mike Huckabee 19%, Rudy Giuliani 12%, Fred Thompson 11%, John McCain 7%, Ron Paul 5%, Tom Tancredo 2%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Undecided 13%
CBS News/New York Times

Sampling Size: 1273
Margin of Error: +/- 5%

November 2–11, 2007 Mitt Romney 27%, Mike Huckabee 21%, Rudy Giuliani 15%, Fred Thompson 9%, Ron Paul 4%, John McCain 4%, Tom Tancredo 3%, Duncan Hunter 2%, Undecided 14%
Zogby

Sampling Size: 410
Margin of Error: +/- 5.0%

November 6–7, 2007 Mitt Romney 31%, Mike Huckabee 15%, Rudy Giuliani 11%, Fred Thompson 10%, John McCain 8%, Ron Paul 4%, Tom Tancredo 3%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Other 1%, Not Sure 16%
American Research Group October 26–29, 2007 Mitt Romney 27%, Mike Huckabee 19%, Rudy Giuliani 16%, John McCain 14%, Fred Thompson 8%, Tom Tancredo 2%, Ron Paul 1%, Duncan Hunter -%, Alan Keyes -%, Undecided 13%
University of Iowa Hawkeye Poll

Margin of Error: +/- 5.8%
Sampling Size: 285

October 17–24, 2007 Mitt Romney 36.2%, Rudy Giuliani 13.1%, Mike Huckabee 12.8%, Fred Thompson 11.4%, John McCain 6.0%, Tom Tancredo 2.2%, Others 3.5%, Undecided 14.9%
Strategic Vision (note) October 12–14, 2007 Mitt Romney 28%, Rudy Giuliani 13%, Mike Huckabee 12%, Fred Thompson 10%, John McCain 5%, Sam Brownback 4%, Ron Paul 4%, Tom Tancredo 2%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Undecided 22%
Rasmussen Reports October 10 & 14, 2007 Mitt Romney 25%, Fred Thompson 19%, Mike Huckabee 18%, Rudy Giuliani 13%, John McCain 6%, Sam Brownback 3%, Ron Paul 2%, Tom Tancredo 2%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Undecided 11%
InsiderAdvantage October 2–3, 2007 Mitt Romney 24%, Rudy Giuliani 16%, Fred Thompson 13%, Mike Huckabee 13%, John McCain 10%, Sam Brownback 5%, Ron Paul 4%, Duncan Hunter 2%, Undecided 13%
Des Moines Register October 1–3, 2007 Mitt Romney 29%, Fred Thompson 18%, Mike Huckabee 12%, Rudy Giuliani 11%, John McCain 7%, Tom Tancredo 5%, Ron Paul 4%, Sam Brownback 2%, Alan Keyes 2%, Duncan Hunter 1%, John Cox -, Undecided 9%
American Research Group[permanent dead link] September 26–29, 2007 Mitt Romney 22%, Rudy Giuliani 21%, Fred Thompson 16%, John McCain 11%, Newt Gingrich 5%, Mike Huckabee 4%, Ron Paul 2%, Duncan Hunter 2%, Sam Brownback 2%, Alan Keyes 1%, Tom Tancredo 1%, Undecided 13%
Newsweek (All Republican voters) September 26–27, 2007 Mitt Romney 25%, Fred Thompson 16%, Rudy Giuliani 15%, John McCain 7%, Mike Huckabee 6%, Tom Tancredo 3%, Sam Brownback 3%, Ron Paul 2%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Undecided 21%
Newsweek (Likely caucus-goers) September 26–27, 2007 Mitt Romney 24%, Fred Thompson 16%, Rudy Giuliani 13%, Mike Huckabee 12%, John McCain 9%, Ron Paul 5%, Tom Tancredo 3%, Sam Brownback 2%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Undecided 15%
Strategic Vision (note) September 21–23, 2007 Mitt Romney 30%, Rudy Giuliani 17%, Fred Thompson 13%, Mike Huckabee 8%, John McCain 6%, Newt Gingrich 5%, Ron Paul 3%, Tom Tancredo 3%, Sam Brownback 2%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Undecided 13%
Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg Poll September 6–10, 2007 Mitt Romney 28%, Rudy Giuliani 16%, Fred Thompson 16%, Mike Huckabee 8%, John McCain 7%, Tom Tancredo 3%, Ron Paul 2%, Sam Brownback 2%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Undecided 15%
American Research Group August 26–29, 2007 Mitt Romney 27%, Rudy Giuliani 17%, Mike Huckabee 14%, Fred Thompson 13%, Newt Gingrich 7%, John McCain 5%, Hunter 1%, Paul 1%, Brownback -, Tancredo -, Undecided 15%
McLaughlin & Associates August 20–21, 2007 Mitt Romney 35%, Rudy Giuliani 12%, Fred Thompson 11%, Mike Huckabee 11%, Tom Tancredo 9%, John McCain 7%, Sam Brownback 2%, Ron Paul 1%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Firm Undecided 10%
Strategic Vision (note)

(Likely Caucus Goers)
Margin of Error: +/- 4%
Sampling Size: 600

August 17–19, 2007 Mitt Romney 31%, Fred Thompson 15%, Rudy Giuliani 13%, John McCain 8%, Mike Huckabee 8%, Newt Gingrich 3%, Ron Paul 3%, Tom Tancredo 3%, Sam Brownback 2%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Undecided 13%
Newsmax/Zogby

(Likely Caucus Goers)
Margin of Error: +/- 4.5%
Sampling Size: 487

August 17–18, 2007 Mitt Romney 33%, Rudy Giuliani 14%, Fred Thompson 12%, Mike Huckabee 8%, John McCain 6%, Sam Brownback 4%, Tom Tancredo 3%, Ron Paul 3%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Someone else 2%, Not sure 14%
University of Iowa (Most Likely Caucus Goers) July 29 – August 5, 2007 Mitt Romney 27.8%, Rudy Giuliani 11.7%, Fred Thompson 7.6%, Tom Tancredo 5.4%, Sam Brownback 4%, John McCain 3.1%, Mike Huckabee 1.8%, Other 11.2%, Undecided 27.4%
ABC News/Washington Post July 26–31, 2007 Mitt Romney 25%, Rudy Giuliani 14%, Fred Thompson 13%, Mike Huckabee 8%, John McCain 8%, Sam Brownback 5%, Tom Tancredo 5%, Newt Gingrich 4%, Tommy Thompson 4%, Ron Paul 2%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Other (vol) 1%, None of the Above 3%, Undecided 7%
American Research Group[permanent dead link]

Margin of Error: +/- 4%
Sampling Size: 600

July 26–30, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 22%, Mitt Romney 21%, John McCain 17%, Fred Thompson 13%, Newt Gingrich 4%, Tommy Thompson 2%, Duncan Hunter 2%, Sam Brownback 1%, Mike Huckabee 1%, Ron Paul 1%, Tom Tancredo 1%, Undecided 15%
Research 2000 July 23–25, 2007 Mitt Romney 25%, Fred Thompson 14%, Rudolph Giuliani 13%, John McCain 10%, Newt Gingrich 6%, Sam Brownback 2%, Mike Huckabee 2%, Tom Tancredo 2%, Tommy Thompson 2%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Ron Paul 1%, Undecided 22%
American Research Group[permanent dead link] June 26–30, 2007 Mitt Romney 25%, Rudolph Giuliani 18%, Fred Thompson 14%, John McCain 13%, Newt Gingrich 5%, Tommy Thompson 3%, Sam Brownback 3%, Mike Huckabee 1%, Ron Paul 1%, Tom Tancredo 1%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Chuck Hagel 1%, Undecided 14%
Strategic Vision (note) June 22–24, 2007 Mitt Romney 23%, Fred Thompson 17%, Rudolph Giuliani 14%, John McCain 10%, Tommy Thompson 6%, Mike Huckabee 5%, Newt Gingrich 4%, Sam Brownback 3%, Ron Paul 2%, Tom Tancredo 2%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Jim Gilmore 1%, Chuck Hagel 1%, Undecided 11%
Mason-Dixon June 16, 2007 Mitt Romney 25%, Fred Thompson 17%, Rudolph Giuliani 15%, Mike Huckabee 7%, Sam Brownback 6%, John McCain 6%, Undecided 21%
Voter/Consumer Research (R) May 29–31, 2007 Mitt Romney 29%, Rudy Giuliani 12%, Newt Gingrich 10%, Fred Thompson 10%, John McCain 9%, Mike Huckabee 7%
Public Policy Polling (R) May 30, 2007 Mitt Romney 31%, Fred Thompson 15%, Newt Gingrich 10%, John McCain 9%, Rudy Giuliani 8%, Tommy Thompson 5%, Brownback 4%, Mike Huckabee 4%, Tom Tancredo 4%, Ron Paul 2%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Jim Gilmore 0%, Undecided 8%
American Research Group May 23–25, 2007 John McCain 25%, Rudy Giuliani 23%, Mitt Romney 16%, Newt Gingrich 8%, Fred Thompson 6%, Brownback 3%, Chuck Hagel 2%, Mike Huckabee 2%, Tancredo 2%, Tommy Thompson 2%, Jim Gilmore 1%, Duncan Hunter -, Pataki -, Ron Paul -, Undecided 10%
Strategic Vision (R) May 18–20, 2007 Mitt Romney 20%, Rudy Giuliani 18%, John McCain 16%, Fred Thompson 10%, Tommy Thompson 7%, Newt Gingrich 5%, Mike Huckabee 3%, Brownback 2%, Tancredo 2%, Ron Paul 2%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Jim Gilmore 1%, Chuck Hagel 1%, Undecided 12%
Des Moines Register

(likely Caucus-goers)

May 12–16, 2007 Mitt Romney 30%, John McCain 18%, Rudy Giuliani 17%, Tommy Thompson 7%, Sam Brownback 5%, Mike Huckabee 4%, Tom Tancredo 4%, John Cox 1%, Gilmore 1%, Hunter 1%, Paul -, Undecided 12%
Research 2000 May 14–16, 2007 John McCain 18%, Rudy Giuliani 17%, Mitt Romney 16%, Fred Thompson 9%, Newt Gingrich 6%, Tom Tancredo 3%, Tommy Thompson 3%, Sam Brownback 2%, Mike Huckabee 2%, Hunter 1%, Gilmore 1%, Paul -, Undecided 22%
Zogby May 14–15, 2007 Mitt Romney 19%, Rudy Giuliani 18%, John McCain 18%, Fred Thompson 9%, Tommy Thompson 4%, Tom Tancredo 3%, Sam Brownback 2%, Mike Huckabee 2%, Chuck Hagel -, Undecided 22%
American Research Group April 27–30, 2007 John McCain 26%, Rudy Giuliani 19%, Mitt Romney 14%, Fred Thompson 13%, Newt Gingrich 8%, Mike Huckabee 2%, Tom Tancredo 2%, Sam Browback 1%, Jim Gilmore 1%, Chuck Hagel 1%, Tommy Thompson 1%, Duncan Hunter 0%, George Pataki 0%, Ron Paul 0%, Undecided 13%
Strategic Vision (R) Mar 30 – April 1, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 25%, John McCain 20%, Fred Thompson 11%, Mitt Romney 8%, Newt Gingrich 6%, Sam Brownback 3%, Tommy Thompson 3%, Chuck Hagel 2%, Mike Huckabee 2%, Tom Tancredo 2%, Jim Gilmore 1%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Ron Paul 1%, Undecided 15%
University of Iowa (Likely Caucus Goers) Mar 19–31, 2007 John McCain 20.9%, Rudy Giuliani 20.3%, Mitt Romney 16.9%, Undecided 23.2%
American Research Group Mar 23, 2007 John McCain 29%, Rudy Giuliani 29%, Fred Thompson 12%, Mitt Romney 10%, Newt Gingrich 7%, Chuck Hagel 1%, Tom Tancredo 1%, Tommy Thompson 1%, Sam Brownback 0%, Jim Gilmore 0%, Duncan Hunter 0%, Mike Huckabee 0%, George Pataki 0%, Ron Paul 0%, Undecided 11%
Strategic Vision (note) Feb 16–18, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 29%, John McCain 22%, Newt Gingrich 11%, Mitt Romney 9%, Chuck Hagel 5%, Tommy Thompson 3%, Sam Brownback 2%, Mike Huckabee 2%, Tom Tancredo 2%, Jim Gilmore 1%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Undecided 13%
Strategic Vision Political

Margin of Error: +/- 4%
Sample Size: 600

January 19–21, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 25%, John McCain 21%, Newt Gingrich 13%, Mitt Romney 8%, Chuck Hagel 7%, Tommy Thompson 2%, Tom Tancredo 2%, Sam Brownback 2%, Mike Huckabee 1%, George Pataki 1%, Jim Gilmore 1%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Undecided 16%
Zogby International

Margin of Error: +/- 4.6%
Sample Size: 465 likely caucus goers

January 15–16, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 19%, John McCain 17%, Newt Gingrich 13%, Condoleezza Rice 9%, Mitt Romney 5%, Tom Tancredo 2%, Chuck Hagel 2%, Sam Brownback 1%, Tommy Thompson 1%, Mike Huckabee 1%, George Pataki 1%, Undecided 22%
American Research Group[permanent dead link] Dec 19–23, 2006 Rudy Giuliani 28%, John McCain 26%, Newt Gingrich 18%, Chuck Hagel 6%, Mitt Romney 6%, Sam Brownback 1%, Mike Huckabee 1%, Jim Gilmore 0%, Duncan Hunter 0%, George Pataki 0%, Tommy Thompson 0%, Undecided 14%

Kansas

Kansas Winner
Mike Huckabee
Caucus Date
February 9, 2008
Poll Source Date Highlights
Caucus Results

Sampling Size: 19,516

February 9, 2008 Mike Huckabee 59.6%, John McCain 23.5%, Ron Paul 11.2%, Mitt Romney 3.3%, Uncommitted 0.4%, Fred Thompson 0.3%, Rudy Giuliani 0.2%, Others 1.5%
Research 2000

Margin of Error: 5%
Sampling Size: 400

May 21–23, 2007 Sam Brownback 18%, Mitt Romney 17%, Rudy Giuliani 13%, John McCain 13%, Fred Thompson 7%, Newt Gingrich 6%, Tom Tancredo 2%, All Others >1%

Louisiana

Louisiana Winner
Mike Huckabee
Primary Date February 9, 2008
Poll Source Date Highlights
Primary Results

Sampling Size: 161,319

February 9, 2008 Mike Huckabee 43.2%, John McCain 41.9%, Mitt Romney 6.3%, Ron Paul 5.3%, Fred Thompson 1.0%, Rudy Giuliani 1.0%, Duncan Hunter 0.2%, Tom Tancredo 0.1%, Others 1.0%

Maine

MaineMaine Winner: Mitt Romney
Caucus Dates: February 1–3, 2008
See also[22]

Poll Source Date Highlights
Caucus Results

Sampling Size: 4,543

February 1, 2008 Mitt Romney 52%, John McCain 21.1%, Ron Paul 18.7%, Mike Huckabee 5.9%, Fred Thompson 0.1%, Others 2.2%
Critical Insights October 10–24, 2007 Mitt Romney 15%, Rudy Giuliani 11%, Fred Thompson 9%, John McCain 7%, Someone else 7%, Undecided 51%
Critical Insights April 20–27, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 24%, John McCain 21%, Mitt Romney 12%, Fred Thompson 9%, Someone else 9%, Undecided 25%
American Research Group

Margin of Error: +/- 4%
Sample Size: 600 (498 R, 102 I)

Feb 2–6, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 33%, John McCain 22%, Newt Gingrich 13%, Mitt Romney 13%, Chuck Hagel 1%, Sam Brownback 0%, Jim Gilmore 0%, Mike Huckabee 0%, Duncan Hunter 0%, George Pataki 0%, Ron Paul 0%, Tom Tancredo 0%, Tommy Thompson 0%, Undecided 18%
American Research Group April 25 – May 2, 2006 John McCain 39%, Newt Gingrich 9%, Mitt Romney 8%, Bill Frist 3%, George Allen 1%, Sam Brownback 1%, Chuck Hagel 1%, George Pataki 1%, Undecided 37%
American Research Group Feb 2006 John McCain 39%, Mitt Romney 10%, Newt Gingrich 7%, Bill Frist 2%, George Pataki 2%, Undecided 39%

Maryland

Maryland Winner
John McCain
Primary Date
February 12, 2008
Poll Source Date Highlights
Primary Results

Sample Size: 297,217

February 12, 2008 John McCain 55.1%, Mike Huckabee 29.1%, Mitt Romney 6.3%, Ron Paul 6%, Rudy Giuliani 1.3%, Fred Thompson 0.9%, Duncan Hunter 0.2%, Tom Tancredo 0.1%, Others 1%
Survey USA

Sample Size: 368
Margin of Error: ± 5.2%

February 9–10, 2008 John McCain 52%, Mike Huckabee 26%, Ron Paul 10%, Other 8%, Undecided 4%
American Research Group[permanent dead link]

Sample Size: 600
Margin of Error: ± 4%

February 8–9, 2008 John McCain 50%, Mike Huckabee 25%, Ron Paul 11%, Other 6%, Undecided 7%
Mason Dixon

Sampling Size: 400
Margin of Error: ± 5%

February 7–8, 2008 John McCain 54%, Mike Huckabee 23%, Ron Paul 7%, Others 3%, Undecided 13%
Survey USA

Sample Size: 360
Margin of Error: ± 5.2%

February 7–8, 2008 John McCain 56%, Mike Huckabee 17%, Ron Paul 10%, Other 12%, Undecided 4%
Baltimore Sun/Opinion Works

Sample Size: 304
Margin of Error: ± 5.6%

January 6–9, 2008 John McCain 26%, Mike Huckabee 18%, Rudy Giuliani 16%, Mitt Romney 12%, Fred Thompson 6%, Other 7%, Undecided 13%, Refused 2%, Will Not Vote 1%
WashingtonPost

Margin of Error: +/- 3%
Sample Size: 1,103 Adults

October 18–27, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 39%, John McCain 18%, Fred Thompson 14%, Mitt Romney 10%, Ron Paul 4%, Mike Huckabee 2%, Tom Tancredo 2%, Duncan Hunter 0%
OpinionWorks[permanent dead link] August 24–26, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 32%, John McCain 13%, Fred Thompson 12%, Mitt Romney 8%, Undecided 29%

Massachusetts

Massachusetts Winner
Mitt Romney
Primary Date
February 5, 2008
See also[23]
Poll Source Date Highlights
Primary Results

Sampling Size: 497,531

February 5, 2008 Mitt Romney 51.3%, John McCain 41%, Mike Huckabee 3.9%, Ron Paul 2.7%, Rudy Giuliani 0.5%, Fred Thompson 0.2%, Duncan Hunter 0.1%, Others 0.4%
Survey USA

Sampling Size: 275
Margin of Error: ±6%

February 2–3, 2008 Mitt Romney 58%, John McCain 37%, Mike Huckabee 3%, Ron Paul 1%, Undecided 1%
Suffolk University/WHDH

Margin of Error: ±4.9%

February 1–3, 2008 Mitt Romney 50%, John McCain 37%, Mike Huckabee 4%, Undecided 6%
Survey USA

Sampling Size: 297
Margin of Error: ±5.7%

January 30, 2008 Mitt Romney 57%, John McCain 34%, Mike Huckabee 3%, Ron Paul 3%, Other 1%, Undecided 2%
Rasmussen Reports

Sampling Size: 408
Margin of Error: ±4%

January 28, 2008 Mitt Romney 55%, John McCain 23%, Mike Huckabee 8%, Ron Paul 4%, Other 2%, Undecided 2%
Survey USA

Sampling Size: 262
Margin of Error: ±6.2%

January 22–23, 2008 Mitt Romney 50%, John McCain 29%, Mike Huckabee 7%, Rudy Giuliani 6%, Ron Paul 3%, Other 1%, Undecided 2%
Survey USA

Sampling Size: 269
Margin of Error: ±6.1%

January 16, 2008 Mitt Romney 48%, John McCain 34%, Rudy Giuliani 8%, Mike Huckabee 3%, Fred Thompson 2%, Ron Paul 2%, Other 1%, Undecided 4%
Suffolk University April 12–15, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 33%, Mitt Romney 21%, John McCain 18%, Tom Tancredo 4%, Fred Thompson 4%, Newt Gingrich 3%, Jim Gilmore 1%, Chuck Hagel 1%, Mike Huckabee 1%, Tommy Thompson 1%, Sam Brownback 0%, Duncan Hunter 0%, George Pataki 0%, Ron Paul 0%, Undecided 12%
American Research Group

Margin of Error: +/- 4%
Sample Size: 600 (275 R, 325 I)

Feb 2–6, 2007 Mitt Romney 38%, Rudy Giuliani 22%, John McCain 20%, Newt Gingrich 2%, Chuck Hagel 1%, Sam Brownback 0%, Jim Gilmore 0%, Mike Huckabee 0%, Duncan Hunter 0%, George Pataki 0%, Ron Paul 0%, Tom Tancredo 0%, Tommy Thompson 0%, Undecided 17%
American Research Group April 25 – May 2, 2006 John McCain 48%, Mitt Romney 17%, Newt Gingrich 2%, George Pataki 1%, Undecided 32%
American Research Group Feb 2006 John McCain 49%, Mitt Romney 20%, Newt Gingrich 4%, George Pataki 2%, George Allen 1%, Bill Frist 1%, Undecided 23%
American Research Group Aug 2005 John McCain 46%, Mitt Romney 22%, Bill Frist 15%, Newt Gingrich 4%, Undecided 26%

Michigan

Michigan Winner
Mitt Romney
Primary Date
January 15, 2008


See also[24][25]

Poll Source Date Highlights
Primary Results

Sampling Size: 868,083

January 15, 2008 Mitt Romney 38.9%, John McCain 29.7%, Mike Huckabee 16.1%, Ron Paul 6.3%, Fred Thompson 3.7%, Rudy Giuliani 2.8%, Duncan Hunter .3%, Tom Tancredo .1%, Uncommitted 2.1%
Reuters/CSPAN/Zogby

Sampling Size: 824
Margin of Error: ±3.4%

January 13–14, 2008 John McCain 27%, Mitt Romney 26%, Mike Huckabee 15%, Ron Paul 8%, Rudy Giuliani 6%, Fred Thompson 3%, Undecided 15%
American Research Group

Sampling Size: 600
Margin of Error: ±4%

January 12–14, 2008 John McCain 31%, Mitt Romney 30%, Mike Huckabee 19%, Ron Paul 9%, Rudy Giuliani 5%, Fred Thompson 4%, Undecided 4%
Mitchell Interactive

Sampling Size: 589
Margin of Error: ±4.1%

January 12–14, 2008 Mitt Romney 35%, John McCain 29%, Mike Huckabee 12%, Ron Paul 4%, Fred Thompson 4%, Rudy Giuliani 3%, Duncan Hunter 2%, Uncommitted 7%, Undecided 4%
Reuters/CSPAN/Zogby

Sampling Size: 915
Margin of Error: ±3.3%

January 11–13, 2008 John McCain 27%, Mitt Romney 24%, Mike Huckabee 15%, Ron Paul 8%, Rudy Giuliani 6%, Fred Thompson 5%, Undecided 9%
Mitchell Interactive

Sampling Size: 582
Margin of Error: 4.1%

January 10–13, 2008 Mitt Romney 29%, John McCain 27%, Mike Huckabee 12%, Rudy Giuliani 7%, Ron Paul 7%, Fred Thompson 4%, Duncan Hunter 2%, Uncommitted 6%, Undecided 5%
Detroit News/WXYZ

Sampling Size: 604
Margin of Error: ±4%

January 9–12, 2008 John McCain 27%, Mitt Romney 26%, Mike Huckabee 19%, Rudy Giuliani 6%, Fred Thompson 5%, Ron Paul 4%, Undecided 10%
Mitchell Interactive

Sampling Size: 520
Margin of Error: ±4.3%

January 9–12, 2008 John McCain 22%, Mitt Romney 21%, Mike Huckabee 12%, Rudy Giuliani 7%, Ron Paul 7%, Fred Thompson 3%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Undecided 18%, Uncommitted 8%
MSNBC/McClatchy/Mason Dixon

Sampling Size: 400
Margin of Error: ±5%

January 9–11, 2008 Mitt Romney 30%, John McCain 22%, Mike Huckabee 17%, Fred Thompson 7%, Rudy Giuliani 6%, Ron Paul 5%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Alan Keyes 1%, Undecided 11%
Detroit Free Press

Sampling Size: 600
Margin of Error: ±4%

January 9–11, 2008 Mitt Romney 27%, John McCain 22%, Mike Huckabee 16%, Ron Paul 5%, Rudy Giuliani 4%, Fred Thompson 4%, Uncommitted 16%, Not Sure 6%
American Research Group[permanent dead link]

Sampling Size: 600
Margin of Error: ±4%

January 9–11, 2008 John McCain 34%, Mitt Romney 27%, Mike Huckabee 15%, Ron Paul 9%, Rudy Giuliani 5%, Fred Thompson 4%, Undecided 6%
Mitchell Interactive

Margin of Error: ±5%

January 9–10, 2008 John McCain 23%, Mitt Romney 17%, Mike Huckabee 11%, Rudy Giuliani 8%, Ron Paul 8%
Rasmussen Reports

Sampling Size: 371
Margin of Error: ±5%

January 9, 2008 Mitt Romney 26%, John McCain 25%, Mike Huckabee 17%, Fred Thompson 9%, Ron Paul 8%, Rudy Giuliani 6%
Rossman Group

Sampling Size: 300
Margin of Error: ±5.8%

January 6–7, 2008 Mike Huckabee 23%, Mitt Romney 22%, John McCain 18%, Rudy Giuliani 8%, Fred Thompson 4%, Ron Paul 3%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Uncommitted 13%, Unsure 7%
Strategic Vision (note)

Sampling Size: 700
Margin of Error: ±4%

January 4–6, 2008 John McCain 29%, Mitt Romney 20%, Mike Huckabee 18%, Rudy Giuliani 13%, Fred Thompson 5%, Ron Paul 5%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Undecided 9%
Detroit News/WXYZ

Sampling size: 612 LV
Margin of error 4%

December 16–19, 2007 Mitt Romney 21%, Huckabee 19%, Giuliani 12%, John McCain 10%, Ron Paul 4%, Fred Thompson 4%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Tom Tancredo 1%, Uncomitted 16%, Undecided 10%
Marketing Resource Group December 4–7, 2007 John McCain 21%, Mitt Romney 18%, Mike Huckabee 16%, Rudy Giuliani 8%, Fred Thompson 5%, Ron Paul 4%
Rasmussen Reports December 4, 2007 Mike Huckabee 21%, Mitt Romney 20%, Rudy Giuliani 19%, Fred Thompson 9%, John McCain 8%, Ron Paul 7%, Tom Tancredo 1%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Undecided 14%
The Rossman Group November 30 – December 3, 2007n Mitt Romney 20%, Mike Huckabee 19%, John McCain 13%, Rudy Giuliani 11%, Fred Thompson 8%, Ron Paul 1%
Strategic Vision (R) October 5–7, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 24%, Mitt Romney 20%, Fred Thompson 15%, John McCain 10%, Mike Huckabee 5%, Ron Paul 4%, Tom Tancredo 2%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Sam Brownback 1%, Undecided 18%
Insider Advantage/Majority Opinion Oct. 2–3, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 19%, Mitt Romney 16%, John McCain 15%, Fred Thompson 14%, Mike Huckabee 6%, Ron Paul 5%, Sam Brownback 2%, Duncan Hunter 2%, Undecided 21%
Marketing Resource Group[permanent dead link] Sept 13–19, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 27%, Mitt Romney 13%, Fred Thompson 13%, Duncan Hunter 7%, John McCain 6%, Mike Huckabee 5%, Sam Brownback 4%, Ron Paul 2%, Tom Tancredo 0%
Mitchell Interactive Sept 13–18, 2007 Mitt Romney 21%, Rudy Giuliani 19%, Fred Thompson 18%, John McCain 10%
American Research Group Sept 1–4, 2007 Mitt Romney 39%, Rudy Giuliani 13%, Fred Thompson 12%, John McCain 9%, Newt Gingrich 7%, Mike Huckabee 4%, Sam Brownback 1%, Ron Paul 1%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Tom Tancredo -, Undecided 13%
Detroit News/WXYZ-TV

Sampling Size: 400
Margin of Error: 4.9%

August 26–31, 2007 Mitt Romney 25%, Rudy Giuliani 23%, Fred Thompson 16%, John McCain 15%
Detroit News August 8–13, 2007 Fred Thompson 22%, Rudy Giuliani 19%, John McCain 16%, Newt Gingrich 15%, Mitt Romney 12%
Reichle Firm[permanent dead link] July 11–13, 2007 Mitt Romney 22%, Rudy Giuliani 14%, John McCain 14%, Fred Thompson 12%, Other/Undecided 38%
Strategic Vision (R) July 6–8, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 20%, Mitt Romney 15%, John McCain 14%, Fred Thompson 14%, Newt Gingrich 4%, Brownback 3%, Huckabee 3%, Paul 3%, Tancredo 2%, Gilmore 1%, Hunter 1%, Tommy Thompson 1%, Undecided 19%,
American Research Group May 4–8, 2007 Mitt Romney 24%, John McCain 22%, Rudy Giuliani 19%, Fred Thompson 8%, Newt Gingrich 7%, Mike Huckabee 2%, Tommy Thompson 2%, Tom Tancredo 1%, Sam Brownback 0%, Jim Gilmore 0%, Chuck Hagel 0%, Duncan Hunter 0%, George Pataki 0%, Ron Paul 0%, Undecided 15%
Strategic Vision (R) April 13–15, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 26%, John McCain 22%, Mitt Romney 10% Fred Thompson 9%, Newt Gingrich 4%, Sam Brownback 3%, Tom Tancredo 2%, Mike Huckabee 1%, Tommy Thompson 1%, Jim Gilmore 1%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Ron Paul 1%, Chuck Hagel 1%, Undecided 18%
EPIC-MRA Mar 12–18, 2007 John McCain 30%, Rudy Giuliani 26%, Mitt Romney 21%, Newt Gingrich 16%, Fred Thompson 2% (vol.), Sam Brownback 1%, Undecided 4%
Strategic Vision (note) Mar 9-11, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 28%, John McCain 24%, Mitt Romney 14%, Newt Gingrich 8%, Sam Brownback 4%, Tom Tancredo 3%, Tommy Thompson 2%, Mike Huckabee 1%, Chuck Hagel 1%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Jim Gilmore 1%, Undecided 13%
Detroit Free Press Feb 3, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 32%, John McCain 28%, Newt Gingrich 16%, Mitt Romney 8%
American Research Group January 4–7, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 34%, John McCain 24%, Mitt Romney 10%, Newt Gingrich 9%, Tommy Thompson 7%, Mike Huckabee 2%, Undecided 14%

Minnesota

Minnesota Winner
Mitt Romney
Caucus Date
February 5, 2008
Poll Source Date Highlights
Caucus Results

Sample Size: 62,837

February 5, 2008 Mitt Romney 41.4%, John McCain 22%, Mike Huckabee 19.9%, Ron Paul 15.7%, Others 1%
Minn. Pub. Radio

Sample Size: 317
Margin of Error: +/-5.5%

January 18–27, 2008 John McCain 41%, Mike Huckabee 22%, Mitt Romney 17%, Ron Paul 5%, Rudy Giuliani, 6%
Star Tribune GOP Sep 18–23, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 27%, John McCain 22%, Fred Thompson 16%, Mitt Romney 5%, Tom Tancredo 3%, Mike Huckabee 2%, Ron Paul 2%

Missouri

Missouri Winner
John McCain
Primary Date
February 5, 2008
See also[26]
Poll Source Date Highlights
Primary Results

Sampling Size: 589,289

February 5, 2008 John McCain 33%, Mike Huckabee 31.5%, Mitt Romney 29.3%, Ron Paul 4.5%, Rudy Giuliani 0.6%, Fred Thompson 0.5%, Uncommitted 0.4%, Duncan Hunter 0.1%, Others 0.2%
Reuters/CSPAN/Zogby Tracking

Sampling Size: 860
Margin of Error: ±3.4%

February 3–4, 2008 John McCain 34%, Mike Huckabee 27%, Mitt Romney 25%, Ron Paul 4%, Other 2%, Undecided 7%
American Research Group

Sampling Size: 600
Margin of Error: ±4%

February 3, 2008 Mike Huckabee 31%, John McCain 29%, Mitt Romney 27%, Ron Paul 4%, Other 2%, Undecided 7%
Survey USA

Sampling Size: 542
Margin of Error: ±4.3%

February 2–3, 2008 John McCain 33%, Mike Huckabee 31%, Mitt Romney 28%, Ron Paul 6%, Other 1%, Undecided 1%
American Research Group

Sampling Size: 600
Margin of Error: ±4%

January 31 – February 1, 2008 Mike Huckabee 31%, John McCain 29%, Mitt Romney 27%, Ron Paul 4%, Other 2%, Undecided 7%
McClatchy/MSNBC/Mason Dixon

Sampling Size: 400
Margin of Error: ±5%

January 30 – February 1, 2008 John McCain 37%, Mike Huckabee 27%, Mitt Romney 24%, Ron Paul 1%, Undecided 11%
Rasmussen Reports

Sampling Size: 505
Margin of Error: ±4%

January 31, 2008 John McCain 32%, Mike Huckabee 29%, Mitt Romney 28%, Ron Paul 5%, Other 3%, Undecided 3%
Survey USA

Sampling Size: 505
Margin of Error: ±4.5%

January 30–31, 2008 John McCain 34%, Mitt Romney 30%, Mike Huckabee 28%, Ron Paul 5%, Other 2%, Undecided 2%
Research 2000

Sampling Size: 500
Margin of Error: ±4.5%

January 21–24, 2008 John McCain 31%, Mike Huckabee 25%, Mitt Romney 21%, Rudy Giuliani 8%, Ron Paul 6%, Fred Thompson 1%, Undecided 8%
Rasmussen Reports

Sampling Size: 589
Margin of Error: ±4%

January 23, 2008 Mike Huckabee 27%, John McCain 26%, Mitt Romney 18%, Rudy Giuliani 7%, Ron Paul 5%, Undecided 16%
Research 2000 November 16, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 24%, Mitt Romney 17%, Fred Thompson 16%, John McCain 14%, Mike Huckabee 12%, Ron Paul 2%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Tom Tancredo -, Undecided 14%
American Research Group[permanent dead link]

Sample Size: 600

Margin of Error: +/- 4%

Aug 2–6, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 23%, Fred Thompson 22%, John McCain 14%, Mitt Romney 11%, Newt Gingrich 10%, Mike Huckabee 3%, Sam Brownback 1%, Ron Paul 1%, Tommy Thompson 1%, Duncan Hunter -, Tom Tancredo -, Undecided 14%
American Research Group January 4–7, 2007 John McCain 31%, Rudy Giuliani 18%, Newt Gingrich 14%, Sam Brownback 5%, Chuck Hagel 3%, Mitt Romney 2%, Tommy Thompson 2%, Mike Huckabee 1%, Undecided 24%

Montana

Montana Winner
Mitt Romney
Caucus Date
February 5, 2008
Poll Source Date Highlights
Caucus Results February 5, 2008 Mitt Romney 38.3%, Ron Paul 24.5%, John McCain 22%, Mike Huckabee 15%, Others 0.1%
Lee's Newspaper

Margin of Error: The website states all four candidates are statically even.

January 2, 2008 Mike Huckabee 16%, Rudy Giuliani 15%, Mitt Romney 13%, Fred Thompson 12%

Nevada

Nevada Winner
Mitt Romney
Caucus Date
January 19, 2008

See also[27][28][29]

Poll Source Date Highlights
Caucus Results

Sampling Size: 44,321

January 19, 2008 Mitt Romney 51.1%, Ron Paul 13.7%, John McCain 12.7%, Mike Huckabee 8.2%, Fred Thompson 7.9%, Rudy Giuliani 4.3%, Duncan Hunter 2%
Mason-Dixon

Sample Size: 500
Margin of Error: ±4.5%

January 14–16, 2008 Mitt Romney 34%, John McCain 19%, Mike Huckabee 13%, Fred Thompson 8%, Ron Paul 7%, Rudy Giuliani 6%
American Research Group

Sample Size: 600
Margin of Error: ±4%

January 9–14, 2008 Mitt Romney 28%, John McCain 21%, Fred Thompson 13%, Rudy Giuliani 11%, Ron Paul 9%, Mike Huckabee 8%, Undecided 10%
Research 2000/Reno Gazette-Journal

Sampling Size: 500
Margin of Error: ±4.5%

January 11–13, 2008 John McCain 22%, Rudy Giuliani 18%, Mike Huckabee 16%, Mitt Romney 15%, Fred Thompson 11%, Ron Paul 6%, Duncan Hunter 1%
American Research Group

Sample Size: 600
Margin of Error: ±4%

December 1–6, 2007 Mitt Romney 29%, Mike Huckabee 23%, Rudy Giuliani 17%, John McCain 7%, Fred Thompson 5%, Duncan Hunter 4%, Ron Paul 3%, Tom Tancredo 1%, Alan Keyes 0%, Undecided 11%
Mason-Dixon

Sample Size: 300
Margin of Error: ±6%

December 3–5, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 25%, Mitt Romney 20%, Mike Huckabee 17%, Fred Thompson 9%, John McCain 7%, Ron Paul 5%, Duncan Hunter 2%, Tom Tancredo 1%, Alan Keyes 0%, Undecided 14%
Research 2000 November 16–19, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 29%, Mitt Romney 22%, Fred Thompson 15%, John McCain 8%, Ron Paul 7%, Mike Huckabee 6%, Tom Tancredo 1%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Undecided 11%
Zogby International November 9–10, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 28%, Mitt Romney 20%, Fred Thompson 13%, John McCain 8%, Ron Paul 7%, Mike Huckabee 5%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Tom Tancredo <1%, Not Sure 16%
Mason-Dixon October 9–11, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 28%, Fred Thompson 23%, Mitt Romney 17%, John McCain 7%, Mike Huckabee 2%, Duncan Hunter 2%, Ron Paul 1%, Undecided 18%
American Research Group October 10, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 31%, Mitt Romney 30%, John McCain 11%, Fred Thompson 9%, Sam Brownback 4%, Mike Huckabee 2%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Ron Paul 1%, Tom Tancredo 1%, Alan Keyes 0%, Undecided 10%
2000[permanent dead link] August 14–16, 2007 Mitt Romney 28%, Rudy Giuliani 18%, Fred Thompson 18%, John McCain 8%, Newt Gingrich 4%, Mike Huckabee 3%, Undecided 18%
Mason-Dixon[permanent dead link]

Margin of Error: +/- 5%

June 20–22, 2007 Fred Thompson 25%, Mitt Romney 20%, Rudy Giuliani 17%, John McCain 8%, Mike Huckabee 3%
American Research Group

Margin of Error: +/- 4%
Sampling Size: 600

June 15–19, 2007 Mitt Romney 23%, Rudy Giuliani 21%, John McCain 16%, Fred Thompson 16%, Newt Gingrich 3%, Gilmore 2%, Sam Brownback 1%, Mike Huckabee 1%, Ron Paul 1%, Tom Tancredo 1%, Tommy Thompson 1%, Chuck Hagel 0%, Duncan Hunter 0%, George Pataki 0%, Undecided 15%
Mason-Dixon

Margin of Error: +/- 6%

Apr 30 – May 2, 2007 John McCain 19%, Mitt Romney 15%, Fred Thompson 13%, Rudy Giuliani 12%, Newt Gingrich 7%, Undecided 28%
Zogby

Margin of Error: +/- 4.5%

Apr 11–12, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 37%, John McCain 15%, Mitt Romney 15%, Fred Thompson 7%, Sam Brownback 1%, Mike Huckabee 1%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Ron Paul 1%, Tancredo 1%, Chuck Hagel 0%, Tommy Thompson 0%, Undecided 15%
American Research Group Dec 19–23, 2006 Rudy Giuliani 31%, John McCain 25%, Newt Gingrich 22%, Mitt Romney 4%, Sam Brownback 0%, Gilmore 0%, Chuck Hagel 0%, Mike Huckabee 0%, Hunter 0%, George Pataki 0%, Tommy Thompson 0%, Undecided 18%

New Hampshire

New Hampshire Winner
John McCain
Primary Date
January 8, 2008

See also[30][31][32]

Poll Source Date Highlights
Primary Results

Sampling Size: 238,548

January 8, 2008 John McCain 37.1%, Mitt Romney 31.6%, Mike Huckabee 11.2%, Rudy Giuliani 8.5%, Ron Paul 7.7%, Fred Thompson 1.2%, Duncan Hunter .5%, Write Ins 2.1%
Suffolk/WHDH 7

Sampling Size: 500

January 6–7, 2008 Mitt Romney 30%, John McCain 26%, Mike Huckabee 13%, Rudy Giuliani 11%, Ron Paul 5%, Fred Thompson 2%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Undecided 10%, Refused 1%
American Research Group

Sampling Size: 600
Margin of Error: ±4%

January 6–7, 2008 John McCain 31%, Mitt Romney 24%, Mike Huckabee 14%, Rudy Giuliani 13%, Ron Paul 9%, Duncan Hunter 2%, Fred Thompson 1%, Alan Keyes 1%, Undecided 5%
Rasmussen Reports

Sampling Size: 1549
Margin of Error: ±3%

January 5–7, 2008 John McCain 32%, Mitt Romney 31%, Mike Huckabee 10%, Rudy Giuliani 8%, Ron Paul 8%, Fred Thompson 3%, Some Other Candidate 3%, Not Sure 4%
Reuters/CSPAN/Zogby

Sampling Size: 862
Margin of Error: ±3.4%

January 5–7, 2008 John McCain 36%, Mitt Romney 27%, Mike Huckabee 10%, Rudy Giuliani 9%, Ron Paul 9%, Fred Thompson 2%, Undecided 5%
Suffolk/WHDH 7

Sampling Size: 500

January 5–6, 2008 Mitt Romney 30%, John McCain 27%, Rudy Giuliani 10%, Mike Huckabee 9%, Ron Paul 8%, Fred Thompson 2%, Undecided 13%, Refused 2%
Marist College Institute for Public Opinion

Sampling Size: 628
Margin of Error: ±4%

January 5–6, 2008 John McCain 35%, Mitt Romney 31%, Mike Huckabee 13%, Ron Paul 8%, Rudy Giuliani 5%, Fred Thompson 4%, Duncan Hunter 2%, Other <1%, Undecided 2%
Rasmussen Reports

Sampling Size: 1094
Margin of Error: ±3%

January 5–6, 2008 John McCain 32%, Mitt Romney 31%, Mike Huckabee 11%, Rudy Giuliani 10%, Ron Paul 8%, Fred Thompson 3%, Some Other Candidate 2%, Not Sure 4%
CNN/WMUR/UNH

Sampling Size: 341
Margin of Error: ±5%

January 5–6, 2008 John McCain 32%, Mitt Romney 26%, Mike Huckabee 14%, Rudy Giuliani 11%, Ron Paul 10%, Fred Thompson 1%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Someone Else 2%, No Opinion 5%
Fox News/Opinion Dynamics

Sampling Size: 500
Margin of Error: ±4%

January 4–6, 2008 John McCain 34%, Mitt Romney 27%, Mike Huckabee 11%, Rudy Giuliani 9%, Ron Paul 5%, Fred Thompson 2%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Other 1%, Don't Know 10%
Reuters/C–SPAN/Zogby

Sample Size: 834
Margin of Error: ±3.4%

January 4–6, 2008 John McCain 34%, Mitt Romney 29%, Mike Huckabee 10%, Rudy Giuliani 9%, Ron Paul 6%, Fred Thompson 3%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Undecided 6%
Franklin Pierce University/WBZ

Sampling Size: 409
Margin of Error: ±4.9%

January 4–6, 2008 John McCain 38%, Mitt Romney 29%, Mike Huckabee 9%, Rudy Giuliani 8%, Ron Paul 7%, Fred Thompson 2%, Undecided 7%
USA Today/Gallup

Sampling Size: 776
Margin of Error: ±4%

January 4–6, 2008 John McCain 34%, Mitt Romney 30%, Mike Huckabee 13%, Rudy Giuliani 8%, Ron Paul 8%, No One Else Above 3%
Strategic Vision (note)

Sampling Size: 600
Margin of Error: ±4.5%

January 4–6, 2008 John McCain 35%, Mitt Romney 27%, Mike Huckabee 13%, Rudy Giuliani 8%, Ron Paul 7%, Fred Thompson 5%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Undecided 4%
Suffolk/WHDH 7

Sampling Size: 500

January 4–5, 2008 Mitt Romney 30%, John McCain 27%, Rudy Giuliani 10%, Ron Paul 9%, Mike Huckabee 7%, Fred Thompson 2%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Undecided 12%, Refused 2%
Rasmussen Reports

Sampling Size: 1102
Margin of Error: ±3%

January 4–5, 2008 John McCain 32%, Mitt Romney 30%, Mike Huckabee 11%, Ron Paul 11%, Rudy Giuliani 9%, Fred Thompson 4%, Some Other Candidate 2%, Not Sure 3%
Concord Monitor

Sampling Size: 400
Margin of Error: ±5%

January 4–5, 2008 John McCain 35%, Mitt Romney 29%, Mike Huckabee 13%, Rudy Giuliani 8%, Ron Paul 7%, Fred Thompson 3%
CNN/WMUR/UNH

Sampling Size: 672
Margin of Error: ±4%

January 4–5, 2008 John McCain 33%, Mitt Romney 27%, Rudy Giuliani 14%, Mike Huckabee 13%, Ron Paul 9%, Fred Thompson 1%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Someone Else 2%, No Opinion 4%
American Research Group

Sampling Size: 600
Margin of Error: ±4%

January 4–5, 2008 John McCain 39%, Mitt Romney 25%, Mike Huckabee 14%, Rudy Giuliani 7%, Ron Paul 6%, Fred Thompson 1%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Alan Keyes 1%
Reuters/C–SPAN/Zogby

Sample Size: 837
Margin of Error: ±3.4%

January 2–5, 2008 Mitt Romney 32%, John McCain 31%, Mike Huckabee 12%, Rudy Giuliani 7%, Ron Paul 6%, Fred Thompson 3%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Undecided 7%
Rasmussen Reports

Sample Size: 441
Margin of Error: ±5%

January 4, 2008 John McCain 31%, Mitt Romney 26%, Ron Paul 14%, Mike Huckabee 11%, Rudy Giuliani 8%, Fred Thompson 5%, Some other candidate 2%
Suffolk University/WHDH 7

Sampling Size: 501

January 3–4, 2008 Mitt Romney 30%, John McCain 26%, Mike Huckabee 11%, Rudy Giuliani 11%, Ron Paul 8%, Fred Thompson 2%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Undecided 10%, Refused 2%
McClatchy/MSNBC/Mason Dixon[permanent dead link]

Sampling Size: 400
Margin of Error: ±5%

January 2–4, 2008 John McCain 32%, Mitt Romney 24%, Mike Huckabee 12%, Rudy Giuliani 9%, Ron Paul 8%, Fred Thompson 3%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Alan Keyes 1%, Undecided 10%
Zogby International

Sample Size: 887
Margin of Error: ±3.3%

January 1–4, 2008 John McCain 32%, Mitt Romney 30%, Mike Huckabee 12%, Rudy Giuliani 9%, Ron Paul 7%, Fred Thompson 3%, Duncan Hunter <1%, Undecided 7%
Suffolk University/WHDH 7

Sampling Size: 501

January 2–3, 2008 Mitt Romney 29%, John McCain 25%, Mike Huckabee 13%, Rudy Giuliani 9%, Ron Paul 8%, Fred Thompson 2%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Undecided 12%, Refused 1%
Zogby International

Sample Size: 1076
Margin of Error: ±3%

December 31, 2007 – January 3, 2008 John McCain 34%, Mitt Romney 30%, Mike Huckabee 10%, Rudy Giuliani 9%, Ron Paul 7%, Fred Thompson 2%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Undecided 6%
Suffolk/WHDH 7

Sample Size: 500

January 1–2, 2008 John McCain 29%, Mitt Romney 25%, Mike Huckabee 12%, Rudy Giuliani 9%, Ron Paul 8%, Fred Thompson 2%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Undecided 14%
Franklin Pierce University/WBZ[permanent dead link]

Sample Size: 407
Margin of Error ±4.9%

December 27–31, 2007 John McCain 37%, Mitt Romney 31%, Rudy Giuliani 10%, Ron Paul 6%, Mike Huckabee 5%, Fred Thompson 2%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Undecided 9%
CNN/University of New Hampshire

Sample Size: 439
Margin of Error ±5%

December 27–30, 2007 Mitt Romney 29%, John McCain 29%, Rudy Giuliani 12%, Mike Huckabee 10%, Ron Paul 7%, Fred Thompson 2%, Duncan Hunter 2%, Someone else 1%, No opinion 8%
American Research Group

Sample Size: 600
Margin of Error ±4%

December 27–29, 2007 Mitt Romney 30%, John McCain 30%, Mike Huckabee 11%, Rudy Giuliani 9%, Ron Paul 7%, Fred Thompson 3%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Alan Keyes 1%, Undecided 8%
LA Times/Bloomberg

Sample Size: 442 (registered voters)
Margin of Error: ±5%

December 20–26, 2007 Mitt Romney 34%, John McCain 21%, Rudy Giuliani 14%, Mike Huckabee 9%, Ron Paul 6%, Fred Thompson 4%, Duncan Hunter 1%, D/Know 11%
LA Times/Bloomberg

Sample Size: 318 (likely voters)
Margin of Error: ±6%

December 20–26, 2007 Mitt Romney 34%, John McCain 20%, Rudy Giuliani 17%, Mike Huckabee 12%, Ron Paul 4%, Fred Thompson 4%, Duncan Hunter 1%, D/Know 8%
USA Today / Gallup

Sampling Size: 477 LV
Margin of Error: ± 5%

December 17–19, 2007 Mitt Romney 34%, John McCain 27%, Rudy Giuliani 11%, Mike Huckabee 9%, Ron Paul 9%, Fred Thompson 4%, Duncan Hunter 1%
American Research Group

Sample Size: 600 LV
Margin of Error +/- 4%

December 16–19, 2007 John McCain 26%, Mitt Romney 26%, Rudy Giuliani 16%, Mike Huckabee 11%, Ron Paul 4%, Fred Thompson 4%, Tom Tancredo 1%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Alan Keyes 1%, Undecided 10%
Rasmussen Reports

Sample Size: 746 LV
Margin of Error +/- 4%

December 18, 2007 Mitt Romney 31%, John McCain 27%, Rudy Giuliani 13%, Mike Huckabee 11%, Ron Paul 7%, Fred Thompson 3%, Tom Tancredo 1%, Duncan Hunter 0%
Concord Monitor/Research 2000

Sample Size: 400 LV
Margin of Error +/- 5%

December 10–12, 2007 Mitt Romney 31%, Rudy Giuliani 18%, John McCain 17%, Mike Huckabee 9%, Ron Paul 7%, Fred Thompson 3%, Tom Tancredo 1%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Undecided 13%
Rasmussen

Sample Size: 732 LV

December 11, 2007 Mitt Romney 33%, John McCain 18%, Rudy Giuliani 15%, Mike Huckabee 14%, Ron Paul 8%, Tom Tancredo 3%, Fred Thompson 2%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Undecided 7%
Mason-Dixon December 3–6, 2007 Mitt Romney 25%, Rudy Giuliani 17%, John McCain 16%, Mike Huckabee 11%, Fred Thompson 6%, Ron Paul 5%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Tom Tancredo 1%, Alan Keyes 1%, Undecided 17%
ABC News/Washington Post

Sampling Size: 488
Margin of Error: +/- 4.5%

November 29 – December 3, 2007 Mitt Romney 37%, John McCain 20%, Rudy Giuliani 16%, Mike Huckabee 9%, Ron Paul 8%, Fred Thompson 4%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Tom Tancredo 0%, Undecided 4%
Marist College November 28 – December 2, 2007 Mitt Romney 29%, Rudy Giuliani 17%, John McCain 17%, Mike Huckabee 11%, Ron Paul 6%, Fred Thompson 4%, Tom Tancredo 2%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Undecided 13%
American Research Group November 26–29, 2007 Mitt Romney 36%, Rudy Giuliani 22%, Mike Huckabee 13%, John McCain 11%, Fred Thompson 3%, Ron Paul 2%, Tom Tancredo 1%, Duncan Hunter 0%, Alan Keyes 0%, Undecided 12%
Rasmussen

Sampling Size: 881
Margin of Error: +/- 3%

November 29, 2007 Mitt Romney 34%, Rudy Giuliani 15%, John McCain 15%, Mike Huckabee 14%, Ron Paul 8%, Fred Thompson 3%, Other 2%, Unsure 9%
Pew Research Center

Sampling Size: 446
Margin of Error: +/- 5.5%

November 7–25, 2007 Mitt Romney 37%, Rudy Giuliani 19%, John McCain 15%, Ron Paul 9%, Mike Huckabee 7%, Fred Thompson 3%, Hunter 1%, Tancredo 1%, Other/Unsure 9%
CBS News/New York Times

Sampling Size: 719
Margin of Error: +/- 6%

November 2–11, 2007 Mitt Romney 34%, Rudy Giuliani 16%, John McCain 16%, Ron Paul 8%, Mike Huckabee 6%, Fred Thompson 5%, Tancredo 0%, Hunter 0%, Undecided 14%
Boston Globe (UNH) November 2–7, 2007 Mitt Romney 32%, Rudy Giuliani 20%, John McCain 17%, Ron Paul 7%, Mike Huckabee 5%, Other 6%, Undecided 13%
Marist College November 2–6, 2007 Mitt Romney 33%, Rudy Giuliani 22%, John McCain 13%, Ron Paul 7%, Mike Huckabee 7%, Fred Thompson 5%, Tom Tancredo 1%, Duncan Hunter <1%, Undecided 12%
American Research Group October 26–29, 2007 Mitt Romney 30%, Rudy Giuliani 23%, John McCain 17%, Mike Huckabee 7%, Fred Thompson 5%, Ron Paul 1%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Tom Tancredo 1%, Alan Keyes 0%, Undecided 15%
Rasmussen October 23, 2007 Mitt Romney 28%, Rudy Giuliani 19%, John McCain 16%, Mike Huckabee 10%, Fred Thompson 6%, Tom Tancredo 3%, Ron Paul 2%, Duncan Hunter 2%, Undecided 14%
Marist College Institute for Public Opinion (Likely Voters) October 4–9, 2007 Mitt Romney 26%, Rudy Giuliani 20%, John McCain 17%, Fred Thompson 10%, Mike Huckabee 7%, Ron Paul 2%, Duncan Hunter 2%, Tom Tancredo 1%, Sam Brownback <1%, Undecided 15%
Insider Advantage/Majority Opinion Oct. 2-3, 2007 Mitt Romney 28%, Rudy Giuliani 20%, John McCain 17%, Mike Huckabee 8%, Fred Thmpson 8%, Ron Paul 6%, Sam Brownback 2%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Undecided 10%
American Research Group September 26–29, 2007 Mitt Romney 24%, Rudy Giuliani 20%, John McCain 20%, Fred Thompson 8%, Newt Gingrich 6%, Ron Paul 3%, Mike Huckabee 3%, Sam Brownback 1%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Alan Keyes 1%, Tom Tancredo 1%, Undecided 12%
Zogby September 26–28, 2007 Mitt Romney 24%, Rudy Giuliani 21%, John McCain 16%, Fred Thompson 7%, Mike Huckabee 5%, Ron Paul 3%, Tom Tancredo 3%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Sam Brownback 1%, Chuck Hagel <1%, Not Sure 17%
CNN/WMUR September 17–24, 2007 Mitt Romney 23%, Rudy Giuliani 22%, John McCain 17%, Fred Thompson 12%, Newt Gingrich 7%, Ron Paul 4%, Sam Brownback 2%, Mike Huckabee 2%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Tom Tancredo 1%, Someone else 1%, No opinion 9%
Rasmussen September 16, 2007 Mitt Romney 25%, Rudy Giuliani 22%, Fred Thompson 19%, John McCain 12%, Mike Huckabee 4%, Others 5%, Undecided 13%
Franklin Pierce University / WBZ Poll September 11–14, 2007 Mitt Romney 30%, Rudy Giuliani 23%, John McCain 14%, Fred Thompson 8%, Newt Gingrich 3%, Ron Paul 3%, Mike Huckabee 2%, Tom Tancredo 1%, Sam Brownback 1%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Chuck Hagel <1%, Undecided 12%
Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg Poll September 6–10, 2007 Mitt Romney 28%, Rudy Giuliani 23%, John McCain 12%, Fred Thompson 11%, Mike Huckabee 6%, Ron Paul 5%, Sam Brownback 2%, Undecided 13%
American Research Group August 26–29, 2007 Mitt Romney 27%, Rudy Giuliani 23%, John McCain 12%, Mike Huckabee 9%, Fred Thompson 8%, Newt Gingrich 4%, Ron Paul 3%, Brownback 1%, Duncan Hunter 0%, Tom Tancredo 0%, Undecided 13%
Rasmussen Reports Aug 9, 2007 Mitt Romney 32%, Rudy Giuliani 20%, John McCain 11%, Fred Thompson 11%, Mike Huckabee 3%, Other 6%, Undecided 17%
American Research Group

Margin of Error: +/- 4%
Sample Size: 600

July 26–30, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 27%, Mitt Romney 26%, Fred Thompson 13%, John McCain 10%, Newt Gingrich 6%, Sam Brownback 1%, Mike Huckabee 1%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Ron Paul 1%, Tom Tancredo 1%, Tommy Thompson 0%, Undecided 13%
McLaughlin and Associates

(Gingrich Excluded)

July 24–26, 2007 Mitt Romney 33%, Rudy Giuliani 17%, John McCain 16%, Fred Thompson 13%, Mike Huckabee 3%, Ron Paul 2%, Sam Brownback 1%, Tommy Thompson 1%, Tom Tancredo 1%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Undecided 12%
CNN/WMUR/UNH

(Gingrich Excluded)

July 9–17, 2007 Mitt Romney 33% (34%), Rudy Giuliani 18% (20%), Fred Thompson 13%, John McCain 12%, Newt Gingrich 4%, Mike Huckabee 2%, Ron Paul 2%, Tommy Thompson 1%, Tancredo – (1%), Brownback -, Hunter -, Other 3%, Undecided 12% (13%)
Research 2000 July 9–11, 2007 Mitt Romney 27%, Rudy Giuliani 20%, John McCain 16%, Fred Thompson 15%, Sam Brownback 1%, Mike Huckabee 1%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Ron Paul 1%, Tom Tancredo 1%, Tommy Thompson 1%
American Research Group June 27–30, 2007 Mitt Romney 27%, John McCain 21%, Rudy Giuliani 19%, Fred Thompson 10%, Newt Gingrich 4%, Mike Huckabee 1%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Ron Paul 1%, Sam Brownback 1%, Tom Tancredo 1%, Jim Gilmore 0%, George Pataki 0%, Tommy Thompson 0%, Undecided 14%
Suffolk University June 24, 2007 Mitt Romney 26%, Rudy Giuliani 22%, John McCain 13%, Fred Thompson 13%, Mike Huckabee 4%, Ron Paul 2%, Brownback 1%, Hunter 1%, Tancredo 1%, T. Thompson 1%, Gilmore 0%, Undecided 17%
Mason-Dixon June 4–7, 2007 Mitt Romney 27%, John McCain 16%, Rudy Giuliani 15%, Fred Thompson 12%, Mike Huckabee 5%
Franklin Pierce June 6, 2007 Mitt Romney 27%, Rudy Giuliani 18%, John McCain 17%, Fred Thompson 9%, Newt Gingrich 3%, Mike Huckabee 3%, Paul 1%, Brownback 1%, Hagel 1%, Tommy Thompson 1%, Gilmore 0%, Tancredo 1%, Hunter 1%, Pataki 0%, Undecided 19%
American Research Group May 23–25, 2007 John McCain 30%, Mitt Romney 23%, Rudy Giuliani 21%, Newt Gingrich 4%, Fred Thompson 3%, Sam Brownback 1%, Chuck Hagel 1%, Mike Huckabee 1%, Tommy Thompson 1%, Jim Gilmore 0%, Duncan Hunter 0%, George Pataki 0%, Ron Paul 0%, Tom Tancredo 0%, Undecided 16%
Zogby May 15–16, 2007 Mitt Romney 35%, Rudy Giuliani 19%, John McCain 19%, Fred Thompson 6%, Ron Paul 3%, Brownback 1%, Hagel 1%, Tancredo 1%, Tommy Thompson 1%, Huckabee -, Hunter -, Not Sure 11%
Survey USA May 4–6, 2007 Mitt Romney 32%, Rudy Giuliani 23%, John McCain 22%, Fred Thompson 11%, Newt Gingrich 4%, Other 5%, Not Sure 3%
American Research Group April 27–30, 2007 John McCain 29%, Mitt Romney 24%, Rudy Giuliani 17%, Fred Thompson 7%, Newt Gingrich 4%, Sam Browback 1%, Chuck Hagel 1%, Mike Huckabee 1%, Tom Tancredo 1%, Tommy Thompson 1%, Jim Gilmore 0%, Duncan Hunter 0%, George Pataki 0%, Ron Paul 0%, Undecided 14%
Zogby International April 2–3, 2007 John McCain 25%, Mitt Romney 25%, Rudy Giuliani 19%, Fred Thompson 6%, Ron Paul 2%, Chuck Hagel 1%, Mike Huckbee 1%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Tom Tancredo 1%, Tommy Thompson <1%, Sam Brownback <1%, Undecided 17%
American Research Group Mar 23, 2007 John McCain 23%, Rudy Giuliani 19%, Mitt Romney 17%, Newt Gingrich 11%, Fred Thompson 10%, Sam Brownback 2%, Chuck Hagel 2%, Tom Tancredo 1%, Jim Gilmore 0%, Mike Huckabee 0%, Duncan Hunter 0%, George Pataki 0%, Ron Paul 0%, Tommy Thompson 0%, Undecided 15%
Franklin Pierce College/WBZ-TV Mar 7–12, 2007 John McCain 29%, Rudy Giuliani 28%, Mitt Romney 22%, Newt Gingrich 5%, Mike Huckabee 2%, Sam Brownback 1%, Chuck Hagel 1%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Ron Paul 1%, Tom Tancredo 1%, Jim Gilmore 0%, George Pataki 0%, Tommy Thompson 0%
Suffolk University Feb 24–28, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 37%, John McCain 27%, Mitt Romney 17%, Ron Paul 2%, Tom Tancredo 2%, Sam Brownback 1%, Jim Gilmore 1%, Mike Huckabee 1%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Tommy Thompson 1%, Refused 1%, Undecided 12%
University of New Hampshire Feb 1–5, 2007 John McCain 28%, Rudy Giuliani 27%, Mitt Romney 13%, Newt Gingrich 9%, Tom Tancredo 3%, Sam Brownback 2%, Ron Paul 1%, Mike Huckabee 1%, Tommy Thompson 1%, Chuck Hagel 1%, George Pataki 1%, Duncan Hunter 0%, Jim Gilmore 0%, John Cox 0%, Someone Else 1%, Don't Know 13%
SurveyUSA January 26–28, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 33%, John McCain 32%, Mitt Romney 21%, Other 11%, Undecided 3%
Zogby International January 15–17, 2007 John McCain 23%, Rudy Giuliani 20%, Mitt Romney 13%, Condoleezza Rice 7%, Newt Gingrich 6%, Chuck Hagel 3%, Tom Tancredo 2%, Duncan Hunter 1%, George Pataki 1%, Ron Paul 1%, Undecided 15%
American Research Group Dec 26–27, 2006 John McCain 29%, Rudy Giuliani 25%, Newt Gingrich 14%, Mitt Romney 9%, Chuck Hagel 2%, George Pataki 2%, Jim Gilmore 1%, Mike Huckabee 1%, Sam Brownback 0%, Duncan Hunter 0%, Tommy Thompson 0%, Undecided 17%

New Jersey

New Jersey Winner
John McCain
Primary Date
February 5, 2008


See also[13][33][34][35]

Poll Source Date Highlights
Primary Results

Sampling Size: 560,006

February 5, 2008 John McCain 55.4%, Mitt Romney 28.4%, Mike Huckabee 8.2%, Ron Paul 4.8%, Rudy Giuliani 2.6%, Fred Thompson 0.6%
Reuters/CSPAN/Zogby Tracking

Sampling Size: 862
Margin of Error: ±3.4%

February 3–4, 2008 John McCain 53%, Mitt Romney 24%, Mike Huckabee 5%, Ron Paul 4%, Other 4%, Undecided 10%
Survey USA

Sampling Size: 467
Margin of Error: ±4.6%

February 2–3, 2008 John McCain 54%, Mitt Romney 25%, Mike Huckabee 7%, Ron Paul 6%, Other 3%, Undecided 6%
Strategic Vision (note)

Sampling Size: 600
Margin of Error: ±4.5%

February 1–3, 2008 John McCain 55%, Mitt Romney 25%, Mike Huckabee 10%, Ron Paul 4%, Undecided 6%
Quinnipiac University

Sampling Size: 350
Margin of Error: ±5.2%

January 30 – February 3, 2008 John McCain 52%, Mitt Romney 30%, Mike Huckabee 6%, Ron Paul 6%, Other 1%, Undecided 5%
McClatchy/MSNBC/Mason Dixon

Sampling Size: 400
Margin of Error: ±5%

January 30 – February 1, 2008 John McCain 46%, Mitt Romney 31%, Mike Huckabee 5%, Ron Paul 4%, Undecided 12%
Monmouth University/Gannett

Sampling Size: 555
Margin of Error: ±4%

January 30 – February 1, 2008 John McCain 55%, Mitt Romney 23%, Mike Huckabee 7%, Ron Paul 3%, Undecided 12%
Survey USA

Sampling Size: 456
Margin of Error: ±4.7%

January 30–31, 2008 John McCain 48%, Mitt Romney 25%, Mike Huckabee 9%, Ron Paul 7%, Other 7%, Don't Know 5%
Rasmussen Reports

Sampling Size: 785

January 30, 2008 John McCain 43%, Mitt Romney 29%, Mike Huckabee 7%, Ron Paul 6%, Other 9%, Don't Know 5%
Quinnipiac University

Sampling Size: 398
Margin of Error: ±4.9%

January 15–22, 2008 John McCain 29%, Rudy Giuliani 26%, Mitt Romney 14%, Mike Huckabee 9%, Fred Thompson 9%, Ron Paul 7%, Don't Know 4%
Rasmussen Reports

Sampling Size: 616
Margin of Error: ±4%

January 15, 2008 John McCain 29%, Rudy Giuliani 27%, Mike Huckabee 10%, Mitt Romney 10%, Fred Thompson 6%, Ron Paul 5%, Other 5%, Don't Know 8%
Monmouth University/Gannett

Sampling Size: 400
Margin of Error: 4.9%

January 9–13, 2008 John McCain 29%, Rudy Giuliani 25%, Mike Huckabee 11%, Mitt Romney 9%, Ron Paul 5%, Fred Thompson 5%, Don't Know 16%
Research 2000/The Record

Sampling Size: 400
Margin of Error: ±5%

January 9–10, 2008 Rudy Giuliani 34%, John McCain 18%, Mitt Romney 11%, Mike Huckabee 8%, Ron Paul 8%, Undecided 17%
Quinnipiac University

Margin of Error: ±5.5%
Sample Size: 320

December 5–9, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 38%, John McCain 12%, Mike Huckabee 8%, Mitt Romney 7%, Fred Thompson 4%, Ron Paul 2%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Tom Tancredo -%, Other 1%, Undecided 23%, Not Voting 2%
Quinnipiac University October 9–15, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 48%, Fred Thompson 12%, John McCain 12%, Mitt Romney 7%, Paul 2%, Huckabee 1%, Brownback 1%, Tancredo 1%, Hunter -%, Other 1%, Undecided 13%
Monmouth University/Gannett New Jersey Poll September 27–30, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 44%, John McCain 12%, Fred Thompson 10%, Mitt Romney 8%, Mike Huckabee 2%, Ron Paul 1%, Tom Tancredo 1%, Sam Brownback 0%, Duncan Hunter 0%, Don't know 20%
Strategic Vision (note) September 28–30, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 53%, Fred Thompson 11%, Mitt Romney 7%, John McCain 7%, Paul 3%, Tancredo 2%, Huckabee 2%, Hunter 1%, Undecided 14%
Quinnipiac University September 18–23, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 45%, Fred Thompson 12%, John McCain 8%, Mitt Romney 6%, Newt Gingrich 4%, Paul 3%, Huckabee 2%, Brownback -%, Hunter -%, Tancredo -%, Other 2%, Undecided 14%
Strategic Vision (R) August 24–26, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 51%, Fred Thompson 12%, Mitt Romney 9%, John McCain 7%, Newt Gingrich 3%, Ron Paul 3%, Tom Tancredo 2%, Mike Huckabee 2%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Undecided 10%
Strategic Vision (R) July 13–15, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 48%, Fred Thompson 15%, John McCain 10%, Mitt Romney 5%, Newt Gingrich 4%, Ron Paul 2%, Tancredo 2%, Huckabee 1%, T. Thompson 1%, Gilmore 1%, Hunter 1%, Undecided 10%
Quinnipiac University June 26 – July 2, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 46%, John McCain 11%, Fred Thompson 9%, Mitt Romney 7%, Newt Gingrich 6%, Brownback 1%, Huckabee 1%, Paul 1%, T. Thompson 1%, Gilmore -, Hunter -, Tancredo -, Other 1%, Undecided 14%
Strategic Vision (R) April 25–27, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 49%, John McCain 15%, Fred Thompson 7%, Mitt Romney 6%, Newt Gingrich 4%, Tom Tancredo 2%, Jim Gilmore 1%, Chuck Hagel 1%, Mike Huckabee 1%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Ron Paul 1%, Tommy Thompson 1%, Sam Brownback 1%, Undecided 11%
Monmouth University April 11–16, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 49%, John McCain 19%, Mitt Romney 6%, Tommy Thompson 2%, Sam Brownback 1%, Mike Huckabee 1%, Jim Gilmore -, VOL-Fred Thompson 1%, Don't Know 21%
American Research Group March 29 – April 2, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 38%, John McCain 23%, Newt Gingrich 10%, Mitt Romney 8%, Fred Thompson 8%, George Pataki 3%, Sam Brownback 0%, Jim Gilmore 0%, Chuck Hagel 0%, Mike Huckabee 0%, Duncan Hunter 0%, Ron Paul 0%, Tommy Thompson 0%, Tom Tancredo 0%, Undecided 9%
Quinnipiac University January 16–22, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 39%, John McCain 21%, Newt Gingrich 11%, Mitt Romney 5%, George Pataki 3%, Sam Brownback 1%, Jim Gilmore 1%, Mike Huckabee 1%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Someone Else 1%, Wouldn't Vote 3%, Undecided 13%

New Mexico

New Mexico Winner
John McCain
Primary Date
June 3, 2008
See also[36]
Poll Source Date Highlights
New Mexico State University Apr 3–7, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 34%, John McCain 23%, Mitt Romney 9%
American Research Group January 11–13, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 38%, John McCain 20%, Newt Gingrich 9%, Mitt Romney 7%, Chuck Hagel 6%, Sam Brownback 4%, George Pataki 1%, Jim Gilmore 0%, Mike Huckabee 0%, Duncan Hunter 0%, Tommy Thompson 0%, Undecided 15%

New York

New York Winner
John McCain
Primary Date
February 5, 2008


See also[37][38][39]

Poll Source Date Highlights
Primary Results

Sampling Size: 607,011

February 5, 2008 John McCain 51.2%, Mitt Romney 27.8%, Mike Huckabee 10.8%, Ron Paul 6.4%, Rudy Giuliani 3.1%, Fred Thompson 0.3%, Duncan Hunter 0.2%, Others 0.2%
Survey USA

Sampling Size: 356
Margin of Error: ±5.3%

February 2–3, 2008 John McCain 56%, Mitt Romney 23%, Mike Huckabee 8%, Ron Paul 4%, Other 3%, Undecided 6%
Quinnipiac University

Sampling Size: 370
Margin of Error: ±5.1%

January 30 – February 3, 2008 John McCain 54%, Mitt Romney 22%, Mike Huckabee 9%, Ron Paul 5%, Other 1%, Undecided 8%
Rasmussen Reports

Sampling Size: 524
Margin of Error: ±4%

January 31 – February 1, 2008 John McCain 49%, Mitt Romney 30%, Mike Huckabee 8%, Ron Paul 4%, Other/Undecided 9%
WNBC/Marist College

Sampling Size: 409
Margin of Error: ±5%

January 30–31, 2008 John McCain 61%, Mitt Romney 24%, Mike Huckabee 6%, Ron Paul 5%, Undecided 4%
Survey USA

Sampling Size: 462
Margin of Error: ±4.6%

January 30–31, 2008 John McCain 55%, Mitt Romney 21%, Mike Huckabee 7%, Ron Paul 4%, Other 8%, Undecided 5%
USA Today/Gallup

Sampling Size: 412
Margin of Error: ±5%

January 23–26, 2008 John McCain 40%, Rudy Giuliani 21%, Mitt Romney 17%, Mike Huckabee 11%, Ron Paul 3%, Alan Keyes 1%, Other 2%, Undecided 5%
Quinnipiac University

Sampling Size: 331
Margin of Error: ±5.4%

January 14–21, 2008 John McCain 30%, Rudy Giuliani 30%, Mitt Romney 9%, Mike Huckabee 8%, Fred Thompson 8%, Ron Paul 4%, Other 1%, Undecided 9%
Zogby

Sampling Size: 280
Margin of Error: ±6%

January 19–20, 2008 John McCain 24%, Rudy Giuliani 21%, Mitt Romney 14%, Mike Huckabee 7%, Fred Thompson 7%, Ron Paul 2%, Other 5%, Undecided 20%
WNBC/Marist College

Sampling Size: 401
Margin of Error: ±5%

January 15–17, 2008 John McCain 34%, Rudy Giuliani 23%, Mitt Romney 15%, Mike Huckabee 11%, Fred Thompson 5%, Ron Paul 2%, Undecided 10%
Siena College

Sampling Size: 174
Margin of Error: ±7.4%

January 14–17, 2008 John McCain 36%, Rudy Giuliani 24%, Mitt Romney 10%, Mike Huckabee 7%, Fred Thompson 6%
Survey USA

Sampling Size: 471
Margin of Error: ±4.6%

January 9–10, 2008 Rudy Giuliani 32%, John McCain 29%, Mike Huckabee 12%, Mitt Romney 7%, Fred Thompson 6%, Ron Paul 3%, Other/Undecided 12%
Quinnipiac

Sample Size: 335
Margin of Error: ± 5.4%

December 4–10, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 34%, Mike Huckabee 12%, John McCain 11%, Fred Thompson 7%, Ron Paul 5%, Mitt Romney 5%, Tom Tancredo 1%
Datamar December 2–8, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 35.7%, Mike Huckabee 13.8%, John McCain 11.3%, Mitt Romney 9.9%, Fred Thompson 7.1%, Ron Paul 3.5%, Tom Tancredo 1.4%, Duncan Hunter 0.9%, Undecided 16.6%
Datamar November 1–5, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 38.8%, Mitt Romney 11.8%, Fred Thompson 9.9%, John McCain 9.6%, Mike Huckabee 7.8%, Ron Paul 3.0%, Duncan Hunter 1.7%, Tom Tancredo 1.0%, Undecided 16.5%
Quinnipiac October 9–15, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 45%, Fred Thompson 12%, John McCain 9%, Mitt Romney 7%, Mike Huckabee 1%, Ron Paul 1%, Sam Brownback -%, Tom Tancredo -%, Duncan Hunter -%, Someone Else 5%, Wouldn't Vote 5%, Don't Know/Not Applicable 15%
Quinnipiac University College September 24–30, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 48%, John McCain 8%, Fred Thompson 8%, Newt Gingrich 5%, Mitt Romney 5%, Sam Brownback 1%, Mike Huckabee 1%, Ron Paul 1%, Tom Tancredo 1%, Duncan Hunter <1%, Someone Else 3%, Wouldn't Vote 4%, Don't Know/Not Applicable 17%
Siena College July 24–28, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 40%, John McCain 13%, Fred Thompson 11%, Newt Gingrich 9%, Mitt Romney 7%, Undecided 21%
Siena College June 18–21, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 48%, John McCain 13%, Fred Thompson 11%, Mitt Romney 6%, Newt Gingrich 4%
Quinnipiac University College June 12–17, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 46%, Fred Thompson 14%, John McCain 8%, Newt Gingrich 6%, Mitt Romney 3%, Brownback 1%, Huckabee 1%, Gilmore -, Hunter -, Paul -, Tancredo -, T. Thompson -, Other 4%, Undecided 14%
Siena College May 18–25, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 52%, John McCain 14%, Mitt Romney 7%, Tommy Thompson 4%, Paul 2%, Brownback 1%, Gilmore 1%, Huckabee 1%, Tancredo 1%, Hunter -, Pataki -, Unsure 17%
Siena College (Frontrunners) May 18–25, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 50%, John McCain 12%, Fred Thompson 8%, Newt Gingrich 7%, Mitt Romney 7%, Unsure 15%
NY1 April 4–7, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 56%, John McCain 15%, Mitt Romney 5%, T. Thompson 3%, Brownback 1%, Other 1%, Not Sure 16%
American Research Group March 29 – April 2, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 50%, John McCain 14%, Mitt Romney 7%, Fred Thompson 7%, Newt Gingrich 6%, George Pataki 3%, Sam Brownback 0%, Jim Gilmore 0%, Chuck Hagel 0%, Mike Huckabee 0%, Duncan Hunter 0%, Ron Paul 0%, Tommy Thompson 0%, Tom Tancredo 0%, Undecided 14%
Quinnipiac University College Mar 29 – April 1, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 52%, McCain 13%, Pataki 6%, Romney 4%, Gingrich 3%, F. Thompson 3%, Brownback 1%, Hagel 1%, Gilmore -, Huckabee -, Hunter -, Paul -, Tancredo -, T. Thompson -, Other 2%, Unsure 12%
Siena College Mar 26, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 48%, John McCain 16%, Newt Gingrich 8%, George Pataki 7%, Mitt Romney 6%, Sam Brownback 1%, Unsure 14%
WNBC/Marist Mar 20–22, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 48%, John McCain 21%, Newt Gingrich 7%, Fred Thompson 5%, Mitt Romney 2%, Tommy Thompson 1%, Chuck Hagel 1%, Tom Tancredo 1%, Sam Brownback 1%, Ron Paul <1%, John Cox <1%, Mike Huckabee <1%, Duncan Hunter <1%, Undecided 13%
Quinnipiac University Feb 6-11, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 51%, John McCain 17%, George Pataki 7%, Newt Gingrich 6%, Mike Huckabee 2%, Mitt Romney 1%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Chuck Hagel 1%, Tom Tancredo 1%

North Carolina

North Carolina Winner
John McCain
Primary Date
May 6, 2008
See also[40]
Poll Source Date Highlights
Primary Result

Sampling Size: 518,208

May 6, 2008 John McCain 73.6%, Mike Huckabee 12.1%, Ron Paul 7.8%, Alan Keyes 2.6%, Others 3.9%
Survey USA

Sampling Size: 436
Margin of Error: ±4.8%

February 11, 2008 John McCain 45%, Mike Huckabee 40%, Ron Paul 5%, Someone Else 5%, Undecided 5%
Survey USA

Sampling Size: 485
Margin of Error: ±4.5%

January 12–14, 2008 Mike Huckabee 28%, John McCain 27%, Fred Thompson 15%, Rudy Giuliani 10%, Mitt Romney 10%, Ron Paul 3%, Someone Else 2%, Undecided 5%
Public Policy Polling (D) December 3, 2007 Mike Huckabee 33%, Rudy Giuliani 17%, Fred Thompson 16%, Mitt Romney 9%, John McCain 8%, Ron Paul 3%, Someone Else 3%, Undecided 10%
Public Policy Polling (D) November 5, 2007 Fred Thompson 24%, Rudy Giuliani 19%, Mitt Romney 10%, John McCain 8%, Other 14%, Undecided 25%
Civitas Institute October 9–14, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 21%, Fred Thompson 19%, Mitt Romney 16%, Other 13%, Undecided 24%
Public Policy Polling (D) October 3, 2007 Fred Thompson 31%, Rudy Giuliani 20%, Mitt Romney 11%, John McCain 11%, Other 8%, Undecided 20%
Elon University Polling Sept. 24–27, 2007 Fred Thompson 27.9%, Rudy Giuliani 21.0%, John McCain 12.2%, Mitt Romney 8.4%, Mike Huckabee 2.0%, Ron Paul 1.4%, Sam Brownback 0.4, Tom Tancredo 0.4%, Other 1.6%, Undecided 24.7%
Public Policy Polling (D) September 5, 2007 Fred Thompson 34%, Rudy Giuliani 16%, Mitt Romney 13%, John McCain 7%, Other 7%, Undecided 22%
Public Policy Polling (D) August 1–2, 2007 Fred Thompson 30%, Rudy Giuliani 20%, Mitt Romney 12%, John McCain 7%, Other 5%, Undecided 23%
Public Policy Polling (D) July 2, 2007 Fred Thompson 34%, Rudy Giuliani 15%, Newt Gingrich 13%, John McCain 7%, Mitt Romney 6%, Other 5%, Undecided 21%
Civitas Institute poll conducted by Tel Opinion Research (R) June 13–15, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 24%, Fred Thompson 24%, John McCain 16%, Mitt Romney 6%
Public Policy Polling (D)

Margin of Error: +/- 3.9%
Sampling Size: 603

June 4, 2007 Fred Thompson 37%, Rudy Giuliani 25%, John McCain 14%, Mitt Romney 14%
Public Policy Polling (D) May 1–3, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 32%, Fred Thompson 25%, John McCain 14%, Mitt Romney 14%
Public Policy Polling (D) April 2, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 30%, John McCain 19%, Mitt Romney 14%, Other 25%, Undecided 13%
Public Policy Polling (D) Mar 5, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 32%, Newt Gingrich 26%, John McCain 17%, Mitt Romney 7%, Other 10%, Undecided 8%
Elon University Feb 18–22, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 17%, John McCain 15%, Bill Frist 6%, Mitt Romney 2%
American Research Group January 4–7, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 34%, John McCain 26%, Newt Gingrich 11%, Mike Huckabee 4%, Chuck Hagel 2%, Mitt Romney 2%, Jim Gilmore 1%, Undecided 19%

North Dakota

North Dakota North Dakota Winner: Mitt Romney
Caucus Date February 5, 2008

Poll Source Date Highlights
Caucus Results

Sampling Size: 9785

February 5, 2008 Mitt Romney 35.7%, John McCain 22.7%, Ron Paul 21.3%, Mike Huckabee 19.9%, Others 0.4%

Ohio

Ohio Winner
John McCain
Primary Date
March 4, 2008

See also[13][14][41]

Poll Source Date Highlights
Survey USA

Sampling Size: 478
Margin of Error: ±4.5%

February 17–18, 2008 John McCain 61%, Mike Huckabee 29%, Ron Paul 5%, Other 4%, Undecided 2%
Rasmussen Reports

Sampling Size: 668
Margin of Error: ±4%

February 13, 2008 John McCain 50%, Mike Huckabee 33%, Ron Paul 5%, Undecided 12%
Survey USA

Sampling Size: 524
Margin of Error: ±4.4%

February 10–11, 2008 John McCain 50%, Mike Huckabee 36%, Ron Paul 6%, Other 5%, Undecided 2%
Columbus Dispatch

Sampling Size: 2156
Margin of Error: ±2%

January 23–31, 2008 John McCain 28%, Mitt Romney 22%, Mike Huckabee 14%, Rudy Giuliani 6%, Ron Paul 3%, Fred Thompson 2%, Unsure 25%
Quinnipiac University November 26 – Dec 3, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 29%, John McCain 13%, Mike Huckabee 10%, Mitt Romney 7%, Fred Thompson 7%, Ron Paul 4%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Tom Tancredo -, Someone Else 4%, Wouldn't Vote 3%, Unsure 21%
Quinnipiac University November 6–11, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 27%, John McCain 14%, Fred Thompson 13%, Mitt Romney 11%, Mike Huckabee 7%, Ron Paul 2%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Tom Tancredo 1%, Someone Else 1%, Wouldn't Vote 2%, Unsure 20%
Quinnipiac University Oct 1–8, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 29%, Fred Thompson 17%, John McCain 10%, Mitt Romney 8%, Mike Huckabee 5%, Ron Paul 1%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Sam Brownback 1%, Tom Tancredo 1%, Someone Else 3%, Wouldn't Vote 3%, Unsure 22%
Strategic Vision (note) Sept 14–16, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 34%, Fred Thompson 21%, John McCain 9%, Mitt Romney 8%, Newt Gingrich 5%, Mike Huckabee 4%, Ron Paul 3%, Tom Tancredo 2%, Sam Brownback 2%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Undecided 11%
Quinnipiac University Aug 28 – Sept 3, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 21%, Fred Thompson 15%, John McCain 10%, Newt Gingrich 9%, Mitt Romney 8%, Mike Huckabee 3%, Ron Paul 2%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Sam Brownback 1%, Tom Tancredo 1%, Someone Else 4%, Wouldn't Vote 2%, Unsure 25%
Quinnipiac University July 30 – Aug 6, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 26%, Fred Thompson 19%, John McCain 11%, Newt Gingrich 8%, Mitt Romney 8%, Tommy Thompson 2%, Mike Huckabee 1%, Ron Paul 1%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Sam Brownback 0%, Jim Gilmore 0%, Tom Tancredo 0%, Someone Else 2%, Wouldn't Vote 4%, Unsure 22%
Quinnipiac University July 3–9, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 24%, Fred Thompson 18%, John McCain 14%, Mitt Romney 8%, Newt Gingrich 5%, Mike Huckabee 2%, Sam Brownback 1%, Jim Gilmore 1%, Ron Paul 1%, Tommy Thompson 1%, Duncan Hunter -, Tom Tancredo -, Someone Else 3%, Wouldn't Vote 2%, Unsure 20%
Quinnipiac University June 18–22, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 25%, Fred Thompson 17%, John McCain 16%, Mitt Romney 7%, Newt Gingrich 6%, Mike Huckabee 2%, Tommy Thompson 1%, Ron Paul -, Tom Tancredo -, Sam Brownback -, Jim Gilmore -, Duncan Hunter -, Someone Else 3%, Wouldn't Vote 3%, Unsure 22%
Quinnipiac University May 8–13, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 23%, John McCain 17%, Fred Thompson 15%, Mitt Romney 11%, Newt Gingrich 6%, Mike Huckabee 2%, Tommy Thompson 2%, Sam Brownback -, Jim Gilmore -, Chuck Hagel -, Duncan Hunter -, Pataki -, Tancredo -, Other 2%, Wouldn't Vote 2%, Unsure 18%
Quinnipiac University Mar 13 – 19, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 31%, John McCain 20%, Newt Gingrich 8%, Fred Thompson 6%, Mitt Romney 6%, Jim Gilmore 1%, Chuck Hagel 1%, Mike Huckabee 1%, Tom Tancredo 1%, Tommy Thompson 1%, Sam Brownback 0%, Duncan Hunter 0%, Ron Paul 0%, George Pataki 0%, Someone else 1%, Wouldn't Vote 1%, Undecided 23%
Quinnipiac University Feb 25 – Mar 1, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 35%, John McCain 18%, Newt Gingrich 13%, Mitt Romney 3%, Tommy Thompson 2%, Jim Gilmore 1%, Chuck Hagel 1%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Tom Tancredo 1%, Sam Brownback 0%, Mike Huckabee 0%, Ron Paul 0%, George Pataki 0%, Someone else 3%, Wouldn't Vote 1%, Undecided 16%
Quinnipiac University January 30, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 30%, John McCain 22%, Newt Gingrich 11%, Mitt Romney 4%, Sam Brownback 1%, Tommy Thompson 1%, Chuck Hagel 1%, Mike Huckabee 1%, George Pataki 1%, Tom Tancredo 1%, Duncan Hunter 0%, Jim Gilmore 0%, Someone Else 5%, Wouldn't Vote 2%, Don't Know 19%

Oklahoma

Oklahoma Winner
John McCain
Primary Date
February 5, 2008
See also[42]
Poll Source Date Highlights
Primary Results

Sampling Size: 335,603

February 5, 2008 John McCain 36.7%, Mike Huckabee 33.4%, Mitt Romney 24.8%, Ron Paul 3.3%, Rudy Giuliani 0.7%, Fred Thompson 0.6%, Duncan Hunter 0.1%, Tom Tancredo 0.1%, Others 0.4%
Survey USA

Sampling Size: 445
Margin of Error: ±4.7%

February 2–3, 2008 John McCain 37%, Mike Huckabee 32%, Mitt Romney 23%, Ron Paul 3%, Other 2%, Undecided 2%
Tulsa World/KOTV

Sampling Size: 306
Margin of Error: ±5.6%

January 27–30, 2008 John McCain 40%, Mike Huckabee 19%, Mitt Romney 17%, Rudy Giuliani 5%, Ron Paul 3%, Other 2%, Undecided 14%
Survey USA

Sampling Size: 502
Margin of Error: ±4.5%

January 27, 2008 John McCain 37%, Mike Huckabee 28%, Mitt Romney 19%, Rudy Giuliani 6%, Ron Paul 6%, Other 2%, Undecided 3%
Survey USA

Sampling Size: 501
Margin of Error: ±4.5%

January 11–13, 2008 Mike Huckabee 31%, John McCain 29%, Fred Thompson 13%, Rudy Giuliani 11%, Mitt Romney 8%, Ron Paul 3%, Other 1%, Undecided 5%
Tulsa World/KOTV Oklahoma Poll

Sample Size: 338
Margin of Error: ± 5.33%

December 16–19, 2007 Mike Huckabee 29%, John McCain 17%, Rudy Giuliani 11%, Mitt Romney 9%, Fred Thompson 8%, Ron Paul 3%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Don't Know/Refused 22%
Tulsa World/KOTV Oklahoma Poll May 16, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 32%, John McCain 23%, Fred Thompson 15%, Mitt Romney 6%, Sam Brownback 5%, Mike Huckabee 2%, Chuck Hagel 2%, Tommy Thompson 2%, Undecided 13%
American Research Group February 8–13, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 37%, John McCain 21%, Mike Huckabee 14%, Newt Gingrich 3%, Jim Gilmore 2%, Mitt Romney 2%, Sam Brownback 0%, Chuck Hagel 0%, Duncan Hunter 0%, George Pataki 0%, Ron Paul 0%, Tom Tancredo 0%, Tommy Thompson 0%, Undecided 21%

Oregon

OregonOregon Winner: To Be Determined

Primary Date
May 20, 2008
Poll Source Date Highlights
Riley Research

Margin of Error: +/- 7.9%
Sampling Size: 153

January 21–29, 2008 John McCain 30%, Mitt Romney 21%, Mike Huckabee 16%, Rudy Giuliani 8%, Ron Paul 3%, Unsure 19%
Riley Research

Margin of Error: +/- 4.86%
Sampling Size: 406

Aug 10–15, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 16%, Mitt Romney 15%, Fred Thompson 11%, John McCain 8%, Mike Huckabee 3%, Tommy Thompson 2%, Sam Brownback 1%, Ron Paul 1%, Tom Tancredo 1%, Refused 1%, Other 13%, Undecided 35%
Riley Research Mar 14, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 33%, John McCain 20%, Newt Gingrich 6%, Mitt Romney 5%, Mike Huckabee 2%, Ron Paul 1%, Tommy Thompson 1%, Tom Tancredo 0%, Refused 1%, Miscellaneous 4%, Undecided 25%

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania Winner
John McCain
Primary Date
Tuesday, April 22, 2008


See also[13][14][43][44][45]

Poll Source Date Highlights
Franklin and Marshall College

Sampling Size: 277
Margin of Error: ±3.9%

January 8–14, 2008 John McCain 30%, Rudy Giuliani 14%, Mike Huckabee 12%, Fred Thompson 8%, Mitt Romney 7%, Ron Paul 2%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Other 2%, Don't Know 24%
Quinnipiac University November 26 – Dec 3, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 27%, Mike Huckabee 13%, John McCain 13%, Mitt Romney 6%, Fred Thompson 6%, Ron Paul 4%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Tom Tancredo -%, Other 3%, Wouldn't Vote 3%, Unsure 23%
Quinnipiac University Oct 31 – November 5, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 29%, John McCain 12%, Fred Thompson 11%, Mitt Romney 7%, Mike Huckabee 6%, Ron Paul 4%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Tom Tancredo -%, Other 2%, Wouldn't Vote 4%, Unsure 23%
Quinnipiac University Oct 1–8, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 32%, Fred Thompson 13%, John McCain 13%, Mitt Romney 8%, Ron Paul 4%, Mike Huckabee 2%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Sam Brownback -%, Tom Tancredo -%, Other 3%, Wouldn't Vote 2%, Unsure 20%
Strategic Vision (note) Sept 28–30, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 45%, Fred Thompson 15%, John McCain 8%, Mitt Romney 7%, Ron Paul 3%, Tom Tancredo 2%, Mike Huckabee 2%, Sam Brownback 1%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Undecided 16%
Keystone Poll Aug 24 – Sep 2, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 32%, John McCain 19%, Mitt Romney 12%, Fred Thompson 11%, Undecided 23%
Quinnipiac University Aug 14–20, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 31%, John McCain 13%, Newt Gingrich 9%, Fred Thompson 8%, Mitt Romney 7%, Ron Paul 2%, Sam Brownback 2%, Mike Huckabee 2%, Tom Tancredo 1%, Duncan Hunter -, Other 2%, Wouldn't Vote 2%, Unsure 23%
Quinnipiac University July 30 – Aug 6, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 29%, John McCain 16%, Fred Thompson 14%, Newt Gingrich 9%, Ron Paul 3%, Mitt Romney 3%, Sam Brownback 1%, Mike Huckabee 1%, Tommy Thompson 1%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Jim Gilmore 0%, Tom Tancredo 0%, Other 2%, Wouldn't Vote 4%, Unsure 16%
Strategic Vision (R) July 6–8, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 42%, Fred Thompson 16%, John McCain 10%, Mitt Romney 6%, Newt Gingrich 4%, Sam Brownback 2%, Mike Huckabee 2%, Ron Paul 2%, Tom Tancredo 2%, Gilmore 1%, Hunter 1%, Tommy Thompson 1%, Undecided 11%
Quinnipiac University June 18–25, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 29%, John McCain 15%, Fred Thompson 15%, Newt Gingrich 5%, Mitt Romney 3%, Sam Brownback 1%, Jim Gilmore 1%, Mike Huckabee 1%, Tommy Thompson 1%, Duncan Hunter -, Ron Paul -, Tom Tancredo -, Other 3%, Wouldn't Vote 3%, Unsure 24%
WTAE/Pittsburgh Tribune-Review Keystone May 29 – June 4, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 29%, John McCain 29%, Mitt Romney 12%, Other 6%, Don't Know 24%
Quinnipiac University May 22–28, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 28%, John McCain 11%, Fred Thompson 10%, Mitt Romney 9%, Gingrich 8%, Brownback 1%, Huckabee 1%, Pataki 1%, Paul 1%, Tancredo 1%, Gilmore -, Hagel -, Hunter -, Tommy Thompson -, Other 2%, Unsure 23%
Strategic Vision (R) April 13–15, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 44%, John McCain 17%, Fred Thompson 10%, Newt Gingrich 5%, Mitt Romney 3%, Sam Brownback 2%, Tom Tancredo 1%, Huckabee 1%, T. Thompson 1%, Gilmore 1%, Hunter 1%, Paul 1%, Hagel 1%, Undecided 11%
Quinnipiac University Mar 19–25, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 33%, John McCain 18%, Newt Gingrich 7%, Fred Thompson 6%, Mitt Romney 5%, Sam Brownback 1%, Mike Huckabee 1%, Duncan Hunter 1%, George Pataki 1%, Jim Gilmore 0%, Chuck Hagel 0%, Ron Paul 0%, Tom Tancredo 0%, Tommy Thompson 0%, Other 3%, Unsure 22%
Strategic Vision (note) Mar 16–18, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 45%, John McCain 20%, Newt Gingrich 7%, Mitt Romney 5%, Sam Brownback 3%, Tom Tancredo 2%, Chuck Hagel 1%, Jim Gilmore 1%, Mike Huckabee 1%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Ron Paul 1%, Tommy Thompson 1%, Undecided 12%
Quinnipiac University Feb 25 – Mar 1, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 43%, John McCain 17%, Newt Gingrich 8%, Mitt Romney 6%, Sam Brownback 1%, Chuck Hagel 1%, George Pataki 1%, Jim Gilmore 0%, Mike Huckabee 0%, Duncan Hunter 0%, Ron Paul 0%, Tom Tancredo 0%, Tommy Thompson 0%, Someone else 1%, Wouldn't Vote 3%, Undecided 18%
Quinnipiac University Feb 1–5, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 30%, John McCain 20%, Newt Gingrich 14%, Mitt Romney 4%, Sam Brownback 2%, Chuck Hagel 1%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Mike Huckabee 1%, Someone Else 4%, Wouldn't Vote 3%, Undecided 20%
American Research Group

Margin of Error: +/- 4%
Sample Size: 600 (528 R, 72 I)

January 4–8, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 35%, John McCain 25%, Newt Gingrich 10%, Chuck Hagel 4%, Sam Brownback 2%, Jim Gilmore 1%, Mike Huckabee 1%, Mitt Romney 1%, Undecided 21%

Rhode Island

Rhode Island Winner
John McCain
Primary Date
March 4, 2008
See also[46]
Poll Source Date Highlights
American Research Group

Margin of Error: +/- 4%
Sample Size: 600 (215 R, 385 I)

April 25 – May 2, 2006 John McCain 50%, Mitt Romney 14%, Newt Gingrich 4%, George Pataki 1%, Chuck Hagel <.5%, George Allen 0%, Sam Brownback 0%, Bill Frist 0%, Mike Huckabee 0%, Undecided 31%
American Research Group Feb 2006 John McCain 45%, Mitt Romney 17%, Newt Gingrich 6%, Bill Frist 2%, George Pataki 1%, Undecided 29%

South Carolina

South Carolina Winner
John McCain
Primary Date
January 19, 2008

See also[47][48][49]

Poll Source Date Highlights
Primary Results

Sampling Size: 431,196

January 19, 2008 John McCain 33.2%, Mike Huckabee 29.9%, Fred Thompson 15.7%, Mitt Romney 15.1%, Ron Paul 3.7%, Rudy Giuliani 2.1%, Duncan Hunter .2%
American Research Group

Sampling Size: 600
Margin of Error: ±4%

January 17–18, 2008 Mike Huckabee 33%, John McCain 26%, Fred Thompson 21%, Mitt Romney 9%, Rudy Giuliani 3%, Ron Paul 2%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Alan Keyes 1%, Undecided 4%
Reuters/CSpan/Zogby

Sampling Size: 817
Margin of Error: ±3.4%

January 17–18, 2008 John McCain 27%, Mike Huckabee 26%, Mitt Romney 16%, Fred Thompson 12%, Ron Paul 4%, Rudy Giuliani 3%
Insider Advantage

Sampling Size: 635
Margin of Error: ±3–4%

January 17, 2008 Mike Huckabee 26%, John McCain 25.7%, Mitt Romney 12.9%, Fred Thompson 12.7%, Rudy Giuliani 5.2%, Ron Paul 4.8%, Duncan Hunter 2.5%, Undecided 10.3%
Survey USA

Sampling Size: 699
Margin of Error: ±3.8%

January 16–17, 2008 John McCain 31%, Mike Huckabee 27%, Mitt Romney 17%, Fred Thompson 16%, Ron Paul 5%, Rudy Giuliani 2%, Other 1%, Undecided 2%
Fox News/Opinion Dynamics

Sampling Size: 500
Margin of Error: ±4%

January 16–17, 2008 John McCain 27%, Mike Huckabee 20%, Mitt Romney 15%, Fred Thompson 11%, Ron Paul 4%, Rudy Giuliani 3%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Other 1%, Undecided 19%
Reuters/CSPAN/Zogby

Sampling Size: 815
Margin of Error: ±3.4%

January 15–17, 2008 John McCain 29%, Mike Huckabee 22%, Mitt Romney 15%, Fred Thompson 13%, Ron Paul 4%, Rudy Giuliani 2%, Undecided 9%
Survey USA

Sampling Size: 470
Margin of Error: ±4.6%

January 16, 2008 John McCain 29%, Mike Huckabee 26%, Mitt Romney 17%, Fred Thompson 17%, Ron Paul 5%, Rudy Giuliani 3%, Other 2%, Undecided 2%
Rasmussen Reports

Sampling Size: 895
Margin of Error: ±3%

January 16, 2008 Mike Huckabee 24%, John McCain 24%, Mitt Romney 18%, Fred Thompson 16%, Ron Paul 5%, Rudy Giuliani 3%, Undecided 7%
American Research Group

Sampling Size: 600
Margin of Error: ±4%

January 15–16, 2008 John McCain 33%, Mike Huckabee 23%, Mitt Romney 20%, Fred Thompson 13%, Rudy Giuliani 4%, Alan Keyes 2%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Ron Paul 1%, Undecided 3%
MSNBC/Mason Dixon/McClatchy

Sampling Size: 400
Margin of Error: ±5%

January 14–16, 2008 John McCain 27%, Mike Huckabee 25%, Mitt Romney 15%, Fred Thompson 13%, Ron Paul 6%, Rudy Giuliani 5%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Undecided 8%
Reuters/CSPAN/Zogby

Sampling Size: 813
Margin of Error: ±3.4%

January 14–16, 2008 John McCain 29%, Mike Huckabee 22%, Fred Thompson 14%, Mitt Romney 12%, Ron Paul 5%, Rudy Giuliani 5%, Undecided 10%
Reuters/CSPAN/Zogby

Sampling Size: 813
Margin of Error: ±3.4%

January 13–15, 2008 John McCain 29%, Mike Huckabee 23%, Mitt Romney 13%, Fred Thompson 12%, Ron Paul 6%, Rudy Giuliani 5%, Some Other Candidate 4%, Will Not Vote/Undecided 10%
Clemson University

Sampling Size: 450
Margin of Error: ±4.6%

January 9–15, 2008 John McCain 29%, Mike Huckabee 22%, Mitt Romney 13%, Fred Thompson 10%, Ron Paul 6%, Rudy Giuliani 3%, Undecided 17%
Rasmussen Reports

Sampling Size: 911
Margin of Error: ±3%

January 13, 2008 John McCain 28%, Mike Huckabee 19%, Mitt Romney 17%, Fred Thompson 16%, Rudy Giuliani 5%, Ron Paul 5%, Some Other Candidate 2%, Undecided 8%
Fox News/Opinion Dynamics

Sampling Size: 500
Margin of Error: ±4%

January 9, 2008 John McCain 25%, Mike Huckabee 18%, Mitt Romney 17%, Fred Thompson 9%, Rudy Giuliani 5%, Ron Paul 5%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Other 1%, Don't Know 19%
Rasmussen Reports

Sampling Size: 785
Margin of Error: ±4%

January 9, 2008 John McCain 27%, Mike Huckabee 24%, Mitt Romney 16%, Fred Thompson 12%, Rudy Giuliani 6%, Ron Paul 5%, Some Other Candidate 3%, Not Sure 6%
Insider Advantage

Sampling Size: 479
Margin of Error: ±4%

January 7, 2008 Mike Huckabee 33%, John McCain 21%, Mitt Romney 14%, Rudy Giuliani 8%, Ron Paul 5%, Fred Thompson 5%, Duncan Hunter 1%, No Opinion 13%
Rasmussen Reports

Sampling Size: 882
Margin of Error: ±4%

January 6, 2008 Mike Huckabee 28%, John McCain 21%, Mitt Romney 15%, Fred Thompson 11%, Rudy Giuliani 10%, Ron Paul 4%, Other 2%, Undecided 9%
Survey USA

Sampling Size: 658
Margin of Error: ±3.9%

January 4–6, 2008 Mike Huckabee 36%, Mitt Romney 19%, John McCain 17%, Fred Thompson 11%, Rudy Giuliani 9%, Ron Paul 5%, Other 1%, Undecided 3%
SurveyUSA

Sample Size: 593
Margin of Error: ±4.1%

December 17–18, 2007 Mike Huckabee 28%, Mitt Romney 18%, John McCain 16%, Fred Thompson 15%, Rudy Giuliani 12%, Other 7%, Undecided 4%
CBS News

Sample Size: 447
Margin of Error: ±5%

December 13–17, 2007 Mike Huckabee 28%, Mitt Romney 20%, Rudy Giuliani 12%, John McCain 11%, Fred Thompson 10%, Ron Paul 3%
Rasmussen Reports Poll

Sample Size: 724
Margin of Error: ± 4%

December 16, 2007 Mike Huckabee 23%, Mitt Romney 23%, Fred Thompson 12%, John McCain 12%, Rudy Giuliani 11%, Ron Paul 5%, Some other candidate 2%
CNN December 9–12, 2007 Mike Huckabee 24%, Fred Thompson 17%, Mitt Romney 16%, Rudy Giuliani 16%, John McCain 13%, Ron Paul 11%, Undecided 3%
Survey USA Poll December 7–9, 2007 Mike Huckabee 30%, Mitt Romney 19%, Fred Thompson 18%, Rudy Giuliani 13%, John McCain 10%, Other 6%, Undecided 3%
Mason-Dixon Poll December 3–6, 2007 Mike Huckabee 20%, Rudy Giuliani 17%, Mitt Romney 15%, Fred Thompson 14%, John McCain 10%, Ron Paul 4%, Tom Tancredo 1%, Alan Keyes 1%, Duncan Hunter 0%, Undecided 18%
Rasmussen Reports Poll December 3–4, 2007 Mike Huckabee 25%, Fred Thompson 18%, Mitt Romney 18%, Rudy Giuliani 12%, John McCain 9%, Ron Paul 4%, Some other candidate 2%
Insider Advantage Poll December 3–4, 2007 Mike Huckabee 23%, Fred Thompson 17%, Rudy Giuliani 17%, Mitt Romney 14%, John McCain 10%, Ron Paul 6%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Tom Tancredo 1%, Undecided 11%
American Research Group November 26–29, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 23%, Mitt Romney 21%, Mike Huckabee 18%, Fred Thompson 13%, John McCain 10%, Ron Paul 3%, Duncan Hunter 2%, Tom Tancredo -%, Alan Keyes -%, Undecided 10%
Clemson University Palmetto Poll

Sampling Size: 450
Margin of Error: +/- 4.62%

November 14–27, 2007 Mitt Romney 17%, Fred Thompson 15%, Mike Huckabee 13%, John McCain 11%, Rudy Giuliani 9%, Ron Paul 6%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Tom Tancredo 0%, Undecided 28%
Rasmussen November 20, 2007 Mitt Romney 21%, Fred Thompson 21%, Rudy Giuliani 13%, Mike Huckabee 12%, John McCain 9%, Ron Paul 8%, Duncan Hunter 2%, Tom Tancredo 2%, Undecided 13%
Ayers, McHenry & Associates November 19, 2007 Mitt Romney 20%, Rudy Giuliani 19%, John McCain 17%, Fred Thompson 13%, Mike Huckabee 8%, Ron Paul 3%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Tom Tancredo 0%, Undecided 18%
Survey USA November 9–11, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 26%, Mitt Romney 20%, Fred Thompson 18%, John McCain 14%, Mike Huckabee 12%, Other 6%, Undecided 4%
American Research Group October 26–29, 2007 Mitt Romney 29%, Rudy Giuliani 23%, John McCain 13%, Fred Thompson 10%, Mike Huckabee 5%, Ron Paul 4%, Duncan Hunter 2%, Tom Tancredo 1%, Alan Keyes 1%, Undecided 12%
Winthrop/ETV Poll October 7–28, 2007 Fred Thompson 17.9%, Mitt Romney 16.5%, Rudy Giuliani 16.5%, John McCain 9.2%, Mike Huckabee 5.4%, Ron Paul 2.1%, Duncan Hunter 0.8%, Tom Tancredo 0.6%, Sam Brownback 0.2%, Undecided 29.9%
Insider Advantage October 2, 2007 Fred Thompson 21%, Rudy Giuliani 16%, John McCain 16%, Mitt Romney 16%, Mike Huckabee 11%, Ron Paul 3%, Duncan Hunter 2%, Sam Brownback 2%, No Opinion 13%
American Research Group September 26–29, 2007 Mitt Romney 26%, Rudy Giuliani 23%, John McCain 15%, Fred Thompson 10%, Newt Gingrich 7%, Ron Paul 2%, Sam Brownback 1%, Mike Huckabee 1%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Tom Tancredo 1%, Alan Keyes -, Undecided 13%
Rasmussen September 26–27, 2007 Fred Thompson 24%, Rudy Giuliani 20%, Mitt Romney 15%, John McCain 11%, Mike Huckabee 3%, Others 5%, Undecided 22%
Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg Poll September 6–10, 2007 Fred Thompson 26%, Rudy Giuliani 23%, John McCain 15%, Mitt Romney 9%, Mike Huckabee 6%, Ron Paul 2%, Tom Tancredo 1%, Sam Brownback 1%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Undecided 13%
American Research Group August 26–29, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 26%, Fred Thompson 21%, John McCain 12%, Mike Huckabee 9%, Mitt Romney 9%, Newt Gingrich 6%, Sam Brownback 2%, Ron Paul 2%, Tancredo 1%, Hunter -, Undecided 12%
Clemson University Palmetto Poll August 20–29, 2007 Fred Thompson 19%, Rudy Giuliani 18%, John McCain 15%, Mitt Romney 11%, Newt Gingrich 9%, Mike Huckabee 6%, Ron Paul 1%, Sam Brownback -, Tancredo -, Hunter -, Undecided 20%
Rasmussen Reports August 20, 2007 Fred Thompson 23%, Rudy Giuliani 21%, John McCain 14%, Mitt Romney 10%, Mike Huckabee 6%, Others 3%, Undecided 22%
Public Policy Polling (D) August 13, 2007 Fred Thompson 21%, Rudy Giuliani 18%, Mitt Romney 17%, John McCain 11%, Mike Huckabee 7%, Sam Brownback 3%, Ron Paul 2%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Tom Tancredo 1%, Undecided 18%
American Research Group[permanent dead link] July 26–30, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 28%, Fred Thompson 27%, John McCain 10%, Mitt Romney 7%, Mike Huckabee 3%, Ron Paul 3%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Tom Tancredo 1%, Sam Brownback -, Tommy Thompson -, Undecided 13%
CNN/Opinion Research

(Without Gingrich)

July 16–18, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 28% (30%), John McCain 20% (21%), Fred Thompson 17% (18%), Newt Gingrich 6%, Mitt Romney 4% (6%), Tommy Thompson 4%, Mike Huckabee 3%, Hunter 2%, Paul 2%, Tancredo 2%, Brownback 1%, Undecided 11%
American Research Group June 26–30, 2007 John McCain 23%, Rudy Giuliani 22%, Fred Thompson 19%, Mitt Romney 8%, Mike Huckabee 3%, Hunter 2%, Brownback 1%, Gilmore 1%, Tancredo 1%, Undecided 14%
Mason Dixon June 13–15, 2007 Fred Thompson 25%, Rudy Giuliani 21%, Mitt Romney 11%, John McCain 7%, Mike Huckabee 5%, Brownback 1%, Hunter 1%, Thompson 1%, Gilmore -, Tancredo -, Paul -, Undecided 28%
Public Policy Polling (D) May 31, 2007 Mitt Romney 31%, Fred Thompson 15%, Newt Gingrich 10%, John McCain 9%, Rudy Giuliani 8%, Tommy Thompson 5%, Sam Brownback 4%, Mike Huckabee 4%, Tom Tancredo 4%, Ron Paul 2%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Jim Gilmore 0%, Undecided 8%
Winthrop/ETV May 16–27, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 18.6%, John McCain 14.4%, Mitt Romney 11.7%, Fred Thompson 6.4%, Newt Gingrich 3.4%, Brownback 1.5%, Hunter 1.1%, Huckabee .8%, Tommy Thompson .8%, Hagel .4%, Unsure 29.9%
American Research Group May 23–25, 2007 John McCain 32%, Rudy Giuliani 23%, Fred Thompson 13%, Mitt Romney 10%, Newt Gingrich 6%, Brownback 1%, Gilmore 1%, Hagel 1%, Huckabee 1%, Tancredo 1%, Tommy Thompson 1%, Hunter -, Pataki -, Paul -, Undecided 11%
Insider Advantage May 21–22, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 18%, Newt Gingrich 17%, John McCain 17%, Fred Thompson 13%, Mitt Romney 8%, Mike Huckabee 6%, Duncan Hunter 4%, Sam Brownback 3%, Duncan Hunter 3%, Gilmore 1%, Ron Paul 1%, Undecided/Don't Know 13%
Insider Advantage/Majority Opinion May 8–9, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 22%, Newt Gingrich 15%, Mitt Romney 10%, John McCain 9%, Fred Thompson 8%, Sam Brownback 4%, Duncan Hunter 4%, Mike Huckabee 1%, Ron Paul 1%, Undecided/Don't Know 26%
WIS-TV/Ayres McHenry (R) May 5–8, 2007 John McCain 25%, Rudy Giuliani 20%, Fred Thompson 16%, Newt Gingrich 12%, Mitt Romney 8%, Mike Huckabee 2%, Sam Brownback 1%, Jim Gilmore 1%, Chuck Hagel 1%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Tom Tancredo 1%, Tommy Thompson 1%, Undecided 13%
American Research Group April 27–30, 2007 John McCain 36%, Rudy Giuliani 23%, Fred Thompson 10%, Mitt Romney 6%, Newt Gingrich 6%, Mike Huckabee 2%, Sam Browback 1%, Jim Gilmore 1%, Chuck Hagel 1%, Tom Tancredo 1%, Tommy Thompson 1%, Duncan Hunter -, George Pataki -, Ron Paul -, Undecided 12%
Hamilton Beattie (D)/Ayres McHenry (R) April 14–19, 2007 John McCain 24%, Rudy Giuliani 15%, Newt Gingrich 12%, Fred Thompson 11%, Mitt Romney 10%, Sam Brownback 2%, Jim Gilmore 1%, Chuck Hagel 1%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Tom Tancredo 1%, Tommy Thompson <1%, Undecided 22%
NewsChannel 15-Zogby April 16–17, 2007 John McCain 22%, Rudy Giuliani 19%, Fred Thompson 11%, Mitt Romney 10%, Mark Sanford 8%
Insider Advantage/Majority Opinion April 9–10, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 18%, John McCain 17%, Newt Gingrich 16%, Mitt Romney 14%, Fred Thompson 9%, Jim Gilmore 4%, Sam Brownback 3%, Mike Huckabee 2%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Ron Paul 1%, Undecided/Don't Know 15%
Fox News/Opinion Dynamics April 1–3, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 26%, John McCain 25%, Mitt Romney 14%, Newt Gingrich (vol) 5%, Brownback 2%, Fred Thompson (vol) 2%, T. Thompson 2%, Gilmore 1%, Hunter 1%, Paul 1%, Tancredo 1%, Chuck Hagel (vol) -, Other 1%, Don't Know 16%
Elon University Feb 18–22, 2007 John McCain 38.1%, Rudy Giuliani 14.3%, Mitt Romney 4.8%, Newt Gingrich 4.8%, Undecided 38.1%
Whit Ayres January 24–28, 2007 John McCain 29%, Rudy Giuliani 20%, Newt Gingrich 14%, Mitt Romney 6%, Sam Brownback 2%, Mike Huckabee 2%, Duncan Hunter 2%, Tom Tancredo 1%, Undecided 23%
American Research Group Dec 21–23, 2006 John McCain 35%, Rudy Giuliani 28%, Newt Gingrich 15%, Mitt Romney 5%, Mike Huckabee 1%, Undecided 16%

Tennessee

Tennessee Winner
Mike Huckabee
Primary Date
February 5, 2008
Poll Source Date Highlights
Primary Results

Sampling Size: 550,502

February 5, 2008 Mike Huckabee 34.1%, John McCain 31.5%, Mitt Romney 24.3%, Ron Paul 5.6%, Fred Thompson 2.9%, Rudy Giuliani 0.9%, Uncommitted 0.3%, Duncan Hunter 0.1%, Others 0.2%
InsiderAdvantage

Sampling Size: 474

February 2, 2008 John McCain 31.9%, Mike Huckabee 29.5%, Mitt Romney 22.1%, Ron Paul 6%, Other 3%, Undecided 7.4%
Rasmussen Reports

Sampling Size: 531
Margin of Error: ±4.5%

January 30, 2008 John McCain 32%, Mitt Romney 29%, Mike Huckabee 23%, Ron Paul 8%, Other 5%
InsiderAdvantage

Sampling Size: 375

January 30, 2008 John McCain 33%, Mike Huckabee 25%, Mitt Romney 18%, Ron Paul 9%, Other 2%, Undecided 13%
WSMV-TV/Crawford, Johnson and Northcott

Sampling Size: 409
Margin of Error: ±5%

January 28–29, 2008 Mike Huckabee 24%, John McCain 23%, Mitt Romney 18%, Ron Paul 4%, Rudy Giuliani 3%, Other 2%, Undecided 26%
WSMV/Crawford, Johnson and Northcott

Sampling Size: 500
Margin of Error: ±5%

January 19–21, 2008 Fred Thompson 25%, Mike Huckabee 24%, John McCain 12%, Mitt Romney 7%, Rudy Giuliani 2%, Ron Paul 2%, Undecided 26%
InsiderAdvantage Mar 31 – Apr 1, 2007 Fred Thompson 45%, Rudy Giuliani 15%, Newt Gingrich 11%, John McCain 10%, Undisclosed Remaining Percent 19%

Texas

Texas Winner
John McCain
Primary Date
March 4, 2008
See also[50]
Poll Source Date Highlights
Survey USA

Sampling Size: 505
Margin of Error: ± 4.5%

February 16–18, 2008 John McCain 50%, Mike Huckabee 37%, Ron Paul 7%, Other 4%, Undecided 2%
CNN

Sampling Size: 553
Margin of Error: ± 4%

February 15–17, 2008 John McCain 55%, Mike Huckabee 32%, Ron Paul 11%, Undecided 2%
Rasmussen Reports

Sampling Size: 796
Margin of Error: ± 4%

February 14, 2008 John McCain 45%, Mike Huckabee 37%, Ron Paul 7%, Undecided 11%
American Research Group

Sampling Size: 600
Margin of Error: ± 4%

February 13–14, 2008 John McCain 42%, Mike Huckabee 36%, Ron Paul 11%, Other 2%, Undecided 9%
Texas Credit Union League/Public Opinion Strategies

Sampling Size: 400
Margin of Error: ± 4.9%

February 11–13, 2008 John McCain 45%, Mike Huckabee 41%, Ron Paul 6%, Undecided/Other 8%
IVR Polls

Sampling Size: 510
Margin of Error: ± 4.3%

February 7, 2008 John McCain 43%, Mike Huckabee 33%, Ron Paul 9%, Alan Keyes 3%, Undecided 13%
IVR Polls 

Margin of Error: +/- 3.5%
Sampling Size: 734

January 30–31, 2008 Mitt Romney 30%, John McCain 29%, Mike Huckabee 20%, Ron Paul 8%, Alan Keyes 3%, Undecided 10%
IVR Polls 

Margin of Error: +/- 3.6%
Sampling Size: 735

January 10, 2008 Mike Huckabee 26%, John McCain 24%, Fred Thompson 12%, Mitt Romney 11%, Rudy Giuliani 10%, Ron Paul 4%, Duncan Hunter 3%, Alan Keyes 0%, Undecided 8% – Past GOP Primary voters
IVR Polls 

Margin of Error: +/- 4.2%
Sampling Size: 535

December 12, 2007 Mike Huckabee 29%, Rudy Giuliani 16%, Fred Thompson 14%, Mitt Romney 14%, John McCain 7%, Ron Paul 6%, Tom Tancredo 3%, Duncan Hunter 2%, Alan Keyes 0%, Undecided 9% – Past GOP Primary voters
IVR Polls 

Margin of Error: +/- 4.4%
Sampling Size: 500

November 15, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 23%, Mike Huckabee 16%, Fred Thompson 16%, Mitt Romney 12%, John McCain 9%, Ron Paul 5%, Tom Tancredo 3%, Duncan Hunter 3%, Alan Keyes 1%, Undecided 11% – Past GOP Primary voters
IVR Polls 

Margin of Error: +/- 4.3%
Sampling Size: 532

October 18, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 24%, Fred Thompson 19%, Mike Huckabee 14%, Mitt Romney 14%, Tom Tancredo 7%, John McCain 6%, Ron Paul 6%, Duncan Hunter 4%, Alan Keyes 0%, Undecided 6% – Past GOP Primary voters
IVR Polls 

Margin of Error: +/- 4.1%
Sampling Size: 570

August 29, 2007 Fred Thompson 25%, Rudy Giuliani 21%, Mitt Romney 15%, Mike Huckabee 13%, John McCain 8%, Ron Paul 5%, Other 8%, Undecided 5% – Past GOP Primary voters
IVR Polls 

Margin of Error: +/- 3.6%
Sampling Size: 736

June 19, 2007 Fred Thompson 29%, Rudy Giuliani 21%, John McCain 13%, Mitt Romney 9%, Ron Paul 6%, Mike Huckabee 4%, Other 6%, Undecided 11% – Past GOP Primary voters
Texas Lyceum  April 26 – May 7, 2007 John McCain 27%, Rudy Giuliani 23%, Fred Thompson 11%, Newt Gingrich 6%, Mitt Romney 6%, Sam Brownback 3%, Tommy Thompson 1%, Hunter 1%, Paul 0%, Other 2%, Don't Know 20%
Baselice & Associates April 16–19, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 24%, John McCain 19%, Fred Thompson 19%, Newt Gingrich 12%, Mitt Romney 8%
American Research Group

Margin of Error: +/- 4%
Sample Size: 600 (522 R, 78 I)

March 16–19, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 30%, John McCain 20%, Mitt Romney 13%, Fred Thompson 12%, Newt Gingrich 11%, Mike Huckabee 2%, Chuck Hagel 1%, Tom Tancredo 1%, Sam Brownback 0%, George Pataki 0%, Jim Gilmore 0%, Duncan Hunter 0%, Tommy Thompson 0%, Ron Paul 0%, Undecided 11%
Baselice & Associates January 17–21, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 28%, John McCain 26%, Newt Gingrich 17%, Mitt Romney 6%, Sam Brownback 2%, Mike Huckabee 2%, George Pataki 1%, Chuck Hagel 1%, Undecided 18%

Utah

Utah Winner
Mitt Romney
Primary Date
February 5, 2008
See also[51]
Poll Source Date Highlights
Primary Results

Sampling Size: 284,790

February 5, 2008 Mitt Romney 89.6%, John McCain 5.4%, Ron Paul 2.9%, Mike Huckabee 1.4%, Rudy Giuliani 0.3%, Fred Thompson 0.2%, Duncan Hunter 0.1%, Others 0.1%
Deseret Morning News/KSL-TV

Margin of Error: ±6.5%

February 1, 2008 Mitt Romney 84%, John McCain 4%, Other/Undecided 12%
Deseret Morning News/KSL-TV October 6, 2007 Mitt Romney 65%, Rudy Giuliani 8%, John McCain 6%, Fred Thompson 3%, Mike Huckabee 2%, Ron Paul 1%, Undecided 13%
American Research Group Feb 8–13, 2007 Mitt Romney 40%, John McCain 21%, Rudy Giuliani 13%, Chuck Hagel 3%, Tommy Thompson 2%, Sam Brownback 1%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Undecided 32%

Vermont

Vermont Winner
John McCain
Primary Date
March 4, 2008
See also[52]
Poll Source Date Highlights
American Research Group

Margin of Error: +/- 4%
Sample Size: 600 (353 R, 247 I)

Feb 2–6, 2007 John McCain 30%, Rudy Giuliani 29%, Newt Gingrich 9%, Mitt Romney 7%, Sam Brownback 1%, Chuck Hagel 1%, George Pataki 1%, Tom Tancredo 1%, Undecided 22%

Virginia

Virginia Winner
John McCain
Primary Date
February 12, 2008
Poll Source Date Highlights
Primary Results

Sampling Size: 484,392

February 12, 2008 John McCain 50%, Mike Huckabee 40.8%, Ron Paul 4.5%, Mitt Romney 3.5%, Fred Thompson 0.7%, Rudy Giuliani 0.4%
Survey USA

Sampling Size: 385
Margin of Error: ± 5.1%

February 9–10, 2008 John McCain 48%, Mike Huckabee 37%, Ron Paul 7%, Other 6%, Undecided 2%
American Research Group[permanent dead link]

Sampling Size: 600
Margin of Error: ± 4%

February 8–9, 2008 John McCain 54%, Mike Huckabee 32%, Ron Paul 5%, Other 4%, Undecided 5%
Richmond Times-Dispatch/Mason Dixon[permanent dead link]

Sampling Size: 400
Margin of Error: ± 5%

February 7–8, 2008 John McCain 55%, Mike Huckabee 27%, Ron Paul 5%, Other/Undecided 13%
Survey USA

Sampling Size: 382
Margin of Error: ± 5.1%

February 7–8, 2008 John McCain 57%, Mike Huckabee 25%, Ron Paul 9%, Other 7%, Undecided 3%
Washington Post Oct 4–8, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 34%, John McCain 20%, Fred Thompson 19%, Mitt Romney 9%, Mike Huckabee 2%, Duncan Hunter 2%, Ron Paul 2%, Sam Brownback 1%, Tom Tancredo 1%
Elon University Feb 18–22, 2007 John McCain 25%, Rudy Giuliani 6%, Mitt Romney 3%, Bill Frist 3%

Washington

Washington Winner
John McCain
Caucus Date
February 9, 2008

See also[13]

Poll Source Date Highlights
Strategic Vision (note) Oct 5–7, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 37%, Fred Thompson 20%, Mitt Romney 11%, John McCain 10%, Mike Huckabee 4%, Ron Paul 4%, Tom Tancredo 2%, Sam Brownback 1%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Undecided 10%
Strategic Vision (note) November 2–4, 2006 Rudy Giuliani 42%, John McCain 23%, Mitt Romney 7%, Newt Gingrich 6%, Bill Frist 2%, George Allen 1%, Rick Santorum 1%, George Pataki 1%, Chuck Hagel 1%, Undecided 16%

West Virginia

West Virginia Winner
Mike Huckabee
Caucus Date
February 5, 2008
;Primary Date: May 13, 2008
See also[53]
Poll Source Date Highlights
Caucus Results February 5, 2008 Mike Huckabee 51.5%, Mitt Romney 47.4, John McCain 1.1%
American Research Group

Margin of Error: +/- 4%
Sample Size: 600 (527 R, 73 No Party)

March 29 – April 2, 2007 John McCain 33%, Rudy Giuliani 29%, Mitt Romney 8%, Newt Gingrich 6%, Fred Thompson 6%, Sam Brownback 0%, Jim Gilmore 0%, Chuck Hagel 0%, Mike Huckabee 0%, Duncan Hunter 0%, George Pataki 0%, Ron Paul 0%, Tommy Thompson 0%, Tom Tancredo 0%, Undecided 18%

Wisconsin

Wisconsin Winner
John McCain
Primary Date
February 19, 2008

See also[13]

Poll Source Date Highlights
American Research Group

Sample Size: 600
Margin of Error: ± 4%

February 17–18, 2008 John McCain 51%, Mike Huckabee 43%, Ron Paul 3%, Other 1%, Undecided 2%
Public Policy Polling

Sample Size: 654
Margin of Error: ± 3.8%

February 16–17, 2008 John McCain 50%, Mike Huckabee 39%, Ron Paul 6%, Undecided 5%
American Research Group[permanent dead link]

Sample Size: 600
Margin of Error: ± 4%

February 15–16, 2008 John McCain 46%, Mike Huckabee 42%, Ron Paul 4%, Other 1%, Undecided 7%
Research 2000/WISC-TV Madison

Sample Size: 400
Margin of Error: ± 5%

February 13–14, 2008 John McCain 48%, Mike Huckabee 32%, Ron Paul 7%, Undecided 13%
Rasmussen Reports

Sample Size: 526
Margin of Error: ± 4%

February 13, 2008 John McCain 51%, Mike Huckabee 30%, Ron Paul 7%, Undecided 12%
Public Policy Polling

Sample Size: 700
Margin of Error: ± 3.7%

February 11, 2008 John McCain 53%, Mike Huckabee 32%, Ron Paul 7%, Undecided 9%
Strategic Vision (note)

Sample Size: 800
Margin of Error: ± 3%

February 8–10, 2008 John McCain 45%, Mike Huckabee 27%, Ron Paul 7%, Undecided 21%
American Research Group

Sample Size: 600
Margin of Error: ± 4%

February 6–7, 2008 John McCain 51%, Mitt Romney 29%, Ron Paul 7%, Mike Huckabee 4%, Other 1%, Undecided 8%
Strategic Vision (note)

Margin of Error: +/- 3%
Sample Size: 800

December 7–9, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 26%, Mike Huckabee 20%, Fred Thompson 12%, Mitt Romney 11%, John McCain 10%, Ron Paul 5%, Tom Tancredo 2%, Duncan Hunter 1%, Undecided 13%
Strategic Vision (note)

Margin of Error: +/- 3%
Sample Size: 800 Likely Voters
Only Republicans votes were counted.

September 14–16, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 28%, Fred Thompson 24%, John McCain 8%, Mitt Romney 7%, Newt Gingrich 6%, Ron Paul 3%, Mike Huckabee 3%, Tom Tancredo 2%, Sam Brownback 1%, Hunter 1%, Undecided 17%
Strategic Vision (R) May 4–6, 2007 Rudy Giuliani 22%, Tommy Thompson 16%, John McCain 16%, Fred Thompson 10%, Newt Gingrich 8%, Mitt Romney 5%, Sam Brownback 2%, Tom Tancredo 2%, Ron Paul 2%, Mike Huckabee 1%, Chuck Hagel 1%, Jim Gilmore 1%, Hunter 1%, Undecided 13%
Strategic Vision (R) November 2–4, 2006 Rudy Giuliani 35%, Tommy Thompson 26%, John McCain 17%, Mitt Romney 3%, Newt Gingrich 3%, Bill Frist 1%, Rick Santorum 1%, George Pataki 1%, George Allen 1%, Chuck Hagel 1%, Undecided 11%

Wyoming

Wyoming Winner
Mitt Romney
Caucus Date
January 5, 2008
Poll Source Date Highlights
Caucus Results January 5, 2008 Mitt Romney 67%, Fred Thompson 25%, Duncan Hunter 8%

Notes

  • Strategic Vision is suspected of forging results.[54]

Summary

Sources: National Association of Secretaries of State
Using RCP averages when available

State Delegates Date of primary or caucus Date of most recent poll Leader Leader % has a … … lead over Runner up Runner up %
Iowa 40 2008-01-03 2008-01-03 Mike Huckabee 34.4% 9.2% win Mitt Romney 25.2%
Wyoming 14 2008-01-05 2008-01-05 Mitt Romney 66.7% 41.7% win Fred Thompson 25%
New Hampshire 12 2008-01-08 2008-01-08 John McCain 37.1% 5.5% win Mitt Romney 31.6%
Michigan† 30 2008-01-15 2008-01-15 Mitt Romney 38.9% 9.2% win John McCain 29.7%
Nevada 34 2008-01-19 2008-01-19 Mitt Romney 51.1% 37.4% win Ron Paul 13.7%
South Carolina 24 2008-01-19 2008-01-19 John McCain 33.2% 3.3% win Mike Huckabee 29.9%
Florida 57 2008-01-29 2008-01-29 John McCain 36% 4.9% win Mitt Romney 31.1%
Maine† 21 2008-02-01 2008-02-01 Mitt Romney 52% 30.9% win John McCain 21.1%
Alabama 48 2008-02-05 2008-02-05 Mike Huckabee 40.7% 3.5% win John McCain 37.2%
Alaska 29 2008-02-05 2008-02-05 Mitt Romney 44.1% 22.2% win Mike Huckabee 21.9%
Arizona 53 2008-02-05 2008-02-05 John McCain 47.4% 13.3% win Mitt Romney 34.1%
Arkansas 34 2008-02-05 2008-02-05 Mike Huckabee 60.3% 39.9% win John McCain 20.4%
California 173 2008-02-05 2008-02-05 John McCain 41.9% 7.8% win Mitt Romney 34.1%
Colorado 46 2008-02-05 2008-02-05 Mitt Romney 59.4% 40.4% win John McCain 19%
Connecticut 30 2008-02-05 2008-02-05 John McCain 52.1% 19.1% win Mitt Romney 33%
Delaware 18 2008-02-05 2008-02-05 John McCain 45% 12.5% win Mitt Romney 32.5%
Georgia 72 2008-02-05 2008-02-05 Mike Huckabee 34.0% 2.4% win John McCain 31.6%
Illinois 70 2008-02-05 2008-02-05 John McCain 47.4% 18.7% win Mitt Romney 28.7%
Massachusetts 43 2008-02-05 2008-02-05 Mitt Romney 51.3% 10.3% win John McCain 41%
Minnesota 41 2008-02-05 2008-02-05 Mitt Romney 41.4% 19.4% win John McCain 22%
Missouri 58 2008-02-05 2008-02-05 John McCain 33% 1.5% win Mike Huckabee 31.5%
Montana 25 2008-02-05 2008-02-05 Mitt Romney 38.3% 13.8% win Ron Paul 24.5%
New Jersey 52 2008-02-05 2008-02-05 John McCain 55.4% 27% win Mitt Romney 28.4%
New York 101 2008-02-05 2008-02-05 John McCain 51.2% 23.4% win Mitt Romney 27.8%
North Dakota 26 2008-02-05 2008-02-05 Mitt Romney 35.7% 13% win John McCain 22.7%
Oklahoma 41 2008-02-05 2008-02-05 John McCain 36.8% 3.7% win Mike Huckabee 33.1%
Tennessee 55 2008-02-05 2008-02-05 Mike Huckabee 34.5% 2.7% win John McCain 31.8%
Utah 36 2008-02-05 2008-02-05 Mitt Romney 89.6% 84.2% win John McCain 5.4%
West Virginia 30 2008-02-05

& 2008-05-13

2008-02-05 Mike Huckabee 51.5% 4.1% win Mitt Romney 47.4%
Kansas 39 2008-02-09 2008-02-09 Mike Huckabee 59.6% 36.1% win John McCain 23.5%
Louisiana 47 2008-02-09 2008-02-09 Mike Huckabee 43.2% 1.3% win John McCain 41.9%
Washington 40 2008-02-09

& 2008-02-19

2008-02-09 John McCain 25.7% 1.8% win Mike Huckabee 23.9%
District of Columbia 19 2008-02-12 2008-02-12 John McCain 67.7% 51.1% win Mike Huckabee 16.6%
Maryland 37 2008-02-12 2008-02-12 John McCain 55.1% 26% strong Mike Huckabee 29.1%
Virginia 63 2008-02-12 2008-02-12 John McCain 50% 9.2% win Mike Huckabee 40.8%
Wisconsin 40 2008-02-19 2008-02-14 John McCain 48% 16% strong Mike Huckabee 32%
Ohio 88 2008-03-04 2008-02-11 John McCain 50% 14% strong Mike Huckabee 36%
Rhode Island 20 2008-03-04 2006-05-02 John McCain 50% 36% strong Mitt Romney 14%
Texas 140 2008-03-04 2008-02-14 John McCain 45% 8% strong Mike Huckabee 37%
Vermont† 17 2008-03-04 2007-02-06 John McCain 30% 1% weak Rudy Giuliani 29%
Pennsylvania 74 2008-04-22 2008-01-14 John McCain 30% 16% strong Rudy Giuliani 14%
North Carolina 69 2008-05-06 2008-02-11 John McCain 45% 5% weak Mike Huckabee 40%
Oregon† 30 2008-05-20 2008-01-29 John McCain 30% 9% weak Mitt Romney 21%
Idaho 32 2008-05-27 2007-07-13 Mitt Romney 38% 18% strong Rudy Giuliani 20%
New Mexico 32 2008-06-03 2007-04-07 Rudy Giuliani 34% 11% strong John McCain 23%

Current leaders

The race for the Republican nomination is decided upon how many delegates a candidate receives. In this section we see how many pledged delegates each candidate has received to date ranking from first place (the most delegates) to sixth place (the least delegates). To be nominated, a candidate must win an absolute majority of delegates, or 1,191 delegates.

₩- Means the candidate has won that particular state

  • According to local news reports, three of Mike Huckabee's delegates from West Virginia were promised to Ron Paul in exchange for support for Huckabee from Paul's caucus supporters in West Virginia.[55]

All information comes from[56]

Predicted results

The numbers in parentheses indicate the number of convention delegates awarded to each state. A simple majority of delegate votes (1,191 out of 2,381) is needed to secure the nomination.

The number of convention delegates in Wyoming, New Hampshire, Michigan, South Carolina, and Florida have been cut in half due to scheduling their primary earlier than February 5. Source

Notes
  • "†" indicates a lead within the margin of error or a tie.
  • "╬" indicates a state where the top candidate has withdrawn from the race since the latest poll was conducted, thus the next most-supported active candidate is granted that state's delegates.
  • "₩" indicates a state where the primary/caucus has been conducted and a winner has been declared.
  • "§" indicates a state where the latest poll was conducted before January 1, 2008

See also

References

  1. ^ "Alabama Republican Presidential Preference". Americanresearchgroup.com. Retrieved 2008-09-05.
  2. ^ "Arizona Republican Presidential Preference". Americanresearchgroup.com. Retrieved 2008-09-05.
  3. ^ "Arkansas Republican Presidential Preference". Americanresearchgroup.com. Retrieved 2008-09-05.
  4. ^ "RealClearPolitics – Election 2008 – California Republican Primary". Realclearpolitics.com. Retrieved 2008-09-05.
  5. ^ "Pollster.com: 2008 California Republican Presidential Primary". Pollster.com. Archived from the original on 2008-05-13. Retrieved 2008-09-05.
  6. ^ https://web.archive.org/web/20071012162243/http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/carep8-703.html. Archived from the original on October 12, 2007. Retrieved October 14, 2007. Missing or empty |title= (help)
  7. ^ "Colorado Republican Presidential Preference". Americanresearchgroup.com. Retrieved 2008-09-05.
  8. ^ https://web.archive.org/web/20071012162253/http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/ctrep8-701.html. Archived from the original on October 12, 2007. Retrieved October 14, 2007. Missing or empty |title= (help)
  9. ^ "Connecticut (CT) Polls – Quinnipiac University". Quinnipiac.edu. Retrieved 2008-09-05.
  10. ^ "RealClearPolitics – Election 2008 – Florida Republican Primary". Realclearpolitics.com. Retrieved 2008-09-05.
  11. ^ "Pollster.com: 2008 Florida Republican Presidential Primary". Pollster.com. Archived from the original on 2008-05-12. Retrieved 2008-09-05.
  12. ^ https://web.archive.org/web/20071217214819/http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/flrep8-705.html. Archived from the original on December 17, 2007. Retrieved September 19, 2007. Missing or empty |title= (help)
  13. ^ a b c d e f g h "Strategic Vision Political". Strategicvision.biz. Archived from the original on 2008-09-19. Retrieved 2008-09-05.
  14. ^ a b c "Presidential Swing States (FL, OH & PA) Polls – Quinnipiac University". Quinnipiac.edu. Archived from the original on 2008-09-17. Retrieved 2008-09-05.
  15. ^ "Florida (FL) Polls – Quinnipiac University". Quinnipiac.edu. Archived from the original on 2008-09-17. Retrieved 2008-09-05.
  16. ^ "Georgia Republican Presidential Preference". Americanresearchgroup.com. Retrieved 2008-09-05.
  17. ^ https://web.archive.org/web/20071012162313/http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/ilrep8-702.html. Archived from the original on October 12, 2007. Retrieved October 14, 2007. Missing or empty |title= (help)
  18. ^ Iowa GOP sets Jan. 3 caucus The Hill.com October 16, 2007. Retrieved October 17, 2007
  19. ^ "RealClearPolitics – Election 2008 – Iowa Republican Caucus". Realclearpolitics.com. Retrieved 2008-09-05.
  20. ^ "Pollster.com: 2008 Iowa Republican Presidential Primary". Pollster.com. Archived from the original on 2008-05-09. Retrieved 2008-09-05.
  21. ^ http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/iarep8-710.html. Retrieved October 14, 2007. Missing or empty |title= (help)[dead link]
  22. ^ "Maine Republican Presidential Preference". Americanresearchgroup.com. Retrieved 2008-09-05.
  23. ^ "Massachusetts Republican Presidential Preference". Americanresearchgroup.com. Retrieved 2008-09-05.
  24. ^ "RealClearPolitics – Election 2008 – Michigan Republican Primary". Realclearpolitics.com. Retrieved 2008-09-05.
  25. ^ "Pollster.com: 2008 Michigan Republican Presidential Primary". Pollster.com. Archived from the original on 2008-05-10. Retrieved 2008-09-05.
  26. ^ https://web.archive.org/web/20071012162344/http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/morep8-702.html. Archived from the original on October 12, 2007. Retrieved October 14, 2007. Missing or empty |title= (help)
  27. ^ "RealClearPolitics – Election 2008 – Nevada Republican Caucus". Realclearpolitics.com. Retrieved 2008-09-05.
  28. ^ "Pollster.com: 2008 Nevada Republican Presidential Primary". Pollster.com. Archived from the original on 2008-05-09. Retrieved 2008-09-05.
  29. ^ https://web.archive.org/web/20071213003459/http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/nvrep8-703.html. Archived from the original on December 13, 2007. Retrieved December 8, 2007. Missing or empty |title= (help)
  30. ^ "RealClearPolitics – Election 2008 – New Hampshire Republican Primary". Realclearpolitics.com. Retrieved 2008-09-05.
  31. ^ "Pollster.com: 2008 New Hampshire Republican Presidential Primary". Pollster.com. Archived from the original on 2008-05-20. Retrieved 2008-09-05.
  32. ^ http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/nhrep8-710.html. Retrieved October 14, 2007. Missing or empty |title= (help)[dead link]
  33. ^ "RealClearPolitics – Election 2008 – New Jersey Republican Primary". Realclearpolitics.com. Retrieved 2008-09-05.
  34. ^ "New Jersey Republican Presidential Preference". Americanresearchgroup.com. Retrieved 2008-09-05.
  35. ^ "New Jersey (NJ) Polls – Quinnipiac University". Quinnipiac.edu. Retrieved 2008-09-05.
  36. ^ "New Mexico Republican Presidential Caucus Preference". Americanresearchgroup.com. Retrieved 2008-09-05.
  37. ^ "Pollster.com: 2008 New York Republican Presidential Primary". Pollster.com. Archived from the original on 2008-05-10. Retrieved 2008-09-05.
  38. ^ "New York Republican Presidential Preference". Americanresearchgroup.com. Retrieved 2008-09-05.
  39. ^ "New York State (NY) Polls – Quinnipiac University". Quinnipiac.edu. Retrieved 2008-09-05.
  40. ^ "North Carolina Republican Presidential Preference". Americanresearchgroup.com. Retrieved 2008-09-05.
  41. ^ "Ohio (OH) Polls – Quinnipiac University". Quinnipiac.edu. Retrieved 2008-09-05.
  42. ^ "Oklahoma Republican Presidential Preference". Americanresearchgroup.com. Retrieved 2008-09-05.
  43. ^ "RealClearPolitics – Election 2008 – Pennsylvania Republican Primary". Realclearpolitics.com. Retrieved 2008-09-05.
  44. ^ "Pennsylvania Republican Presidential Preference". Americanresearchgroup.com. Retrieved 2008-09-05.
  45. ^ "Pennsylvania (PA) Polls – Quinnipiac University". Quinnipiac.edu. Retrieved 2008-09-05.
  46. ^ https://web.archive.org/web/20071012162500/http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/rirep8-701.html. Archived from the original on October 12, 2007. Retrieved October 14, 2007. Missing or empty |title= (help)
  47. ^ "RealClearPolitics – Election 2008 – South Carolina Republican Primary". Realclearpolitics.com. Retrieved 2008-09-05.
  48. ^ "Pollster.com: 2008 South Carolina Republican Presidential Primary". Pollster.com. Archived from the original on 2008-06-15. Retrieved 2008-09-05.
  49. ^ https://web.archive.org/web/20071016003626/http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/screp8-708.html. Archived from the original on October 16, 2007. Retrieved October 1, 2007. Missing or empty |title= (help)
  50. ^ https://web.archive.org/web/20071012162510/http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/txrep8-701.html. Archived from the original on October 12, 2007. Retrieved October 14, 2007. Missing or empty |title= (help)
  51. ^ "Utah Republican Presidential Preference". Americanresearchgroup.com. Retrieved 2008-09-05.
  52. ^ https://web.archive.org/web/20070912234934/http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/vtrep8-701.html. Archived from the original on September 12, 2007. Retrieved September 8, 2007. Missing or empty |title= (help)
  53. ^ "West Virginia Republican Presidential Preference". Americanresearchgroup.com. Retrieved 2008-09-05.
  54. ^ Blumenthal, Mark (September 25, 2009). "Strategic Vision: A Bigger Story?". Pollster.com. National Journal. Retrieved 2009-10-06.
  55. ^ "Ron Paul’s Campaign For Liberty | The Revolution Continues". Ronpaul2008.com. Retrieved 2008-09-05.
  56. ^ "Election Center 2008: Delegate Scorecard - Elections & Politics news from CNN.com". Cnn.com. Retrieved 2008-09-05.

External links

This page was last edited on 23 April 2019, at 19:30
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.