Time Poll conducted by Schulman, Ronca & Bucuvalas (SRBI) Public Affairs. March 9-12, 2007. N=682 registered voters nationwide who are Democrats or lean Democratic.
.
"Now I'm going to read a list of candidates who might be running for the Democratic Party presidential nomination in 2008. If the Democratic presidential primary or caucus in your state were being held today, listen carefully to the names and then tell me which candidate you would be most likely to vote for. . . ." Names rotated
.
3/9-12/07 2/23-26/07 1/22-23/07
% % %
Hillary Rodham Clinton 34
36
40
Barack Obama 26
24
21
Al Gore 13
13
9
John Edwards 10
11
11
Dennis Kucinich 2
1
1
Bill Richardson 2
3
4
Joe Biden 1
2
2
Al Sharpton 1
1
1
Chris Dodd -
-
1
Other (vol.) 1
1
1
Will not vote (vol.) 1
1
-
Unsure 10
7
6
John Kerry n/a
n/a
4
Tom Vilsack n/a
n/a
-
.
"What if your choices for the Democratic nomination were just Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama and John Edwards -- which one would you vote for if you had to decide today?" Names rotated
.
3/9-12/07 2/23-26/07
% %
Hillary Rodham Clinton 42
42
Barack Obama 31
30
John Edwards 17
22
Other (vol.) 1
-
Will not vote (vol.) 2
2
Unsure 8
4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. March 9-11, 2007. N=447 registered voters nationwide who are Democrats or independents who lean to the Democratic Party. MoE ± 4.5.
.
"Please tell me which of the following people you would be most likely to support for the Democratic nomination for president in the year 2008 . . . ." Names rotated
.
3/9-11/07
%
Hillary Rodham Clinton
37
Barack Obama
22
Al Gore
14
John Edwards
12
Bill Richardson
3
Joe Biden
1
Wesley Clark
1
Dennis Kucinich
1
Christopher Dodd
-
Al Sharpton
-
Unsure
9
.
1/19-21/07 12/5-7/06 11/17-19/06 10/27-29/06 8/30 - 9/2/06
% % % % %
Hillary Rodham Clinton
34
37
33
28
38
Barack Obama
18
15
15
17
n/a
John Edwards
15
9
14
13
12
Al Gore
10
14
14
13
19
John Kerry
5
7
7
12
9
Joe Biden
3
2
3
2
3
Wesley Clark
2
2
4
n/a
n/a
Dennis Kucinich
2
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Bill Richardson
2
2
3
2
3
Christopher Dodd
1
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Al Sharpton
1
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Tom Vilsack
1
1
1
1
-
Unsure
7
10
4
8
8
Evan Bayh
n/a
1
2
2
2
Russ Feingold
n/a
n/a
n/a
2
3
Mark Warner
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
3
.
Excluding Gore -- recalculated based on second choice of Gore supporters:
.
3/9-11/07 1/19-21/07
% %
Hillary Rodham Clinton
44
37
Barack Obama
23
18
John Edwards
14
16
Bill Richardson
4
2
Wesley Clark
2
2
Joe Biden
1
3
Dennis Kucinich
1
2
Christopher Dodd
-
1
Al Sharpton
-
1
Other/Unsure
10
17
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Associated Press-Ipsos poll conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs. March 5-7, 2007. N=806 registered voters nationwide. Results below are among Democrats and leaners.
.
"If the 2008 Democratic presidential primary or caucus in your state were being held today, and the candidates were [see below] for whom would you vote?"
.
%
Hillary Clinton 38
Barack Obama 21
Al Gore 14
John Edwards 10
Bill Richardson 4
Joe Biden 1
Chris Dodd -
None 5
Unsure 7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
American Research Group poll. March 2-5, 2007. N=600 likely Democratic primary and caucus voters nationwide. MoE ± 4.
.
Preference for Democratic Presidential Nominee:
.
%
Hillary Clinton 34
Barack Obama 31
John Edwards 15
Bill Richardson 2
Joe Biden 1
Wesley Clark 1
Chris Dodd 1
Dennis Kucinich 1
Mike Gravel -
Unsure 14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Neil Newhouse (R). March 2-5, 2007. Asked of Democrats, and non-Democrats who said they would vote in a Democratic presidential primary (from a total sample of 1,007 adults nationwide).
.
"Let me mention some people who might seek the Democratic nomination for president in 2008. If the next Democratic primary for president were being held today, for which one of the following candidates would you vote . . . ?" If unsure: "Well, which way do you lean?"
.
3/2-5/07 12/8-11/06
% %
Hillary Clinton 40
37
Barack Obama 28
18
John Edwards 15
14
Bill Richardson 5
2
Joe Biden 2
4
Wesley Clark 1
n/a
Dennis Kucinich 1
n/a
Chris Dodd 1
n/a
Other (vol.) 1
3
None (vol.) 1
3
Unsure 5
5
John Kerry n/a
11
Evan Bayh n/a
3
Tom Vilsack n/a
-
.
"Thinking of these same candidates again, are there any candidates for whom you would definitely NOT vote for the Democratic nomination for president?"
.
3/2-5/07
%
Hillary Clinton 16
Dennis Kucinich 11
Joe Biden 9
John Edwards 7
Chris Dodd 7
Barack Obama 7
Wesley Clark 5
Bill Richardson 5
Other (vol.) 1
None (vol.) 29
Unsure 17
.
"If the choice for the Democratic nomination came down to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, for whom would you vote?" If unsure: "Well, which way do you lean?"
.
Hillary
Clinton Barack
Obama Neither/
Other (vol.) Unsure
% % % %
3/2-5/07
47 39 4 10
Thursday, March 22, 2007
White House 2008: Republican Nomination
Time Poll conducted by Schulman, Ronca & Bucuvalas (SRBI) Public Affairs. March 9-12, 2007. N=631 registered voters nationwide who are Republicans or lean Republican.
.
"Now I'm going to read a list of candidates who might be running for the Republican Party presidential nomination in 2008. If the Republican presidential primary or caucus in your state were being held today, listen carefully to the names and then tell me which candidate you would be most likely to vote for. . . ." Names rotated
.
3/9-12/07 2/23-26/07 1/22-23/07
% % %
Rudy Giuliani 40
38
26
John McCain 20
24
30
Newt Gingrich 10
12
14
Mitt Romney 7
7
5
Sam Brownback 2
2
3
Mike Huckabee 2
1
1
Jim Gilmore 1
-
1
Chuck Hagel 1
1
1
Tom Tancredo -
1
1
Other (vol.) 2
1
1
Will not vote (vol.) 2
1
1
Unsure 13
12
14
George Pataki n/a
n/a
2
.
"What if your choices for the Republican nomination were just John McCain, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and Newt Gingrich -- which one would you vote for?" Names rotated
.
%
Rudy Giuliani 43
John McCain 24
Newt Gingrich 13
Mitt Romney 9
Will not vote (vol.) 1
Unsure 9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. March 9-11, 2007. N=401 registered voters nationwide who are Republicans or lean Republican. MoE ± 4.9.
.
"Please tell me which of the following people you would be most likely to support for the Republican nomination for president in the year 2008. . . ." Names rotated
.
3/9-11/07
%
Rudy Giuliani 34
John McCain 18
Newt Gingrich 9
Mitt Romney 9
George Pataki 3
Jim Gilmore 2
Sam Brownback 2
Chuck Hagel 2
Ron Paul 2
Mike Huckabee 1
Tom Tancredo 1
Tommy Thompson 1
Duncan Hunter -
Unsure
17
.
1/19-21/07 12/5-7/06 11/17-19/06 10/27-29/06 8/30 - 9/2/06
% % % % %
Rudy Giuliani 32
29
33
29
32
John McCain 26
24
30
27
21
Newt Gingrich 9
13
9
12
12
Mitt Romney 7
6
9
7
6
Jim Gilmore 3
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
George Pataki 3
2
1
5
3
Sam Brownback 2
2
2
1
1
Chuck Hagel 1
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Mike Huckabee 1
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Duncan Hunter 1
1
2
n/a
n/a
Ron Paul 1
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Tom Tancredo 1
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Tommy Thompson 1
2
3
n/a
n/a
Unsure
12
23
8
11
14
Bill Frist n/a
n/a
3
6
4
George Allen n/a
n/a
n/a
2
7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Associated Press-Ipsos poll conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs. March 5-7, 2007. N=806 registered voters nationwide. Results below are among Republicans and leaners.
.
"If the 2008 Republican presidential primary or caucus in your state were being held today, and the candidates were [see below] for whom would you vote?"
.
%
Rudy Giuliani 35
John McCain 22
Newt Gingrich 11
Mitt Romney 8
Mike Huckabee 3
Sam Brownback 3
None 6
Unsure 12
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
American Research Group poll. March 2-5, 2007. N=600 likely Republican primary and caucus voters nationwide. MoE ± 4.
.
Preference for Republican Presidential Nominee:
.
%
Rudy Giuliani 34
John McCain 30
Newt Gingrich 12
Mitt Romney 7
Sam Brownback 1
Jim Gilmore 1
Chuck Hagel 1
Mike Huckabee 1
George Pataki 1
Ron Paul 1
Tom Tancredo 1
Tommy Thompson 1
Duncan Hunter -
Unsure 9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Neil Newhouse (R). March 2-5, 2007. Asked of Republicans, and non-Republicans who said they would vote in a Republican presidential primary (from a total sample of 1,007 adults nationwide).
.
"Let me mention some people who might seek the Republican nomination for president in 2008. If the next Republican primary for president were being held today, for which one of the following candidates would you vote . . . ?" If unsure: "Well, which way do you lean?"
.
3/2-5/07 12/8-11/06
% %
Rudy Giuliani 38
34
John McCain 24
29
Newt Gingrich 10
10
Mitt Romney 8
8
Sam Brownback 2
2
Mike Huckabee 2
2
Tommy Thompson 2
1
Duncan Hunter 1
n/a
Other (vol.) 1
2
None (vol.) 3
3
Unsure 9
8
George Pataki n/a
1
.
"Thinking of these same candidates again, are there any candidates for whom you would definitely NOT vote for the Republican nomination for president?"
.
3/2-5/07
%
John McCain 20
Newt Gingrich 14
Mitt Romney 9
Rudy Giuliani 7
Sam Brownback 6
Mike Huckabee 4
Tommy Thompson 3
Duncan Hunter 2
None (vol.) 24
Unsure 22
.
"If the choice for the Republican nomination came down to Rudy Giuliani and John McCain, for whom would you vote?" If unsure: "Well, which way do you lean?"
.
Rudy
Giuliani John
McCain Neither/
Other (vol.) Unsure
% % % %
3/2-5/07
55 34 1 10
.
"Now I'm going to read a list of candidates who might be running for the Republican Party presidential nomination in 2008. If the Republican presidential primary or caucus in your state were being held today, listen carefully to the names and then tell me which candidate you would be most likely to vote for. . . ." Names rotated
.
3/9-12/07 2/23-26/07 1/22-23/07
% % %
Rudy Giuliani 40
38
26
John McCain 20
24
30
Newt Gingrich 10
12
14
Mitt Romney 7
7
5
Sam Brownback 2
2
3
Mike Huckabee 2
1
1
Jim Gilmore 1
-
1
Chuck Hagel 1
1
1
Tom Tancredo -
1
1
Other (vol.) 2
1
1
Will not vote (vol.) 2
1
1
Unsure 13
12
14
George Pataki n/a
n/a
2
.
"What if your choices for the Republican nomination were just John McCain, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and Newt Gingrich -- which one would you vote for?" Names rotated
.
%
Rudy Giuliani 43
John McCain 24
Newt Gingrich 13
Mitt Romney 9
Will not vote (vol.) 1
Unsure 9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. March 9-11, 2007. N=401 registered voters nationwide who are Republicans or lean Republican. MoE ± 4.9.
.
"Please tell me which of the following people you would be most likely to support for the Republican nomination for president in the year 2008. . . ." Names rotated
.
3/9-11/07
%
Rudy Giuliani 34
John McCain 18
Newt Gingrich 9
Mitt Romney 9
George Pataki 3
Jim Gilmore 2
Sam Brownback 2
Chuck Hagel 2
Ron Paul 2
Mike Huckabee 1
Tom Tancredo 1
Tommy Thompson 1
Duncan Hunter -
Unsure
17
.
1/19-21/07 12/5-7/06 11/17-19/06 10/27-29/06 8/30 - 9/2/06
% % % % %
Rudy Giuliani 32
29
33
29
32
John McCain 26
24
30
27
21
Newt Gingrich 9
13
9
12
12
Mitt Romney 7
6
9
7
6
Jim Gilmore 3
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
George Pataki 3
2
1
5
3
Sam Brownback 2
2
2
1
1
Chuck Hagel 1
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Mike Huckabee 1
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Duncan Hunter 1
1
2
n/a
n/a
Ron Paul 1
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Tom Tancredo 1
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Tommy Thompson 1
2
3
n/a
n/a
Unsure
12
23
8
11
14
Bill Frist n/a
n/a
3
6
4
George Allen n/a
n/a
n/a
2
7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Associated Press-Ipsos poll conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs. March 5-7, 2007. N=806 registered voters nationwide. Results below are among Republicans and leaners.
.
"If the 2008 Republican presidential primary or caucus in your state were being held today, and the candidates were [see below] for whom would you vote?"
.
%
Rudy Giuliani 35
John McCain 22
Newt Gingrich 11
Mitt Romney 8
Mike Huckabee 3
Sam Brownback 3
None 6
Unsure 12
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
American Research Group poll. March 2-5, 2007. N=600 likely Republican primary and caucus voters nationwide. MoE ± 4.
.
Preference for Republican Presidential Nominee:
.
%
Rudy Giuliani 34
John McCain 30
Newt Gingrich 12
Mitt Romney 7
Sam Brownback 1
Jim Gilmore 1
Chuck Hagel 1
Mike Huckabee 1
George Pataki 1
Ron Paul 1
Tom Tancredo 1
Tommy Thompson 1
Duncan Hunter -
Unsure 9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Neil Newhouse (R). March 2-5, 2007. Asked of Republicans, and non-Republicans who said they would vote in a Republican presidential primary (from a total sample of 1,007 adults nationwide).
.
"Let me mention some people who might seek the Republican nomination for president in 2008. If the next Republican primary for president were being held today, for which one of the following candidates would you vote . . . ?" If unsure: "Well, which way do you lean?"
.
3/2-5/07 12/8-11/06
% %
Rudy Giuliani 38
34
John McCain 24
29
Newt Gingrich 10
10
Mitt Romney 8
8
Sam Brownback 2
2
Mike Huckabee 2
2
Tommy Thompson 2
1
Duncan Hunter 1
n/a
Other (vol.) 1
2
None (vol.) 3
3
Unsure 9
8
George Pataki n/a
1
.
"Thinking of these same candidates again, are there any candidates for whom you would definitely NOT vote for the Republican nomination for president?"
.
3/2-5/07
%
John McCain 20
Newt Gingrich 14
Mitt Romney 9
Rudy Giuliani 7
Sam Brownback 6
Mike Huckabee 4
Tommy Thompson 3
Duncan Hunter 2
None (vol.) 24
Unsure 22
.
"If the choice for the Republican nomination came down to Rudy Giuliani and John McCain, for whom would you vote?" If unsure: "Well, which way do you lean?"
.
Rudy
Giuliani John
McCain Neither/
Other (vol.) Unsure
% % % %
3/2-5/07
55 34 1 10
Payback sought from new election-spending law
Labour is close to introducing legislation to overhaul election campaign funding rules but Parliament's small parties want to settle grievances over broadcasting time in return for their support.
They are seeking a bigger slice of the $3.2 million in taxpayer funding for election advertising on radio and television.
The Government's proposed reforms are being kept under tight wraps as behind-the-scenes horse trading progresses over the contents of a bill, but National says it's time it was brought into the loop.
The bill will amend the 14-year-old Electoral Act and could be introduced any day.
It is widely expected to usher in a regime of capped state funding of parties, and crackdown on third party and anonymous donations following the row over the Exclusive Brethren's advertising campaign and the way secret trusts were used to channel donations during the 2005 election.
It is also likely to tidy up the rules around election expenses and definitions of election activities after a ruling on these issues from the court battle for Tauranga between NZ First leader Winston Peters and National's Bob Clarkson took some party administrators by surprise.
Well before these controversies, small parties were crying foul over the way the Electoral Commission carved up the $3.2 million available for election broadcast campaigning in 2005 under the Broadcasting Act.
The two main parties again secured the lion's share of the money while the six other parliamentary parties had to share the remaining $1 million.
Political parties are legally barred from campaigning on radio and television outside this funding.
NZ First felt especially hard done by when, despite having 13 MPs at the time, it was granted twice the money of the then single-MP Maori Party for buying broadcast time.
Small parties argue the commission is biased toward the two big parties because its makeup reflects the two-party system before MMP.
The commission's two political party representatives come from Labour, for the Government, and National on behalf of all opposition parties.
NZ First is refusing to comment on its discussions with the Government, and other parties are being unusually cautious in what they will say.
But it is understood several are pressing for concessions on the broadcast funding allocations, knowing the Government wants a healthy majority to back the wider changes to campaign funding rules.
The Green Party has long argued there should be no political party representation on the Electoral Commission and that it should be entirely independent.
Co-leader Russell Norman said the discussions with Labour over the bill's contents were quite advanced, but would not go into detail.
His co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons said the Greens had not yet decided to support Labour's campaign funding proposals, but she confirmed that the shape and membership of electoral authorities were part of the discussions
She declined to say if the representation issue would be a condition of support. "What I can say is that we will be arguing strongly for all of the issues that we have put forward over the years and trying to get the best outcome that we can."
Discussions were going on among a number of parties and the Greens would talk to any party with a common cause, she said.
ACT leader Rodney Hide said his party opposed restrictions on how people spent their money in politics, but he would not rule out a compromise on the legislation if there could be a fairer allocation of broadcast funds.
All small parties agreed the two big parties were ripping off the system, he said. "They stop you spending your own money and give all the money to themselves."
Small parties were having a good dialogue this year, "and no doubt we'll have a good dialogue on this".
United Future leader Peter Dunne would not discuss details of his party's discussions with Labour on the matter.
Justice Minister Mark Burton's officials reviewed the spending rules, and he will confirm only that work has been done on the bill's framework and consultation with other parties is under way.
The Government was on track for the new law to be passed by the end of the year, he said.
However, it is understood Labour will resist tackling major changes to the Broadcasting Act in time for the 2008 election.
It needs to get the Electoral Act changes settled this year because of a convention that any changes to electoral law should not be made in election year.
There are fears a parallel major rewrite of the broadcasting rules will get bogged down in a debate about the workability of future controls in the Internet age.
But sources say Labour intends to at least tighten the enforcement provisions for breaches of the broadcast rules after National effectively breached its allocation in a mixup over its GST bill, without penalty.
National deputy leader Bill English said it was time National was brought into the discussions because the changes were to the electoral system and would affect everyone.
"In the past, the political parties all had to compromise to get a set of rules that broadly had all the support of the political parties, and that's the approach we want to see continued," he said.
National was keen for more transparency, tighter rules around third-party advertising and a better enforcement regime but it opposed state funding of political parties, he said.
"It would be, I think, unacceptable to the public to have the Government legislate to take taxpayers' money to put into the Labour Party bank account," Mr English said.
"We are concerned that the Government hasn't approached us because they're wanting to try to get a majority for state funding with a ceiling."
* Under the present law, parties that field candidates in all seats can spend no more than $2.38 million on campaign expenses, excluding their state-funded broadcast allocations.
They are seeking a bigger slice of the $3.2 million in taxpayer funding for election advertising on radio and television.
The Government's proposed reforms are being kept under tight wraps as behind-the-scenes horse trading progresses over the contents of a bill, but National says it's time it was brought into the loop.
The bill will amend the 14-year-old Electoral Act and could be introduced any day.
It is widely expected to usher in a regime of capped state funding of parties, and crackdown on third party and anonymous donations following the row over the Exclusive Brethren's advertising campaign and the way secret trusts were used to channel donations during the 2005 election.
It is also likely to tidy up the rules around election expenses and definitions of election activities after a ruling on these issues from the court battle for Tauranga between NZ First leader Winston Peters and National's Bob Clarkson took some party administrators by surprise.
Well before these controversies, small parties were crying foul over the way the Electoral Commission carved up the $3.2 million available for election broadcast campaigning in 2005 under the Broadcasting Act.
The two main parties again secured the lion's share of the money while the six other parliamentary parties had to share the remaining $1 million.
Political parties are legally barred from campaigning on radio and television outside this funding.
NZ First felt especially hard done by when, despite having 13 MPs at the time, it was granted twice the money of the then single-MP Maori Party for buying broadcast time.
Small parties argue the commission is biased toward the two big parties because its makeup reflects the two-party system before MMP.
The commission's two political party representatives come from Labour, for the Government, and National on behalf of all opposition parties.
NZ First is refusing to comment on its discussions with the Government, and other parties are being unusually cautious in what they will say.
But it is understood several are pressing for concessions on the broadcast funding allocations, knowing the Government wants a healthy majority to back the wider changes to campaign funding rules.
The Green Party has long argued there should be no political party representation on the Electoral Commission and that it should be entirely independent.
Co-leader Russell Norman said the discussions with Labour over the bill's contents were quite advanced, but would not go into detail.
His co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons said the Greens had not yet decided to support Labour's campaign funding proposals, but she confirmed that the shape and membership of electoral authorities were part of the discussions
She declined to say if the representation issue would be a condition of support. "What I can say is that we will be arguing strongly for all of the issues that we have put forward over the years and trying to get the best outcome that we can."
Discussions were going on among a number of parties and the Greens would talk to any party with a common cause, she said.
ACT leader Rodney Hide said his party opposed restrictions on how people spent their money in politics, but he would not rule out a compromise on the legislation if there could be a fairer allocation of broadcast funds.
All small parties agreed the two big parties were ripping off the system, he said. "They stop you spending your own money and give all the money to themselves."
Small parties were having a good dialogue this year, "and no doubt we'll have a good dialogue on this".
United Future leader Peter Dunne would not discuss details of his party's discussions with Labour on the matter.
Justice Minister Mark Burton's officials reviewed the spending rules, and he will confirm only that work has been done on the bill's framework and consultation with other parties is under way.
The Government was on track for the new law to be passed by the end of the year, he said.
However, it is understood Labour will resist tackling major changes to the Broadcasting Act in time for the 2008 election.
It needs to get the Electoral Act changes settled this year because of a convention that any changes to electoral law should not be made in election year.
There are fears a parallel major rewrite of the broadcasting rules will get bogged down in a debate about the workability of future controls in the Internet age.
But sources say Labour intends to at least tighten the enforcement provisions for breaches of the broadcast rules after National effectively breached its allocation in a mixup over its GST bill, without penalty.
National deputy leader Bill English said it was time National was brought into the discussions because the changes were to the electoral system and would affect everyone.
"In the past, the political parties all had to compromise to get a set of rules that broadly had all the support of the political parties, and that's the approach we want to see continued," he said.
National was keen for more transparency, tighter rules around third-party advertising and a better enforcement regime but it opposed state funding of political parties, he said.
"It would be, I think, unacceptable to the public to have the Government legislate to take taxpayers' money to put into the Labour Party bank account," Mr English said.
"We are concerned that the Government hasn't approached us because they're wanting to try to get a majority for state funding with a ceiling."
* Under the present law, parties that field candidates in all seats can spend no more than $2.38 million on campaign expenses, excluding their state-funded broadcast allocations.
Early voting could upend 2008 primaries
Presidential candidates may be forced to recalibrate their strategies
SALEM, Ore. - Early voting poses an under-the-radar challenge to Iowa and New Hampshire's long-prized status as the first in the nation to decide presidential preferences.
Voters in a number of the states that are circling the Feb. 5 presidential primary date - including California, Oregon and Montana - could begin casting ballots as early as Jan. 5, nine days before the Iowa caucuses.
In at least 10 of the possible Feb. 5 primary states, estimates are that more than 30 percent of voters cast their ballot before Election Day in November 2004, some in person at county elections offices, and some via mail-in ballots.
Political analysts say the early voting trends in those states could force presidential candidates to recalibrate their strategies and resources in an already crowded primary season.
Paul Gronke, a political science professor at Oregon's Reed College and the director of the Early Voting Information Center there, said the early voting trends combined with the Feb. 5 primaries are a boon for the "well-funded, well-known campaign. You have to begin your mobilization efforts so much earlier - you simply cannot ignore those absentee voters."
Watching early voter trends
With minds being made up earlier, experts say, there's less chance that a late-breaking event, like a surprisingly strong finish in Iowa or New Hampshire, can influence voters elsewhere.
Early voting can also work in a candidate's favor, particularly during primaries, which tend to attract the most motivated voters. Fervent supporters can be nudged to vote early, Gronke said, freeing up a candidate to target swing voters and undecideds in a campaign's waning days, without worry about alienating loyalists.
With the primary calendar so in flux, campaigns and the two major parties are keeping a close eye on the early voting trends.
"Clearly the moves will force candidates, as always, to make decisions about where they will spend their time and money," said Karen Finney, communications director for the Democratic National Committee.
Move toward early voting
Early voting, which political scientists say is on the rise, is most common in the West. Oregon, for example, is the only state in the country that has moved entirely to a vote-by-mail system; in the 2004 presidential election, 85 percent of voters in the state had sent in their ballot before Election Day.
The state's primary is currently scheduled for May, but lawmakers are seriously considering changing the date to early February.
"It's a contest that will already have been decided long before the May primary," said Democratic state Rep. Diane Rosenbaum at a hearing on the issue Wednesday. "I don't see that there is much to be gained by continuing to go with that later date."
In Texas, where 32 percent of the votes came in before Election Day in 2004 and ballots would go out on Jan. 19, 2008, "no-excuse" absentee balloting is in place. Voters can ask for an absentee ballot, without providing any explanation or reason for their request.
And in Montana, voters can cast their ballot early in person, at any satellite location or at the county elections offices. Thirty-two percent of the state's voters cast their ballots before Election Day in 2004; early voting would open on Jan. 5 if the state moves to a Feb. 5 primary.
Experts said that though early voting might change a candidate's on-the-ground plan, the results will come from Iowa and New Hampshire, and results are what everyone will be waiting for.
"The value of the early primaries is to show some strength in results," said John Fortier, a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., who has studied early and absentee voting trends. "If you don't show electoral strength in the early states, you won't do well on February 5th."
SALEM, Ore. - Early voting poses an under-the-radar challenge to Iowa and New Hampshire's long-prized status as the first in the nation to decide presidential preferences.
Voters in a number of the states that are circling the Feb. 5 presidential primary date - including California, Oregon and Montana - could begin casting ballots as early as Jan. 5, nine days before the Iowa caucuses.
In at least 10 of the possible Feb. 5 primary states, estimates are that more than 30 percent of voters cast their ballot before Election Day in November 2004, some in person at county elections offices, and some via mail-in ballots.
Political analysts say the early voting trends in those states could force presidential candidates to recalibrate their strategies and resources in an already crowded primary season.
Paul Gronke, a political science professor at Oregon's Reed College and the director of the Early Voting Information Center there, said the early voting trends combined with the Feb. 5 primaries are a boon for the "well-funded, well-known campaign. You have to begin your mobilization efforts so much earlier - you simply cannot ignore those absentee voters."
Watching early voter trends
With minds being made up earlier, experts say, there's less chance that a late-breaking event, like a surprisingly strong finish in Iowa or New Hampshire, can influence voters elsewhere.
Early voting can also work in a candidate's favor, particularly during primaries, which tend to attract the most motivated voters. Fervent supporters can be nudged to vote early, Gronke said, freeing up a candidate to target swing voters and undecideds in a campaign's waning days, without worry about alienating loyalists.
With the primary calendar so in flux, campaigns and the two major parties are keeping a close eye on the early voting trends.
"Clearly the moves will force candidates, as always, to make decisions about where they will spend their time and money," said Karen Finney, communications director for the Democratic National Committee.
Move toward early voting
Early voting, which political scientists say is on the rise, is most common in the West. Oregon, for example, is the only state in the country that has moved entirely to a vote-by-mail system; in the 2004 presidential election, 85 percent of voters in the state had sent in their ballot before Election Day.
The state's primary is currently scheduled for May, but lawmakers are seriously considering changing the date to early February.
"It's a contest that will already have been decided long before the May primary," said Democratic state Rep. Diane Rosenbaum at a hearing on the issue Wednesday. "I don't see that there is much to be gained by continuing to go with that later date."
In Texas, where 32 percent of the votes came in before Election Day in 2004 and ballots would go out on Jan. 19, 2008, "no-excuse" absentee balloting is in place. Voters can ask for an absentee ballot, without providing any explanation or reason for their request.
And in Montana, voters can cast their ballot early in person, at any satellite location or at the county elections offices. Thirty-two percent of the state's voters cast their ballots before Election Day in 2004; early voting would open on Jan. 5 if the state moves to a Feb. 5 primary.
Experts said that though early voting might change a candidate's on-the-ground plan, the results will come from Iowa and New Hampshire, and results are what everyone will be waiting for.
"The value of the early primaries is to show some strength in results," said John Fortier, a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., who has studied early and absentee voting trends. "If you don't show electoral strength in the early states, you won't do well on February 5th."
Mitt Romney On The American Dream
Mitt Romney is former governor of Massachusetts, and a Republican candidate for president. He previously served as chairman of the Republican Governors Association and president and CEO of the Salt Lake Olympics Organizing Committee.
What is the American Dream?
Growing up, the American Dream meant a house in the suburbs. Today’s American Dream must mean more. The new American Dream should include a strong family, enduring values, excellence in education, dependable and affordable health care, secure employment and secure retirement, and a safe and prosperous homeland.
To realize the American Dream, we must strengthen the American people by giving them more freedom, by letting them keep more of what they earn, by making sure our schools are providing the skills our children will need for tomorrow, and by keeping America at the leading edge of innovation and technology. Freedom is at the heart of the American Dream.
--Interviewed by Evelyn Rusli
What is the American Dream?
Growing up, the American Dream meant a house in the suburbs. Today’s American Dream must mean more. The new American Dream should include a strong family, enduring values, excellence in education, dependable and affordable health care, secure employment and secure retirement, and a safe and prosperous homeland.
To realize the American Dream, we must strengthen the American people by giving them more freedom, by letting them keep more of what they earn, by making sure our schools are providing the skills our children will need for tomorrow, and by keeping America at the leading edge of innovation and technology. Freedom is at the heart of the American Dream.
--Interviewed by Evelyn Rusli
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
