Giuliani's support has dropped 9 points in one month, according to a new poll.
WASHINGTON (CNN) - The presidential race in both parties isn't just tightening in the key early-voting states, but across the rest of country as well, according to a new USA Today/Gallup poll out Monday evening.
One month before Iowa and New Hampshire voters kick off the presidential primary season, the poll seems to show nationwide support for frontrunners Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani has dropped considerably from this time a month ago.
Giuliani, the former New York City mayor, is down 9 percentage points in one month while Clinton, the senator from New York, has seen her support drop 11 points. Both Clinton and Giuliani's declines are the biggest one-month drop they have seen since the presidential election season began.
"The movement away from the frontrunners may be a sign that the public is starting to pay attention to the election, and may be moving beyond the "name recognition" phase," CNN Polling Director Keating Holland said. "It's an early indication of what might happen after Iowa and New Hampshire, when a few second-tier candidates will get instant name recognition to rival that of Clinton and Giuliani."
One-time dark horse candidate Mike Huckabee has shot up to second place in the national survey, now 9 percentage points behind Giuliani, 25 percent to 16 percent. Arizona Sen. John McCain and former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson are one point behind at 15 percent. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is just behind the pack with 12 percent.
Responding to the poll, Giuliani spokeswoman Maria Comella said, "We’ve been saying from the beginning that this race was always going to tighten. But when you look at the numbers, Rudy has been consistently leading in every major national poll since February. Unlike some other candidates, Mayor Giuliani has steady strength and real staying power."
On the Democratic side, Clinton's lead now stands at 15 percentage points over Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, 39 percent to 24 percent. In last month's poll Clinton's lead was 28 percent over the Illinois senator. Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards stands at 15 percent, meanwhile, with the rest of the field in single digits.
While Clinton's support is down, Holland notes no single Democrat is the direct beneficiary.
"No single candidate has emerged as the ABC - Anybody-but-Clinton - candidate," he said. "Edwards went up 3, Obama went up 3, [New Mexico Gov. Bill] Richardson went up 2, [Delaware Sen. Joe] Biden went up 2. That's how Clinton maintains a double-digit lead - Democrats may be moving away from her, but they aren’t moving toward one of her rivals."
The poll surveyed 425 Republicans and leaning Republicans and 494 Democrats and leaning Democrats on November 30 through December 2. It carries a margin of error of plus or minus 5 percentage points.
Related video: CNN's Candy Crowley reports it's a dead heat in Iowa with a month to go
– CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney
Voters are thinking independently thank God. We are separating facts from fiction looking for a complete overhaul which will give the government back to the people. It's not surprise to see the polls change as they will continue to do so.
I am so tired of the bigotry and hatred that is being shown on these blogs toward Obama. He is fresh and with new ideas. Our country is in crisis and all some can do is bicker. Hillary is to be respected for what she has accomplished but she is incredibly divisive. If we practice the true "American way" Obama can win the White House. Obama/Edwards Edwards/Obama ticket would do our country well.
Several of these republican candidates had divorces and personal health problems (cancer). What a bad bunch wanting to be the president!
If Obama gets elected, I will move to Canada!
I have to ask, how can so many otherwise liberal people be seriously supporting Ron Paul? Here is a guy who:
1: Believes the 2nd amendment should be extended to military-style machine guns.
Wrong. Ron Paul doesn't believe that specifically, but he does believe, correctly, that there is nothing in the 2nd Amendment which classifies the types of weapons which private citizens are allowed to possess. He is a strict constructionist. I do not personally believe that the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess firearms at all (as it states that citizens may possess firearms as the result of being part of a militia; this would seem to imply that a member of any armed force or unit dedicated to the protection of a town, city, or state would also qualify, but not individuals with no affiliation to any of these groups) but I can read well enough to see that there's nothing in the Constitution which discusses specific firearms. This is a case of a guaranteed freedom somehow being a bad thing.
2: Believes in the "war on Christmas".
If you mean that there is a growing trend to secularize anything and everything in this country, then I'd go along with that. It's become increasingly obvious that US culture is more concerned with offending anyone by merely mentioning, or god forbid, celebrating, long-standing religious institutions such as Christmas. When companies and even people are so afraid to wish someone "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Hannukah" or "Happy Kwanzaa" for fear of offending, intimidating, or alienating them, it is a sad state indeed. Normal people find this stupid, and while the founders of the Constitution did make it clear that a state religion should not be established, they also were religious men and that clearly influenced their thinking when writing it. For us to ignore that would also be stupid.
3: Opposes network neutrality.
It would be more accurate to say that Ron Paul opposes government regulation of any kind on the Internet. It would also be accurate to say that Ron Paul opposes taxing the Internet like many of our fine Congresspeople want to do. Network neutrality is another word for the government sticking its nose in where it doesn't belong, messing up free trade.
4: Is staunchly pro-life.
Yes, but be also believes that the legal issue must be left up to the states and there should be no federal interference, no marriage ban, no amendments to the Constitution regarding abortion or marriage. The reason is that it is not up to the federal government to force the states to recognize marriages or abortion laws they wouldn't otherwise.
5: Opposes the existence of the Department of Education.
And the Department of Energy and the IRS and many other government agencies which only serve to further the interests of the federal government messing with things that are state issues. Schools are run by the states, energy is run by private enterprise and neither need to be regulated by the government; in fact regulation by these agencies stifles growth and prosperity.
I have read from teachers where they disagreed with every one of Dr. Paul's positions except abolishing the Dept. of Education. Clearly, those who are bound by its policies are not exactly happy with it. There are other major candidates who are also in favor of eliminating waste and cutting spending in order to protect the US economic system as well.
6: Opposes individual democracy by opposing direct-election of senators and supporting the electoral college.
Abolishing the electoral college could also weaken the power of individual voters by giving disproportionate power to higher populated states on the east and west coast. It is up to the states how to cast their electoral votes, so if they wanted a more representative election process, they could do any number of things, not the least of which would be to apportion their electoral votes according to the distribution of the popular vote in the districts, instead of awarding them all to the candidate with the highest number of votes. California is entertaining a bill that would do this and 2 other states already do. This is a complex issue with no good solution for those who are dissatisfied with the electoral college.
7: Opposes the existence of the Department of Energy.
Likely for the same reasons as the IRS and Dept. of Education.
The guy wants to put this nation back basically on the course it was on in the nineteenth century. I understand that he has the appeal of standing up for his principles, but his principles would damage the country.
No, he wants to return the country to the way it was governed in the 19th century, in which the civil liberties of its citizens were not hampered by excess regulation, and the size of government was not as monstrous as it is now, where the power of the people was more important than the needs of the state. It is apparent that you don't truly understand the reasons behind his positions, but I suggest you delve a little deeper. You will find that Ron Paul's message is all about hope for this country, individual freedom for all, and keeping the government out of our lives where it does not belong. That is why I and so many others support his candidacy and his election would be a huge step forward to ending this corruption and fallacy that we need to sacrifice freedom to have prosperity.
They just don't bother asking questions about people who aren't in a position to win. Until Ron Paul breaks into the mainstream–which, despite his ardent support here, he has failed to do–the mainstream media probably won't pay too much attention to him. It's not bias against his views, just his popularity.
Posted By Steve, Landing, NJ : December 4, 2007 3:32 pm
I disagree. How can you know who is in a position to win before a single vote has been cast? The fact that he has raised more money this quarter than ALL candidates last quarter, and is actually raising more money than most of his rivals puts him in a very good position to win. Aside from this, if CNN lets polls dictate their coverage, why don't they cover that he has won half of all straw polls he participated in, including the most recent one in Virginia? With the media wielding such enormous power over the information we see and hear about this election, you would think they would want to inform us on ALL the candidates, if they were truly interested in fair journalism. However, they are only interested in covering the top 3, so the media chooses our candidates for us.
Don't let this happen. Do your research and vote your conscience, not just what the media, the party, and the establishment tells you to. There is no such thing as "wasting your vote". This nonsense is propagated by the news too but it is total rubbish.
Freedom of information, freedom for us! Ron Paul 2008!
Hillary Rocks! America will be so blessed if she is our Commander in Chief...Bushonomics is finally coming to an end...
In a recent campaign stop in New Hampshire, Bill Clinton made sharp remarks about what he thinks is an obvious disregard by the media for candidate experience. I think what he fails to take into consideration is the fact that Americans, at this stage, genuinely just want to know what kind of people the candidates are. I believe many Americans decide their candidate based on character. How passionate they are and how real they feel. Now more than ever, many Americans are feeling like the government is failing them, that politicians are nothing more than a bunch of pocket stuffing opportunists.
And when you consider that some of the most experienced politicians in Washinton have led us to some of the most disasterous policies in this country's history, it seems obvious to me why experience might not be a central issue for many Americans.
Experience and good judgement are two different things Mr. Clinton.
How come the polls only mean anyting when Clinton slips, (but stays a head of her rivals?? My vote was for Edwards, but the more I read and hear, CLINTON is what we need ASAP! sorry John, if you had stayed on issues and stopped the stupid Hill bashing you stood a chance, now your acting like obama winphrey and that gives the Smart American people a bad taste, like oprah has...
I THINK THE MEDIA SHARES RESPONSIBILITY FOR EFFECTING OUR PRESIDENTAL ELECTION... THATS A SERIOUS PROBLEM IN OUR COUNTRY, FOX NEWS "THE REPUBLICAN NETWORK" HELPED GET BUSH RE-ELECTED...
Democrats are going to be reluctant to nominate someone they know so little about as Obama and will wonder if the nation is ready for a candidate who has ONLY been a senator for 104 weeks before running for president and missing ALL imprtant votes.(it's not!!). Don;t waste your vote for obama in IOWA,They will also wonder about nominating Edwards, who lost twice in 2004. When the question becomes viability, Hillary is in a league of her own with her ability to bring new female voters to the polls. Not becuase she has a TV show,becuase she is the best candidate running thsi election
It’s also obvious from the last debate that John Edwards is fighting with anything he can think of, which we need a fighter; he’s only attacking Hillary though? As the good ole boys are sticking together, is he scared of oprah and obama? The reason you’re not hearing allot of negative about obama because OBAMA IS TOO INEXPERIENCED, there is no history, other than he doesn’t show up for work, he's missed almost all important senate votes? We already had a president the played instead of worked, look at this mess…What’s has this guy been doing? now he thinks he can use Oprah’s money to buy the Presidency? HE IS CRAZY as she is...
After recent weeks and the personal attacks, I strongly now see the best choice and my vote will go to CLINTON, we need her contacts as well as the great relationships President Clinton has with other countries and experience, to work together so that other counties will share the bill and world security. We do not have time to play politics with the likes of obama and rest of these guys…
John Edwards would be an outstanding VP for Hillary
CLINTON 2008, the true SMART choice
Americans hate negative advertising in political campaigns. However, those same people will vote for those who produce the negative advertising.
Four years ago, I heard a woman talking about how how much she hates negative advertising. I asked her who she was going to vote for. She said, "I haven't decided yet, but I'm certainly not going to vote for a flip-flopper and coward like Kerry!"
Cnn is certainly picking and chooseing my post these days 0 out of 5 made latly.
The Middle Class working Americans that have not been represented in the past 15 years will vote for a clean up and when they do Hillary and anyone like her will truly know what a free fall the wiil be taking. It has been the most dimm/corrupt wag the finger lying self serving politicians we have ever seen in public display. Enough already/ Term limitations for starters/line item veto to curb ear marks and pork barrel tactics/ If it don't stand on its own it should not stand/ The tit for tat mentality of washington is wrong! Even stupid, as it don't pass the common sense test.
and that is important to me
Just to see what CNN is up to I am put this truthfull information out
Rudy and Hillary are slipping Right we can all see this.
Corruption Scandle run deep in there veins.
The no longer silent majority will be out in full force to rid themselves of the Rudy and Hillary types from running our goverment. Just that simple
bleeped 6 times now by cnn on the rudy and hillary poll falling.
whats the matter cnn can't you post the truth.
Your bias is getting in the way of the free press. The Murdocks are in controll
Well, Russ, if you look at the polling data itself, you will find that there is a long list of questions, stating things like, "do you support, not support, or have you never heard of…Hillary Clinton/Rudy Giuliani/Mitt Romney", etc. You will find, if you read through all of the questions, those polled were not asked if they supported, did not support, or had never heard of Ron Paul. He was omitted from the poll. At the very bottom, the general question is asked of who you would most support in the Republican/Democrat primary (or some question to that effect). Here's where you see your 4%. Nice.
Posted By Jonathan Drake, Columbus, Ohio : December 4, 2007 2:09 pm
Well Mr. Drake,
The actual question was "(Asked of Republicans and independents who lean to the Republican Party) Which candidates would you be most likely to support for the Republican nomination for president in 2008, or if you would support someone else."
You can say they haven't heard of him all you want, but the answer still is Paul 4%, McCain 15%, and Thompson 15%. As you can see only 4% support him, as compared to 15% for McCain and Thompson. So you can see that he is in no way shape or form, virtually tied with Mcain or Thompson. As of this moment 94% of the people questioned, do not support Ron Paul, that is why he gets little to no coverage.
If you are reading this, then you probably have been following the candidates for awhile. C'mon, admit it, Edwards is the best man for the job, if you are looking for a true populist who will look after EVERYONE not just the influential. Your place in the economic strata means much more than your gender or race these days. Both Barack and Hillary represent different types of American political elitism that you won't find in Edwards or many of the other democrats for that matter. Please, Please, Please look and listen ....
Edwards is the best friend the middle class and disadvantaged are gonna have as president for a long time. Don't miss this opportunity.
I agree 100% of what African-American state Sen. Robert Ford said, when he announced he was backing Hillary Clinton.
"Everybody else on the ballot is doomed," Ford said, explaining what would happen if Obama were nominated. "Every Democratic candidate running on that ticket would lose because he's black and he's at the top of the ticket—we'd lose the House, the Senate, and the governors and everything."
how stupid for state senator Ford ( an african american) to say that..very low opinionated of the black race, he is one of those few blacks that rise up and looks down on his own people.it's not race or gender that matters, it is who is qualified. Obama has better judgement.
Can someone out there tell me why they are afraid to have Sen. Hillary Clinton as President of this here U.S.A.
My wife is a Republican and she states that Hillary is smart and clever. She states that she doesnt trust Sen. Cinton. However she cannot name one thing, not one fact, that can be backed up with factual evidence.
I ask those of you who are against Hillary for President to please lay out FACTS, not a case of he said, she said. Thank you.
Go OBAMA! You know, after reading the news on CNN I have a strong feeling that they are on Clinton's side. I read a lot of news, and you can depend on them to try and steal Obama's power. I hope people see through it. I'm always surprised to hear them say anything good about him, but its usually followed by something saying "but Hillary has more experience". This has really tarnished my view of CNN
The polls are a joke, there has been evidence that Ron Paul's name has not even been included in the poll. Don't worry, the people spoke on Sunday!
women, wake up if we put a women in for presidesnt, we will lose all our credibility