December 4th, 2007
11:17 AM ET
7 years ago

Poll shows Clinton, Giuliani down big

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


Filed under: Iowa • New Hampshire • Presidential Candidates • South Carolina
soundoff (196 Responses)
  1. Robert Allen, Dallas, TX

    Everytime I hear any of the current candidates "address" an issue the only thing I hear is a "non answer" answer. Frankly I am getting fed up with every announced candidate's lack of candor.

    Seriously folks, do you honestly believe that either group of candidates contains just one candidate who is the best and brightest the U. S. has to offer? The person who should be elected is someone, somewhere who doesn't really thirst for power but could run this government as best as possible and with sound fiscal policy.

    S/He is hiding somewhere. Ok! 1, 2, 3 all out can come in free.

    Bob Allen

    December 4, 2007 10:51 am at 10:51 am |
  2. megan

    Obama supporters are wasting their vote. Forget the South. Do you think white people in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Iowa, and Florida are going to vote for him.

    yes hatmatters...I think white people in the aforementioned states will vote for Obama because some people are not as narrowminded as you. Perhaps, you should pay a little more attention to the issues than the color.

    December 4, 2007 10:53 am at 10:53 am |
  3. andrew s. rostolder hillsdale nj

    the hillary and rudy show are putting us to sleep....... wake me when it is over.

    December 4, 2007 10:53 am at 10:53 am |
  4. steve,boston,ma

    From that CNN Picture, Hillary has wonnnnnnnnnnnnnn, game over. Cnn get a life! This is not where Iowans are!

    December 4, 2007 10:54 am at 10:54 am |
  5. V. Novosad

    Agreeing with those who say Republicans will win the presidency if the Democratic candidates don't stop their present commitment to suicide. Obama and his handlers have almost totally withdrawn from presenting positive plans for a democratic win. Instead, he has fallen prey to party destruction with his constant bashing of Hillary Clinton, the only candidate who, according to early polls, can retake the White House.

    As to Clinton's claim of inevitability, John McCain professed the identical claim, when questioned by Chris Matthews last week, said "I will win." Did we hear an outcry from his fellow candidates? No, only words of respect from Mike Huckabee, who leads the Republican candidates now. Please get wise, Mr. Obama, and start running on your record and plans and quit helping your Republican opponents.

    December 4, 2007 10:55 am at 10:55 am |
  6. Patricia Gonzalez, Miami, FL

    What happens in Iowa and New Hampshire will have absolutely no bearing on who gets the party's nomination. It will be Hillary and Rudy as the presidential party nominees. It's inevitable so this drop is only temporary and when people go to the polls to actually vote not take a survey, the results will be what they should be- Hillary for the Democrats and Rudy for the Republicans. They are the only real viable candidates.

    December 4, 2007 10:55 am at 10:55 am |
  7. Robert, Buffalo, NY

    Do you think it would be possible to cover other 'minor' candidates that are growing in support such as Ron Paul and stop paying so much attention to Obama, Guiliani, Edwards, Clinton etc who are a vote for the status quo?

    December 4, 2007 10:57 am at 10:57 am |
  8. cathy,san diego,ca

    CNN must report the truth this time around otherwise the truth is on the way and they must avoid shame after months of lying to American People...

    December 4, 2007 10:57 am at 10:57 am |
  9. Chuck

    The biggest problem America has right now is that business interests have taken over the U.S. Government, a consequence of the Republican Party controlling the White House and Congress. Many politicians in Congress are afraid of their lobbyists and others are addicted to the money, which disenfranchised average voters. Only one candidate in any party can and will stand up to big corporations effectively, and that's John Edwards.

    DEAR VOTERS: PLEASE CONSIDER EDWARDS!

    December 4, 2007 10:58 am at 10:58 am |
  10. Fair,Washington DC

    Well this is all I'll say if Obama manages to "hijack" this nomination from under Hillary , he better deliver the general. He had the choice of supporting the strong Dem candidate that many think would win and ride his newfound popularity, get on some key commitees in the Senate earning some experience and really coming in as the strong dem nominee in 4-8 yrs that Dems would know and be excited about. Instead Mr. Obama listened to the media, Oprah, his arrogance and said I am going to come in and take this because I'm Barack. OK Mr Obama as they say in poker you're all in, but I hope you understand this will be your only shot because of the way you did this. If you win , gamble paid off, good on you. I personally think you gambled to early on an opportunity as big as being the Pres of the US.

    December 4, 2007 11:00 am at 11:00 am |
  11. Homer, Henderson, NV

    Anybody who's shallow enough not to vote for Obama because he's black is a Clinton-hating, foaming-at-the-mouth, hard core, "Rush is right" conservative, anyway. Why in the world do you think they would possibly vote for Hillary?

    December 4, 2007 11:03 am at 11:03 am |
  12. Jose

    At this time in 2003, Howard Dean was the crowned king for the democratic nomination. And we all heard how that ended! Some unknown lesser candidate appeared at the top of the pile. Of course polls on election day 2004 had this lesser candidate winning.

    December 4, 2007 11:04 am at 11:04 am |
  13. Rosa Birmingham, AL

    I hope this doesn't mean Obama will win the nomination. Neither Clinton or Obama can win a general election and the country can't survive another Republican: perpetual war, sky rocketing debt, loss of civil liberties, starving important domestic programs like education and biomedical research, crumbling infrastructure, etc. Can we please just find someone that is experienced, moderate, and not so dang polarizing. If you think the Repubs are not going to play the race or gender card in the general election you are only fooling yourself. I am sure they are both fine people but the outcome is too important to risk. Maybe next time.

    December 4, 2007 11:05 am at 11:05 am |
  14. Michael Alexander

    Why is there no mention of Ron Paul?? He has raised more money, and consequently, garnered more support than any republican candidate. Huckabee is a pro-war evangelical minister, and he most likely has the inclinination to lead us to another larger war with Iran. The American population does not support this politician who acts more like a salesman than a leader. We all support Dr. Ron Paul, Democrat and Republican alike.

    December 4, 2007 11:07 am at 11:07 am |
  15. RealityKing

    How many times are you going to rerun this same picture?? I'm a thinking this is not Hillary's expression this morning concidering her big recent decline in the polls...

    December 4, 2007 11:08 am at 11:08 am |
  16. John, Boston MA

    The novelty has finally worn off. When it comes right down to it, nobody in reality will vote for Hillary. I have no problem with a woman as president, just not this one.

    December 4, 2007 11:09 am at 11:09 am |
  17. Michael, Orange, NJ

    I disagree with the comment about Hillary not having character and Integrity. I think Hillary's problem is that she is someone who is direct and headstrong. She wants things done her way. That isn't all bad, but it certainly turns people off. Second, she is female, so anytime a woman seeks any sort of power, she is labeled as being "power hungry" We have had 43 presidents, I challenge you to name one who wasn't "power hungry" People don't seek the presidency for the money.

    December 4, 2007 11:09 am at 11:09 am |
  18. scott,manchester NH

    lets see if its possible for Iowans and the rest of the country to figure out that the male republican track record is what is killing this country.

    its kind of funny to notice that bill clinton is able to speak so well of Hillary and pump up her qual's...and NO ONE running for prez in the GOP wants bush [closest thing for them to their top leadership] anywhere near them.

    tells ya somethin.

    December 4, 2007 11:12 am at 11:12 am |
  19. Jay, Kansas City, MO

    Why would a reputable news organization ever report on a poll with a 5% margin of error?

    December 4, 2007 11:12 am at 11:12 am |
  20. Shanna Johnson Appleton WI

    Funny how there is no mention of Ron Paul in this article. Real nice...
    CNN you really are turning into FOX NEWS...

    December 4, 2007 11:12 am at 11:12 am |
  21. Daniel, NY

    A bunch of new general election polls were released this morning showing Clinton competitive in Colorado... and not so much in Arizona.

    But the most important poll could be SUSA's survey of California's electoral vote initiative. The results suggest the initiative could pass, though Democrats should not get panicked yet.
    Full roundup of all these polls here.

    December 4, 2007 11:13 am at 11:13 am |
  22. Leslie Waldo Fresno California

    Hopefully the American people finally got smart and don't want to see the two most unqualified and polarizing candidates, Hillary Clinton and Rudolph Giuliani, be their only choice next November. Both of them are nasty, mean spirited, cutthroat politicians and America needs someone who can bring us together and unite us all to solve the problems we face.

    December 4, 2007 11:18 am at 11:18 am |
  23. Gabe, Austin TX

    I'm white and I will vote for Obama, this has nothing to do with skin color but with character and substance.

    December 4, 2007 11:19 am at 11:19 am |
  24. Russ, Stratford CT

    The problem with electing either Hillary or Rudy is that of all the candidates, they would be the choices to keep America polarized in this "red vs blue" philosopy. It would be an incredibly ugly campaign. This needs to change to move the country forward.

    As a republican, I will never vote for either of these two as we have to change the political tone to move forward.

    If Rudy is nominated, I will vote for the Democratic candicate, if Hillary is nominated I will vote Republican.

    If they are both nominated, I can then only hope for an independent. These two candiates will bring out the worst in America.

    Lets hope for Obama, McCain or Huckabee. This country needs change.

    December 4, 2007 11:21 am at 11:21 am |
  25. Cathi, Greenville, South Carolina

    Have Americans lost our minds? A Clinton in the White House – again? Has everyone forgotten her husband's presidency – he was an adulterer in our country's sacred White House, he was impeached, his administration was a revolving door of minority appointees, and he was a bad liar. We need to ask ourselves – why don't we hear people saying we're not ready for a female president, Hillary? Where is the proof that you can work both sides of the aisle for the least amount of money? How does you plan on keeping the White House a class act, since it wasn't when you lived in it the last time? What group are you going to turn your back on after the election, just like you did by moving from Arkansas to New York? Are you also planning on appointing unqualified people to your administration just because they're minorities – like your husband did? I don't know about you, but two impeached president's in one lifetime is too many. Let's get real. Hillary is a true poltician that has proven that she (and her husband) is only out for herself. We need a president who's willing to be a true public servant – and not a poltiician. Otherwise, we'll just be spending the next four years hearing excuses for all of the lying.

    December 4, 2007 11:21 am at 11:21 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Post a comment


 

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.