Rasmussen: Richardson leads Romney by 8

[Tender Branson]

April 18, 2007

Richardson: 42%
Romney: 34%

"Romney is more competitive among males (40% to 40%) and whites (37% to Richardson's 40%). Unaffiliated voters are reluctant to name either man; among them, the candidates are tied 30% to 30%."

Richardson:

Favorable: 30%
Unfavorable: 30%
Don´t know: 40%

Romney:

Favorable: 32%
Unfavorable: 44%
Don´t know: 24%

The national telephone survey of 800 Likely Voters was conducted by Rasmussen Reports April 11-12, 2007. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 4 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Political%20Tracking/Presidential%20Match-Ups/April%202007/Richardsonvs.Romney20070418.htm

[Padfoot]

This is a strange matchup to do.  Both of the supposed "4th ranked candidates."  Very strange indeed.  Also I am not understanding how each of them polling 40% in males gives Romney an edge there, nor do I understand how Romney's 37% and RIchardson's 40% among whites give Romney an advantage.  Perhaps I am reading it wrong.  Could someone please clarify this for me?

Looking at the favorability numbers, things look bad for Romney.  A 44% and climbing unfavorable rating isn't a good thing.  His flip-flopping and religion are only going to drive that number even higher.  I think his chances at the nomination are very slim.

As for Richardson, things look OK but he really needs to get his name out there somehow.  With 40% of people still undecided about him, he has got to define himself before the other candidates do it for him.  He desperately needs some positive media exposure.  I was hoping that the North Korea trip would give him a good boost but that has largely been ignored by the media as far as I can tell.  They would rather continue swooning over Obama's smile than report on a candidate who is actually negotiating world peace.

[Gustaf]

This is a strange matchup to do.  Both of the supposed "4th ranked candidates."  Very strange indeed.  Also I am not understanding how each of them polling 40% in males gives Romney an edge there, nor do I understand how Romney's 37% and RIchardson's 40% among whites give Romney an advantage.  Perhaps I am reading it wrong.  Could someone please clarify this for me?

Looking at the favorability numbers, things look bad for Romney.  A 44% and climbing unfavorable rating isn't a good thing.  His flip-flopping and religion are only going to drive that number even higher.  I think his chances at the nomination are very slim.

As for Richardson, things look OK but he really needs to get his name out there somehow.  With 40% of people still undecided about him, he has got to define himself before the other candidates do it for him.  He desperately needs some positive media exposure.  I was hoping that the North Korea trip would give him a good boost but that has largely been ignored by the media as far as I can tell.  They would rather continue swooning over Obama's smile than report on a candidate who is actually negotiating world peace.

I guess they mean compared to how he does in other groups?

And Richardson does need more exposure. He'd be an excellent general election candidate.

[Mr. Morden]

Also I am not understanding how each of them polling 40% in males gives Romney an edge there, nor do I understand how Romney's 37% and RIchardson's 40% among whites give Romney an advantage.  Perhaps I am reading it wrong.  Could someone please clarify this for me?

They mean that Romney does better in those groups than he does in other demographic groups.  Not that he wins them outright.  Since Romney is down 8% overall, any demographic subgroup where he's tied or only down 3% is a subgroup where he's "more competitive".

[Tender Branson]

This is a strange matchup to do.  Both of the supposed "4th ranked candidates."  Very strange indeed.  Also I am not understanding how each of them polling 40% in males gives Romney an edge there, nor do I understand how Romney's 37% and RIchardson's 40% among whites give Romney an advantage.  Perhaps I am reading it wrong.  Could someone please clarify this for me?

"Romney is more competitive among males (40% to 40%) ..."

- Means that there is a huge gender gap of about 15%. That´s why he´s ahead by 8%.

"And whites (37% to Richardson's 40%)."

- Richardson does fine with Hispanics.

"Unaffiliated voters are reluctant to name either man; among them, the candidates are tied 30% to 30%."

- Because its basically Generic Dem. vs. Generic Rep. and because more consider themselves Dems than Reps, therefore Richardson by 8.

[Eraserhead]

No chance in hell of this match up taking place.