Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts

Friday, November 20, 2009

PPP: 2012 Presidential Trial Heats: Huckabee's Still on Top but He's Got Company

Public Policy Polling [pdf] today released their monthly look at the 2012 presidential playing field. Here's a quick look a the toplines (I'll be back later with a full analysis and updated figures.):

Obama: 49%
Huckabee: 44%
Undecided: 7%

Obama: 51%
Palin: 43%
Undecided: 5%

Obama: 46%
Paul: 38%
Undecided: 16%

Obama: 48%
Romney: 43%
Undecided: 9%

Margin of Error: +/- 3%
Sample: 1066 registered voters (nationwide)
Conducted: November 13-15, 2009

FHQ's biggest question? Is Ron Paul a proxy for a generic Republican candidate? Obama fares worst against the Texas congressman. And remember, this is among registered voters and not likely voters.


Recent Posts:
Update on GOP Temporary Delegate Selection Committee Meeting

Ex Post Facto: Why Do New Jersey and Virginia Have Those Off-Off Year Elections Anyway?

GOP Temporary Delegate Selection Committee Meeting Today

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Obama v. Palin in 2012? One Forecast is Already In

A month and a half ago, FHQ posted a link to and discussed a presidential election forecasting model built on candidate biographical information. The benefit of this model -- and it performs quite well stacked up against other forecasting models -- is that the biographical data exists now. In other words, you don't have to wait until the second quarter economic numbers are released or to wait on polling data from a particular period of time in the election year to put an accurate forecast together. [But hey, if you want to continue to come here and watch FHQ wade through the quadrennial polling data on the presidential race, we won't fault you. We here at FHQ may go so far as to encourage it.] I left off in that post urging folks to start scouring the biographical data on the prospective 2012 Republicans.

But why do that? Well, if you're patient, you'll be pleasantly surprised by an email from the authors of the original research. And lo and behold, one of those co-authors, Andreas Graefe (the other is J. Scott Armstrong), emailed me this morning to inform me that -- yes, that's right -- they've already looked at the Obama v. Palin numbers. How does Palin fare against the President?

[Click to Enlarge and here for the full description of the 2012 update at PollyVote.]

That nine point difference between the two candidates' biographical indicators translates to Obama carrying a 59.6% share of the two-party vote in 2012 if this was the match up (For some context, Obama received 52.9% of the vote in 2008 or 53.4% of the two-party vote). That's Reagan-Mondale territory and would likely make for quite the electoral college sweep for Obama.

But didn't you say that this model wasn't particularly adept at picking elections involving incumbents? (Ah, you followed the link and read the previous post, didn't you? Thanks.) That's right. Three incumbents with biographical score advantages lost re-election bids (to: Truman '48, Carter '76, Clinton '92). It has been done, then, but let's look a little more closely at those three elections. Carter and Truman had deficits of 5 points on the biographical index while Clinton trailed Bush by just three points. Palin's disadvantage against Obama is over twice the average deficit across those three incorrectly predicted elections, though.

That's a real hole to be in even before you start considering running for president. But back to my question from the last post: Who among the 2012ers does the best?

A special thanks to Andreas Graefe for drawing our attention to the updated 2012 outlook.


Recent Posts:
St. Cloud St. Poll: Obama leads Pawlenty in 2012 Horserace in MN

Twenty Ten or Two Thousand Ten?

A Follow Up on Palin and Winner-Take-All Presidential Primaries

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

St. Cloud St. Poll: Obama leads Pawlenty in 2012 Horserace in MN

Back in July Public Policy Polling conducted a survey in Minnesota and threw in a 2012 trial heat question pitting President Obama against both Tim Pawlenty and Sarah Palin. The result? Obama led both, but Pawlenty did the better of the two Republicans in his home state. Obama led the current Minnesota governor 51-40 then.

Well, St. Cloud St. University today released the results of a similar trial heat poll (No, Palin wasn't included. I know, and her book was released today, too!). Did Pawlenty make any headway following his ascension to the Vice Chair position within the Republican Governors Association and the formation of his Freedom First PAC; two events associated with his being on the lips of the punditocracy in relation to the 2012 presidential race? Actually, it doesn't seem to have made all that much difference at all.

Obama: 49.0%
Pawlenty: 39.7%
Undecided: 5.6%

Margin of Error: +/- 5%
Sample: 550 adults (Minnesotans)
Conducted: October 26 - November 4, 2009

Across two different polling firms' polls, then, Obama dropped some while Pawlenty held steady around the 40% mark. Looking at the margin, this poll isn't any different than the 54-44 edge Obama had over McCain last November in the Land of 10,000 Lakes.

In the cross-tabs, there are some interesting nuggets. Obama leads among every age group save the 35-44 group, where Pawlenty leads by 21 points (55-34). Obama also leads among women (59-31) while trailing among men (49-40). Both candidates(???) have consolidated their bases; each has over 84% among their own partisans. Obama leads among independents (27-17) -- or "those not close to either party."

This certainly isn't a trend so much as a flatline, but still, as always, it is nicer to have the data than not. But the bottom line out of this one echoes what FHQ discussed over the weekend: Pawlenty isn't there yet, but he needs to be active to catch up with those potential 2012ers that have more name recognition nationally than he does.

Hat tip to GOP12 for the link.


Recent Posts:
Twenty Ten or Two Thousand Ten?

A Follow Up on Palin and Winner-Take-All Presidential Primaries

How Palin Could Win the 2012 GOP Nomination. Well, it'll take more than just winner-take-all primaries.

Sunday, October 25, 2009

New 2012 Presidential General Election Trendlines. Now Time Adjusted!

I think we've gotten to a point where we have had enough 2012 trial heat polls out thus far this year to warrant adjusting them for time. To this point FHQ has displayed the polls as if they were equidistant apart, but with Palin v. Obama topping double figures from a number of polls standpoint, the time has come for the figures to take on a more natural look. Below you'll find the trends for...

Newt Gingrich...
[Click to Enlarge]

Mike Huckabee...
[Click to Enlarge]

Sarah Palin...
[Click to Enlarge]

and Mitt Romney.
[Click to Enlarge]


Recent Posts:
More Notes on Yesterday's Democratic Change Commission Meeting

Democratic Change Commission Meeting #2: Timing

Gender Gap or Gender Deficit in 2012?

Saturday, October 24, 2009

Gender Gap or Gender Deficit in 2012?

For the last few months FHQ has been pointing to an interesting trend in the (admittedly very) early presidential general election trial heats for 2012.* Sarah Palin is faring worse or worst among women against Obama than are her male counterparts (among the small list of prospective Republicans who have been polled against Obama with 2012 in mind). This is curious. There have been pronounced gender differences in vote choice that has varied since around the 1980 election.

More often than not this appears in the form of women supporting Democratic candidates while male votes opt for the Republican alternatives. That partisan angle has certainly been debated within the political science literature, though. Chaney, Alvarez and Nagler (1998--gated), for instance, found evidence that this was not solely a partisan divide but an incumbent/anti-incumbent divide with women being more likely to vote against an incumbent. But we certainly hear more about the fluctuations from presidential election to presidential election in partisan terms: how the gap was lower in 2004 because of so-called "security moms"** and greater again in 2008.

Regardless, the gap puts the Republican Party at something of a disadvantage in some elections more than others. One way the party could hypothetically combat the issue is to run female candidates. Now, we've certainly seen more of this in down-ballot races as opposed to presidential contests. After all, Sarah Palin was just the second woman on a presidential ticket in 2008 and the first Republican. But there's a problem there and McCain campaign manager, Rick Davis, picked up on this. He bemoaned the lack of women running within the party in his comments here at Wake Forest a couple of weeks ago.

Still, the expectation is that if Republicans are able to run women, they'll be able to reduce the, what I'm calling here, total gender deficit*** to some extent (depending upon the gender of their opponent and other state level or national factors). But that hasn't been the case in the 2012 presidential general election polling to date. Sarah Palin has, again, done worse with women against Obama than have her male counterparts.

Let's look at the numbers from the most recent Public Policy Polling survey on the matter (I will at some point in the future aggregate the gender numbers across all the polls where the data is publicly available.). There's clearly a divide between...

Palin...
[Click to Enlarge]

...and nationally unknown Pawlenty on the one hand...
[Click to Enlarge]

and Huckabee...
[Click to Enlarge]

...and Romney on the the other.
[Click to Enlarge]

We can set Tim Pawlenty to the side for the moment. He just isn't a known quantity at this point in the game and that really affects his numbers among both women and men. 20% of each responded "not sure" when he was polled against Obama. [But who am I to deprive you of a glance at the figure?] So, let's consider Palin against Huckabee and Romney. The real discrepancy between them isn't the support among women, but that Romney and Huckabee are tied or slightly ahead among men, while Palin lags. Palin is in the same ballpark as Romney and Huckabee against Obama among women (They are all within 5 points of each other.), but again, the surprising thing is that she isn't doing MUCH better with that demographic. And while still in the same vicinity of Romney and Huckabee, she is still bringing up the rear with women voters.

Of course, when we consider the gender gap as it is traditionally measured -- the distance between the winning candidate's share of the vote among men and women -- Palin doesn't do all that poorly. In fact, she ties with Mitt Romney for having the lowest gender gap, while Mike Huckabee maintains the largest gap. The former Arkansas governor's gap is largely attributable to the fact that he loses to Obama with women but beats the president with men.

In the end, the difference between Sarah Palin (new vice presidential nominee) 2008 and Sarah Palin (ex-Alaska governor) 2009 among women is the difference between night and day. She has gone from making a huge difference for the McCain campaign with women (again, see Rick Davis' comments) to trailing among the demographic in hypothetical 2012 match ups with her at the top of the ticket.

UPDATE: Jack raises a great point in the comments. These numbers are a bit quirky because the expectation is that the GOP advantage among men would offset the advantage Democrats have with women. Here, though, only Huckabee is ahead among men. What that means is that there is something of a line to be drawn between the traditional gender gap and what I'm calling the total gender gap here. In this case, it should probably be called the total gender deficit. Here's a more traditional gender gap picture from Gallup in February 2008: a classic McCain vs. Clinton/Obama example. Obama and Clinton were relatively similar among women relative to McCain but the difference was in men. The way I'm calculating this deficit would have had Obama at -1 relative to McCain and Clinton at -9. To some extent this assumes that there is near equal parity between male and female voters in the electorate. I'll have to check on that.

*Again, these are (way too) early polls, and we here at FHQ would normally hold off on putting too much stock in them. However, the consistency of this result in poll after poll leads us to believe there is something to it.

**Of course, the security mom explanation was just one of convenience. There was little to no proof that members of that particular group weren't Bush supporters already. That the gender gap was smaller in 2000 and 2004 may indicate that women comprise many of the undecided swing voters that break evenly among the two major party candidates in a close election.

***The total gender deficit is calculated by adding the difference between President Obama and his prospective Republican opponents among men and women. While the traditional gender gap is relatively similar across the field of Republicans (within a range of 4 to 8 points), that doesn't give us an indication of the discrepancy between how much one gender group is offsetting the other between the parties. Looking at the exit polls from the 2008 election Obama won 56% of women to McCain's 43%. Meanwhile the president edged the Arizona senator by one point (49-48) among men. Obama, then, enjoyed a 7 point gender gap and a 14 point total gender deficit.


Recent Posts:
FHQ Friday Fun: One from the Left/One from the Right

Reminder: Democratic Change Commission Meets Tomorrow in Washington

PPP's 2012 Presidential General Election Trial Heats In-Depth

Thursday, October 22, 2009

PPP's 2012 Presidential General Election Trial Heats In-Depth

Well, it appears as if the Bush bias from last month's Public Policy Polling survey of the 2012 presidential election has vanished with the former Florida governor excluded from the list of candidates hypothetically pitted against President Obama. Recall that Jeb Bush was the first candidate asked about in that poll and that may have primed respondents to conjure up memories of the not too distant Bush administration (How long will that last?). With Bush out and Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty in, the numbers for the stable list of candidates (Huckabee, Palin and Romney) returned to form -- or at least to levels that existed in the firm's August glimpse at the 2012 field. And you can see that depicted below. Just compare the August numbers the results released a day ago:
Obama: 47
Huckabee: 43
Undecided: 10

[Click to Enlarge]
Obama: 52
Palin: 40
Undecided: 8

[Click to Enlarge]
Obama: 50
Pawlenty: 30
Undecided: 20

[Click to Enlarge]
Obama: 48
Romney: 40
Undecided: 12

[Click to Enlarge]
Polling Firm: Public Policy Polling
Margin or Error: +/- 3.5%
Sample: 766 likely voters (nationally)
Conducted: October 16-19, 2009
Across the board, then, the three regulars improved this month on their performances against Obama in September. Now, whether that has anything to do with Bush being or not being in the survey questionnaire is certainly up for debate. On the surface, though, it looks as if that may have played a role. Obama's standing has changed little in the last month. The president's approval numbers are in basically the same position with the disapproval level has inched up a notch or so. However, that movement hardly seems to account for the closing of the gap between the president and the three prospective Republican nominees.

What else is there in this poll, though? There have been some quirks in these PPP polls throughout 2009. In July, it was Obama sweeping the South and in August it was the underlying education demographics of the sample. But nothing really jumps out at my after a rather cursory glance at the cross-tabs for October. However, there are some interesting trends in there.

First, the gender gap trend is still present. Palin continues to lag behind her male Republican counterparts relative to Obama among women. But for once someone did worse than the former Alaska governor on that front. Tim Pawlenty came in a whopping -37 on the gender gap measure (-24 with women and -13 with men against Obama) whereas Palin registered a -25 point disadvantage. When you compare that to Huckabee (-8) and Romney (-14), there really appears to be a line of demarcation between this group of candidates. In Pawlenty's defense, the Minnesota governor is dealing with being far more unknown to people than the other candidates and that definitely had an impact on his numbers.

There were also some interesting trends across the various age groups. Obama beat every Republican across every age group, but the patterns were noteworthy. The expectation is that the older the respondent, the more likely they would be to support a Republican candidate. That trend holds for Huckabee and Pawlenty, though the gaps are far greater for Pawlenty. That trend doesn't hold for Romney or Palin, though. In both cases, the former governors trail Obama but do better among the youngest group of voters (18-29) and the oldest group of voters (65+) than they do with the middle two age groups (30-45, 46-65) -- the gaps are smaller anyway.

All in all, an interesting poll. We'll have to see what November brings.


Recent Posts:
State of the Race: New Jersey Governor (10/22/09)

PPP 2012 Presidential Trial Heats: Huckabee's Still Tops

State of the Race: Virginia Governor (10/21/09)

PPP 2012 Presidential Trial Heats: Huckabee's Still Tops

Here's the latest from Public Policy Polling on the 2012 presidential general election trial heats. FHQ will add these as we've got time today. I'm in and out of meetings all day, so the graphs will be up incrementally and the full analysis will follow later.

Obama: 47
Huckabee: 43
Undecided: 10

Obama: 52
Palin: 40
Undecided: 8

Obama: 50
Pawlenty: 30
Undecided: 20

Obama: 48
Romney: 40
Undecided: 12

Polling Firm: Public Policy Polling
Margin or Error: +/- 3.5%
Sample: 766 likely voters
Conducted: October 16-19, 2009


Recent Posts:
State of the Race: Virginia Governor (10/21/09)

Got 2010 Redistricting on the Brain?

State of the Race: New Jersey Governor (10/20/09)

Thursday, September 24, 2009

2012 Presidential Trial Heats: PPP (Sept. '09)

Let's have a glance at those Public Policy Polling 2012 presidential trial heat numbers from earlier but add in the graphics to give us some context.

[Click to Enlarge]
Obama: 50%
Bush: 37%
Undecided: 13%
Obviously, there is no over time element to the Obama/Bush numbers, but FHQ felt compelled to add some sort of graphic to accompany the former Florida governor's numbers against the president. Other than that, there isn't that much more to say about this head-to-head match up. We will say this, though: Jeb Bush filled in and probably closely matched where Newt Gingrich would have been relative to Obama had the former Speaker been included in the poll this month (both in terms of the numbers and in terms of relative order of the Republican candidates). Still, it was nice to see another name in the mix.

[Click to Enlarge]
Obama: 48%
Huckabee: 41%
Undecided: 11%
It is hard to look at Huckabee's numbers against Obama this year and wonder which recent poll is the anomaly. The former Arkansas governor peaked in last month's PPP poll and then bottomed out in the Clarus Research Group poll in the field almost simultaneously. If you split the difference between those two August polls, you end up with Huckabee at around where he is in September; still trailing Obama but performing better than the other Republicans.

[Click to Enlarge]
Obama: 53%
Palin: 38%
Undecided: 9%
July was a good month for Sarah Palin, but since actually leaving office in the Last Frontier, the 2008 Republican VP nominee has slid in the polls; not just in these 2012 trial heats but in other national polls gauging respondents' perceptions of her favorability. This month is no different, though she is in a better position in the PPP polls versus the aforementioned Clarus poll or the August Marist poll. It seems as if Palin was in a better position when people were talking about her leaving office in Juneau rather than her actually doing it.

[Click to Enlarge]
Obama: 48%
Romney: 39%
Undecided: 13%
Finally, Mitt Romney continues to minimize Barack Obama's reach while simultaneously underperforming Mike Huckabee. Throughout much of the year's polling, Romney has been able to keep Obama under the 50% mark (as has Huckabee), but has struggled to break 40% himself (unlike Huckabee). Republicans (in these polls) just seem more comfortable with Huckabee than Romney at this point.

Notes:
Tom Jensen at PPP speculated that much of the difference in this month's results against August's is attributable to the inclusion of Bush in the poll ( This seems an ideal explanation on its face considering the partisan breakdown underlying both polls was largely similar). The candidates have in the past been listed and tested against Obama alphabetically and that meant that instead of Gingrich being first this month, Bush was. In other words, respondents may have been primed because of Jeb's inclusion to consider the most recent Bush administration when thinking about the general election race in 2012. That ends up being a nice recipe for getting similar results to the electoral outcome from last November.

Obviously, Huckabee continues to fare the best against President Obama in these PPP poll, while Mitt Romney lags in terms of favorability and overall support. The gap between the two is particularly surprising given that both have been rather tightly clustered in the 2012 primary polling that has been done. Again, though, this has been a consistent theme in PPP's 2012 trial heat polling since April.

The other theme that has consistently run throughout PPP's and other polls is that a potential Sarah Palin candidacy does nothing to neutralize the typical (though variable) advantage Democrats have among women. In fact, her male counterparts continue to do better among women nationally than does Palin. But that gap is pretty narrow at this point between the former Alaska governor and Jeb Bush.

One last thing to look at is the candidates' abilities to retain their parties' voters from the 2008 election. In this poll Obama held onto 90% of his 2008 voters, while all four Republicans were only able to keep about three-quarters of 2008 McCain voters. [Huckabee is the exception. He kept 80% of McCain's voters.] Of course, if there was some certainty behind the identity of the Republican nominee for 2012, I suspect that McCain voter retention rate would be higher.


Recent Posts:
PPP 2012 Presidential Poll: Huckabee Still Does Best, but All GOP Candidates Drop Off Against Obama

Tracking Pawlenty for 2012

FHQ Reading Room (9/23/09)

PPP 2012 Presidential Poll: Huckabee Still Does Best, but All GOP Candidates Drop Off Against Obama

Public Policy Polling today released their monthly look at the 2012 presidential terrain. Other than dropping Newt Gingrich this month and replacing him with Jeb Bush, the news is that Obama stretched his advantages relative to all four prospective Republican candidates (versus last month).

Here are the results:
Obama: 50%
Bush: 37%
Undecided: 13%

Obama: 48%
Huckabee: 41%
Undecided: 11%

Obama: 53%
Palin: 38%
Undecided: 9%

Obama: 48%
Romney: 39%
Undecided: 13%
Margin of error: +/- 3.9%
Sample: 621 voters (nationally)
Conducted: 9/18-21/09



Recent Posts:
Tracking Pawlenty for 2012

FHQ Reading Room (9/23/09)

State of the Race: New Jersey Governor (9/22/09)

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

Arizona in 2012? Still Red.

Public Policy Polling has a new poll out this morning examining the 2012 presidential playing field in Arizona. The idea heading in was that with home-state senator, John McCain, at the top of the Republican ticket in 2008, there was enough of an advantage to offset gains the Democratic Party and Barack Obama were enjoying in other parts of the southwest.

Does that change when McCain is not at the head of the ballot? Not really. McCain won the Grand Canyon state by nine points last November and depending on the candidate, the Republicans retain that lead over Obama. Well, sort of. Obama is tied with Sarah Palin while Huckabee and Romney lead the president by four and seven points, respectively.

Here's the breakdown:
Obama: 45%
Huckabee: 49%

Obama: 43%
Romney: 50%

Obama: 47%
Palin: 47%
The one theme that continues to run throughout these head-to-head polls against Obama is that Sarah Palin continues to lag behind her male counterparts among women. That holds for polls both on the national and state level. Democrats have long carried a fairly sizable advantage among women in elections (dependent upon several other variables as well) and it could certainly be hypothesized that the Republicans could neutralize that by running women for various offices. That may well be the case, but there is no evidence that Sarah Palin is the woman to close that gap. Christian at GOP12 has co-opted this theme (something I've been pointing out throughout the polling conducted so far this year) to some extent, but has done the numbers in terms of the Republicans' (Huckabee, Palin and Romney) favorable/unfavorable ratings. Let's take a moment and look at the raw numbers from a support perspective.
Male
Obama: 44%
Huckabee: 51%

Female
Obama: 46%
Huckabee: 46%

Gender gap: Huckabee +7

Male
Obama: 45%
Palin: 50%

Female
Obama: 49%
Palin: 43%

Gender gap: Palin -1

Male
Obama: 42%
Romney: 53%

Female
Obama: 45%
Romney: 46%

Gender gap: Romney +12
This isn't a national poll and this is a red state, so that explains some of this. We're just dealing with more Republican women. Even then, Palin does worse than do either Huckabee or Romney among women. Romney actually bests Obama there. When the national numbers are released tomorrow, this will definitely be an area to look first.

Other than that, PPP's main motivation in doing this particular poll was to see if the home state effect had worn off without McCain as the GOP standard bearer. The results above show that it has disappeared to some extent. DiSarro, Barber and Rice (2007) examine this very question and find that, on average, presidential candidates will gain just more than five points in their home states relative to other recent candidates (That encompasses all the major party candidates from 1880-2004.). Again, McCain won Arizona 54-45 last November. Subtract five percent from McCain's total and you have the exact same 49-45 breakdown at the Huckabee result above. Romney did a little better and Palin a little worse. It is obviously a bit more involved than that, but on average, the Republican support dropped off by 5.33 points. Most of that difference can be explained by the fact that Obama is holding onto his voters better than the other Republicans are holding onto McCain's. Depending upon which Republican he was up against, Obama lost anywhere from 2-5% of his voters whereas the loss range for the Republicans and McCain voters was 9-10%.

As always, let me close by saying that it is still extremely early to be reading much of anything into any of these polls (Rob has already rightfully pointed this out in the comments section below.). The trend among female voters, though, is one to continue to track. It continues to undermine any potential Palin candidacy.

See also 2012 polling (on the state level) from earlier in the summer in Louisiana, Minnesota, North Carolina and Texas.


Recent Posts:
Expectations and the 2012 Republican Presidential Nomination

About that New Jersey Governors Poll, Part III

State of the Race: Virginia Governor (9/20/09)

Monday, August 31, 2009

2012 Presidential Trial Heats (Clarus Research Group): Obama vs. Gingrich/Huckabee/Palin/Romney

Last night we looked at the 2012 Republican primary numbers from the recent Clarus Research Group poll. The same poll that found Mitt Romney doing quite well among Republican respondents in the primary setting also found the former Massachusetts governor matching up against Obama the best among the full national sample.*

...but not by much. The Mike Huckabee/Barack Obama pairing was a near mirror image of the Romney/Obama race (Obama's support against Romney was just one percent shy of the president's against Romney's while the two Republicans' shares remained the same). Before we dig too far in, let's look at the toplines:
Obama: 52%
Gingrich: 34%
Not Sure: 15%

Obama: 48%
Huckabee: 38%
Not Sure: 15%

Obama: 53%
Palin: 34%
Not Sure: 13%

Obama: 47%
Romney: 38%
Not Sure: 15%

Margin of error: +/- 3.1%
Sample: 353 Republican voters
Conducted: August 14-18, 2009
[Click to Enlarge]

For Gingrich, this is the worst showing since the May Public Policy Polling survey (the one that had the most representative sample until the August poll). There really isn't that much to say about the former Speaker. He has been polled among the Big Four throughout 2009, but has yet to measure up to the Huckabee/Palin/Romney group either in the primaries or against the president. That certainly doesn't change here.

[Click to Enlarge]

And while Huckabee does drop off compared to the PPP poll in the field nearly simultaneously, the former Arkansas governor emerges with something to hang his hat on. Earlier we discussed how this poll had Huckabee as the clear choice of Republican women in the primary race which is noteworthy with a woman in the race. But that doesn't translate once a Democrat is added to the equation. Now, we would expect the gender gap to continue to focus female support behind the Democrat and male support with the Republican in any prospective 2012 match up and that trend is not broken here. However, we do see that the gap is smaller for Huckabee (-20) and Romney (-18) than it is for Gingrich (-34) and Palin (-37).**

[Click to Enlarge]

Odd as it may seem, this is the continuing trend in this data as of now. Palin is doing worse among women than with men against Obama and has the highest gender gap (relative to the other Republican candidates). And that is striking. What's worse is that the overall gap between Palin and Obama is now wider than it was prior to her resignation. The three August polls conducted pitting the former Alaska governor against Obama, show the governor under 40% and the president above 50%. That wasn't the case after she announced her resignation, but actually having step down (at least at first glance) seems to be the line of demarcation between these poll trends.

[Click to Enlarge]

Meanwhile, Mitt Romney continues to place, if not the closest to Obama (Huckabee has been consistently closer in the PPP polls.), then second closest. And the former Massachusetts governor has been among (along with Huckabee) the candidates who have been able to minimize the amount of support the president garners in these polls.

The biggest pro and con in all of this 2012 trial heat polling is that one firm (Public Policy Polling) has been doing most of the work. That is good for the sake of comparison across polls, but by the same token is subjecting us to the same house effect over and over again. In other words, we're just missing out on the view from other polling outfits. That's why the Obama/Romney tie in the July Rasmussen poll was so surprising; it followed up the PPP polls that showed Romney close, but struggling to break the 40% barrier. Again, the one thing Romney could hang his hat on there, was that he was keeping the president under 50% in many of those polls. And honestly, that's not a very strong hook and the hat is somewhat heavy.

I still have to caution that this is all extremely early in the 2012 cycle. But the trend among women with Sarah Palin included continues to be a noteworthy statistic across all of these polls.

*Please note that the full national sample size was used in the write up of the Republican primary poll last night. That has been corrected. The Republican portion of the sample was comprised of 353 respondents.

**This figure is calculated as the sum of the deficits among women and men for each candidate against President Obama. For example, in a hypothetical match up between Obama and Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty, if the president had a 53-37 advantage among women (-16 for Pawlenty), but the governor had a slight advantage among men, say, 44-42 (+2 for Pawlenty), the gap would be -14 (-16+2).


Recent Posts:
Have the Races Changed in New Jersey and Virginia?

2012 GOP Presidential Primary Poll (Clarus Research Group): Romney Jumps

Defense Authorization Bill Amendment Could Affect Primary Timing

Thursday, August 27, 2009

Ted Kennedy's 2008 Endorsement of Barack Obama

In the comments to Democratic Change Commission post I put up yesterday, Rob pointed out something about the late Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Barack Obama's presidential candidacy last year that was running through my mind yesterday.

Rob writes:
"I know that I am slightly off topic here, but one of the tributes to Ted Kennedy is that his endorsement of the Obama candidacy was a key factor in Obama's nomination. As I recall, many commentators at the time suggested that the endorsement was a big blow to the Clinton campaign. I thought, though, in the aftermath it became a consensus opinion that none of the endorsements in that campaign meant much, even EMKs. Am I imagining something or is this point just part of the glow of appreciation of man who has just passed away?"

The underlying question is, "Did Kennedy's endorsement have an impact and if so, to what degree?" There's no doubt that it had an impact. But measuring the endorsement's influence is difficult. For starters, we know that the endorsements game is one of zero sums. If Barack Obama gets the endorsement, then Hillary Clinton cannot. [Well, I suppose flip-flopping superdelegates are an exception to that rule. John Lewis, I'm looking in your direction.] Beyond that, we also know that in a presidential primary election environment, where contests follow one another (or groups of contests follow other groups of contests), the easiest way to measure the impact is to see how elections results are affected following the endorsement. Now from a hypothetical standpoint, this impact would be the greatest within the political boundaries and among the constituency the endorser represents.

In 2008, Ted Kennedy's endorsement could have been hypothesized to have bolstered Obama's chances ahead of the Massachusetts primary. The timeline went like this:

January 27: Caroline Kennedy's op-ed endorsing Obama appears in the New York Times.
January 28: Ted Kennedy endorses Obama.
February 5: Clinton bests Obama in the Bay state by a count of 56% to 41%.

The immediate, back of the napkin reaction in our (UGA) discussion group, as I recall, was that the endorsement didn't seem to have had that much of an effect. Some of the reasons cited were that the endorsement was made too close to the actual voting in the contest (just a week prior), and that Massachusetts was one among MANY other states holding contests on February 5. Indeed, to that second point, the Obama campaign was focused on grassroots efforts particularly in the caucus states on February 5 and beyond. That excluded Massachusetts.

But that brings up an important distinction: short-term versus long-term influence of endorsements. Prior to and after February 5, it was becoming apparent that the Democratic nomination race would be one focused on the delegate count. That differed from past years where momentum quickly carried most eventual nominees to their party's nomination and delegate counts were an afterthought. But in 2008, everyone was focused on that counting to the detriment of everything else. Unlike other years, then, when a Kennedy-type endorsement, if it even came before the nomination was wrapped up, would have been rolled into the narrative of "Candidate X had the momentum and won the nomination," 2008 gave us a different angle. The race as it played out afforded us the opportunity to attempt to separate the long-term and short-term goals instead of having them overlap almost completely.

Again, in the immediate aftermath of Super Tuesday, the Kennedy endorsement seemed to have backfired. But as Obama ran up the score throughout his February streak of victories and finally won the nomination in the late spring, the Kennedy decision looked better and better.

If we step back and look long-term, the impact of the endorsement seems to have been that it helped Obama gain a foothold within the Washington establishment; a wing of the party that more often than not leaned toward Clinton. In that zero sum environment, then, Kennedy's endorsement did hurt Clinton's campaign, but only because it helped Obama's instead. But there's a spectrum there, right? Did it help Obama more or less than it hurt Clinton? Personally, I think it helped Obama more. Clinton was already doing pretty well among the Washington establishment. If you look at some of the posts over at DemConWatch just before Super Tuesday, you get sense of this. Upon Edwards dropping out just after the Florida primary on January 29, Clinton had a two to one (approximately) advantage in superdelegates over, but as Matt (DemConWatch contributor) pointed on the final day of the month, an interesting pattern was emerging among superdelegates. Obama was picking up momentum among the supers just before February 5; especially big name supers. The then-Illinois senator was outpacing Clinton and in fact gaining on her in that count.

Kennedy's endorsement was just a part of that gradual movement toward Obama and maybe even slightly ahead of the curve.

Note: I should mention that the view from the political science literature on the impact of endorsements is mixed. In many ways it is lacking mainly because of the issues I cited above. What is being influenced, in other words? Electoral outcomes are one possibility as are polling numbers in specific states whether measuring vote intention of overall approval. The problem with those measures is that there are obviously many other factors affecting their variation. Does that mean we pack it up and head home? No, but what that ultimately means is that we end up with mixed results ranging from an endorsement had no impact to an endorsement had a big impact.

UPDATE: Here are a few reactions to the Kennedy endorsement at the time:
ABCNews Political Radar
New York Times The Caucus
Here are a couple from The Fix (Washington Post): one and two

Recent Posts:
All Quiet on the Democratic Change Commission Front

About that New Jersey Governor's Poll

A Closer Look at the Aftermath of the 2010 Census

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

Marist 2012 Presidential Poll: Palin Lags Well Behind Obama but Holds Her Own in the GOP Primary Race

Marist set the 2012 jokes aside for a moment and actually got involved in the early polling for the next presidential election. Nationally, the Marist University poll probed its 938 respondents on questions focused on Sarah Palin, but for 2012, matched the former Alaska governor against President Obama and gauged her odds in the race for the Republican nomination as well. The results? In the general election, not so good. But in an early look at the primary race, Palin was once again closely clustered with both Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee setting the 2012 pace. Newt Gingrich, Bobby Jindal and Tim Pawlenty trailed that group to varying degrees and nearly a quarter of the respondents were still undecided. That's a pretty good chunk of those polled still playing the wait and see game. In fact, "unsure" would win if the election were held today. Reminds you of Jimmy Carter losing to "uncommitted" in the 1976 Iowa caucuses yet still winning the contest, doesn't it? That is the highest that type of figure has been. Of course, this is asking "unsure" but doesn't include "other" along with it to incorporate those who might feel strongly about a candidate off this list.

Let's look at the results and their attendant graphics. First the general election match up:
[Click to Enlarge]

Obama: 56%
Palin: 33%

Margin of error: +/- 3.5 points
Sample: 854 registered voters
Conducted: August 3-6, 2009

First of all, the rub on a lot of these polls lately has been the divide between the registered voter results and the likely voter results. This poll is made up of registered voters and that likely is helping bump up Obama's support. Likely voters would give us a more Republican flavor and Palin would hypothetically be closer. Still, Obama would undoubtedly be ahead in a likely voter sample. The one thing were missing here (and Public Policy Polling will help me out with this tomorrow.) is another Republican polled against Obama. Without that, we are deprived of the interesting gender gap numbers we've seen among the Republicans versus Obama. Other Republicans have been running ahead of Palin against Obama among women in other polls.

And the Republican primary race?

[Click to Enlarge]

Romney: 21%
Palin: 20%
Huckabee: 19%
Gingrich: 10%
Jindal: 5%
Pawlenty: 1%
Unsure: 24%

Margin of error: +/- 5.5 points
Sample: 310 Republicans (& Republican-leaning independents)
Conducted: August 3-6, 2009

There isn't much new here that we haven't discussed either earlier in this post or in conjunction with another primary poll. It isn't like the wide margin in the Palin-Obama trial heat (a figure that runs counter to the closing gap witnessed over the last several months.). Again, at this early point, it is Romney, Palin and Huckabee in no particular order and then everyone else. That doesn't mean someone else won't be the GOP nominee in 2012, but these are the top options as of August 2009 (and throughout the year for that matter).

NOTE: There should be some additional 2012 numbers from PPP sometime tomorrow.


Recent Posts:
Which Republican is the Biggest Threat in 2012?

2012 New Hampshire Republican Primary Poll: Romney Up Big

Rick Santorum for President? ...and Romney in Iowa

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

Louisiana 2012: Jindal/Palin Both Top Obama

Always good for some 2012 polling data, Public Policy Polling went public with some 2012 presidential trial heat numbers from the outfit's survey of Louisiana this past weekend. Here are the particulars:

Jindal: 54%
Obama: 40%
Undecided: 7%

Palin: 49%
Obama: 42%
Undecided: 9%

Should Jindal run in 2012?
Yes: 27%
No: 61%
Not Sure: 13%

Margin of Error: +/- 3.6 points
Sample: 727 Louisiana voters
Conducted: July 17-19, 2009

These aren't terribly surprising results. As the poll discovers, Jindal is very popular in the Pelican state (55% approval), but the governor earns a smaller share of support than John McCain received in Louisiana last November. Coincidentally, Obama's stood pat at 40%, while support for the Republican candidate dropped from 59% (McCain) to, in this poll, 54% (Jindal). Of course, the answer to that trial heat question was probably at least somewhat conditional upon the answer to the "should Jindal run in 2012" question two questions earlier on the survey. Three out of five respondents answered no. That may have enforced some lag on the popular governor's support against Obama.

Meanwhile, in the never-ending quest to answer the Palin question, PPP found the former vice presidential nominee ahead of President Obama, but not as far ahead as the state's own governor. Again, favorability seems to be driving the difference between the Republicans. Only 46% of the respondents in this poll saw Palin in a favorable light (versus 42% unfavorable). Interestingly, Jindal bests Obama among women while Obama continues to lead Palin (in another poll) with that group.

All things considered, though, this poll isn't that earth-shattering. Louisiana isn't likely to budge from the Republican column in 2012. As always, however, it is neat to see the data. [And hey, this one had a good sample size. 727 Louisiana voters in this poll compared to the 577 voters in the national poll PPP released on Monday.]


Recent Posts:
State of the Race: New Jersey (7/22/09)

Presidential Primary Reform Week: Two Birds, One Stone

Presidential Approval Tracker

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

North Carolina in 2012: Obama - 49, Palin - 42

Public Policy Polling today released the second half of its survey of North Carolinians (full results here -- pdf). It isn't that yesterday's approval numbers for Governor Bev Perdue, President Obama and former-President Bush weren't interesting to look at, but FHQ would be lying if it said it wasn't more interested in the prospective 2012 general election match up between the president and Sarah Palin.

Though Obama's approval in the Tar Heel state declined to below 50%, the president has basically held steady at the 49% share of the vote he garnered in November's presidential election against John McCain. With Palin substituted as the GOP standard bearer for 2012, the Republican share of North Carolina drops from 49% (McCain's nearly identical portion of the vote in 2008) to 42%. As Tom Jensen at PPP points out, that would amount to the largest margin for Democrat since the last time a Democratic presidential nominee won the state (Jimmy Carter's 1976 win over Gerald Ford).

There are a couple of interesting points hidden in the cross-tabs:
First, Obama did better among North Carolina women (53-38) while Palin bested the president among men in the state (47-45). Despite a woman representing the GOP at the top of the ticket the gender gap still favrs the Democratic candidate. And in comparison with the 2008 exit polls, the Republican margin among males drops from 12 points to the 2 points in this poll. Meanwhile Obama maintains about the same level of support among women in the state.

Based on party identification, Democrats still overwhelmingly support Obama (79-13), while Republicans strongly favor Palin (83-9). Among independents the split is only advantageous to Obama to the tune of 45-42. These numbers seem to indicate there were more Democrats in the sample than Republicans. [They also seem to indicate that the powers of deduction are strong with FHQ. As AKReport and Jack both point out in the comments below, the party ID splits -- 47% Dem, 33% GOP, 20% Ind. -- are on par with registration in the Old North state.]

As I said earlier in the week, it is nice to have one of these polls emerge from a 2008 swing state. Texas and Minnesota are nice, but may not end up being very swingy in 2012. And even though other prospective candidates being included would have been ideal, it is at least something of a baseline to see where one of the most high-profile Republicans stands relative to the president. Now if only PPP had decided to poll Iowa instead of Louisiana next week, I'd be a happy camper.


Recent Posts:
The Paths of Presidential Primary Frontloading

State of the Race: New Jersey (7/14/09)

A 2012 Obama v. Palin Poll in North Carolina?

Friday, July 10, 2009

A 2012 Texas Toss Up?

National polls are fine, but FHQ's bread and butter are the state-level polls that give us a glimpse into the state of the electoral college race. Of course, considering that the US is still over three years away from the next presidential (general) election, the expectation is that we just aren't going to see that many state polls (...not until after the 2010 midterms, at least). It is a good thing then that the good folks at the University of Texas threw us all a bone -- and an interesting one at that.

You have to dig, but buried within the survey notes [pdf] headlined by the lead Rick Perry has over Kay Bailey-Hutchinson in the much anticipated 2010 Republican gubernatorial primary, is a question asking respondents about the 2012 presidential race.
Q24: If the 2012 presidential election were held today, which of the following would you vote for, or haven't you enough about it to have an opinion?
Among the full sample of 924 Texans, Barack Obama edged Mitt Romney 36-34 (with a full 30% still unsure). There is a lot there at which to look. For starters, Barack Obama is ahead in Texas; that's fairly monumental whether it is July 2009 (Well, actually June, since the poll was conducted from June 11-22.) or July 2012. Granted there are some caveats. First of all, the above numbers are pooled from the full sample of respondents. Among just the registered voters, Romney leads Obama 39-34. And while that's more in line with where we'd all expect Texas to be from a partisan perspective, there is a note of caution for Republicans there (and Democrats, too). First of all, let's not read too much into a state poll three years in advance.

That said, is Mitt Romney a good candidate for the GOP? If Texas is a toss up, the White House will be a tough proposition for the Republican Party; it's that simple. Without those 37 or 38 electoral votes (after the 2010 reallocation), there just aren't that many paths to 270 for the GOP. Before this runaway train gathers too much speed, let's attempt to put on the brakes. Much of this is attributable to the fact that Texans (a quarter of them) just don't have that much knowledge about Mitt Romney. 27% of the respondents weren't sure enough about the former Massachusetts governor to offer an opinion on whether he was from outside of government, someone with experience or somewhere in the middle of that spectrum. It could simply be that Texans are waiting for the identity of the Republican candidate -- any Republican candidate -- to be revealed.

And this is where the Democrats come in. This is the type of poll that sends Democrats to Texas to register new voters. It isn't unlike how Republicans are looking at New Jersey in the governor's race right now. Early polls are deceptive. Though, if the GOP doesn't do something to pull in Hispanic voters in Texas (and elsewhere), those states won't be like New Jersey to the GOP for long; they'll shift toward the Democrats (with all other things held constant).

Finally, why was only Mitt Romney included? No Palin. No Huckabee. No Gingrich. And this poll was in the field before the Palin announcement last week. It is a curious move, but perhaps an interesting nod to the fact that Romney is still the odds on favorite to be the next GOP nominee (albeit it an only slight one). I really would like to have seen some of those other prospective candidates included.

But with three years to go, beggars can't be choosers. A poll is a poll is a poll, after all and FHQ will take what it can get.


Recent Posts:
State of the Race: New Jersey (7/9/09)

Which is Bigger?

State of the Race: Virginia (7/8/09)

Thursday, April 23, 2009

Obama vs. Four Prospective 2012 GOP Candidates: Huckabee Does Best

Public Policy Polling has a new poll out pitting President Obama against four potential competitors in a series of 2012 general election trial heats. Among the four Republicans, Mike Huckabee polled the best against Obama and was the only match-up where the president was under the fifty percent support mark. Here are the results from PPP's national survey of 686 voters over the weekend (April 17-19):

Obama - 49%
Huckabee - 42%
Not Sure - 9%

Obama - 52%
Gingrich - 39%
Not Sure - 9%

Obama - 53%
Palin - 41%
Not Sure - 6%

Obama - 50%
Romney - 39%
Not Sure - 11%


Let me add a couple of notes here:

1) This poll, like PPP's 2012 poll in March surveyed less than 700 respondents. Again, for a national survey you'd prefer 1000 responses, but beggars can't be choosers for 2012 polling data this far in advance. I'm sure the good folks at PPP would rationalize the number since it is based on voters and not the population at-large.

2) Palin improved her share while Obama's share dropped when compared to the previous poll. Not to diminish how well the Alaska governor stacks up against Obama, but this poll was done on the heels of Palin's appearance at and subsequent news coverage of the Right to Life Dinner last week in Evansville. Still, knocking eight points off the president's advantage over her in a month's time isn't too shabby.

3) The unsures also aren't all that surprising. I think it is safe to say that Palin is in Hillary Clinton territory now: People either like her or they don't, but they do know (or think they know) about her and have an opinion. That's a situation where the "don't knows" drop. The differences aren't great across all four candidates on the not sures, but I was still surprised that Mitt Romney was bringing up the rear. That's both a good and bad thing for the former Massachusetts governor. Good because his number is likely to increase (as would anyone's) upon entering the race, but bad because some of those unsures are also likely to go to Obama (already at the 50% mark).

4) The unsures on the favorable/unfavorable for each of the Republicans is also worth looking at. Palin is the only one of the four to have a not sure percentage in the single digits. The other three Republicans have not sures on that measure of 20 or more percentage points. That's pretty significant.

Still, Mike Huckabee does the best against Obama. That's certainly news to me. News I'm hard-pressed to figure out. My conception of the GOP field broadly was that Huckabee and Palin occupied a similar, though not identical, area: similar on social issues, but different on economic matters. But now that I've typed that out, I get a sense potentially of why Huckabee did better against Obama than the other three. In the midst of a time when the role of the federal government on a host of issues is increasing, Huckabee is the Republican answer. And if the US is going in that direction, "why not have one of our own in charge of it," might be the Republican thinking. Of course, the argument could be made that George W. Bush was that type of president and some Republicans weren't particularly thrilled with the expansion of government under the Bush administration.

Then again, I could be reading way too much into a poll concerning a race that is still three years away. Interesting results, though.

Hat tip to GOP12 for the poll link.


Recent Posts:
Texas Frontloading Bill Goes Public

Political Boundaries vs. Virtual Boundaries

Too Good Not to Mention: Coach K on Obama

Thursday, April 16, 2009

Now Obama's Fighting Climate Change Reform?

FHQ wishes to apologize for the relatively light posting activity this week. I had a whirlwind job interview during the early part of the week and then had to return to prepare for Larry Bartels' visit to UGA (including him doing a guest stint in my political parties class) yesterday. So allow me to make it up to regular readers and passersby with some hard-hitting policy analysis of the Obama administration in the area of climate change.



It is a well-documented (yet seldom referenced) fact that as the number of pirates worldwide has decreased over time, the higher the average global temperature has risen.




Now comes this...




Yes, that's right: The Obama administration has, by sanctioning the killing of Somali pirates to save Capt. Richard Phillips, struck a blow to the cause of climate change reform. Usually quite vocal, the environmental lobby has not spoken out on the administration's move. But in a rare editorial moment for FHQ, let me say, this isn't change we can believe in. This is taking one side on car emissions and carbon cap-and-trade and another on pirates in the battle against rising global temperatures.

[Click Figures for links to original versions.]




Changing the culture of Washington, indeed.








Hat tip to big crush via Seth at Enik Rising for the pirates killed across presidents figure.


Recent Posts:
2008 GOP Candidate Emergence, Part 3

GOP Going the Caucus Route in Oklahoma in 2012?

No Caucuses? North Dakota in 2012

Sunday, March 29, 2009

How 'Bout Dem Heels!?!

Looks like Obama's pick (a wise one it was) to win it all in college basketball has advanced to the Final Four.


I have to make some effort to put a political spin on things, but I am an alum. Well, this is the only team he actually played a pick-up game with on the campaign trail last spring.


Recent Posts:
McCain's 2012 Name-Dropping on Meet the Press

Elite Eight: FHQ's 2012 Presidential Primary Bracket

The 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar (3/28/09)

Friday, March 20, 2009

Obama's Special Olympics Gaffe: An Interesting Counterfactual

Now, here's an interesting "what if" from John Pitney over at Epic Journey.

[Note: This is a newish blog from a handful of political scientists and John has ramped up the number of posts this month. Note 2: I need to update my blogroll.]

What if candidate Obama had made this quip on Leno six months ago in the midst of the general election campaign? What would the reaction have been? I'll take firestorm for $1000, Alex. With Sarah Palin being the mother of an infant with Downs, that likely would have been an interesting point in the campaign.

But there's the difference: Candidate vs. President Obama.


Recent Posts:
2012 GOP Presidential Candidate Bracket

Obligatory Brackets Post: 2008 Presidential Candidates

Election 2012: Obama 55 - Palin 35