Oops! A 2012 GOP Primary Poll FHQ Missed and Another Rant on the Over-Interpretation of These Polls

Home renovations like the ones FHQ did in mid-May can put a damper on your 2012 poll-watching in a heartbeat. And apparently my blogger-turned-handyman days caused me to miss one of the 2012 GOP primary poll conducted by FOX [pdf] during that period.

Excuses, excuses.

Anyway a hearty thank you to GOP12 via CQ PollTracker via GOP12 for the belated heads up. For the record, here are the particulars:

Huckabee: 20%
Romney: 18%
Gingrich: 14%
Palin: 13%
Giuliani: 12%
Sanford: 4%
Bush: 3%
Jindal: 3%

Margin of Error: +/- 3 points (+/- 6 points among Republicans)
Sample: 900 registered voters (274 Republicans)
Conducted: May 12-13, 2009

I'll skip the analysis and leave it at this: This is the only primary poll thus far that does not have Palin clustered at the top with Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee; well above everyone else. [And yes, how quaint. Mark Sanford was included -- pre-Argentina.]

Sadly, with Giuliani and Sanford now tacked onto the list of candidates, the key took up too much room and the color scheme Google Docs provided was repetitive and confusing. In sum, that was not really a workable order. The key is now gone from the figure and the names are added nearby the lines or points they correspond to. Most of the color issues were moot once I withheld the "other" line. It matched nearly identically the color given to Jindal's data. The other change is that I've added in the element of time. Everyday is accounted for in the series now so that it doesn't appear as if each poll is equidistant from the next.

Here's the trend updated through today:

[Click to Enlarge]

[If you find anything about the above graph confusing still, please let me know in the comments section.]

----

Before I close, I did want to mention one other issue with this FOX poll and the poll ABC and the Washington Post released this morning. In each case, we are talking about a 2012 primary question that is based on the responses of less than 300 Republicans (and/or Republican-leaning independents) nationally. When the goal is 1000, less than 300 respondents has the effect of REALLY ramping up the margin of error. In the process, the representativeness of the poll is made all the more questionable for something that is already well in advance of primary season (or even the competitive tail end of the invisible primary for that matter). As I've said recently, I like seeing these numbers and I enjoy seeing the trends, but these things absolutely have to be taken with a grain of salt. And occasionally I like to fold in some discussion of fundraising or organization, but I try to avoid claims like these at all costs. To assert that Huckabee leads this race or that it is beneficial for Romney to "draft" behind Huckabee is patently ridiculous. Given the margins in the polls conducted so far, Romney and Huckabee are tied (with Sarah Palin). Now, it could be that the perception that Huckabee is ahead is helpful to Romney in that "everyone else" is gunning for the former Arkansas governor and not Romney, but still. Let's just watch these numbers come in and not over-interpret them.

Please.


Recent Posts:
Presidential Primary Reform Week: The National Association of Secretaries of State's New President

ABC/WaPo Poll: 2012 GOP Primary--Huckabee Back on Top, but...

Presidential Primary Reform Week: The Fair and Representative Presidential Primaries Act of 2009

ABC/WaPo Poll: 2012 GOP Primary--Huckabee Back on Top, but...

ABC News and Washington Post have a new poll out that the blogosphere is jumping on to trumpet the decline of Sarah Palin's favorability. Yeah, FHQ won't be jumping on that bandwagon, but we will discuss the 2012 Republican primary question that was nestled deep in the results. [For the record, the Palin numbers reflect opinion of her among folks of all partisan stripes. The Republican ones are the only ones that really matter at the moment.] Yes, the usual cast of characters are represented,* but I like the fact that the names of prospective GOP candidates whose names were volunteered (not on the list of candidates named) were included in the results as well. Among that group -- which included Charlie Crist, Bobby Jindal, John Thune and other -- Jindal did the best, pulling in about 2% among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents. Both Crist and Thune garnered less than a percentage point each.

Here are the results:

Huckabee: 26%
Romney: 21%
Palin: 19%
Gingrich: 10%
Pawlenty: 4%
Bush: 3%
Jindal: 2%
Barbour: 1%
Thune: less than 1%
Crist: less than 0.5%

Margin of error: +/- 3.5 points
Sample: 1001 adults
approx. 292 Republicans and Republican-leaning independents
Conducted: July 15-18, 2009

[Click to Enlarge]

First of all, this figure is getting a touch messy with the inclusion of Thune and Crist. Even still, the same pattern we've seen in these polls reemerges here: the Huckabee/Palin/Romney trio continue to be clustered relatively close together, outpacing all other possible candidates. [And it should be noted that that pattern surfaces with just 292 GOP/GOP-leaning respondents nationally. So take this poll with an extra grain of salt -- this question at least. The margin of error among that portion of the sample is likely pretty high.] It just so happens that the former Arkansas governor is getting another turn at the top.

I wouldn't read too much into Huckabee's showing (or anyone else for that matter), but I will take the opportunity to say that if last year's delegate runner-up for the GOP nomination is serious about a repeat bid in 2012, he is going to have to get a move on. From a polling perspective, he's fine, but financially he's quickly falling off the pace being set by his leading counterparts' political action committees. Both Romney's Free and Strong America PAC and Palin's SarahPAC are doing quite well in the first half of 2009. Huckabee, on the other hand, has yet to report any numbers for his Huck PAC, and that fact in conjunction with the news that the PAC is undergoing some restructuring, is a troubling start.

Again, this is all extremely early. As John McCain demonstrated during the 2008 cycle, campaign restructuring and dire financial straits aren't necessarily dealbreakers. However, 2012 won't be 2008 for the Republicans. They are facing an incumbent Democrat in the White House and will likely be looking for someone who has some gravitas among the elites within the party and an ability to raise funds and lots of them. Romney meets both those criteria the best at the moment. Palin lacks the internal party connections and Huckabee trails on both fronts.

The main question now is whether 2012 will be like 1996 or 2000 for the Republican Party. Will they have a fairly active primary campaign like in 1996 or will most of the party quickly coalesce around a candidate as in 2000? Part of the problem of assessing that question is that we have reached something of a crossroads on the divisive primaries/parties question. The pre-2008 thinking was that the quicker you line up behind someone (thus avoiding drawn-out divisiveness), the better your chances are in the general election. Post-2008, though, the thinking is slightly different. Can a drawn-out, yet not personally divisive nomination battle actually help a parties nominee from an organizational standpoint? Obama's narrow electoral college wins in Indiana and North Carolina are often cited as evidence that the primary campaign organization helped in the general election.

My (two and a half years in advance) guess is that the GOP may pay some lip service to the organizational idea, but will ultimately make a quick decision on the 2012 nomination. And I should note that I've been talking about this as if the party has complete control over this. They don't. Conditions have a large say in the matter. Democratic primary and caucus voters were evenly divided in 2008, but Republican voters may not follow suit in 2012. That potential is there (Palin grassroots vs. Romney establishment, for example), but, as I said, I think it is more likely that a consensus forms around one candidate. If the GOP elite signal in a way similar to 2000 with Bush, that they are solidly behind one candidate, then it will be difficult for anyone to disrupt the inevitability story.

All that from a poll of 292 Republicans and independents leaning Republican? Yeah, I know.

*The list of candidates included Haley Barbour, Jeb Bush, Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin, Tim Pawlenty and Mitt Romney.


Recent Posts:
Presidential Primary Reform Week: The Fair and Representative Presidential Primaries Act of 2009

Presidential Primary Reform Week: Congressional Action

Louisiana 2012: Jindal/Palin Both Top Obama

Romney Leads 2012 GOP Race (...and in more than just the Gallup Poll)

FHQ has been in the habit of calling Mitt Romney the frontrunner for the 2012 Republican nomination despite polls conducted earlier in the year that have shown him trailing Mike Huckabee and/or Sarah Palin. That trend has also held in hypothetical general election match ups against President Obama. July, though, has been good to Mitt Romney. Perhaps it is due to poll respondents just coming around to the idea of Romney as a likable (and likable may not be the proper word) 2012 candidate or because all the commotion among other GOP prospects for 2012 (see Ensign, John and Sanford, Mark). That probably isn't an either/or proposition. Respondents likely look on Romney more favorably now simply because of what is going on among the other possibilities. Comparatively, the former Massachusetts governor looks quite good.

And though the favorable/unfavorable differential for Romney still trails both Palin and Huckabee among Republicans, the next-in-line guy for the GOP leads the pack in Gallup's look forward to the race for the Party of Lincoln's nomination. Here are the particulars:


And I'm assuming that the remaining 15% either did not have an opinion or named other candidates (who received 1% or less).

These results dovetail nicely with the similar Rasmussen results from last week. Romney leads but is clustered with Palin and Huckabee ahead of Newt Gingrich and well ahead of other prospective challengers with less name recognition (at this point). And though those top three have taken turns in the top spot, they have, as a group, consistently hovered above everyone else with only Gingrich coming close. Here's how the trend looks across the limited polling conducted thus far in 2009:

[Click to Enlarge]

But polling isn't really the full story. It never is. The Cohen, et al. (2008) book I've referenced several times in this space would have us look at fundraising totals and endorsements as well. As we're still in 2009, information on the latter is going to be hard to come by, so let's focus on the fundraising aspect, but more generally the financial activity of the top three's political action committees. With disclosure reports due to the Federal Elections Commission recently, a host of up-to-date data have been made public. Just this morning Chris Cillizza at The Fix examined not only how much Romney's Free and Strong America PAC had raised during the first five months of the year (the most recently filed report for Romney only covers January-May 2009), but also to whom the PAC was contributing. Here's Cillizza:

"Romney Fundraising Soars: Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney proved he is light years in front of his 2012 rivals in the fundraising game by collecting more than $1.6 million through his Free and Strong America PAC in the first six months of 2009, and spreading donations out to a variety of candidates and causes in critical states. Romney donated the maximum $6,800 to New Jersey Republican gubernatorial nominee and made a series of $5,000 donations to Bob McDonnell, Bill Bolling and Ken Cuccinelli who are running for governor, lieutenant governor and attorney general in Virginia this fall. Romney also directed contributions to key 2012 states; he donated $5,000 to South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint and used his affiliated state PAC to give $10,000 to the New Hampshire Republican Party and $1,000 to Jeb Bradley, a former congressman who won a New Hampshire state Senate special election earlier this year. A dozen Republican members of the House received $1,000 contributions from Free and Strong America including Minority Whip Eric Cantor (Va.) and National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Pete Sessions (Texas). Romney ended June with $842,000 in the bank. The depth of Romney's fundraising coupled with the strategic smarts with which he doled the money out is evidence that he has never really stopped running for president following his primary loss to John McCain in 2008."

The formula, then, is not unlike Barack Obama's following the 2004 elections: raise money for and get involved in high profile races and strategically contribute to candidates in crucial (presidential) electoral locations. As the numbers indicate, Mitt Romney has had more of an opportunity to do this than the other two candidates he has been lumped in with in the early going of the 2012 cycle. Romney's Free and Strong America PAC has pulled in $1.6 million to Palin's SarahPAC's $733,000 to Huckabee's Huck PAC's $0 (Follow the links to the PAC's pages at OpenSecrets or the FEC.). [Note that the scales on the vertical axis in the figures below are different. Romney's bars may come in under where Huckabee's and Palin's are, but there's a more than 3:1 difference in those scales.]

[Click to Enlarge]

I actually saw Romney's financial numbers this morning before the Gallup poll and it got me thinking about the state of Huckabee's operation as well. Ed Kilgore, in tearing down what he called the Next-In-Line Myth, stated (I'm paraphrasing here) that if the measure of that status is the number of delegates won in a previous nomination cycle, then Huckabee has as much right to the next-in-line label as Romney. And that statement was in the back of my mind when I looked up Huckabee's (lack of a) haul during the first half of the year. What separates Romney from Huckabee and Palin is not polling (not at this point at least), but the money war and organization. In both regards, Romney has a pretty good head start over is competitors, making Cillizza's last statement above instructive.

The take home message here is that Romney is leading where it counts now -- fundraising -- and is angling for a solidification of the second part of the Cohen, et al. puzzle: endorsements. The former presidential candidate's ability to raise money allows him the relative luxury of contributing to the campaigns and PACs of leaders within the party and GOP candidates in close races for reelection. That sort of giving comes in handy when the invisible primary nears completion and endorsements are at a premium with Iowa and New Hampshire around the corner.


Recent Posts:
Revisiting Democratic Delegate Allocation (1976-2008)

On the Polling Horizon: Louisiana 2012?

State of the Race: Virginia (7/15/09)

A Woefully, nay, Dreadfully Tardy Update of the 2012 Presidential Trial Heats

Last month*, Public Policy Polling [pdf] released the results of another round of 2012 presidential trial-heat surveys. As has been their custom in monthly installments over the last three months, PPP has attempted to gauge how four (of the most) likely Republicans (Gingrich, Huckabee, Palin and Romney) stack up against President Obama. [For a full look at the March (for a Palin-only version), April and May iterations, see here, here and here.] The most noticeable trend has been that Obama has been above the 50% mark and more than double digits up on each candidate in each month with but one exception. Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee kept the president under 50% and came within seven points of Obama in his first appearance in the poll in April. And that was the only incidence in which those two indicators coincided until the June survey.

And it wasn't Huckabee who fared best.

[Click to Enlarge]
Obama: 49 Gingrich: 41

Newt Gingrich pulled Obama below the majority line and simultaneously broke the 40% barrier himself for the first time in three tries. Still, the former speaker bests only Sarah Palin in terms of unfavorability in these polls.

[Click to Enlarge]
Obama: 50 Huckabee: 43

On favorability, Mike Huckabee has been the most likable Republican of the four across these three polls, yet only marginally better than Mitt Romney. Both still maintain fairly high levels of undecideds. Huckabee, though narrowly missed out on keeping Obama under 50% (The president was right on that mark against Huckabee in June.) while pulling in the highest percentage against Obama of any of these four Republicans.

[Click to Enlarge]
Obama: 52 Palin: 40

It seems silly at this point to dissect the Palin numbers post-July 3, but I'll give it a go. Even before the Alaska governor's surprise resignation announcement, she was performing the worst of the GOP quartet in these polls. More importantly for her, though, she continues to be among the best of the best in the 2012 Republican primary polling conducted thus far. And that performance expands past her announcement into the first Rasmussen poll of the race this past week. If electability was an issue in a tight primary race, though, it could hurt Palin. But in the position we're in the cycle, I don't think now's the time to be making that call. I'll plant the idea, though.

[Click to Enlarge]
Obama: 48 Romney: 40

Finally, Mitt Romney fared much better in June than he had when he bottomed out in the May survey. While 40% isn't anything great for the "next in line" candidate, the former Massachusetts governor came within eight points of Obama; the lowest level the president has been at during the course of these several polls. Amid all the hoopla surrounding Mark Sanford, Sarah Palin and to a lesser extent, John Ensign, Romney's low-profile, picking his spots strategy seems shrewd for the moment. It is 2009 after all. Romney's position in this poll and consistently through the few primary polls (Oh, and I should mention the Pew findings concerning Romney's favorability ratings as well.) in conjunction with the calendar, as it currently exists but is likely to change, continues to be the best-positioned candidate for 2012. But Huckabee is at least on par with Romney on all of those counts with the exception of the calendar (especially if Palin enters too).

Here's an interesting note to end on: Is Huckabee, the 2012 version of John Edwards to Palin's Obama and Romney's Clinton? There are some interesting parallels there. Huckabee is a former Iowa caucus stand out, Palin is the upstart from the grassroots and Romney is the GOP establishment pick. If only there were proportional-only delegate allocation rules, lightning could maybe, just maybe, strike twice. I won't count those chickens, though. [I will also try to limit my cliche usage.]

*Ugh, that's hard to type, but in true Brady fashion, "something suddenly came up" each time I was set to bang out the post. Alas, I'll post these in the right hand side bar for permanent horse-race coverage. PPP should have another update out within the next week to ten days if the past four months release times are any indication.


Recent Posts:
A 2012 Minnesota Toss Up, Too?

A 2012 Texas Toss Up?

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

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)

2012 GOP Primary Polling (July 2009 -- Rasmussen)

Is Palin in? Is she out?

That's been what everyone has been trying to hash out over these last few days since the former VP nominee's resignation announcement Friday. Regardless of the answer, though, Palin remains among the top tier of candidates in Rasmussen's first poll of the 2012 Republican presidential primary race (a poll conducted after the announcement). The soon to be former Alaska governor continues to poll nearly evenly with both Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee and as a trio they consistently run about ten points ahead of former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich and well ahead of the other potential challengers.

Between the two early CNN polls on the race (here and here) and the newly released Rasmussen poll, there is a fairly clear picture of where things stand. There is a top tier of candidates that has been solidified -- whether they enter or not -- and an as of yet undetermined group of secondary candidates. And those options haven't significantly changed since last November's election. Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee had their hats thrown in the race by virtue of their showings in the 2008 Republican primaries. Similarly, Sarah Palin being tapped as the 2008 presidential ticket number two and Gingrich's continued outspoken manner kept the two of them toward the front of the 2012 presidential queue.

[Click to Enlarge]

Those four options have been there, but the darkhorse options behind them have emerged and faded very quickly for still being three years away from the next round of primaries and caucuses. By this point, it is a bit redundant to recount the stories of Jon Huntsman, John Ensign or Mark Sanford, but it is the candidates of that ilk who will likely fill out the primary field in just two short years. This time around, Tim Pawlenty and Haley Barbour are the secondary candidates included in the poll. And as has been the case in the CNN polls (with Bobby Jindal and Jeb Bush ), the candidates outside of the foursome mentioned above lag well behind. However, among likely Republican primary voters, it is this group of candidates that still has the most to gain. Opinion has largely solidified around Palin, Romney, Huckabee and Gingrich and it is overwhelmingly positive (favorability to unfavorability ratio) as one might expect for well-known, prospective candidates among Republican voters.

[Click to Enlarge]

And while the "not sures" are well into the single digits for that quartet in the Rasmussen poll, over a quarter of respondents are still unsure about both Pawlenty and Barbour. In other words, there is still a significant faction of likely Republican primary voters who have yet to fully weigh in on those secondary candidates. And there is still plenty of time for each to grow his or her support, but the second tier candidates have the most wiggle room and can yet make it up to the top tier.

Time will tell...


Recent Posts:
And Another Thing About Those Winner-Take-All Primaries

Happy July 4th! No More 'Politics as Usual' Palin Edition

State of the Race: New Jersey (7/1/09)

Is a Week Old New? 2012 GOP Primary Poll

FHQ is late on this -- about a week late -- but we find it necessary to keep a log of 2012 polls even if it means a delay.

CNN released a second poll on the 2012 GOP primary race; an update from February.

Pollster: CNN/Opinion Research
Date: 5/14-17/2009
Sample: 1010 adults (nationwide phone survey)
Margin of error: +/-4.5 points
Results:
Huckabee -- 22%
Palin -- 21%
Romney -- 21%
Gingrich -- 13%
Other -- 10%
Jeb Bush -- 6%

Not included: Bobby Jindal (in February -- 9%)

This isn't exciting because there aren't many polls, but like the trial heats PPP is doing with Obama, I feel compelled to create a visual for this:
Palin and Huckabee slip some from February, but both are still very much clustered together with Mitt Romney atop the pack still. Much of that could be attributable to Gingrich's inclusion in the second poll. The former Speaker pulled in 13% while Palin and Huckabee lost 12% combined. That conclusion, though, is a leap of faith to some degree. What's interesting is that 10% of Republicans are still planning on supporting "somone else," a result that didn't change with Jindal being dropped and Bush and Gingrich being added. I wonder if that is Ron Paul? Some of it likely is.

But all of this is silly. The 2012 campaign hasn't started yet.

...or has it.

Hat tip: GOP12, which wasn't late with poll commentary on this one.


Recent Posts:
Virginia is for Voters

The Calm After the... Well, It Wasn't a Storm.

Past is Prologue? The New Jersey Governor's Race

Memorial Day Travel and the 2012 Bumper Sticker Battle

The influence of bumper stickers on election outcomes can certainly be questioned (They have an effect?), but if my trip from Georgia to North Carolina and back (through early primary state, South Carolina, mind you) is any indication, then 2012 will be fought between Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin.


Mitt had some support in the Charlotte area...


















...and Sarah had her's on an Alabama RV in the Gaffney area of northeastwest South Carolina.








Recent Posts:
GOP Temporary Delegate Selection Committee in Place

More 2012 Polling: Huckabee's Still Tops Against Obama but No One Does Well

The 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar (5/20/09)

More 2012 Polling: Huckabee's Still Tops Against Obama but No One Does Well

Public Policy Polling has another set of 2012 presidential trial heat polls out and what stands out this month is that Obama has stretched his leads over all four Republicans polled. Mike Huckabee still fares the best, but none of the four prospective candidates even clears 40%. There's not really much to add, but here are the numbers and the real attraction is that I've added a visual to accompany the numbers. Now that we have multiple polls we can track the trend(s). That doesn't mean much with two polls -- it's just a couple of contour-less lines -- but Obama-Palin was polled in March as well, so we have three polls for that match-up. [Links to past PPP polls are under the May numbers.]

Obama: 56% Palin: 37%

4/23/09
3/18/09

Obama: 53% Romney: 35%

4/23/09

Obama: 52% Huckabee: 39%

4/23/09

Obama: 53% Gingrich: 36%

4/23/09

Notes:
1) As I mentioned in the Palin post the other day -- and as Jack reiterated -- Palin is purported to be a grassroots candidate, but her support in the polls seems to be dropping off. Political insiders v. the masses? Maybe not. It could be insiders/masses v. Palin supporters. Of course, the Alaska governor drew more support than the candidate FHQ has tabbed as the favorite for the GOP nomination [but what do I know?].

2) Is Romney doing worse with Huntsman out of the race? Sure, that's a coincidence, but the drop off isn't anything to sneeze at. And with the debate shifting in recent days to foreign policy (Gitmo in particular), Romney, the economy candidate, is pushed further out of the picture.

3) It is early, early, early, but it is still nice to have some data to look at.


Recent Posts:
The 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar (5/20/09)

Here's the Problem for Palin in a Nutshell

Down and Out in Minnesota

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

Like a Kid in a Candy Store: A 2012 GOP Presidential Preference Poll

From CNN/Opinion Research Corporation:

Palin: 29%
Huckabee: 26%
Romney: 21%
Jindal: 9%

Sample: 429 Republicans (nationally)
MoE: 4.5%
Conducted Wednesday and Thursday of last week (2/18-19)

A couple of thoughts:
1) Palin, Huckabee and Romney are basically tied and Jindal is simply suffering from a lack of name recognition nationally at this point. The poll was done prior to his appearance on Meet the Press last weekend and before his response to Obama's speech to Congress this week. Poor performance or not, I suspect the Louisiana governor would have made it into the low to mid-double digits if the poll had been conducted this week.

2) If these are the candidates, I have to say that this bodes well for Mitt Romney. With Iowa and South Carolina having such conservative Republicans, there's the potential that Huckabee and Palin split the conservative vote (Huckabee's 2008 organization vs. Palin's appeal) and open the door for Romney. The former Massachusetts governor finished second to John McCain in New Hampshire and won the Nevada caucuses in 2008. Granted this is all predicated on both the idea that the calendar remains pretty much the same as it was in 2008 and that Jindal never gets off the ground in his efforts. Neither of those are sure things this far out.

Plus, as Pollster points out: at a similar point four years ago Hillary Clinton led John Kerry 40% - 25% with John Edwards at 18%. Barack Obama? He wasn't included. And we see how that worked out.


Recent Posts:
2012 Primary Reform: Previous General Election Margin as a Means of Setting the Calendar

If You Were Indiana, What Would You Do in 2012? A View from Similar States

Indiana and 2012

Romney in Maine, Super Tuesday Voting Machines and the Super Bowl

Mitt Romney managed to get back in the win column again Saturday with a victory in the Maine Republican caucuses. So once again, Romney has bested his competition in a caucus state. That means all but an Iowa victory is separating im from having swept the caucus states thus far (Wyoming, Nevada, and Maine). Now, this isn't to suggest that Romney will sweep the caucuses on Tuesday (There are six in all: Alaska, Colorado, Kansas, Minnesota, Montana and North Dakota.), but it is an interesting footnote to the proceedings since January 3.

Maine results. (Well, partial ones from the Maine GOP.)

The other consideration for the GOP candidates heading into Super Tuesday this week is whether those states going have winner-take-all systems of delegate allocation. Which February 5 states fall into that category and how do the polls look for the top GOP candidates there? Looking at the map from the New York Times posted early last week, these are the states (There was some skepticism among the group during the live discussion group this week as to how accurate these were. They have been checked and verified at The GreenPapers.com.):

Arizona (53 Delegates)
McCain 41% Romney 25

California (not a true winner-take-all) (173 Delegates)
McCain 37% Romney 32

Connecticut (30 Delegates)
McCain 45% Romney 23

Delaware (18 Delegates)
No recent polls (But McCain did win there in 2000.).

Georgia (not a true winner-take-all) (72 Delegates)
McCain 31% Romney 29 Huckabee 25

Massachusetts (This contest's allocation is disputed. NYT and TGP have it as proportional, while Rhodes Cook--via Paul's Larry Sabato email the other day--has it as winner-take-all. This is Romney territory anyway.) (43 Delegates)
Romney 54% McCain 29

Missouri (58 Delegates)
McCain 35% Huckabee 28 Romney 26

New Jersey (52 Delegates)
McCain 49% Romney 26

New York (101 Delegates)
McCain 51% Romney 23

Oklahoma (not a true winner-take-all) (41 Delegates)
McCain 40 Huckabee 19 Romney 17

Utah (36 Delegates)
No link available (Like Massachusetts, Utah is considered Romney country.).
*All poll numbers are from Real Clear Politics averages of the most recent polls in the states. Delegate numbers are from The New York Times.

If we look at just these states, McCain looks to be in very good shape. He's behind in two (MA & UT), ahead but close in another three (CA, GA & MO) and comfortably ahead in the rest. That could net him 335 delegates; nearly a third of what is needed for the nomination. And that doesn't count what he's already secured and the delegates he could get from the other Super Tuesday states. Unlike on the Democratic side (which uses a proportional allocation), the GOP has some variation here. Romney could come in a respectable second in several of these states and have nothing to show for it. That puts him in a real bind as Tuesday approaches.

Meanwhile with Super Tuesday just around the bend, Common Cause has released a report concerning the states most likely to have voting machine issues this week. And yes, Georgia is on there as one of the six states most likely to have "mishaps" with their machines (Arkansas, Delaware, New Jersey, New York and Tennessee are the rest.). In other words, there may be some side stories that make waves come Wednesday morning other than simply who won, who lost and how many delegates each candidates has.

Also, tonight is the Super Bowl. As I did with the State of the Union address this past week, I'll ask here whether the Pats-Giants game will distract from the campaign going on across all sectors of the country. The Orange Bowl on the night of the Iowa caucuses did nothing to dampen the spirits of caucus goers there, and this won't pull people's attention away for too long. Obama is up with "local" ads for the game.

The Kid Gloves come out in Boca Raton

After Monday night's brouhaha among the Democrats in South Carolina, the active candidates for the GOP nomination gathered in Florida last night to demonstrate the civility the party has to offer. With the margin between first and second in state polls tightening between McCain and Romney, you'd expect to see Giuliani come out swinging in an attempt to recapture the lead he once enjoyed in the state. At the very least you would expect to see him draw some contrasts between himself and the two candidates perceived to be ahead of him now. But that wasn't the case. If you were on stage last night you got the kid glove treatment from your opponents and an occasional one-liner from Mike Huckabee. If you weren't on the stage and your name was Hillary Clinton, you were met with some sharp criticism on everything from the war to being the epitome of the broken Washington Mitt Romney continues to talk about.

So if you tuned in expecting fireworks similar to those displayed on the Democratic side earlier in the week, you left disappointed and wondering what if any effect those 90 minutes would have on Tuesday's primary. One thing that was interesting was the return to the types of attacks on Clinton that dominated these Republican debates over the summer and into the fall when she was viewed as the presumptive Democratic nominee. Just as we saw McCain's name come up in the Democrats' debate as the heir to the GOP nomination, Clinton's was the name attached to the head of November's Democratic ticket. If anything, these types of discussions force primary voters (or at least the folks actually tuning in) to at least consider general election electability to some extent. The other thing it does is drive some of the inevitability arguments that pop up in the face of any primary/caucus victory.

Having said that, either a Romney or McCain victory in Florida doesn't fundamentally change the outlook of the race as February 5 approaches. If McCain wins, Romney still has his personal wealth to fall back on and Romney wins, McCain is still well-positioned in the states that are the prizes of Super Tuesday. Of course, should Romney win, McCain's poll numbers could change. But Romney's money as a factor won't change in the event that McCain pulls out another victory on Tuesday.

In other news, Dennis Kucinich is set to withdraw from the race for the Democratic nomination to protect his seat in Congress. And to think, he could have been out much sooner if Ohio had been successful in moving its primaries up to January 29 last fall.

The other issue that has arisen on the Democratic side is the four state pledge made by the candidates to protect the four states (IA, NH, NV and SC) which were exempted by the DNC to hold primaries ahead of February 5. DNC sanctions exist to penalize any state that jumps ahead of that point and any candidate who campaigns in such a state. Florida and Michigan both had their entire delegations stripped and because of the potential sanctions and the pledge to stay out of any violating state, the candidates have ignored Michigan and Florida. Well, until some of Obama's national cable ads were shown in Florida causing some to question whether the Clinton camp would jump into the fray and initiate some efforts in the state. Since Tuesday the Clinton folks have denied that they would break the pledge and campaign in Florida. But they did have the perfect opportunity to break that pledge in a state where Clinton has a commanding lead in the polls.

There is one follow up to the blog's last post. Yesterday came and went with no endorsement from influential South Carolina representative, Jim Clyburn. With Obama looking poised for victory there, there was no need (at least strategically) to endorse someone who isn't necessarily slated for the nomination. That, and the last time Obama looked assured of victory (in relation to the polls), Clinton scored a "huge upset" in New Hampshire. Just ask Al Gore how his endorsement of Howard Dean in 2004 worked out.

Polls close at 7pm tomorrow night in South Carolina and if you like to follow along with an interactive map at scvotes.org.

If you missed last night's tame affair from Florida, but are nonetheless a political junkie seeking your next fix, the video is still up over at MSNBC.

Clinton and Romney claim Nevada Victories and SC polls just closed

Former Massachusetts governor, Mitt Romney made it two in a row with an easy win in the Nevada GOP caucus this morning to go along with his win in the Michigan primary on Tuesday. Taking a winning streak into an off week won't hurt him either with Florida voters now having just less than two weeks to consider what still remains an open race on the Republican side. While Romney's camp made a last minute decision to focus on Nevada every other candidate (well, almost every other one--Giuliani is still in Florida) was putting in time in South Carolina. The polls just closed in the Palmetto state and early exit polls indicate the economy and immigration (see 7:09pm post) were on the minds of South Carolina's Republican primary voters; a clear advantage for Huckabee. TRACKING...

7:41pm: Very early but with one percent of precincts in, McCain has a 38-23 lead over Huckabee (Look, I said it was early.).

8:05pm: Just to show you that 1% isn't representative of the entire state of South Carolina on the GOP side: McCain 34, Huckabee 30 with 12% in. This one could be fun. Third place seems like a real battle between Thompson and Romney with hovering around 14%.

9:29pm: The New York Times is calling the race for McCain. When you look at that 15% that Thompson got you can't help but wonder how much that hurt Huckabee's chances at a win in SC. He (Huckabee) has a tough row to hoe now.

Meanwhile the Democrats had a caucus in Nevada as well, where Hillary Clinton continued a streak of her own. She has now run her streak of victories to two (three if you want to count Michigan and the DNC isn't) after an initial setback in Iowa's caucuses. And boy were the polls from earlier in the week wrong. What looked like a tight three-way race for the Silver state turned into a tight two-way race as former North Carolina senator, John Edwards managed a meager four percent of the vote. Clinton and Obama split the remaining 96%, 51-45. Obama didn't seem to get the support he was hoping for from the endorsement of the Culinary Workers union. While the union's endorsement was seen as a big deal, it didn't prove influential among the rank and file members as some strayed into the Clinton camp.

While the GOP is off until Florida on January 29, the Democrats have their own primary in South Carolina next Saturday where the support of African Americans will be key to which ever candidate claims victory there.

Nevada results.

GOP opts for foot race to determine nominee following Michigan primary

Someone has to win this thing, right? First Huckabee. Then McCain. Now Romney (Sorry Wyoming. If the GOP race continues like this, those eight delegates may eventually prove consequential despite the lack of coverage ten days ago.). The AP is projecting that Romney has won the Michigan primary by a similar margin to what McCain won New Hampshire by last week. Honestly, don't be surprised if Fred Thompson wins in South Carolina over the weekend. So once Giuliani wins in Florida the Republicans can start over again on Super Tuesday.
Romney 37%
McCain 31
Huckabee 16
--with 11% of precincts in.

Meanwhile Clinton has a commanding 2-1 lead over "uncommitted" on the Democratic side.
Clinton 61%
Uncommitted 33
--with 18% of precincts reporting (9:20pm)

Oh and the Democrats are debating (sans Kucinich). I'm on the outside looking in since MSNBC and laptop aren't on speaking terms tonight. If you are in the same boat I'm in, The Caucus blog over at The New York Times is live blogging the debate.

Romney wins in Wyoming

The nomination fight left Iowa Thursday and headed, for the most part, to New Hampshire in anticipation of Tuesday's primary there. However, the GOP took a small detour to Wyoming today, for a caucus there. Mind you, this detour did not include any immediate attention from any of the Republican candidates, but it did include a caucus that distributed twelve delegates to this summer's GOP convention in Minneapolis. Small peanuts, sure. But a win's a win and Mitt Romney can now lay claim to a win in Wyoming's county conventions; wrapping up eight of the twelve delegates at stake.

What impact does that have on New Hampshire for Tuesday? Given that you really have to dig to find any news of this and the fact that visits from the candidates were limited at best, I doubt much affect will be felt.

The results:
Romney: 8 delegates
Thompson: 3
Hunter: 1

And the Campaign Discussion Group goes online

Here are a few things of note for the group in the lead up to our discussion on Friday:

1) Hillary Clinton and John McCain receive the endorsements of the Des Moines Register. Experience seems to be the name of the game for the editorial board at the paper. How else could you explain McCain getting the nod on the Republican side? Iowa hasn't been his strength in either 2000 or 2008. What impact will it have on the race? Well, Edwards got the paper's blessing in 2004 and that certainly didn't hurt him on his way to a surprising second place finish in the state. It is interesting that the write up of the endorsement made mention of this. And I will admit that I'm torn as to how to take the mention of the 2004 endorsement. Is the editorial board saying, "Well, this guy did well here four years ago and he's in this race as a top tier candidate too," or "This guy did well here four years ago and well, he's in third now." What does everyone else think?

2) And speaking of Hillary... Another of her surrogates, former Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey, made the mistake of opening his mouth about Obama (then backed away from them). Fresh off the Bill Shaheen comments about possible drug use in Obama's past, the Clinton camp found another of its backers, Kerrey, highlighting the Illinois senator's middle name (Hussein) and Muslim background following an event with the former first lady. I thought it was the bloggers and members of the new media who were supposed to threaten the power candidates have over their own campaigns, not those within their camp.

3) Mitt Romney is making a rare stop in Georgia today. His swing through South Carolina closes across the border with meeting with the press in Savannah, GA. And who said Feb. 5 wasn't early enough for Georgia. [Blogger raising hand.]

4) Finally, if you don't already be sure and check out these other blogs:
The Fix (by Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post): US elections in general are covered.
The Caucus (The New York Times politics blog): Campaign 2008
The Primary Source (by James Pindell of the Boston Globe): All about NH.

Feel free to drop a comment or any news you have by clicking on the link below. This should be fun.