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
Showing posts with label Sarah Palin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sarah Palin. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Thursday, July 16, 2009
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:
[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)
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)
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?
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.
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?
Sunday, July 12, 2009
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.
.png)
[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.
.png)
[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.
.png)
[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.
.png)
[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)
And it wasn't Huckabee who fared best.
.png)
[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.
.png)
[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.
.png)
[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.
.png)
[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)
Saturday, July 11, 2009
A 2012 Minnesota Toss Up, Too?
Eh, not so much.
I couldn't get much more than a tweet out yesterday about the Public Policy Polling [pdf] survey of Minnesota (It was my last day on the beach. What can I say?), but I don't want to let the results go by without comment.
First of all, PPP at least one-upped the Texas poll released a day earlier, by asking the hypothetical 2012 general election question with two candidates (Tim Pawlenty and Sarah Palin) instead of one (Mitt Romney). It would have been nice if they would have included all of the primary prospective candidates the organization has been polling on the national level. [Speaking of which, be on the lookout Sunday for an updated and long overdue version of the trial-heat graphs I started a while back to account for the changes from June.] But PPP didn't ask the hypothetical, "if the election were held today" question with Gingrich, Huckabee or Romney alongside Obama.
Oh well. I'm not going to get picky. This isn't 2011.
But PPP did provide us with some interesting information about the state of play in Minnesota:
What these results tell me is that 2012 is going to be a very difficult year for sitting or recently term limited/"stepping down" governors to do well in the presidential primaries. There is just too much for them to answer for, it appears. Granted, things could turn around on the economic front, but this past few years won't necessarily be kind to governors in the near future. Tim Pawlenty is exhibit one: a Republican governor in a blue state who is trailing the incumbent president in a poll of said state. And the speculation surrounding his decision not to seek a third gubernatorial term places him squarely in the 2012 sweepstakes discussion. It isn't as if John Hoeven was the prospective Republican candidate and the poll was conducted in North Dakota. Pawlenty is at least a legitimate candidate for the GOP in 2012. He may not win the nomination, but he is legitimate. To come up so far behind the president, then, is a bit of an eye-opener. Yes, this is still just one poll, but I do think it speaks to this larger point about governors in the next cycle. The task is going to be a daunting one with all the red ink at the state level these days. And for Pawlenty (and Palin, too), he won't be around to reap any rewards if things start turning around in any noticeable way between now and 2011-12. I mean, we're not talking about George W. Bush in the late 1990s here (popular governor of a populous state during an economic boom).
So let's put this idea on the shelf for the time being and revisit it when the field of candidates starts to take shape. Governors from states that are doing relatively well may have an advantage over those who either are from states that are doing worse or have since left office. Does Haley Barbour fit in the former category? Who else fits in the latter (other than Palin and Pawlenty)?
Thoughts?
Recent Posts:
A 2012 Texas Toss Up?
State of the Race: New Jersey (7/9/09)
Which is Bigger?
I couldn't get much more than a tweet out yesterday about the Public Policy Polling [pdf] survey of Minnesota (It was my last day on the beach. What can I say?), but I don't want to let the results go by without comment.
First of all, PPP at least one-upped the Texas poll released a day earlier, by asking the hypothetical 2012 general election question with two candidates (Tim Pawlenty and Sarah Palin) instead of one (Mitt Romney). It would have been nice if they would have included all of the primary prospective candidates the organization has been polling on the national level. [Speaking of which, be on the lookout Sunday for an updated and long overdue version of the trial-heat graphs I started a while back to account for the changes from June.] But PPP didn't ask the hypothetical, "if the election were held today" question with Gingrich, Huckabee or Romney alongside Obama.
Oh well. I'm not going to get picky. This isn't 2011.
But PPP did provide us with some interesting information about the state of play in Minnesota:
Obama: 51%President Obama, then, is ahead of the state's outgoing (as of 2010) governor by roughly the same margin he bested John McCain by in the North Star state last November and he's leading the soon(er)-to-be outgoing Alaska governor by nearly twice as much. Now, this isn't earth-shattering news here. Minnesota has been a reliably Democratic state throughout much of the last few decades, but has tightened some in recent elections until 2008. As others have pointed out (here and here), the approval numbers for Obama, Pawlenty and Palin may be another number to focus on, but I'll stick with the election question.
Pawlenty: 40%
Not Sure: 8%
Obama: 56%
Palin: 35%
Not Sure: 9%
What these results tell me is that 2012 is going to be a very difficult year for sitting or recently term limited/"stepping down" governors to do well in the presidential primaries. There is just too much for them to answer for, it appears. Granted, things could turn around on the economic front, but this past few years won't necessarily be kind to governors in the near future. Tim Pawlenty is exhibit one: a Republican governor in a blue state who is trailing the incumbent president in a poll of said state. And the speculation surrounding his decision not to seek a third gubernatorial term places him squarely in the 2012 sweepstakes discussion. It isn't as if John Hoeven was the prospective Republican candidate and the poll was conducted in North Dakota. Pawlenty is at least a legitimate candidate for the GOP in 2012. He may not win the nomination, but he is legitimate. To come up so far behind the president, then, is a bit of an eye-opener. Yes, this is still just one poll, but I do think it speaks to this larger point about governors in the next cycle. The task is going to be a daunting one with all the red ink at the state level these days. And for Pawlenty (and Palin, too), he won't be around to reap any rewards if things start turning around in any noticeable way between now and 2011-12. I mean, we're not talking about George W. Bush in the late 1990s here (popular governor of a populous state during an economic boom).
So let's put this idea on the shelf for the time being and revisit it when the field of candidates starts to take shape. Governors from states that are doing relatively well may have an advantage over those who either are from states that are doing worse or have since left office. Does Haley Barbour fit in the former category? Who else fits in the latter (other than Palin and Pawlenty)?
Thoughts?
Recent Posts:
A 2012 Texas Toss Up?
State of the Race: New Jersey (7/9/09)
Which is Bigger?
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Which is Bigger?
You'd think a hybrid hiking/Argentine vacation and extramarital affair would top a governor resigning from office.
...until you consider who it is resigning. A very interesting, albeit unsurprising visual from Google Trends. [Bobby Jindal's response to Obama is but a mere blip on the radar now.]
You can play around with the Candidate Emergence Tracker here.
Recent Posts:
State of the Race: Virginia (7/8/09)
2012 GOP Primary Polling (June 2009 -- Rasmussen)
And Another Thing About Those Winner-Take-All Primaries
...until you consider who it is resigning. A very interesting, albeit unsurprising visual from Google Trends. [Bobby Jindal's response to Obama is but a mere blip on the radar now.]
You can play around with the Candidate Emergence Tracker here.
Recent Posts:
State of the Race: Virginia (7/8/09)
2012 GOP Primary Polling (June 2009 -- Rasmussen)
And Another Thing About Those Winner-Take-All Primaries
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
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.
-1.png)
[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)
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.
-1.png)
[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)
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Happy July 4th! No More 'Politics as Usual' Palin Edition
First off, FHQ wants to wish everyone out there a Happy Independence Day.
Good, now that that's out of the way, we can get down to the real business of the holiday weekend: Sarah Palin's surprise (Is it still a surprise today? Yeah, I think it is.) announcement that she's not only not seeking re-election to her current position as Alaska governor, but that she will be resigning the post altogether toward the end of July. Half a day later, I'm still trying to make sense of the move. Of course, in retrospect, it may be futile to try and make sense of it.
Is she running for president?
Some think so.
Is she running for senate?
That idea has been thrown out there.
Is she done with politics for good?
That, too, is on the table. I couldn't say I'd blame her.
Could it be all three? Well, it couldn't be (not if she's done "for good"). But let's assume she's just taking a break* and that she and Lisa Murkowski have a "deal" to basically switch places. Palin runs for Senate and Murkowski comes home to run for governor in 2010. Is it far-fetched? Sure. Lt. Governor Sean Parnell will certainly have a claim to the governor's office at that point. However, Murkowski would start out with name recognition in the state; an understatement considering her father, Frank, served as the state's governor earlier this decade (not to mention a senator for two decades prior to that.).
Well, why would Palin quit her current job to do this? I'd argue that a backroom deal such as this proposed political switch is a direct challenge to the "politics as usual" she has been fighting against. Yes, it's still far-fetched, but I'm throwing the idea on to the table.
I'm on the road today (and was yesterday), so I'll be back later with more. In the meantime, consider this an open thread on the Palin issue. I'll move the comments already made (in the New Jersey post) over here later on.
Happy 4th everyone! (Oh, and thanks to Jack for the Mitchell and Cillizza links above.)
*I'll define break as building the organizational infrastructure necessary for a national run.
Recent Posts:
State of the Race: New Jersey (7/1/09)
Could Open Primaries Actually Help the GOP in 2012?
Did Democratic Superdelegates Write Their Own Epitaph?
Good, now that that's out of the way, we can get down to the real business of the holiday weekend: Sarah Palin's surprise (Is it still a surprise today? Yeah, I think it is.) announcement that she's not only not seeking re-election to her current position as Alaska governor, but that she will be resigning the post altogether toward the end of July. Half a day later, I'm still trying to make sense of the move. Of course, in retrospect, it may be futile to try and make sense of it.
Is she running for president?
Some think so.
Is she running for senate?
That idea has been thrown out there.
Is she done with politics for good?
That, too, is on the table. I couldn't say I'd blame her.
Could it be all three? Well, it couldn't be (not if she's done "for good"). But let's assume she's just taking a break* and that she and Lisa Murkowski have a "deal" to basically switch places. Palin runs for Senate and Murkowski comes home to run for governor in 2010. Is it far-fetched? Sure. Lt. Governor Sean Parnell will certainly have a claim to the governor's office at that point. However, Murkowski would start out with name recognition in the state; an understatement considering her father, Frank, served as the state's governor earlier this decade (not to mention a senator for two decades prior to that.).
Well, why would Palin quit her current job to do this? I'd argue that a backroom deal such as this proposed political switch is a direct challenge to the "politics as usual" she has been fighting against. Yes, it's still far-fetched, but I'm throwing the idea on to the table.
I'm on the road today (and was yesterday), so I'll be back later with more. In the meantime, consider this an open thread on the Palin issue. I'll move the comments already made (in the New Jersey post) over here later on.
Happy 4th everyone! (Oh, and thanks to Jack for the Mitchell and Cillizza links above.)
*I'll define break as building the organizational infrastructure necessary for a national run.
Recent Posts:
State of the Race: New Jersey (7/1/09)
Could Open Primaries Actually Help the GOP in 2012?
Did Democratic Superdelegates Write Their Own Epitaph?
Thursday, June 25, 2009
The Answer is Yes
For the first time this year since Bobby Jindal gave the Republican response to President Obama's speech before a joint session of Congress, Sarah Palin searches have been surpassed by another (now former) prospective Republican presidential candidate. Last night FHQ asked aloud whether Mark Sanford's searches, once they were incorporated into Google Trends, would settle in between where John Ensign searches were a week ago following the Nevada senator's announcement and where Palin searches have been post-Letterman or surpass Palin. They seem to have passed Palin and then some. In fact, the first of the two Palin spikes in June is the highest the Alaska governor has been all year and that is around the same height Jindal reached in the pre-/post-response period.
The Sanford data has not been fully implemented in the main Google Trends search, but is working with our tracker for whatever reason. The F in the screenshot above denotes where Sanford admitted to the affair and we can also see the first of the two Palin spikes in June there as well and that it rivals the Jindal jump in February.
Needless to say, Sanford searches over the last few days have outpaced both Palin and Jindal by far in 2009. And that says something about what we see in these trends and what that tells us about the candidate emergence tracker in general. First, none of these search spikes are for "good" reasons. The tracker's intent is to pick up an organic movement toward a particular candidate -- to see a candidate emerge. And it is not a good thing for the Republican Party overall or the tracker generally that all the movement thus far is being triggered by scandal-related or other negatively-identified moments.
But I'll have more on that tomorrow when I look at the state of the 2012 race for the GOP nomination.
Recent Posts:
State of the Race: New Jersey (6/25/09)
DNC to Provide Coverage of Democratic Change Commission Meeting on Saturday
What Scandal Does to the Candidate Emergence Tracker
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
What Scandal Does to the Candidate Emergence Tracker
No, the Mark Sanford numbers aren't actually factored into the archived Google Trends data on the FHQ Candidate Emergence Tracker yet, but the numbers from John Ensign's affair announcement may give us some indication of where Sanford may end up.
Who is represented by that orange line? That's Sarah Palin. Well, Sarah Palin and David Letterman. That particular bump dwarfs the Ensign announcement bump in purple. Both those incidents and where Mark Sanford searches end up underline one important point about the tracker: That the influence of news coverage has to be accounted for in some way.
As we've pointed out several times since we began working with this data, there is a certain recursiveness to this relationship. Candidates drive the media and the media drives candidates. What we have to be on the lookout for in this data is the extent to which news story triggers a bump and then decays over time. Does the trend decay to the point that the earlier equilibrium of searches for that candidate resumes or do we see the emergence of a new equilibrium with a higher/lower search volume. If the track is upward, especially three years away from the next election, we may be seeing the organic, grassroots emergence we originally hypothesized about.
The somewhat unrelated question for now, given that the South Carolina governor is likely out of the 2012 White House sweepstakes, is whether Mark Sanford surpasses Palin/Letterman or settles in between that level and Ensign's announcement last week. I'll update as soon as that becomes apparent on the tracker.
Recent Posts:
The Group That Might Change It All? A Closer Look at the Democratic Change Commission's Membership
Democratic Change Commission Meeting This Weekend
Why the Sanford Thing Matters
Who is represented by that orange line? That's Sarah Palin. Well, Sarah Palin and David Letterman. That particular bump dwarfs the Ensign announcement bump in purple. Both those incidents and where Mark Sanford searches end up underline one important point about the tracker: That the influence of news coverage has to be accounted for in some way. As we've pointed out several times since we began working with this data, there is a certain recursiveness to this relationship. Candidates drive the media and the media drives candidates. What we have to be on the lookout for in this data is the extent to which news story triggers a bump and then decays over time. Does the trend decay to the point that the earlier equilibrium of searches for that candidate resumes or do we see the emergence of a new equilibrium with a higher/lower search volume. If the track is upward, especially three years away from the next election, we may be seeing the organic, grassroots emergence we originally hypothesized about.
The somewhat unrelated question for now, given that the South Carolina governor is likely out of the 2012 White House sweepstakes, is whether Mark Sanford surpasses Palin/Letterman or settles in between that level and Ensign's announcement last week. I'll update as soon as that becomes apparent on the tracker.
Recent Posts:
The Group That Might Change It All? A Closer Look at the Democratic Change Commission's Membership
Democratic Change Commission Meeting This Weekend
Why the Sanford Thing Matters
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
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
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
Monday, May 25, 2009
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)
Mitt had some support in the Charlotte area...
...and Sarah had her's on an Alabama RV in the Gaffney area of north
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)
Thursday, May 21, 2009
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.]
.png)
Obama: 56% Palin: 37%
.png)
Obama: 53% Romney: 35%
.png)
Obama: 52% Huckabee: 39%
.png)
Obama: 53% Gingrich: 36%
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
.png)
Obama: 56% Palin: 37%.png)
Obama: 53% Romney: 35%.png)
Obama: 52% Huckabee: 39%.png)
Obama: 53% Gingrich: 36%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
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Here's the Problem for Palin in a Nutshell
Insiders vs. Masses
The Political Insiders Poll that the National Journal has done is enlightening. The most interesting bit asks partisans to name the current governors within their parties with the brightest futures. Check out the poll link above for the full details, but for our purposes, allow me to focus solely on the Republican side. That's where the action is anyway.
Here's the list of those drawing support (based on this question) from 99 GOP insiders ranked from most to least:
Jindal
Barbour
Pawlenty
Crist
Sanford
Huntsman
Daniels
Palin
No one
Schwarenegger
This isn't the greatest of news for Sarah Palin. Seven other current Republican governors top the former vice presidential candidate and the Alaska governor surpasses only the Governator and no one on the list not to mention the 13 other Republican governors. Still, out of 99 votes, Palin managed to garner only 5 votes. That's a pretty low number for a former vice presidential candidate.
...in the year immediately following the presidential election where said person was on the ticket.
But here's the rub: This poll was conducted among political insiders, not at the mass level where her support would be expected to be highest. Now, we could look at the Google Trends data where Palin is doing well relative to other potential candidates, but I don't know that the information we have there jibes well with the scant polling on 2012. Palin has actually polled quite low in those surveys which could suggest that the frequency of Google searches for her are propped up by the types of folks who like to gawk at car accidents -- accidents like the Levi Johnston dust-up.
This does have implications for the presidential primaries in 2012 if Palin decides to throw her hat in the ring. As we've mentioned here before, if anyone is likely buck party insiders in the primaries with support from the rank-and-file members of the GOP electorate, Sarah Palin is that candidate. The bad part for her though is that that sort of thing only rarely happens in Republican nomination races, but more often across the aisle. In other words, the elites are driving the results more in the GOP than among the Democrats. [Some may argue with that though.]
File this one away, though. If Palin enters the race, the tension between these two camps will decide how well she does.
Hat tip: Daily Kos
Recent Posts:
Down and Out in Minnesota
Hawaii Republicans Adopt Caucus System, Set Date for 2012
When Did Primary Become a Verb?
The Political Insiders Poll that the National Journal has done is enlightening. The most interesting bit asks partisans to name the current governors within their parties with the brightest futures. Check out the poll link above for the full details, but for our purposes, allow me to focus solely on the Republican side. That's where the action is anyway.
Here's the list of those drawing support (based on this question) from 99 GOP insiders ranked from most to least:
Jindal
Barbour
Pawlenty
Crist
Sanford
Huntsman
Daniels
Palin
No one
Schwarenegger
This isn't the greatest of news for Sarah Palin. Seven other current Republican governors top the former vice presidential candidate and the Alaska governor surpasses only the Governator and no one on the list not to mention the 13 other Republican governors. Still, out of 99 votes, Palin managed to garner only 5 votes. That's a pretty low number for a former vice presidential candidate.
...in the year immediately following the presidential election where said person was on the ticket.
But here's the rub: This poll was conducted among political insiders, not at the mass level where her support would be expected to be highest. Now, we could look at the Google Trends data where Palin is doing well relative to other potential candidates, but I don't know that the information we have there jibes well with the scant polling on 2012. Palin has actually polled quite low in those surveys which could suggest that the frequency of Google searches for her are propped up by the types of folks who like to gawk at car accidents -- accidents like the Levi Johnston dust-up.
This does have implications for the presidential primaries in 2012 if Palin decides to throw her hat in the ring. As we've mentioned here before, if anyone is likely buck party insiders in the primaries with support from the rank-and-file members of the GOP electorate, Sarah Palin is that candidate. The bad part for her though is that that sort of thing only rarely happens in Republican nomination races, but more often across the aisle. In other words, the elites are driving the results more in the GOP than among the Democrats. [Some may argue with that though.]
File this one away, though. If Palin enters the race, the tension between these two camps will decide how well she does.
Hat tip: Daily Kos
Recent Posts:
Down and Out in Minnesota
Hawaii Republicans Adopt Caucus System, Set Date for 2012
When Did Primary Become a Verb?
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
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
Monday, April 6, 2009
Blame Palin?
John Sides over at The Monkey Cage, freshly back from the Midwest Political Science Association conference over the weekend, has an interesting post* up this morning from a paper that was presented there. The paper by Richard Johnston and Emily Thorson uses the 2008 National Annenberg Election Study to examine the relationship between the candidates' poll standing over the last few months of the election, survey respondents' economic evaluations and the presidential and vice presidential candidate favorability ratings over the course of that period as well.
The weird thing? McCain's polls numbers, overall economic evaluations and Sarah Palin's favorability track almost exactly. As John says, "It's eerie."
It is and this is all interestingly suggestive, but is it possible that Palin was something of a reverse Obama during the campaign. No, I don't mean ideologically; that's fairly obvious. My angle here is that during Obama's emergence prior to the 2008 primaries, the then-senator from Illinois was still an unknown quantity. Those on the left paid more attention to the build up to the nomination race more and some on that side attached their hopes and dreams to Obama's run. Obama, say, would have had more movement in his support numbers when information emerged (negative or positive) than if something newsworthy broke on Hillary Clinton.
Well, Sarah Palin was that unknown quantity on the Republican side, but she was introduced during a much more hyper-partisan period than Obama. Folks -- on the right especially -- attached their hopes and dreams to her in a way similar to what Obama enjoyed over a much less partisan period and over a much longer length of time. But because of the general election environment in which she was introduced, folks on the left and some in the middle attached their negative feelings on the economy and the general state of things to her -- and apparently the McCain campaign -- as well.
Very interesting stuff. And what's more, the economic evaluations fluctuate more than what I glean from Tom Holbrook they did in the NES.
*Head on over and check out the graphs. Great visuals of the trend.
Recent Posts:
Presidential Candidate Emergence: An Alternate Measure
The 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar (4/4/09)
Georgia in 2012: Back to March?
The weird thing? McCain's polls numbers, overall economic evaluations and Sarah Palin's favorability track almost exactly. As John says, "It's eerie."
It is and this is all interestingly suggestive, but is it possible that Palin was something of a reverse Obama during the campaign. No, I don't mean ideologically; that's fairly obvious. My angle here is that during Obama's emergence prior to the 2008 primaries, the then-senator from Illinois was still an unknown quantity. Those on the left paid more attention to the build up to the nomination race more and some on that side attached their hopes and dreams to Obama's run. Obama, say, would have had more movement in his support numbers when information emerged (negative or positive) than if something newsworthy broke on Hillary Clinton.
Well, Sarah Palin was that unknown quantity on the Republican side, but she was introduced during a much more hyper-partisan period than Obama. Folks -- on the right especially -- attached their hopes and dreams to her in a way similar to what Obama enjoyed over a much less partisan period and over a much longer length of time. But because of the general election environment in which she was introduced, folks on the left and some in the middle attached their negative feelings on the economy and the general state of things to her -- and apparently the McCain campaign -- as well.
Very interesting stuff. And what's more, the economic evaluations fluctuate more than what I glean from Tom Holbrook they did in the NES.
*Head on over and check out the graphs. Great visuals of the trend.
Recent Posts:
Presidential Candidate Emergence: An Alternate Measure
The 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar (4/4/09)
Georgia in 2012: Back to March?
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Election 2012: Obama 55 - Palin 35
It's just too bad Public Policy Polling didn't do this at the state level. I would have been tempted to start a new spreadsheet.
...three years in advance.
I would try to draw a comparison, but Pollster's archives only go back to late 2006. Plus, the inevitable Clinton-McCain head-to-heads that likely would have been done probably would have been much closer than 20 points. As the PPP release indicates, that's in Nixon-McGovern blowout territory. We know, for instance, that presidential elections are typically "closer" races than those downballot on average. Let's put it this way: Obama would have to do really well relative to expectations (Yes, that's a moving target.) and Palin would have to come across as really (probably extremely) conservative for 2012 to come anywhere close to that margin.
A couple of points on that last statement:
1) Some probably already view Palin as extremely conservative. But those are mostly Democrats (only 3% of which were undecided in this poll; compared with 18% of Republicans.).
2) Yes, there are extenuating circumstances that are confined to the campaign environment that could also help push that margin up or make it closer.
And here's the caveat to the poll:
This was a national poll conducted between March 13-15, but there were only a shade under 700 respondents. Yeah, that's a few hundred under where the usual national sample is in terms of numbers.
But hey, it's a 2012 poll, right?
(A doff of my cap to Pollster for the heads up.)
Recent Posts:
Now Why Didn't They Just Do This Last Week?
The Links (3/18/09): ANES Edition
More on 2008 Candidate Visits
...three years in advance.
I would try to draw a comparison, but Pollster's archives only go back to late 2006. Plus, the inevitable Clinton-McCain head-to-heads that likely would have been done probably would have been much closer than 20 points. As the PPP release indicates, that's in Nixon-McGovern blowout territory. We know, for instance, that presidential elections are typically "closer" races than those downballot on average. Let's put it this way: Obama would have to do really well relative to expectations (Yes, that's a moving target.) and Palin would have to come across as really (probably extremely) conservative for 2012 to come anywhere close to that margin.
A couple of points on that last statement:
1) Some probably already view Palin as extremely conservative. But those are mostly Democrats (only 3% of which were undecided in this poll; compared with 18% of Republicans.).
2) Yes, there are extenuating circumstances that are confined to the campaign environment that could also help push that margin up or make it closer.
And here's the caveat to the poll:
This was a national poll conducted between March 13-15, but there were only a shade under 700 respondents. Yeah, that's a few hundred under where the usual national sample is in terms of numbers.
But hey, it's a 2012 poll, right?
(A doff of my cap to Pollster for the heads up.)
Recent Posts:
Now Why Didn't They Just Do This Last Week?
The Links (3/18/09): ANES Edition
More on 2008 Candidate Visits
Friday, February 27, 2009
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
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
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
The Links (9/17/08): Debate Edition
If you're like me, you've been waiting on the next big thing in this presidential campaign: the debates. Well, we're a little over a week away from the first debate between John McCain and Barack Obama on Friday, September 26.
If you want a look back at debates past, PBS has an updated version of their documentary, Debating Our Destiny, up on their site. This is a condensed version of the original that packs the televised debates between1960 1976 and 1996 into the first twenty or so minutes before giving a more in-depth treatment to the debates from the last two cycles. These include not only clips of the debates but interviews with the candidates themselves. Good stuff.
Also, as I alluded to in my comment in a previous post, there is a difference in the formats from four years ago to now. Here is the break down from the Commission on Presidential Debates:
(domestic) (foreign policy*) and final (foreign policy) (domestic) debates will be divided into 8 ten minute issue segments is a different approach. One additional quirk is the effort between the Commission and MySpace (MyDebates.org) to allow for online streaming of the debates as well internet questions to be submitted for use in the town hall debate. Sadly, this will not include video questions from snowmen describing the downside of global warming. Democracy has its limits, I suppose.
As a wrap up to convention season, Tom Holbrook has a comparison of the his predictions for this year's conventions and the actual bumps they produced. FHQ will be back later in the day with its own examination of the changes on the state level.
One last and unrelated thing: If you are in search of something to do with a few spare seconds, check out the Sarah Palin Baby Name Generator. And if you have a few more spare seconds post your new names here. Tell 'em Stag Tonnage Palin sent you. (H/t to Enik Rising for the link.)
*It is sad that the Commission actually in charge of putting these debates on doesn't have this information readily available. However the University of Mississippi, where the first debate is being held, confirms that the focus that night will be on foreign policy issues. Thanks to reader, Erik Redin, for the scoop. Now I want some answers. How long after Obama clinched the nomination was this decision made? How long did it take for it to be realized that the location of one of the most visible demonstrations of college admissions segregation would not, perhaps, be the best venue for a debate on domestic issues? And why did this news not see the light of day. As recently as August 6, when the Commission announced its selections for debate moderators, Ole Miss was under the impression that the debate was still on domestic issues. This is strange. I have a couple of potential contacts at Ole Miss. I'll see what I can find out.
Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (9/17/08)
The Electoral College Map (9/16/08)
The Electoral College Map (9/15/08)
If you want a look back at debates past, PBS has an updated version of their documentary, Debating Our Destiny, up on their site. This is a condensed version of the original that packs the televised debates between
Also, as I alluded to in my comment in a previous post, there is a difference in the formats from four years ago to now. Here is the break down from the Commission on Presidential Debates:
But those are only the locations. The first, third and vice presidential debates will be sit-down discussions at a table with the moderator. The second debate will be a town hall event. None of those formats break terribly far from the previous model of presidential debates, but the fact that the firstFirst presidential debate:
Friday, September 26
University of Mississippi, Oxford, MSVice presidential debate:
Thursday, October 2
Washington University in St. Louis, MO
Second presidential debate:
Tuesday, October 7
Belmont University, Nashville, TNThird presidential debate:
Wednesday, October 15
Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY
As a wrap up to convention season, Tom Holbrook has a comparison of the his predictions for this year's conventions and the actual bumps they produced. FHQ will be back later in the day with its own examination of the changes on the state level.
One last and unrelated thing: If you are in search of something to do with a few spare seconds, check out the Sarah Palin Baby Name Generator. And if you have a few more spare seconds post your new names here. Tell 'em Stag Tonnage Palin sent you. (H/t to Enik Rising for the link.)
*It is sad that the Commission actually in charge of putting these debates on doesn't have this information readily available. However the University of Mississippi, where the first debate is being held, confirms that the focus that night will be on foreign policy issues. Thanks to reader, Erik Redin, for the scoop. Now I want some answers. How long after Obama clinched the nomination was this decision made? How long did it take for it to be realized that the location of one of the most visible demonstrations of college admissions segregation would not, perhaps, be the best venue for a debate on domestic issues? And why did this news not see the light of day. As recently as August 6, when the Commission announced its selections for debate moderators, Ole Miss was under the impression that the debate was still on domestic issues. This is strange. I have a couple of potential contacts at Ole Miss. I'll see what I can find out.
Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (9/17/08)
The Electoral College Map (9/16/08)
The Electoral College Map (9/15/08)
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Why Attack the Community Organizer?
It took me a while last night and this morning to wrap my mind around the mocking line of attack that both Sarah Palin and Rudy Giuliani pursued in their speeches an evening ago. I mean, why, after a night of extolling the virtues of service, would you attack another person's service? Why indeed. I get the need to attack. That's politics. Everyone does that. I also understand the need to strike back after what Republicans found to be an unnecessary series of attacks on their nominee's choice for vice president after the Alaska governor's roll out last Friday. After all, Bill Clinton's campaigns' modus operandi was rapid response to attacks. That may not remove the fact that last night seemed a petty response, but pettiness in the face of pettiness is just tacky. Regardless, that's politics as well.
So why go after Obama on his experience as a community organizer? Why go against what, on its face, is your best interest? Yes, it fires up the Republican partisans, but it also fired Democrats up as well. But the question is, "How did it play among the independents and undecideds?" Here's where we start to answer the why of this particular line of argument. If both Palin and Giuliani look petty in making the argument, this likely backfires with those independents and undecideds. As one of our loyal readers, Rob, pointed out time and again during primary season -- at least in our discussion group meetings here at UGA -- the candidate or candidates perceived as negative lose. It happened to Romney in Iowa against Huckabee and in later primaries against McCain. And it happened to Hillary Clinton in her battle against Barack Obama. If that logic extends to the general election, then Palin, Giuliani and the McCain campaign have fundamentally misread the mood among the electorate. But does that logic extend in this case? During the primaries, the crowd was made up mostly of partisans. The general election brings in a completely new swath of voters or potential voters. I would argue that yes, this segment of the electorate would be turned off by an attack perceived as petty. Partisans already dislike the other side and expect the attacks. But independents and undecideds, while likely expecting the attacks, don't particularly like them. The point is that they may be turned off and have their mind changed. Whereas, with partisans, they'll be turned off but will have already made up their minds anyway.
But the question remains: Why attack Obama's past as a community organizer, especially when that could come back to haunt you and your party among the most crucial portion of the electorate in this election? Well, I think it all depends on this perception of pettiness. And that is affected by who this message was intended for. Yes, there was a lot of "red meat" in both Palin's and Giuliani's speeches last night. That played to the base of the Republican Party. But if we focus on Sarah Palin and the context of not only her but the speech as well, we can begin to see where the GOP was headed last night.
Fire up the base?
Check.
Appeal to independents and undecideds?
Check.
Huh? Why did you just write all that only to come to that conclusion? Good question. Palin's speech was about her background, her small town background. It was about life as a regular American. Fine, that appeals to independents and undecideds, but how is this attack in any way appealing to those folks? Well, it likely wasn't appealing to all independents and undecideds, but it was targeted at as many of them as the GOP could get to. And much of that is dependent upon how the concept of "community organizer" is defined in people's heads. If you tuned in to the Democratic convention a week ago, you learned about this aspect of Obama's life. In fact, I'm sure that most people could easily parrot the line, "He could have written his ticket to Wall Street but chose to be a community organizer instead," with relative ease -- with as much ease as they could tell you that John McCain voted with George Bush 90% of the time or, on the opposite end of the spectrum, put country first. But even if someone could tell you exactly what a community organizer is based on what they heard last week, I doubt that in most cases it is something most voters can relate to. Folks from urban environs can relate to it, but folks who have a background similar to Sarah Palin's may find it a stretch. So Palin can "get away with it" because she spent the first third of her time last night explaining what her background was and getting people to relate to her and her vantage point. To people in her corner, at least background-wise, community organizer is something of a foreign concept, nevermind the service aspect of it. [Incidentally, coming from Rudy Giuliani, this line of attack is somewhat disingenuous, given his experiences in New York. He likely knows very well what a community organizer is. But he was the keynote speaker. He can fire up the crowd and the base without it being overinterpreted. That's the role of a keynote address...or can be.] Soldier, people get. That's a concept that people can grasp. But community organizer is a concept that is as unknown to people as Sarah Palin was just a week ago.
Now, does that make it okay to attack that experience? I don't know. But does a pretty good job of drawing "community organizer" out as a foreign concept. And once you've accomplished that, mocking becomes a much more palatable enterprise. Granted this interpretation is vulnerable to the "politics of division" rebuttal from the Obama campaign since it cuts across an urban and not urban (I won't say rural because the suburbs and exurbs fall in between and may or may not gravitate toward the argument.) divide. And of course that brings with it some racial undertones that I won't get into here. At the same time, though, it is worth bringing up.
Among persuadables, did this work? Again, I can't say for sure, but it is a clever way to potentially peel off some of them at the margins.Nate Silver Sean at FiveThirtyEight mentioned in his wrap-up post to the evening (and especially the Palin speech) that the Democrats outnumber Republicans and that firing up both bases is somewhat counterproductive. While that's true, all the McCain campaign has to do is persuade enough of these small town, average Americans to swing a state like Nevada, Colorado, Virginia, or Ohio, or Michigan or Pennsylvania to win the election. Now getting from A to B in that is easier said than done, but I can see how they are trying to get there with that speech last night.
*For the record, I thought Palin was fantastic last night. The bar was lowered due to the firestorm surrounding her because of and since her selection, and that helped, but she did a great job for someone who was thrust into the spotlight only five days earlier. She passed the first test, but she will still have to withstand direct questioning from the media and/or in the debates. For that, stay tuned.
Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (9/3/08)
A Follow Up on the 50% Mark: The View from 2004
Obama Cracks 50% in the Daily Trackers. What Does It Mean?
So why go after Obama on his experience as a community organizer? Why go against what, on its face, is your best interest? Yes, it fires up the Republican partisans, but it also fired Democrats up as well. But the question is, "How did it play among the independents and undecideds?" Here's where we start to answer the why of this particular line of argument. If both Palin and Giuliani look petty in making the argument, this likely backfires with those independents and undecideds. As one of our loyal readers, Rob, pointed out time and again during primary season -- at least in our discussion group meetings here at UGA -- the candidate or candidates perceived as negative lose. It happened to Romney in Iowa against Huckabee and in later primaries against McCain. And it happened to Hillary Clinton in her battle against Barack Obama. If that logic extends to the general election, then Palin, Giuliani and the McCain campaign have fundamentally misread the mood among the electorate. But does that logic extend in this case? During the primaries, the crowd was made up mostly of partisans. The general election brings in a completely new swath of voters or potential voters. I would argue that yes, this segment of the electorate would be turned off by an attack perceived as petty. Partisans already dislike the other side and expect the attacks. But independents and undecideds, while likely expecting the attacks, don't particularly like them. The point is that they may be turned off and have their mind changed. Whereas, with partisans, they'll be turned off but will have already made up their minds anyway.
But the question remains: Why attack Obama's past as a community organizer, especially when that could come back to haunt you and your party among the most crucial portion of the electorate in this election? Well, I think it all depends on this perception of pettiness. And that is affected by who this message was intended for. Yes, there was a lot of "red meat" in both Palin's and Giuliani's speeches last night. That played to the base of the Republican Party. But if we focus on Sarah Palin and the context of not only her but the speech as well, we can begin to see where the GOP was headed last night.
Fire up the base?
Check.
Appeal to independents and undecideds?
Check.
Huh? Why did you just write all that only to come to that conclusion? Good question. Palin's speech was about her background, her small town background. It was about life as a regular American. Fine, that appeals to independents and undecideds, but how is this attack in any way appealing to those folks? Well, it likely wasn't appealing to all independents and undecideds, but it was targeted at as many of them as the GOP could get to. And much of that is dependent upon how the concept of "community organizer" is defined in people's heads. If you tuned in to the Democratic convention a week ago, you learned about this aspect of Obama's life. In fact, I'm sure that most people could easily parrot the line, "He could have written his ticket to Wall Street but chose to be a community organizer instead," with relative ease -- with as much ease as they could tell you that John McCain voted with George Bush 90% of the time or, on the opposite end of the spectrum, put country first. But even if someone could tell you exactly what a community organizer is based on what they heard last week, I doubt that in most cases it is something most voters can relate to. Folks from urban environs can relate to it, but folks who have a background similar to Sarah Palin's may find it a stretch. So Palin can "get away with it" because she spent the first third of her time last night explaining what her background was and getting people to relate to her and her vantage point. To people in her corner, at least background-wise, community organizer is something of a foreign concept, nevermind the service aspect of it. [Incidentally, coming from Rudy Giuliani, this line of attack is somewhat disingenuous, given his experiences in New York. He likely knows very well what a community organizer is. But he was the keynote speaker. He can fire up the crowd and the base without it being overinterpreted. That's the role of a keynote address...or can be.] Soldier, people get. That's a concept that people can grasp. But community organizer is a concept that is as unknown to people as Sarah Palin was just a week ago.
Now, does that make it okay to attack that experience? I don't know. But does a pretty good job of drawing "community organizer" out as a foreign concept. And once you've accomplished that, mocking becomes a much more palatable enterprise. Granted this interpretation is vulnerable to the "politics of division" rebuttal from the Obama campaign since it cuts across an urban and not urban (I won't say rural because the suburbs and exurbs fall in between and may or may not gravitate toward the argument.) divide. And of course that brings with it some racial undertones that I won't get into here. At the same time, though, it is worth bringing up.
Among persuadables, did this work? Again, I can't say for sure, but it is a clever way to potentially peel off some of them at the margins.
*For the record, I thought Palin was fantastic last night. The bar was lowered due to the firestorm surrounding her because of and since her selection, and that helped, but she did a great job for someone who was thrust into the spotlight only five days earlier. She passed the first test, but she will still have to withstand direct questioning from the media and/or in the debates. For that, stay tuned.
Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (9/3/08)
A Follow Up on the 50% Mark: The View from 2004
Obama Cracks 50% in the Daily Trackers. What Does It Mean?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)