GALLUP WEIGHS IN
As longtime readers no doubt are aware, I've been following early trends for the '08 presidential contest (because it's never too early). Gallup has provided their first post-election look as well, both for the Democrats and Republicans. (Full information, including methodology minutiae can be found here.) The results:
BASED ON 544 DEMOCRATS AND DEMOCRATIC LEANERS
Nov 9-12, 2006
Hillary Rodham Clinton 31
Barack Obama 19
John Edwards 10
Al Gore 9
John Kerry 7
Joe Biden 4
Wesley Clark 3
Bill Richardson 2
Evan Bayh 2
Russ Feingold 1
Tom Daschle 1
Christopher Dodd 1
Tom Vilsack 1
Other 2
None 1
All/any *
No opinion 6
* Less than 0.5%
BASED ON 379 REPUBLICANS AND REPUBLICAN LEANERS
Nov 9-12, 2006
Rudy Giuliani 28
John McCain 26
Condoleezza Rice 13
Newt Gingrich 7
Mitt Romney 5
Bill Frist 4
George Allen 2
George Pataki 1
Mike Huckabee 1
Chuck Hagel 1
Sam Brownback 1
Duncan Hunter *
Other 2
None 3
All/any --
No opinion 7
* Less than 0.5%
For the Dems, the results bare out about how I would have seen them, with Clinton the frontrunner and Obama within striking distance. With Edwards showing up in third, I wonder how much he might suffer from the "loser stench" from '04 election given how we Dems seem to shun our losers, rightly or wrongly. Gore's 9% will go to someone else after he makes his 100th speech denying any interest in running in '08. Same goes for Kerry, who's ship has sailed in my opinion. Depending on how the Iraq war develops over the coming year, Clark could see his support grow. Conversely, if illegal immigration continues to be a big factor, I could see Richardson gaining ground.
The GOP poll I found somewhat surprising, as Giuliani continues to poll very well, despite his non-conservative social views. McCain is very close so these two could be slugging it out over who can appeal more to the base throughout 2007. Rice appearing third was very surprising as she's given no indication towards presidential aspirations. And given the fact that she actually treated a gay couple at a recent event like they were, you know, human did her know favors among the far right anti-gay folks. Romney having only five percent was also surprising as I see him as a strong candidate who will quite likely be the third part of a three-way bout for the nomination. As always, Huckabee remains my darkhorse - and right now the polls bear that out.
Showing posts with label Straw polls. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Straw polls. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
Monday, November 13, 2006
EARLY LOOK
POSTSCRIPT
Yesterday, I gave a look to potential Democratic presidential contenders in '08. After flitting around I found a great bit from the Washington Post doing the same thing for both parties. So, in the interest of giving different perspectives, I bring you the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza and The Fix's rankings and some thoughts as of this past Friday:
For the Dems:
For the GOP:
Not sure I'm feeling Chris on the Evan Bayh and Bill Richardson vibe, but I totally agree with his assessment of Gingrich and Giuliani.
POSTSCRIPT
Yesterday, I gave a look to potential Democratic presidential contenders in '08. After flitting around I found a great bit from the Washington Post doing the same thing for both parties. So, in the interest of giving different perspectives, I bring you the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza and The Fix's rankings and some thoughts as of this past Friday:
For the Dems:
1. Hillary Clinton - Clinton's stance on the war in Iraq is out of step with many in the Democratic base, and she is clearly vulnerable to a challenge from someone who has been opposed to the war from the start. Despite that seeming vulnerability, no one is better positioned at the moment to win the nomination.
2. Barack Obama - Obama's strengths are obvious -- huge buzz both inside and outside the Beltway and the perception that he could raise $50 million or more to compete with Clinton. His weaknesses? Lack of organization in any early primary or caucus state and a relative lack of experience on the national stage.
3. John Edwards - The one lingering question for Edwards is whether he can raise the tens of millions he needs to compete against Clinton and possibly Obama.
4. Evan Bayh - ... [C]an a centrist message appeal to the liberal activists who dominate the early presidential voting states?
5. Bill Richardson - ... Richardson is not the most disciplined of politicians, a trait that could work to his detriment over the long haul of a presidential effort.
For the GOP:
1. John McCain - No one -- and we repeat no one -- had a better year politically than McCain.
2. Mitt Romney - Romney is the best raw candidate in the Republican field and he is the equal of Obama and Edwards when it comes to charisma. He still must answer doubts among conservatives about his time in Massachusetts and seeming flip-flops on some social questions.
3. Rudy Giuliani - If Giuliani really is planning to run for president, he is taking a decidedly unorthodox approach to it. Giuliani has no staff in early states and doesn't appear to be doing too much courting of key money men and activists across the country.
4. Mike Huckabee - The past year looks like a wasted opportunity for the outgoing Arkansas governor.
5. Newt Gingrich - Gingrich, like Giuliani, seems more enamored with being mentioned as a potential presidential candidate than actually running ...
Not sure I'm feeling Chris on the Evan Bayh and Bill Richardson vibe, but I totally agree with his assessment of Gingrich and Giuliani.
Sunday, November 12, 2006
EARLY LOOK
I've spent much time monitoring a monthly GOP presidential straw poll, yet I cannot locate a similar one for the Democrats. With that in mind, I intended to do a rundown of current Democratic contenders, taking into account the early "dropouts", Mark Warner and Russ Feingold. I quote dropouts because they never actually declared, but their names were widely bandied about as potential candidates before they personally put the breaks on their prospective candidacies.
I was an early supporter of Mark Warner as he was a former governor of Virginia, an obstensibly southern state. I get all squishy inside for governors running for president as it's been a successful route for many a winner, including Bush II, Clinton, Reagan, and Carter; or three of the last four to hold the office. Contrast that with senators, who have a grand total of one win (and a dubious one at that) stretching back to 1960 when JFK did so.
As I noted earlier, I intended to do a rundown of the current contenders when, lo and behold, Democratic strategist Joe Trippi went it did it for me already! And a fine job he did. Have a look. For clarity's sake, I'll include whatever thought I have in italics (from the Washington Post):
Front-runner: Hillary Rodham Clinton
She has it all -- the ability to raise the money; a political team that's among the best, if not the best, in the party; a strong base of support; and an uncanny ability to avoid political mistakes. And I don't care what anyone says -- her husband is one of two rock stars in the Democratic Party and a huge asset.
Ironically, the problem with Clinton's candidacy arises from her strength. Front-runners have something to lose, so they almost always run cautious, safe campaigns. This almost cost John Kerry the nomination in 2004, and could cost the senator from New York the nomination in 2008. Her strength also creates the certainty that a campaign of bold new ideas will emerge to oppose her. She is so strong within the party that, with so many contemplating a run against her, the only viable option for a serious challenger is to put forth innovative ideas in hopes of breaking out of the pack. And there are plenty in the Democratic Party who are capable of doing that.
[Like much of the left blogosphere, I was no fan of Hillary, feeling she was just too despised by the the right and well-defined by much of the electorate to have any chance at winning the general. Then I took a gander at an exhaustive article by The Atlantic and found myself intrigued. I'm still not sold on her, but my mind is more opened than it was.]
The "Other" Rock Star: Barack Obama
He's the one candidate who can wrestle Bill Clinton for support in the black community and win. All the others are both thrilled about and terrified of this guy. They're thrilled that he might take black votes from Hillary. They're terrified because he might take a lot more votes from them and become a co-front-runner the day he enters the race, if he does. Obama's obvious downside is inexperience. Three years ago, he was an Illinois state senator; in 2008, he will not have completed his first U.S. Senate term. So he had better have some ideas -- or wait till next time.
[After Warner dropped out, I gravitated somewhat towards Obama, though I am by no means 100% sold on him. I fear a similar smear tactic that was used against Harold Ford in Tennessee's ugly Senate race might also prove effective against Barack. Still, consider him my prohibitive choice at this moment.]
The Oxygen Taker: Al Gore
Talk about setting a progressive agenda with bold new ideas. The man is doing it and he doesn't even have a job. In a party that tends to treat its past nominees like lepers, Gore has done an amazing job of reemerging as an important thought leader on issues such as the Iraq war and global warming. If he throws his hat into the ring, he will immediately suck all the oxygen out of the room for most of the other candidates. The media won't be able to stop doing the Hillary vs. Al 800-pound-gorillas-go-at-it stories. Everyone but Obama will be reduced to begging for attention. But entering the race means he suddenly would have something to lose. Could candidate Gore stop himself from playing it safe?
[He's not afraid to speak out and take an unpopular position, as evidenced by his early opposition to the Iraq war back in 2003. Granted, he was in a position where he had nothing to lose, so it's not like he was risking much politically. I fear we'd be looking at a dusting off of the anti-Gore playbook if he were the nominee, where we'd hear retreads of Gore the Exagerator and Gore the Wooden Man; neither of which was particularly clever or necessarily accurate.]
The Champion of 2006: John Edwards
Hands down the guy who improved his position the most this year. Edwards leads the field in early polls in Iowa, which is more important than ever, because the 2008 nominating process is more front-loaded than in prior years. The former North Carolina senator has a bevy of ideas, and is the only Southerner, important to a party that has elected only two presidents in the past 30 years -- both from the South. All of which earns him a down arrow -- because once you take the lead in Iowa, the entire field tries to destroy you. Good luck.
[Whereas I appreciate his more lowkey and positive message, I'm not certain that it can work in this type of environment, where it's often the ugliest message getting the most attention. Being a private citizen for the last couple of years can no doubt help his outsider cred, a big plus for any Senator. For me, Edwards gets a big "wait and see" from me.]
Down but Not Out: John Kerry
The former presidential nominee was doing quite well until the "botched joke." Democratic losses in the House or Senate would have made a comeback impossible, so no one was happier than Kerry last Tuesday. The senator from Massachusetts is going to need to present some bold ideas to regain relevance in this field; I'd start with Iraq. And for those who want to count this guy out: He has come back from the dead before. Trust me, I speak from experience. Handicaps? It's all up from here or he's out.
[Not interested. Unlike Gore (who won the popular vote), Kerry was defeated. I see nothing he can offer that we haven't already seen. And like the attacks on Gore, we'd just be looking at a flip-flopper redux. No thanks.]
Chairman of Foreign Relations: Joe Biden
The senator from Delaware is doing what Kerry should do: taking the lead on the Iraq war and staking out ideas for bringing our troops home safely. But the down arrow stays until someone gets this guy to shut up and listen.
[But if he's president, how will he continue with his prodigious appearances on Sunday morning talkshows? Seriously, this guy has never met a camera he didn't need to talk to. The guy walks through a Best Buy and feels the need to talk to an associate because he happens to be in the camera section. I'm not fan of the guy; can you tell?]
Running to the Right: Evan Bayh
A senator who has actually run a government, the former governor of Indiana also hails from the region that may be most critical to a Democratic electoral victory -- the Midwest. In 2004, Democrats lost Missouri and Ohio, electoral votes that would have put Kerry over the top. Bayh could be the best bet for picking up three or four Midwestern states. He seems to be running to Clinton's right, which will prove to be either pure genius (he has a lane all to himself) or a disaster -- ask President Joe Lieberman.
[See the Lieberman reference above. Skewing to the right is no way to gain my support.]
The One to Watch: Russ Feingold
Perhaps the most authentic candidate, the senator from Wisconsin has a deep connection to the grass roots and is a favorite of the party's progressive wing. If President Bush stays stubborn on Iraq and the rest of the field plays it safe, Feingold could get very hot.
[As I noted previously, he officially removed himself from contention earlier.]
A Resume to Die For: Bill Richardson
He'd be the first Hispanic to make a presidential run, and his r?sum? covers nearly every issue, foreign or domestic. Need bold ideas on immigration? New Mexico Gov. Richardson has grappled with that. Ideas on energy? Ask former energy secretary Richardson. How to deal with a nuclear North Korea? Former U.N. ambassador Richardson knows the turf. But can he raise the money, and earn enough early support to get his ideas into the mix?
[Eh, he's a governor, so you'd think I'd be hot for him, but I'm not big on the guy. I'm open to being convinced though.]
The General: Wesley Clark
He still has a strong following among progressives and the netroots and could get traction if there's no consensus on a new Iraq strategy soon.
[His major problem last time around was what a political novice he was. After two-plus years of media appearances and honing his message, I believe he could be an attractive candidate.]
More Than a Cameo: Tom Vilsack
I thought the Iowa governor's candidacy was a cameo until I saw him speak at Renaissance Weekend last year. He clearly gets that this will be an election about ideas. Vilsack will have a tough fight -- but I'm the last guy to bet against a governor from a small rural state.
[I've no opinion on Vilsack at this point.]
So, that's the people at this point. I would think over the next several weeks we'll see some of these people drop off and probably one or two join up. I'll track this list over the coming months and if anybody knows of any solid straw polls, drop me a line in the comments section.
I've spent much time monitoring a monthly GOP presidential straw poll, yet I cannot locate a similar one for the Democrats. With that in mind, I intended to do a rundown of current Democratic contenders, taking into account the early "dropouts", Mark Warner and Russ Feingold. I quote dropouts because they never actually declared, but their names were widely bandied about as potential candidates before they personally put the breaks on their prospective candidacies.
I was an early supporter of Mark Warner as he was a former governor of Virginia, an obstensibly southern state. I get all squishy inside for governors running for president as it's been a successful route for many a winner, including Bush II, Clinton, Reagan, and Carter; or three of the last four to hold the office. Contrast that with senators, who have a grand total of one win (and a dubious one at that) stretching back to 1960 when JFK did so.
As I noted earlier, I intended to do a rundown of the current contenders when, lo and behold, Democratic strategist Joe Trippi went it did it for me already! And a fine job he did. Have a look. For clarity's sake, I'll include whatever thought I have in italics (from the Washington Post):
Front-runner: Hillary Rodham Clinton
She has it all -- the ability to raise the money; a political team that's among the best, if not the best, in the party; a strong base of support; and an uncanny ability to avoid political mistakes. And I don't care what anyone says -- her husband is one of two rock stars in the Democratic Party and a huge asset.
Ironically, the problem with Clinton's candidacy arises from her strength. Front-runners have something to lose, so they almost always run cautious, safe campaigns. This almost cost John Kerry the nomination in 2004, and could cost the senator from New York the nomination in 2008. Her strength also creates the certainty that a campaign of bold new ideas will emerge to oppose her. She is so strong within the party that, with so many contemplating a run against her, the only viable option for a serious challenger is to put forth innovative ideas in hopes of breaking out of the pack. And there are plenty in the Democratic Party who are capable of doing that.
[Like much of the left blogosphere, I was no fan of Hillary, feeling she was just too despised by the the right and well-defined by much of the electorate to have any chance at winning the general. Then I took a gander at an exhaustive article by The Atlantic and found myself intrigued. I'm still not sold on her, but my mind is more opened than it was.]
The "Other" Rock Star: Barack Obama
He's the one candidate who can wrestle Bill Clinton for support in the black community and win. All the others are both thrilled about and terrified of this guy. They're thrilled that he might take black votes from Hillary. They're terrified because he might take a lot more votes from them and become a co-front-runner the day he enters the race, if he does. Obama's obvious downside is inexperience. Three years ago, he was an Illinois state senator; in 2008, he will not have completed his first U.S. Senate term. So he had better have some ideas -- or wait till next time.
[After Warner dropped out, I gravitated somewhat towards Obama, though I am by no means 100% sold on him. I fear a similar smear tactic that was used against Harold Ford in Tennessee's ugly Senate race might also prove effective against Barack. Still, consider him my prohibitive choice at this moment.]
The Oxygen Taker: Al Gore
Talk about setting a progressive agenda with bold new ideas. The man is doing it and he doesn't even have a job. In a party that tends to treat its past nominees like lepers, Gore has done an amazing job of reemerging as an important thought leader on issues such as the Iraq war and global warming. If he throws his hat into the ring, he will immediately suck all the oxygen out of the room for most of the other candidates. The media won't be able to stop doing the Hillary vs. Al 800-pound-gorillas-go-at-it stories. Everyone but Obama will be reduced to begging for attention. But entering the race means he suddenly would have something to lose. Could candidate Gore stop himself from playing it safe?
[He's not afraid to speak out and take an unpopular position, as evidenced by his early opposition to the Iraq war back in 2003. Granted, he was in a position where he had nothing to lose, so it's not like he was risking much politically. I fear we'd be looking at a dusting off of the anti-Gore playbook if he were the nominee, where we'd hear retreads of Gore the Exagerator and Gore the Wooden Man; neither of which was particularly clever or necessarily accurate.]
The Champion of 2006: John Edwards
Hands down the guy who improved his position the most this year. Edwards leads the field in early polls in Iowa, which is more important than ever, because the 2008 nominating process is more front-loaded than in prior years. The former North Carolina senator has a bevy of ideas, and is the only Southerner, important to a party that has elected only two presidents in the past 30 years -- both from the South. All of which earns him a down arrow -- because once you take the lead in Iowa, the entire field tries to destroy you. Good luck.
[Whereas I appreciate his more lowkey and positive message, I'm not certain that it can work in this type of environment, where it's often the ugliest message getting the most attention. Being a private citizen for the last couple of years can no doubt help his outsider cred, a big plus for any Senator. For me, Edwards gets a big "wait and see" from me.]
Down but Not Out: John Kerry
The former presidential nominee was doing quite well until the "botched joke." Democratic losses in the House or Senate would have made a comeback impossible, so no one was happier than Kerry last Tuesday. The senator from Massachusetts is going to need to present some bold ideas to regain relevance in this field; I'd start with Iraq. And for those who want to count this guy out: He has come back from the dead before. Trust me, I speak from experience. Handicaps? It's all up from here or he's out.
[Not interested. Unlike Gore (who won the popular vote), Kerry was defeated. I see nothing he can offer that we haven't already seen. And like the attacks on Gore, we'd just be looking at a flip-flopper redux. No thanks.]
Chairman of Foreign Relations: Joe Biden
The senator from Delaware is doing what Kerry should do: taking the lead on the Iraq war and staking out ideas for bringing our troops home safely. But the down arrow stays until someone gets this guy to shut up and listen.
[But if he's president, how will he continue with his prodigious appearances on Sunday morning talkshows? Seriously, this guy has never met a camera he didn't need to talk to. The guy walks through a Best Buy and feels the need to talk to an associate because he happens to be in the camera section. I'm not fan of the guy; can you tell?]
Running to the Right: Evan Bayh
A senator who has actually run a government, the former governor of Indiana also hails from the region that may be most critical to a Democratic electoral victory -- the Midwest. In 2004, Democrats lost Missouri and Ohio, electoral votes that would have put Kerry over the top. Bayh could be the best bet for picking up three or four Midwestern states. He seems to be running to Clinton's right, which will prove to be either pure genius (he has a lane all to himself) or a disaster -- ask President Joe Lieberman.
[See the Lieberman reference above. Skewing to the right is no way to gain my support.]
The One to Watch: Russ Feingold
Perhaps the most authentic candidate, the senator from Wisconsin has a deep connection to the grass roots and is a favorite of the party's progressive wing. If President Bush stays stubborn on Iraq and the rest of the field plays it safe, Feingold could get very hot.
[As I noted previously, he officially removed himself from contention earlier.]
A Resume to Die For: Bill Richardson
He'd be the first Hispanic to make a presidential run, and his r?sum? covers nearly every issue, foreign or domestic. Need bold ideas on immigration? New Mexico Gov. Richardson has grappled with that. Ideas on energy? Ask former energy secretary Richardson. How to deal with a nuclear North Korea? Former U.N. ambassador Richardson knows the turf. But can he raise the money, and earn enough early support to get his ideas into the mix?
[Eh, he's a governor, so you'd think I'd be hot for him, but I'm not big on the guy. I'm open to being convinced though.]
The General: Wesley Clark
He still has a strong following among progressives and the netroots and could get traction if there's no consensus on a new Iraq strategy soon.
[His major problem last time around was what a political novice he was. After two-plus years of media appearances and honing his message, I believe he could be an attractive candidate.]
More Than a Cameo: Tom Vilsack
I thought the Iowa governor's candidacy was a cameo until I saw him speak at Renaissance Weekend last year. He clearly gets that this will be an election about ideas. Vilsack will have a tough fight -- but I'm the last guy to bet against a governor from a small rural state.
[I've no opinion on Vilsack at this point.]
So, that's the people at this point. I would think over the next several weeks we'll see some of these people drop off and probably one or two join up. I'll track this list over the coming months and if anybody knows of any solid straw polls, drop me a line in the comments section.
Saturday, November 11, 2006
NEW ROUND OF GOP STRAW POLLS
November Edition
It's that time of the month again, as I received my email notification of a new GOP straw poll.
Longtime readers to this blog, and I know that there are a couple of you, know that I'm a big fan of these polls. With the midterms finally over, we should be seeing an adjustment on who is a part of these polls, but for now, they basically have the same roster of candidates with one big exclusion (see below).
Before I get down the latest nitty-gritty, I will, as always, lay down the structure of the poll:There is a list of 11 candidates and there are three choices for each candidate; first choice, acceptable and unacceptable. Voters could only vote for one "first choice" but multiple "acceptable" or "unacceptable" results. Based on the ratings that those who took the polls gave themselves, there's a fairly strong representation of the very conservative section of the GOP in the poll.The potential candidates in the survey, listed in alphabetical order, are Sam Brownback, Bill Frist, Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, Chuck Hagel, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, George Pataki, Mitt Romney and Tom Tancredo. At the time of my viewing, there had been 12617 ballots cast. Poll results can be found here.
Please note that George Allen, never the most popular candidate in these things, has been removed from the list of nominees. Given his performance these past few months and his subsequent loss, I believe that jibes with the conventional wisdom that his chances at being president are somewhere around the territory of slim and none. In his place is newcomer Duncan Hunter, a Congressman from California.
It appears that Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani have again swapped places as far as "first choice selection goes. As of my viewing, Newt leads Rudy 26.1% to 24.9%. Both of these numbers are slightly higher than the previous numbers last month (24.2% and 22.7%), which may indicate that some voters are moving towards the "favorites." Romney again finds himself in third place with 20.2%, which mimics similar margins from last month. McCain slightly improved from last month, up from 3.5% to 5.1% - no small feat for the press' favorite Republican among these hardcore right voters. Pataki and Frist again bring up the rear, mirroring last month's results.
Scanning through the "acceptable" results, we find that Romney again holds the top slot with 65.7%, a drop from his 69.3% rating one month before. And while Newt leads among "first choice" selections, Rudy is much stronger in the acceptable area, 64.3% to 61.5%. As has been the case these past months, no candidate comes close to the "Big Three" at this point, with Tom Tancredo a distant fourth at 39.4%. Bringing up the rear are Frist and Pataki, reinforcing their poor first choice showing. Maverick McCain finds himself at 25.6%, a slight rise from October where his number was 22.3% (21% in September). So, while McCain is nowhere near a front runner, he is demonstrating some upward movement over the last couple of months.
Moving to the "unacceptable" category, we find that Bill Frist is clearly the most unpopular pick (having done himself no favors during his time as Majority Leader in the Senate) with 67.8%. Chuck Hagel and George Pataki also rating highly here as both are tied at 64.6%. Last month's top pick, McCain, moves up three notches, this time garnering 61.9% unacceptables, a drop from his 66.2% rating last month. At the bottom is Romney with only 17.5% unacceptables, with Rudy at 20.4% and Newt at 22.4%.
Again taking a glance at my darkhorse, Arkansas governor Mick Huckabee, his first choice votes notched up a bit as he's now at 1.4% (1.1 - October; 1.2 - September) - a miniscule improvement. His acceptables find him at 31.7 (34.2 - October; 37.6 - September), so he's definitely showing much downward movement. This may be a result of a lack of name recognition as he was not up for election for any office this past week and every bit of politically related news of late has been about the midterms. His unacceptables for November are 39.6% (37.1 - October; 38.1 - September). Not looking good for my darkhorse, but it's still very early. We'll see as the early announcers begin to make themselves known.
What it all means:
Though none of the Big Three have officially announced, based on some things I've read, Giuliani is a lock to run and now that Romney is out of the governor's office in Massachusetts, he's got time on his hands to kill. I've no info on Newt's intentions. Everyone else is just spinning their wheels. Now obviously, this will not be the whole field, but what the poll seems to indicate is that the other candidates have their work cut out for them as far as attracting the base, McCain especially. While his numbers have shown slight improvement, he still has a ways to go to get to the Big Three's numbers. Frist has made no secret about his desire to run (he actually took the time to fix a straw poll at a convention a few months ago to turn out in his favor), but based on these numbers, he'd be smarter to not waste his time. These straw poll takers (or as I've labeled them, PTA conservates for Politically and Technologically Active) do not like him, and who can blame them?
My three previous Straw Poll posts can be found here:
October
September
August
November Edition
It's that time of the month again, as I received my email notification of a new GOP straw poll.
Longtime readers to this blog, and I know that there are a couple of you, know that I'm a big fan of these polls. With the midterms finally over, we should be seeing an adjustment on who is a part of these polls, but for now, they basically have the same roster of candidates with one big exclusion (see below).
Before I get down the latest nitty-gritty, I will, as always, lay down the structure of the poll:There is a list of 11 candidates and there are three choices for each candidate; first choice, acceptable and unacceptable. Voters could only vote for one "first choice" but multiple "acceptable" or "unacceptable" results. Based on the ratings that those who took the polls gave themselves, there's a fairly strong representation of the very conservative section of the GOP in the poll.The potential candidates in the survey, listed in alphabetical order, are Sam Brownback, Bill Frist, Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, Chuck Hagel, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, George Pataki, Mitt Romney and Tom Tancredo. At the time of my viewing, there had been 12617 ballots cast. Poll results can be found here.
Please note that George Allen, never the most popular candidate in these things, has been removed from the list of nominees. Given his performance these past few months and his subsequent loss, I believe that jibes with the conventional wisdom that his chances at being president are somewhere around the territory of slim and none. In his place is newcomer Duncan Hunter, a Congressman from California.
It appears that Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani have again swapped places as far as "first choice selection goes. As of my viewing, Newt leads Rudy 26.1% to 24.9%. Both of these numbers are slightly higher than the previous numbers last month (24.2% and 22.7%), which may indicate that some voters are moving towards the "favorites." Romney again finds himself in third place with 20.2%, which mimics similar margins from last month. McCain slightly improved from last month, up from 3.5% to 5.1% - no small feat for the press' favorite Republican among these hardcore right voters. Pataki and Frist again bring up the rear, mirroring last month's results.
Scanning through the "acceptable" results, we find that Romney again holds the top slot with 65.7%, a drop from his 69.3% rating one month before. And while Newt leads among "first choice" selections, Rudy is much stronger in the acceptable area, 64.3% to 61.5%. As has been the case these past months, no candidate comes close to the "Big Three" at this point, with Tom Tancredo a distant fourth at 39.4%. Bringing up the rear are Frist and Pataki, reinforcing their poor first choice showing. Maverick McCain finds himself at 25.6%, a slight rise from October where his number was 22.3% (21% in September). So, while McCain is nowhere near a front runner, he is demonstrating some upward movement over the last couple of months.
Moving to the "unacceptable" category, we find that Bill Frist is clearly the most unpopular pick (having done himself no favors during his time as Majority Leader in the Senate) with 67.8%. Chuck Hagel and George Pataki also rating highly here as both are tied at 64.6%. Last month's top pick, McCain, moves up three notches, this time garnering 61.9% unacceptables, a drop from his 66.2% rating last month. At the bottom is Romney with only 17.5% unacceptables, with Rudy at 20.4% and Newt at 22.4%.
Again taking a glance at my darkhorse, Arkansas governor Mick Huckabee, his first choice votes notched up a bit as he's now at 1.4% (1.1 - October; 1.2 - September) - a miniscule improvement. His acceptables find him at 31.7 (34.2 - October; 37.6 - September), so he's definitely showing much downward movement. This may be a result of a lack of name recognition as he was not up for election for any office this past week and every bit of politically related news of late has been about the midterms. His unacceptables for November are 39.6% (37.1 - October; 38.1 - September). Not looking good for my darkhorse, but it's still very early. We'll see as the early announcers begin to make themselves known.
What it all means:
Though none of the Big Three have officially announced, based on some things I've read, Giuliani is a lock to run and now that Romney is out of the governor's office in Massachusetts, he's got time on his hands to kill. I've no info on Newt's intentions. Everyone else is just spinning their wheels. Now obviously, this will not be the whole field, but what the poll seems to indicate is that the other candidates have their work cut out for them as far as attracting the base, McCain especially. While his numbers have shown slight improvement, he still has a ways to go to get to the Big Three's numbers. Frist has made no secret about his desire to run (he actually took the time to fix a straw poll at a convention a few months ago to turn out in his favor), but based on these numbers, he'd be smarter to not waste his time. These straw poll takers (or as I've labeled them, PTA conservates for Politically and Technologically Active) do not like him, and who can blame them?
My three previous Straw Poll posts can be found here:
October
September
August
Thursday, October 12, 2006
BRAND SPANKING NEW STRAW POLL
GOP PRESIDENTIAL STRAW POLLS
Longtime readers to this blog, and I know that there are a couple of you, know that I'm a big fan of presidential straw polls, especially the GOP variety. As I've stated in previous posts, conventional wisdom holds that Arizona Senator John McCain is the prohibitive favorite to win his party's nomination in 2008. Apparently, conventional wisdom could stand to look at a the same straw polls that I'm looking at. To be blunt, McCain is not loved by the hardcore elements of his party, at least the ones who take the time to vote in these straw polls.
Before I get down the latest nitty-gritty, I will, as always, lay down the structure of the poll:
There is a list of 11 candidates and there are three choices for each candidate; first choice, acceptable and unacceptable. Voters could only vote for one "first choice" but multiple "acceptable" or "unacceptable" results. Based on the ratings that those who took the polls gave themselves, there's a fairly strong representation of the very conservative section of the GOP in the poll.The potential candidates in the survey, listed in alphabetical order, are George Felix Allen Jr., Sam Brownback, Bill Frist, Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, Chuck Hagel, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, George Pataki, Mitt Romney and Tom Tancredo. At the time of my viewing, there had been 11216 ballots cast. Poll results can be found here.
Okay, at first glance Rudy seems to have regained his position as the top 1st choice nominee. Back in September, Newt had taken over the position by 24.2% to 22.7% - statistically insignificant, really. Now, Rudy has easily reassumed the top slot, with 29.8% to Gingrich's 22.1%. Perennial third place holder Mitt Romney is at 19.3%. As has been the case throughout my monitoring, these three are clearing the top choices by a significant margin. Presumptive favorite McCain garners a pathetic 3.5% of 1st choice votes. The lowest vote getter was Pataki with 0.2%; Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is a close second with 0.9%.
In the acceptable category, there is a slight shift with Romney gaining the top slot with 69.3%
an improvement over September. Rudy moves up to second from third as he experiences a strong rebound - in August, he pulled 66.7, in September-60.7 and now in October he's up to 68%, his best showing since I've been tracking. Newt fell from first to third, though his number has stayed remarkably consistent - 66% in August and September, 65.3% in October. Voters do not appear to waver in their support for Romney, unlike Rudy - something that bears monitoring. As for McCain, he moved up a bit from his September number of 21% - he's now tracking at 22.3%. He's in eighth place this month like he was in September. The bottom feeder is again Pataki with 17.6% - which basically means that 83% of those polled do not find him to be an acceptable candidate for president. And of course, this continues to perplex me as Rudy and Pataki basically have the same political views - social liberal, fiscal conservative - yet Rudy must still be riding the 9/11 America's Mayor garbage. I continue to argue that his support will soon evaporate as voters get to know his liberal positions. He will never get the support of the religious right given his pro-abortion stance.
Finally, we enter the Unacceptable category. Finally, McCain makes the top of a list; unfortunately, it's the bad list. 66.2% find him unacceptable while 65.2 find Chuck Hagel, last month's number one, unacceptable. As for this poll's front runners rate as such: Rudy - 17.6%, Newt - 20.4%, Romney - 15.9%. Gingrich's number remained about the same from September, while Romney's number has dropped from 22.7%. Rudy experienced the biggest drop, falling from 26.9% unacceptable to 17.6% - quite an improvement over a month's time.
One other thing they tabulated was a three-way and a two-way race for the GOP nomination. The three-way consisted of Rudy, Romney and McCain and as if the confirm their disdain for McCain, Rudy got 47.6%, Romney got 42.8% and McCain got 6.6%.
In the two-way "runoff", Rudy got 51% and Romney got 45.3%.
Following my darkhorse candidate, Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, his numbers are 1.1% first choice (down from 1.2% in September), 34.2% acceptable (down from 37.6%) and 37.1% (better than 38.1% in September). As I stated last month, his numbers continue to be anemic, but he is a governor from a southern state (and three of the last five presidents were elected having held the same position - Carter, Clinton and Bush II) and I believe that as time rolls on and people become more familiar with him, his numbers will rise.
What it all means:
Well, after struggling a little bit in September, Rudy seems to have again regained his form as the top guy (I sort of find it odd that Rudy did dip in September given all the 9/11 fifth anniversary stuff that went on as the nation continues to lionize America's Mayor). Romney continues to be strong and may have ticked up a bit, another trend worth following. And Gingrich is right there with Romney. As for McCain - there really is nothing but bad news here. As I've mentioned in the past, this poll asks each participant to rate your level of conservatism from one to 10, 10 being super-conservative. The poll is again made up of a clear 80% of those who consider themselves seven or higher, so this thing is a real slice of the politically and technologically active conservatives. And those politically and technologically active (let's call them PTA) conservatives do not like John McCain. I know here on the left, PTA liberals pride themselves on their grassroots (or as it's called netroots) support of candidates that do not necessarily garner national attention. Now, I'm not suggesting that PTA conservatives are anywhere near PTA liberals as far as size and numbers go, but I would guess that their PTAs will grow over time and they will continue to grow in influence. Personally, I believe that they're about two election cycles behind where the PTA liberals currently are, but I would think by 2010 they could really begin to assert some amount of control over the message of the Republican Party. Whether they will have the kind of clout it will take to get their anti-McCain message out before 2008 seems unlikely.
My two previous Straw Poll posts can be found here:
September
August
GOP PRESIDENTIAL STRAW POLLS
Longtime readers to this blog, and I know that there are a couple of you, know that I'm a big fan of presidential straw polls, especially the GOP variety. As I've stated in previous posts, conventional wisdom holds that Arizona Senator John McCain is the prohibitive favorite to win his party's nomination in 2008. Apparently, conventional wisdom could stand to look at a the same straw polls that I'm looking at. To be blunt, McCain is not loved by the hardcore elements of his party, at least the ones who take the time to vote in these straw polls.
Before I get down the latest nitty-gritty, I will, as always, lay down the structure of the poll:
There is a list of 11 candidates and there are three choices for each candidate; first choice, acceptable and unacceptable. Voters could only vote for one "first choice" but multiple "acceptable" or "unacceptable" results. Based on the ratings that those who took the polls gave themselves, there's a fairly strong representation of the very conservative section of the GOP in the poll.The potential candidates in the survey, listed in alphabetical order, are George Felix Allen Jr., Sam Brownback, Bill Frist, Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, Chuck Hagel, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, George Pataki, Mitt Romney and Tom Tancredo. At the time of my viewing, there had been 11216 ballots cast. Poll results can be found here.
Okay, at first glance Rudy seems to have regained his position as the top 1st choice nominee. Back in September, Newt had taken over the position by 24.2% to 22.7% - statistically insignificant, really. Now, Rudy has easily reassumed the top slot, with 29.8% to Gingrich's 22.1%. Perennial third place holder Mitt Romney is at 19.3%. As has been the case throughout my monitoring, these three are clearing the top choices by a significant margin. Presumptive favorite McCain garners a pathetic 3.5% of 1st choice votes. The lowest vote getter was Pataki with 0.2%; Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is a close second with 0.9%.
In the acceptable category, there is a slight shift with Romney gaining the top slot with 69.3%
an improvement over September. Rudy moves up to second from third as he experiences a strong rebound - in August, he pulled 66.7, in September-60.7 and now in October he's up to 68%, his best showing since I've been tracking. Newt fell from first to third, though his number has stayed remarkably consistent - 66% in August and September, 65.3% in October. Voters do not appear to waver in their support for Romney, unlike Rudy - something that bears monitoring. As for McCain, he moved up a bit from his September number of 21% - he's now tracking at 22.3%. He's in eighth place this month like he was in September. The bottom feeder is again Pataki with 17.6% - which basically means that 83% of those polled do not find him to be an acceptable candidate for president. And of course, this continues to perplex me as Rudy and Pataki basically have the same political views - social liberal, fiscal conservative - yet Rudy must still be riding the 9/11 America's Mayor garbage. I continue to argue that his support will soon evaporate as voters get to know his liberal positions. He will never get the support of the religious right given his pro-abortion stance.
Finally, we enter the Unacceptable category. Finally, McCain makes the top of a list; unfortunately, it's the bad list. 66.2% find him unacceptable while 65.2 find Chuck Hagel, last month's number one, unacceptable. As for this poll's front runners rate as such: Rudy - 17.6%, Newt - 20.4%, Romney - 15.9%. Gingrich's number remained about the same from September, while Romney's number has dropped from 22.7%. Rudy experienced the biggest drop, falling from 26.9% unacceptable to 17.6% - quite an improvement over a month's time.
One other thing they tabulated was a three-way and a two-way race for the GOP nomination. The three-way consisted of Rudy, Romney and McCain and as if the confirm their disdain for McCain, Rudy got 47.6%, Romney got 42.8% and McCain got 6.6%.
In the two-way "runoff", Rudy got 51% and Romney got 45.3%.
Following my darkhorse candidate, Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, his numbers are 1.1% first choice (down from 1.2% in September), 34.2% acceptable (down from 37.6%) and 37.1% (better than 38.1% in September). As I stated last month, his numbers continue to be anemic, but he is a governor from a southern state (and three of the last five presidents were elected having held the same position - Carter, Clinton and Bush II) and I believe that as time rolls on and people become more familiar with him, his numbers will rise.
What it all means:
Well, after struggling a little bit in September, Rudy seems to have again regained his form as the top guy (I sort of find it odd that Rudy did dip in September given all the 9/11 fifth anniversary stuff that went on as the nation continues to lionize America's Mayor). Romney continues to be strong and may have ticked up a bit, another trend worth following. And Gingrich is right there with Romney. As for McCain - there really is nothing but bad news here. As I've mentioned in the past, this poll asks each participant to rate your level of conservatism from one to 10, 10 being super-conservative. The poll is again made up of a clear 80% of those who consider themselves seven or higher, so this thing is a real slice of the politically and technologically active conservatives. And those politically and technologically active (let's call them PTA) conservatives do not like John McCain. I know here on the left, PTA liberals pride themselves on their grassroots (or as it's called netroots) support of candidates that do not necessarily garner national attention. Now, I'm not suggesting that PTA conservatives are anywhere near PTA liberals as far as size and numbers go, but I would guess that their PTAs will grow over time and they will continue to grow in influence. Personally, I believe that they're about two election cycles behind where the PTA liberals currently are, but I would think by 2010 they could really begin to assert some amount of control over the message of the Republican Party. Whether they will have the kind of clout it will take to get their anti-McCain message out before 2008 seems unlikely.
My two previous Straw Poll posts can be found here:
September
August
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
