Des Moines Register Poll: 2012 GOP Candidate Favorability

FHQ likes how the Des Moines Register raised the alert a few weeks ago about the potential 2012 Republican candidates not coming to the state and now has a poll out concerning the prospects chances in the Hawkeye state's 2012 caucus. It is strange to juxtapose the overall numbers among all Iowans and then leave the "only Republicans" numbers for the footnote at the bottom of the graphic. Huckabee's well-liked overall and among Republicans. Sarah Palin, meanwhile, has cornered the market on opinion. Everyone has one about her; well, except for just 8% of all Iowans. Still, that's the lowest among all the candidates in the question. On the other end of the spectrum from Palin, though, are Pawlenty, Jindal and Pataki. All three have a lot of room to grow in Iowa since nearly three quarters of Iowans are unsure of who they are or how favorable they are of them.

[Click to Enlarge]

Of course, the main thrust of the write up in the Register was about Sarah Palin. While she doesn't do as well among Republicans (in terms of favorability) as Mike Huckabee, the former Alaska governor does top Arkansas' former chief executive among conservatives. And last but not least, the Register tells us that Palin's favorability numbers are not unlike those of Hillary Clinton when she was setting out to run ahead of 2008 (opinion had solidified on both). But is that really the analogy they want to draw? Clinton did end up finishing third in Iowa behind Obama and Edwards.

The bottom line? Palin has a steep climb even in a state that some have thought she'd seriously battle Huckabee for in 2012?

UPDATE (as per AKReport's request -- FHQ should have included it. Thanks.):
Margin of Error: +/- 4.2%
Sample: 800 Iowans
Conducted: November 8-11, 2009 (pre-Palin book release)


Recent Posts:
Public Policy Polling: November 2009 Presidential Trial Heats In Depth

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

Update on GOP Temporary Delegate Selection Committee Meeting

Public Policy Polling: November 2009 Presidential Trial Heats In Depth

NOTE: Please note that you can now track past updates of these trial heat polls by clicking here or on the "2012 trial heat polls" tag at the bottom of the post.

For the ninth straight month Public Policy Polling released a series of 2012 presidential trial heat polls matching President Obama up against four prospective Republican candidates. And despite the fact that Obama slipped below 50% for the first time in a few polls this past week (see Gallup, Quinnipiac, PPP), the president wasn't in any significantly different position relative to the Republicans than he was a month ago; just under 50% against all but Sarah Palin and still ahead across the board. Yet, this month while Mike Huckabee remained the closest to the president, he was not alone in that distinction. Mitt Romney climbed to within five points of the president as well, climbing above the 40% mark for the first time in any PPP poll this year.

[Click to Enlarge]

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

That said, Huckabee does better consolidating the conservative and Republican bases. Romney, however, nearly evenly divides the independent support with the president. And that really demonstrates the current tension within the GOP; the battle we've been talking about here at FHQ since Obama claimed victory a year ago. Will Republicans nominate someone in 2012 from a far more conservative background than, say, John McCain, or will efforts be made to make the party's nominee more inviting to independent voters? That continues to be the question as 2009 draws to a close.

[Click to Enlarge]

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

What's more, this poll from PPP is not without its quirks. [No poll ever is, really.] First, the same bizarre regional disparity that popped up in the polling firm's July poll again reared its head this month. Obama inexplicably swept the South (except for a tie with Ron Paul) again while losing out completely in the midwest. I can foresee the midwest potentially being a problem for Obama in 2012, but there's absolutely no way that the South is vulnerable to Obama inroads; not even if Steve Schmidt's catastrophe occurs. Palin, indeed, proves to be trailing by the largest margin (a distinction shared with Ron Paul), but still loses the South while winning the midwest against the president.

[Click to Enlarge]

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

If that wasn't enough, Paul actually pulls Obama's support to its lowest level in any of PPP's surveys this year. But is that Ron Paul's impact or is the Texas congressman merely serving, as I asked earlier today, as a proxy for a generic Republican in a hypothetical race against Obama? There are enough undecideds in that match up to raise that question. Independents are not necessarily on board with Paul, but Democrats are least with Obama against Paul than against any other Republican in the survey. As Christian Heinze at GOP12 asked, "Is an Anybody But Obama theme starting to take hold?" Intriguing as that question is, FHQ is almost more interested in a slightly different question: Is an Anybody but Huckabee/Palin/Romney theme starting. Certainly, neither question is being answered very adequately at this point, not in the direct context of the 2012 race anyway. Newt Gingrich, Jeb Bush and especially Tim Pawlenty did not see anywhere near the numbers Paul has in this particular poll. And I say "especially" in Pawlenty's case because he doesn't carry the baggage that Gingrich and Bush carry and is unknown enough to potentially fill the void of generic Republican in a ballot question. But Pawlenty from last month lags well behind Paul's numbers here.

[Click to Enlarge]

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

All in all, it was another interesting round of numbers from the good folks over in Raleigh. Ron Paul may have earned a spot in next month's poll simply due to his showing here. We'll see.
__________________________
NOTE: And just as a bonus, here's the updated Obama/Gingrich trendline. And no, it isn't so much an update as a reminder that Gingrich has not been polled against Obama since August.

[Click to Enlarge]

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

Update on GOP Temporary Delegate Selection Committee Meeting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Recent Posts:
Update on GOP Temporary Delegate Selection Committee Meeting

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

GOP Temporary Delegate Selection Committee Meeting Today

Update on GOP Temporary Delegate Selection Committee Meeting

[UPDATE: Here's a rundown from CNN of the day that was at the Temporary Delegate Selection Committee meeting. There are some interesting tidbits there. FHQ will have a broader comment on the piece later on.]

As has been the case with other Temporary Delegate Selection Committee meetings, news from within the event (yesterday's meeting in Washington) took a bit of time to surface. Just as a refresher, the TDSC is the 15 member group that is charged with examining the rules under which the 2012 Republican presidential nomination will be governed. The group has met before, but very little has come out in terms of what they have been considering. Sure, there's been talk of regional primaries and perhaps even an instant runoff system, but the information that has come out of these handful of meetings has paled in comparison to the cornucopial plethora of news that has emerged from the two Democratic Change Commission meetings. Now granted, it always helps when there are people on the inside who are willing to share (Suzi LeVine and Frank Leone to a name a couple.) publicly.

But did anything groundbreaking come out of the meeting yesterday? It depends on what you mean by groundbreaking. Nothing was released that in any way fundamentally reshaped the way in which Republican presidential nominees are selected. But that won't come until the group settles in on a decision to do so (...if then). What we do have are a couple of inside accounts. The first comes from TDSC member and former Michigan Republican Party chair, Saul Anuzis. The meeting was a late-day affair, so his tweets of the events didn't start appearing until 5pm. Here are a few of Anuzis' observations (via Twitter):

1. RNC 2012 Rules underway Huckabee, Giuliani managers have testified. SOS from WA now testifying.

2. RNC 2012 hearing options on timing, rotational options, primary vs caucus systems.

3. RNC 2012 has strong contingency from NH, IA and SC:)

4. RNC 2012 update, this will be the last public hearing with lots of ideas coming forward. Detailed proposals coming at December mtg.

5. RT @dcseth: @sanuzis Any talk of closed primaries? // no...that is up to states.

Let's put the pieces together:

The group heard from Chip Saltsman (Huckabee's former campaign manager) and, I'd guess, Michael DuHaime (from the Giuliani campaign in 2008). I can verify the former (Anuzis and Saltsman shared a call and response on Twitter following the meeting.), but the latter is, as I said, a guess. DuHaime is a part of the Christ Christie gubernatorial transition team in New Jersey (not that that has anything to do with this). [Ah, here's confirmation that DuHaime spoke before the TDSC.]

Also speaking before the committee was Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed. FHQ has discussed Reed in the past. Earlier in the year, he was urging RNC chair, Michael Steele, to fill out the Temporary Delegate Selection Committee with other secretaries of state. [There are none.] For his part, Reed toed the company line: He pushed for the National Association of Secretaries of State's rotating regional primary plan. But he also added that voters would prefer a later start to the process and that "There is a growing call for a process that is logical, orderly and fair."

Anuzis' second tweet seems to have been borne out of some of Reed's comments or at least a discussion stemming from it. [We've heard about the rotating regional primaries before, so I asked him about the timing aspect in relation to what the Democrats are planning on. I'm still waiting to hear back.]

Are you surprised that Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina had large contingents in attendance? No, I wasn't either. The last two points were more worthwhile anyway. Firstly, the next TDSC meeting will be in December when they will hear "detailed proposals." Again, the RNC isn't slated to vote on anything coming out of these meetings until next summer. Still, the GOP will have something on the table by the end of the year, the point at which the Democratic Change Commission will make their recommendations to the DNC.

Finally, we also see that the neither the TDSC nor RNC are on the offensive to enact closed primaries (see recent FHQ discussion here). I briefly thought about a mass Republican switch to caucuses when I saw the "primaries vs. caucus systems" comment above, since caucuses are, on the whole, closed to independents and Democrats (from the Republican perspective). But Anuzis shoots that idea and the idea of the RNC forcing states to close their primaries (They can't.) down.

Now, what did we learn from all this? There won't be anymore closed primaries than there already are unless the state governments make a change or state parties opt out in favor of a party-funded caucus. [Yeah, you knew that already.] We also learned that there is another Temporary Delegate Selection Committee meeting next month.


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

GOP Temporary Delegate Selection Committee Meeting Today

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

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

It turns out that in both cases, it was a function of the fact that both had constitutional conventions to draft new guidelines for governing each state. That, in turn, disrupted the timing of gubernatorial elections.

In New Jersey:

Prior to the adoption of the modern New Jersey Constitution, New Jersey governors served three year terms, with the last gubernatorial election under the old constitution occurring in 1946. In 1947, the legislature proposed a constitutional convention which was voted on as a referendum and approved by a majority of voters. The new constitution was ratified in 1947, and among many other changes, extended the governor’s term to four years. This extension, however, did not apply to the current governor’s (Alfred Driscoll) term, who had been elected under the old constitution. So, Driscoll’s first term, which had begun in 1947, ended in 1950. When Driscoll ran for reelection, the term limits of the new constitution applied, so Driscoll’s second term lasted for four years. The election to replace Driscoll occurred in November of 1953, and thanks to the new four year terms, every New Jersey gubernatorial election from then on naturally fell on an off-off year.

And in Virginia:

In March 1851, while the constitutional convention was meeting, the Virginia General Assembly elected a new governor, as it had for the past 75 years for a three-year term. The newly elected governor Joseph Johnson was to take office on January 1, 1852, but in the ensuing months Virginia voters approved the new constitution which among other things expanded suffrage to all white male citizens 21 years or older who had been residents for at least two year and required the governor to be popularly elected to a four-year term. The constitution also prohibited the governor from serving successive terms, a prohibition that is still in place today.

Soon after the new constitution was adopted Democrats met in convention in Staunton and nominated Johnson to run for governor. The first popular election for governor was held on December 8, 1851, but the results of the election were not certified until January 15, 1852. Not wanting to leave the Commonwealth without a chief executive, Johnson assumed the governor’s office on January 1, 1852 by rights of his having been elected by the General Assembly the previous March. On January 15, after the results of the election were certified, he was declared the winner of the first popular election for governor in the Commonwealth’s history and assumed the office on that basis on January 16. A series of unelected military governors during Reconstruction shifted the election cycle from one-year before presidential elections on the odd year to one-year after presidential elections on the odd year, and that pattern has remained ever since.

This is interesting material from a new blog from the Society for Election Law at William & Mary. They just opened up shop on Monday, but this promises to be a site worth checking in the future. Click on the state links above to read the full entries on both New Jersey and Virginia. There's much more to the Virginia post.


Recent Posts:
GOP Temporary Delegate Selection Committee Meeting Today

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

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

GOP Temporary Delegate Selection Committee Meeting Today

Either the Republican Party is quieter about their efforts at tinkering with their presidential nomination rules for 2012 or FHQ just doesn't have the right connections. We do have one that is consistently good, however. According to former Michigan Republican Party chair and TDSC member, Saul Anuzis, the group is meeting today in Washington. The group last met at the end of September. Very little information has emerged from any of the meetings thus far. Iowa and New Hampshire are safe in their first-in-the-nation status and there has been at least some discussion of regional primaries, and separately, a potential instant runoff system.

FHQ will update as news of the meeting surfaces. In the meantime, both Anuzi's Twitter account and blog are good places to check if you're impatient (...like FHQ).


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

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

Twenty Ten or Two Thousand Ten?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Twenty Ten or Two Thousand Ten?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hat tip to GOP12 for the link.


Recent Posts:
Twenty Ten or Two Thousand Ten?

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

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

Twenty Ten or Two Thousand Ten?

This one stuck in FHQ's craw for some reason.

As I drove home yesterday and listened to the "How Do You Say 2010?" story on All Things Considered, I became aware of the fact that I was planted rather angrily in one of the camps. Why does this matter? Oh, it doesn't in the grand scheme of things, but since FHQ is in the habit of typing (and saying while I type -- Yes, I'm one of those people.) 2012 quiet a lot and will only see ramped up use of 2010 in the coming month, it is relevant.

So which camp do you fall in?



I'm a Twenty Ten kind of guy. All I could think of while I listened was that George Orwell's book was Nineteen Eighty-Four, not One Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty-Four. All that's happened is that these "Aught" years have broken us of that Nineteen or Twenty habit.


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

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

Is the Idaho GOP Still After a Closed Primary?

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

One caveat FHQ intended to include in yesterday's glimpse at the Palin Winner-Take-All hypothesis, but neglected to include was the fact that half of the winner-take-all states are not true winner-take-all states. [I think I may have just set the record for number of times using winner-take-all in one sentence.] Thankfully, I have a loyal group of readers/commenters (in this case MysteryPolitico) who are willing to point out these things. This is the power of the blogging platform.

Anyway, this is a significant factor in the scenario that Walter Shapiro constructed yesterday. If only 10 of the 21 winner-take-all contests are true, statewide winner-take-all primaries, then Sarah Palin's task of winning the 2012 Republican nomination in that fashion becomes all the more difficult. In most of the eleven states that are not true winner-take-all states, the delegate allocation is done at both the congressional district level and statewide level as opposed to simply taking the statewide vote. It would require, in other words, winning some contests within contests to pull off a sweep of a state that allocates delegates in this manner.

It can happen, but it is tough to pull off in a fragmented nomination race like the 2008 GOP contest. McCain, for instance, was able to win 36% of the vote in Florida and 55% of the vote in Maryland and come out with a sweep of both states' delegates.

2008 Republican Presidential Primaries (Winner-Take-All by District & Statewide)
State	Statewide Winner (2008)	% vote	% delegates
Florida	McCain	36	100
Maryland	McCain	55	100
Ohio	McCain	60	97
California	McCain	42	90
Wisconsin	McCain	55	85
Oklahoma	McCain	37	78
South Carolina	McCain	33	75
Georgia	Huckabee	34	71
Michigan	Romney	39	67
Alabama*	Huckabee	41	54
Indiana**	McCain	78	47
*Alabama is winner-take-all at the district level and proportional with the at-large delegates at the statewide level. **Indiana allocated approximately half (27 delegates) its delegates under winner-take-all rules by congressional district in its May primary. The remaining delegates were left uncommitted until a June convention where the other half (27 delegates) were allocated in addition to three unpledged, party leaders serving as delegates. Source: The Green Papers

If the 2012 nomination race winds up being as fragmented as 2008, then Palin faces a steeper climb than was even indicated yesterday. [Editorial note: FHQ is of the opinion that the race will not be as divided in terms of choice. It is incumbent upon the GOP to come to a quick decision on the party's 2012 presidential nominee or so the conventional wisdom holds. The Obama campaign might dispute that, arguing that the prolonged contest helped them in 2008 from an organizational standpoint. Perhaps, but 2012 election will feature an incumbent president with an organizational base already intact. It is much more similar to 2004 than 2008. Would John Kerry have benefited any from an extended primary battle with John Edwards? Would the additional organization have helped the Massachusetts senator against Bush in the fall? FHQ would wager that the answer would have been no.]

Let's look at this in a different way. The eleven states above accounted for 30.9% of the 2008 Republican delegates (777 delegates). Remember, those are the states that are not the true winner-take-all states. The true winner-take-all comprise a paltry 17.8% of the total number of Republican delegates in 2008 (447 delegates). Even if Palin were to sweep those 10 true winner-take-all contests, she would still be faced with likely having to clear 35% in some districts and statewide in those other winner-take-all states. And this doesn't even take into account the proportionally allocated states.

Again, if 65% of the Republican primary electorate is against Palin, her path through the Republican rules to the nomination becomes substantially more difficult, winner-take-all rules or not.


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

Is the Idaho GOP Still After a Closed Primary?

Pawlenty: Running for 2012, But Will He Be Running in 2012?