Here are the results:
Huckabee: 26%
Romney: 21%
Palin: 19%
Gingrich: 10%
Pawlenty: 4%
Bush: 3%
Jindal: 2%
Barbour: 1%
Thune: less than 1%
Crist: less than 0.5%
Margin of error: +/- 3.5 points
Sample: 1001 adults
approx. 292 Republicans and Republican-leaning independents
Conducted: July 15-18, 2009
[Click to Enlarge]First of all, this figure is getting a touch messy with the inclusion of Thune and Crist. Even still, the same pattern we've seen in these polls reemerges here: the Huckabee/Palin/Romney trio continue to be clustered relatively close together, outpacing all other possible candidates. [And it should be noted that that pattern surfaces with just 292 GOP/GOP-leaning respondents nationally. So take this poll with an extra grain of salt -- this question at least. The margin of error among that portion of the sample is likely pretty high.] It just so happens that the former Arkansas governor is getting another turn at the top.
I wouldn't read too much into Huckabee's showing (or anyone else for that matter), but I will take the opportunity to say that if last year's delegate runner-up for the GOP nomination is serious about a repeat bid in 2012, he is going to have to get a move on. From a polling perspective, he's fine, but financially he's quickly falling off the pace being set by his leading counterparts' political action committees. Both Romney's Free and Strong America PAC and Palin's SarahPAC are doing quite well in the first half of 2009. Huckabee, on the other hand, has yet to report any numbers for his Huck PAC, and that fact in conjunction with the news that the PAC is undergoing some restructuring, is a troubling start.
Again, this is all extremely early. As John McCain demonstrated during the 2008 cycle, campaign restructuring and dire financial straits aren't necessarily dealbreakers. However, 2012 won't be 2008 for the Republicans. They are facing an incumbent Democrat in the White House and will likely be looking for someone who has some gravitas among the elites within the party and an ability to raise funds and lots of them. Romney meets both those criteria the best at the moment. Palin lacks the internal party connections and Huckabee trails on both fronts.
The main question now is whether 2012 will be like 1996 or 2000 for the Republican Party. Will they have a fairly active primary campaign like in 1996 or will most of the party quickly coalesce around a candidate as in 2000? Part of the problem of assessing that question is that we have reached something of a crossroads on the divisive primaries/parties question. The pre-2008 thinking was that the quicker you line up behind someone (thus avoiding drawn-out divisiveness), the better your chances are in the general election. Post-2008, though, the thinking is slightly different. Can a drawn-out, yet not personally divisive nomination battle actually help a parties nominee from an organizational standpoint? Obama's narrow electoral college wins in Indiana and North Carolina are often cited as evidence that the primary campaign organization helped in the general election.
My (two and a half years in advance) guess is that the GOP may pay some lip service to the organizational idea, but will ultimately make a quick decision on the 2012 nomination. And I should note that I've been talking about this as if the party has complete control over this. They don't. Conditions have a large say in the matter. Democratic primary and caucus voters were evenly divided in 2008, but Republican voters may not follow suit in 2012. That potential is there (Palin grassroots vs. Romney establishment, for example), but, as I said, I think it is more likely that a consensus forms around one candidate. If the GOP elite signal in a way similar to 2000 with Bush, that they are solidly behind one candidate, then it will be difficult for anyone to disrupt the inevitability story.
All that from a poll of 292 Republicans and independents leaning Republican? Yeah, I know.
*The list of candidates included Haley Barbour, Jeb Bush, Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin, Tim Pawlenty and Mitt Romney.
Recent Posts:
Presidential Primary Reform Week: The Fair and Representative Presidential Primaries Act of 2009
Presidential Primary Reform Week: Congressional Action
Louisiana 2012: Jindal/Palin Both Top Obama
3 comments:
Huckabee's popularity is probably due to his presence on Fox News. He is getting much face time in front of the public and comes across well. He will need operatives and money or will fade in 2012 quicker than he faded in 2008.
The FOX News link is a probable influence. What Chris Cillizza had to say today on the subject was also interesting:
"The Huck is actually in first place in the latest WaPo/ABC poll of a hypothetical 2012 Republican presidential primary.
Those numbers reflect the fact that most people got to know and like Huckabee during the 2008 campaign. Much like John Edwards after 2004, Huckabee left a good taste in peoples' mouths and so when they think about him running again in 2012 they see it as an interesting proposition. (And, yes, i did just make a John Edwards reference!)"
Though it stems from different reasoning, that is similar to something I said a few weeks ago about the 2012 field for the GOP:
"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."
Of course, what Cillizza said next speaks to your other point, Rob:
"The problem for Huckabee is that there is very little evidence he is solving the problems that kept him from winning the nomination last time around -- developing a serious set of policy proposals, putting together a national fundraising network and building a top-level staff."
I think I like the way Cillizza thinks! The linking of Palin with Obama and Romney with Clinton is very interesting.
Post a Comment