--
6 days until election day.
Showing posts with label national polls. Show all posts
Showing posts with label national polls. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 30, 2024
Tuesday, October 29, 2024
Monday, October 28, 2024
Sunday, October 27, 2024
Saturday, October 26, 2024
Tuesday, July 25, 2023
It is not a national primary, but...
Invisible Primary: Visible -- Thoughts on the invisible primary and links to the goings on of the moment as 2024 approaches...
First, over at FHQ Plus...
- Haven't had a chance to read the piece on the proposal California Republicans have for delegate allocation in 2024 yet? Go check it out. There is a story there that is floating under the radar about how the changes could affect the sort of delegate bonus a primary winner will take from the Golden state. It will not be like 2020 for a lot of reasons. All the details at FHQ Plus.
If you haven't checked out FHQ Plus yet, then what are you waiting for? Subscribe below for free and consider a paid subscription to support FHQ's work and unlock the full site.
In Invisible Primary: Visible today...
...
Monmouth just released a new national survey on the Republican presidential nomination race and at first glance it appeared to be a reality check for the sort of consolidation theory that Senator Mitt Romney described in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed:
Despite Donald Trump’s apparent inevitability, a baker’s dozen Republicans are hoping to become the party’s 2024 nominee for president. That is possible for any of them if the field narrows to a two-person race before Mr. Trump has the nomination sewn up. For that to happen, Republican megadonors and influencers—large and small—are going to have to do something they didn’t do in 2016: get candidates they support to agree to withdraw if and when their paths to the nomination are effectively closed. That decision day should be no later than, say, Feb. 26, the Monday following the contests in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.
First of all, that resembles in some respects the reaction Democrats had in 2020 after Bernie Sanders won the New Hampshire primary and Nevada caucuses. Candidates like Pete Buttigieg and Amy Kobluchar withdrew and aligned with an alternative, Joe Biden, after his victory in South Carolina and before Super Tuesday. That is basically what Romney is describing.
Of course, win though Sanders did early in the 2020 calendar, he did not represent the sort of force that Donald Trump currently does at this juncture in the invisible primary ahead of 2024. And the Monmouth poll demonstrates the difference.
When asked whom they would like to see as the Republican nominee for president in 2024, 46% of GOP-aligned and leaning voters name Trump and 20% name DeSantis without any prompting. In a primary ballot question that explicitly lists 14 announced candidates, Trump’s support increases to 54% while DeSantis’ vote share barely moves (22%) and no other candidate gets above 5%. In a head-to-head contest between just the two, Trump garners 55% support and DeSantis gets 35%. These results are similar to a Monmouth poll taken two months ago when DeSantis officially launched his campaign.
Sanders was successful enough, but the Vermont senator never consistently approached majority support in primary surveys or at the ballot box in 2020. Trump has consistently hovered around the 50 percent mark for a while now. And even if one theorizes that the former president's position in the extant polling is a sugar high, the consistency of his position over time augurs against that conclusion.
Moreover, that Trump is around 50 percent in national polling is instructive for how one thinks about the delegate battle that lies ahead. FHQ has spoken on occasion about how DeSantis has been flirting with the qualifying threshold since he officially jumped in the race, but Trump is doing some flirting of his own.
Look, this is one poll and it is a national poll of contest that will play out sequentially from state to state during the first half of 2024. But if Trump is flirting with 50 percent when the votes start coming in next January, then the conversation will quickly turn to the former president tripping winner-take-all triggers when the race actually turns more national in scope on Super Tuesday next March 5. The chatter in some Republican circles may now be about stopping Trump in one of the early states, but the former president may be looking to stop his opposition and with an emphatic exclamation point on Super Tuesday if he is triggering those winner-take-all thresholds.
...
There is more news on DeSantis below, but it is not all bad. The Florida governor pulled in an additional six endorsements in New Hampshire, five state representatives and a county commissioner. And he has not done poorly in the endorsement primary. No, more often than not, they are not high profile endorsements. But as Newsweek reports, DeSantis has quietly put together a robust roster of lower profile backers, the sorts of folks who can help organize in caucuses in both the allocation and selection phases and who can also serve as national convention delegate candidates on down the line.
...
From around the invisible primary...
- The DeSantis campaign cut 38 jobs from its payroll and moved other staff into new positions as the attempt at a pivot continues.
- North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum bought his way onto the debate stage in Milwaukee next month. An aggressive advertising strategy since his launch and gift for donation quid pro quo got the governor over the polling and donor thresholds set by the RNC.
- Best of America PAC, a super PAC aligned with Burgum announced a $5.5 million TV and radio ad buy, but scaled it back to $1.4 million after the governor qualified for the debate.
- Vivek Ramaswamy will headline a Dorchester County Republican Party fundraiser next month in the Lowcountry of South Carolina just ahead of the first debate.
...
On this date...
...in 2000, Texas governor and presumptive Republican presidential nominee George W. Bush tapped former Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney as his running mate. On the same date and in answer to a reporter's question, Alan Keyes announced that he was no longer a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination.
--
Thursday, November 1, 2012
Live by the 3, Die by the 3 (...and other thoughts on what November 6, 2012 is testing)
FHQ realizes that the race to 270 is down to its last five days and that both (partisan) sides are deeply mired in trench warfare in a seemingly close battle. The resultant pick-your-side, choose-a-winner mentality has also trickled down discussions of how exactly we quantify the state of the race through the polls. And that, I think, is a shame.
Who's right? Rasmussen or PPP?
OR
Which one's nailed it? The national or state polls?
As a social scientist I hate those questions. They aren't the right questions. And they aren't right because rarely are things as black and white as the eventual results we'll likely get next Tuesday (...or early Wednesday).1 [I'm reminded of Seth Masket's book title.] In other words, the tendency -- or the one I've seen permeate my Twitter feed this morning -- to say one is right and the other is wrong, completely eliminates the possibilities that we'll get something that falls in the middle. The true answer, it could be argued, is somewhere between Rasmussen and PPP or somewhere between the national and state polls.
To some extent, the various polling averages that are out there already account for the distance between the numbers from firms like PPP and Rasmussen. Throw them all in the pot and see what kind of soup you end up with. Fair enough. I'll address the state polls versus national polls issue here. Again, the "which one is right?" question seems utterly ridiculous to me. But I think it is clear that FHQ has cast its lot with the state polls; something that puts us -- fair or not -- into the "provides the Democrats with some solace" group of forecasters. The tie that binds all of those models/formulas2 is a reliance on the state polls.
Here at Davidson, and on some other college campuses, during basketball season there is a saying: "Live by the three, die by the three." The style that the Wildcat cagers use can be heavily reliant on making three point baskets if their inside-out game (usually against BCS conference opponents with sizable frontcourts) is not working. The same is true of any model or formula that uses as its basis either just state polls or just national polls. You live and die by the choices made. But that does not make one right and one wrong. It may make one righter and the other wronger in 2012, but that does not mean that that will be the case in four or eight years time when we may or may not see a convergence between the two sets of polls.
What this tells us is that in a close election, one in which the uncertainty of the outcome is high or very high, there is a higher likelihood of a divergence between those two sets of polls. [Actually, that is better as a testable hypothesis than as a statement. But I'm going to allow it to stand alone -- untested -- for the time being. It is something to consider.]
Fine then. We have a close election, uncertainty is high, and there is a discrepancy between the state and national polls with two emerging explanations. One is the one is right, one is wrong view. The other is what I am calling the convenient narrative. The convenient narrative holds that the numbers in the national polls are driven by enthusiastic Republicans in states that are overwhelmingly likely to vote Republican anyway. The other side of that narrative is that Obama is doing enough better than Romney in toss up states to amass more than enough electoral votes to retain the White House.
But let's take all the polarized camps above -- whether Rasmussen vs. PPP or state vs. national polls or convenient narrative vs. one right, one wrong -- and find some middle ground. Let's consider that the true outcome is or might be somewhere in between.
What does that mean?
Well, let's assume that FHQ -- or the underlying average of state polls really -- is overly rosy for Obama and the Democrats. Further, let's assume that the current Gallup numbers (Romney +5, October 22-28) are equally as optimistic but in Romney's and the Republicans' direction. Where is the middle ground there? Roughly, we can say that Romney is about +5 of that national poll average in Gallup. [Both Real Clear Politics and Pollster have the national average breakdown at a 47-47 tie as of this writing.] Eyeballing it, Virginia is right on that 47-47 number. Now, as FHQ has mentioned before, if Virginia is tied, then Obama will win the electoral college if the established order of states in the Electoral College Spectrum is correct (and it has held pretty steady throughout 2012). If that is the overlap between the state and national polls then FHQ is approximately two points more pro-Obama in how the numbers shake out. This is rough -- very rough not to mention somewhat incongruous -- folks, but that puts a seven point gap between FHQ on one end and Gallup on the other. What happens if we shift things three and a half points over toward the middle.
Now, FHQ does a lot of talking about how much 2012 looks like 2004. The above Spectrum looks an awful lot like what things looked like in the polls in 2004 but with there being a few more heavily Republican states now relative to then. Obviously, this puts Romney over the top if he were to win the series of toss up states that are on his side of the partisan line. It obviously also brings into play for the Republican challenger all the states that have been on the tips of everyone's tongues this last week; that series of (as FHQ has them categorized now) Obama lean states like Michigan, Oregon and Pennsylvania.
Of course, this is just one way in which we could reconcile the differences between the national and state polls. Gallup is five points out from the average of national polls at the moment. And perhaps it is not exactly fair to take one poll on one far end of the range of national polls and stack it up against a weighted average of state polls. In our effort to find middle ground a better approach -- not necessarily the best -- is to compare an average of state polls to and average of national polls. Again, if Virginia is the point of overlap between the two series (just as above), then that continues to put FHQ over about two points further in the Obama direction. Splitting that difference to find a middle ground means shifting the averages over by about a point. Contrary to what we saw above, that has a minimal effect. It pushes Florida over to the Romney side of the partisan line, puts Colorado on the Watch List as a state that is only a fraction of a point in Obama's direction, and essentially halves the lead Obama currently has in the FHQ weighted averages. That correction may just be bringing FHQ in line with some of the other polling aggregators out there. And that may not be properly adjusting for how wrong the state polls might be as compared to the national polls.
One final alternative could be to find some position between the two examples above. Instead of adjusting by 3.5 points as was the case in Alternative #1 or by a point as in Alternative #2, let's see what things look like if we adjust the state averages by 2.5 points toward the national polls.
That has the effect of firming up Arizona, Missouri and North Carolina for Romney. It also brings Florida, Colorado and Virginia over to the former Massachusetts governor's side of the partisan line. That reduces the president's cushion significantly. Iowa and Ohio become virtual ties and New Hampshire (and to a lesser extent Nevada) is not that far behind. Those are the Tier 2 states FHQ has been harping on for the last week. That Iowa/New Hampshire/Ohio group could be hugely consequential, but given the number of electoral votes Ohio holds, it would be the potentially decisive chip instead of either of the two other smaller states.
This alternative also brings those current Lean Obama states (Michigan, Oregon and Pennsylvania) into play but on the periphery of the category. Still, a toss up is a toss up. Finally, the Lean Obama group of states is really compressed; down to just two states. [The same compression can be seen on the Romney side of the partisan line as well.]
--
What does all of this mean? Well, it is a rough glance at how we can reconcile the difference between the state and national polls without assuming that one of them is right and the other is necessarily wrong. More or less, this is an attempt to split the difference in some way, shape or form between the two; to give us some alternatives -- and likely alternatives -- to consider as we wend our way toward Tuesday.
--
1 This assumes that something other than an electoral college/popular vote split, or a disputed election/recall occurs.
2 The weighted average FHQ uses can hardly be considered a model by conventional academic or statistical standards. It is a simple weighted average; no more, no less. Furthermore, it is a weighted average with some limitations. Mainly, the formula tends to lag just a little behind where the polls have moved. That is good and bad as we have discussed before. On the one hand, it grounds what can be wild fluctuations in the polls overall. On the other, the average tends to be a little less reactive than, perhaps, reflects reality, but definitely a little less than FHQ would like.
Who's right? Rasmussen or PPP?
OR
Which one's nailed it? The national or state polls?
As a social scientist I hate those questions. They aren't the right questions. And they aren't right because rarely are things as black and white as the eventual results we'll likely get next Tuesday (...or early Wednesday).1 [I'm reminded of Seth Masket's book title.] In other words, the tendency -- or the one I've seen permeate my Twitter feed this morning -- to say one is right and the other is wrong, completely eliminates the possibilities that we'll get something that falls in the middle. The true answer, it could be argued, is somewhere between Rasmussen and PPP or somewhere between the national and state polls.
To some extent, the various polling averages that are out there already account for the distance between the numbers from firms like PPP and Rasmussen. Throw them all in the pot and see what kind of soup you end up with. Fair enough. I'll address the state polls versus national polls issue here. Again, the "which one is right?" question seems utterly ridiculous to me. But I think it is clear that FHQ has cast its lot with the state polls; something that puts us -- fair or not -- into the "provides the Democrats with some solace" group of forecasters. The tie that binds all of those models/formulas2 is a reliance on the state polls.
Here at Davidson, and on some other college campuses, during basketball season there is a saying: "Live by the three, die by the three." The style that the Wildcat cagers use can be heavily reliant on making three point baskets if their inside-out game (usually against BCS conference opponents with sizable frontcourts) is not working. The same is true of any model or formula that uses as its basis either just state polls or just national polls. You live and die by the choices made. But that does not make one right and one wrong. It may make one righter and the other wronger in 2012, but that does not mean that that will be the case in four or eight years time when we may or may not see a convergence between the two sets of polls.
What this tells us is that in a close election, one in which the uncertainty of the outcome is high or very high, there is a higher likelihood of a divergence between those two sets of polls. [Actually, that is better as a testable hypothesis than as a statement. But I'm going to allow it to stand alone -- untested -- for the time being. It is something to consider.]
Fine then. We have a close election, uncertainty is high, and there is a discrepancy between the state and national polls with two emerging explanations. One is the one is right, one is wrong view. The other is what I am calling the convenient narrative. The convenient narrative holds that the numbers in the national polls are driven by enthusiastic Republicans in states that are overwhelmingly likely to vote Republican anyway. The other side of that narrative is that Obama is doing enough better than Romney in toss up states to amass more than enough electoral votes to retain the White House.
But let's take all the polarized camps above -- whether Rasmussen vs. PPP or state vs. national polls or convenient narrative vs. one right, one wrong -- and find some middle ground. Let's consider that the true outcome is or might be somewhere in between.
What does that mean?
Well, let's assume that FHQ -- or the underlying average of state polls really -- is overly rosy for Obama and the Democrats. Further, let's assume that the current Gallup numbers (Romney +5, October 22-28) are equally as optimistic but in Romney's and the Republicans' direction. Where is the middle ground there? Roughly, we can say that Romney is about +5 of that national poll average in Gallup. [Both Real Clear Politics and Pollster have the national average breakdown at a 47-47 tie as of this writing.] Eyeballing it, Virginia is right on that 47-47 number. Now, as FHQ has mentioned before, if Virginia is tied, then Obama will win the electoral college if the established order of states in the Electoral College Spectrum is correct (and it has held pretty steady throughout 2012). If that is the overlap between the state and national polls then FHQ is approximately two points more pro-Obama in how the numbers shake out. This is rough -- very rough not to mention somewhat incongruous -- folks, but that puts a seven point gap between FHQ on one end and Gallup on the other. What happens if we shift things three and a half points over toward the middle.
The Electoral College Spectrum1 -- Alternative #1
| ||||
VT-3
(6)2
|
WA-12
(158)
|
NH-4
(257/285)
|
GA-16
(167)
|
ND-3
(55)
|
HI-4
(10)
|
NJ-14
(172)
|
OH-183
(275/281)
|
SD-3
(151)
|
KY-8
(52)
|
NY-29
(39)
|
CT-7
(179)
|
IA-6
(281/263)
|
IN-11
(148)
|
AL-9
(44)
|
RI-4
(43)
|
NM-5
(184)
|
VA-13
(294/257)
|
SC-9
(137)
|
KS-6
(35)
|
MD-10
(53)
|
MN-10
(194)
|
CO-9
(303/244)
|
TN-11
(128)
|
AR-6
(29)
|
IL-20
(73)
|
OR-7
(201/344)
|
FL-29
(332/235)
|
NE-5
(117)
|
AK-3
(23)
|
MA-11
(84)
|
PA-20
(221/337)
|
NC-15
(206)
|
TX-38
(112)
|
OK-7
(20)
|
CA-55
(139)
|
MI-16
(237/317)
|
AZ-11
(191)
|
WV-5
(74)
|
ID-4
(13)
|
DE-3
(142)
|
WI-10
(247/301)
|
MO-10
(180)
|
LA-8
(69)
|
WY-3
(9)
|
ME-4
(146)
|
NV-6
(253/291)
|
MT-3
(170)
|
MS-6
(61)
|
UT-6
(6)
|
1 Follow the link for a detailed explanation on how to read the Electoral College Spectrum.
2 The numbers in the parentheses refer to the number of electoral votes a candidate would have if he won all the states ranked prior to that state. If, for example, Romney won all the states up to and including Ohio (all Obama's toss up states plus Ohio), he would have 281 electoral votes. Romney's numbers are only totaled through the states he would need in order to get to 270. In those cases, Obama's number is on the left and Romney's is on the right in italics. 3 Ohio is the state where Obama crosses the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That line is referred to as the victory line. | ||||
Now, FHQ does a lot of talking about how much 2012 looks like 2004. The above Spectrum looks an awful lot like what things looked like in the polls in 2004 but with there being a few more heavily Republican states now relative to then. Obviously, this puts Romney over the top if he were to win the series of toss up states that are on his side of the partisan line. It obviously also brings into play for the Republican challenger all the states that have been on the tips of everyone's tongues this last week; that series of (as FHQ has them categorized now) Obama lean states like Michigan, Oregon and Pennsylvania.
Of course, this is just one way in which we could reconcile the differences between the national and state polls. Gallup is five points out from the average of national polls at the moment. And perhaps it is not exactly fair to take one poll on one far end of the range of national polls and stack it up against a weighted average of state polls. In our effort to find middle ground a better approach -- not necessarily the best -- is to compare an average of state polls to and average of national polls. Again, if Virginia is the point of overlap between the two series (just as above), then that continues to put FHQ over about two points further in the Obama direction. Splitting that difference to find a middle ground means shifting the averages over by about a point. Contrary to what we saw above, that has a minimal effect. It pushes Florida over to the Romney side of the partisan line, puts Colorado on the Watch List as a state that is only a fraction of a point in Obama's direction, and essentially halves the lead Obama currently has in the FHQ weighted averages. That correction may just be bringing FHQ in line with some of the other polling aggregators out there. And that may not be properly adjusting for how wrong the state polls might be as compared to the national polls.
The Electoral College Spectrum1 -- Alternative #2
| ||||
VT-3
(6)2
|
WA-12
(158)
|
NH-4
(257)
|
GA-16
(167)
|
ND-3
(55)
|
HI-4
(10)
|
NJ-14
(172)
|
OH-183
(275/281)
|
SD-3
(151)
|
KY-8
(52)
|
NY-29
(39)
|
CT-7
(179)
|
IA-6
(281/263)
|
IN-11
(148)
|
AL-9
(44)
|
RI-4
(43)
|
NM-5
(184)
|
VA-13
(294/257)
|
SC-9
(137)
|
KS-6
(35)
|
MD-10
(53)
|
MN-10
(194)
|
CO-9
(303/244)
|
TN-11
(128)
|
AR-6
(29)
|
IL-20
(73)
|
OR-7
(201)
|
FL-29
(332/235)
|
NE-5
(117)
|
AK-3
(23)
|
MA-11
(84)
|
PA-20
(221)
|
NC-15
(206)
|
TX-38
(112)
|
OK-7
(20)
|
CA-55
(139)
|
MI-16
(237)
|
AZ-11
(191)
|
WV-5
(74)
|
ID-4
(13)
|
DE-3
(142)
|
WI-10
(247)
|
MO-10
(180)
|
LA-8
(69)
|
WY-3
(9)
|
ME-4
(146)
|
NV-6
(253)
|
MT-3
(170)
|
MS-6
(61)
|
UT-6
(6)
|
1 Follow the link for a detailed explanation on how to read the Electoral College Spectrum.
2 The numbers in the parentheses refer to the number of electoral votes a candidate would have if he won all the states ranked prior to that state. If, for example, Romney won all the states up to and including Ohio (all Obama's toss up states plus Ohio), he would have 281 electoral votes. Romney's numbers are only totaled through the states he would need in order to get to 270. In those cases, Obama's number is on the left and Romney's is on the right in italics. 3 Ohio is the state where Obama crosses the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That line is referred to as the victory line. | ||||
One final alternative could be to find some position between the two examples above. Instead of adjusting by 3.5 points as was the case in Alternative #1 or by a point as in Alternative #2, let's see what things look like if we adjust the state averages by 2.5 points toward the national polls.
The Electoral College Spectrum1 -- Alternative #3
| ||||
VT-3
(6)2
|
WA-12
(158)
|
NH-4
(257)
|
GA-16
(167)
|
ND-3
(55)
|
HI-4
(10)
|
NJ-14
(172)
|
OH-183
(275/281)
|
SD-3
(151)
|
KY-8
(52)
|
NY-29
(39)
|
CT-7
(179)
|
IA-6
(281/263)
|
IN-11
(148)
|
AL-9
(44)
|
RI-4
(43)
|
NM-5
(184)
|
VA-13
(294/257)
|
SC-9
(137)
|
KS-6
(35)
|
MD-10
(53)
|
MN-10
(194)
|
CO-9
(303/244)
|
TN-11
(128)
|
AR-6
(29)
|
IL-20
(73)
|
OR-7
(201)
|
FL-29
(332/235)
|
NE-5
(117)
|
AK-3
(23)
|
MA-11
(84)
|
PA-20
(221)
|
NC-15
(206)
|
TX-38
(112)
|
OK-7
(20)
|
CA-55
(139)
|
MI-16
(237)
|
AZ-11
(191)
|
WV-5
(74)
|
ID-4
(13)
|
DE-3
(142)
|
WI-10
(247)
|
MO-10
(180)
|
LA-8
(69)
|
WY-3
(9)
|
ME-4
(146)
|
NV-6
(253)
|
MT-3
(170)
|
MS-6
(61)
|
UT-6
(6)
|
1 Follow the link for a detailed explanation on how to read the Electoral College Spectrum.
2 The numbers in the parentheses refer to the number of electoral votes a candidate would have if he won all the states ranked prior to that state. If, for example, Romney won all the states up to and including Ohio (all Obama's toss up states plus Ohio), he would have 281 electoral votes. Romney's numbers are only totaled through the states he would need in order to get to 270. In those cases, Obama's number is on the left and Romney's is on the right in italics. 3 Ohio is the state where Obama crosses the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That line is referred to as the victory line. | ||||
That has the effect of firming up Arizona, Missouri and North Carolina for Romney. It also brings Florida, Colorado and Virginia over to the former Massachusetts governor's side of the partisan line. That reduces the president's cushion significantly. Iowa and Ohio become virtual ties and New Hampshire (and to a lesser extent Nevada) is not that far behind. Those are the Tier 2 states FHQ has been harping on for the last week. That Iowa/New Hampshire/Ohio group could be hugely consequential, but given the number of electoral votes Ohio holds, it would be the potentially decisive chip instead of either of the two other smaller states.
This alternative also brings those current Lean Obama states (Michigan, Oregon and Pennsylvania) into play but on the periphery of the category. Still, a toss up is a toss up. Finally, the Lean Obama group of states is really compressed; down to just two states. [The same compression can be seen on the Romney side of the partisan line as well.]
--
What does all of this mean? Well, it is a rough glance at how we can reconcile the difference between the state and national polls without assuming that one of them is right and the other is necessarily wrong. More or less, this is an attempt to split the difference in some way, shape or form between the two; to give us some alternatives -- and likely alternatives -- to consider as we wend our way toward Tuesday.
--
1 This assumes that something other than an electoral college/popular vote split, or a disputed election/recall occurs.
2 The weighted average FHQ uses can hardly be considered a model by conventional academic or statistical standards. It is a simple weighted average; no more, no less. Furthermore, it is a weighted average with some limitations. Mainly, the formula tends to lag just a little behind where the polls have moved. That is good and bad as we have discussed before. On the one hand, it grounds what can be wild fluctuations in the polls overall. On the other, the average tends to be a little less reactive than, perhaps, reflects reality, but definitely a little less than FHQ would like.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
FOX News Poll: 2012 is All About Huckabee and Romney
Here are the numbers from the FOX News/Opinion Dynamics poll:
Among Republicans:
Huckabee: 20%
Romney: 18%
Gingrich: 14%
Palin: 13%
Giuliani:12%
Sanford: 4%
Jeb Bush: 3%
Jindal: 3%
Among Independents:
Giuliani: 19%
Huckabee: 16%
Romney: 12%
Palin: 10%
Gingrich: 5%
Jindal: 2%
Jeb Bush: 2%
Sanford: 2%
Sure, I could have put Giuliani in that byline at the top as well, but this is the first time he's been polled in the handful of 2012 polls. That isn't anything monumental, but the total lack of chatter around a repeat bid for America's Mayor, to me, is telling. And let's not get started on this Giuliani thing again anyway. It isn't like 2008 turned out well for him. Polling propped up something that wasn't there. We can argue about the merits of Google Trends data all day, but it does show that while Rudy was up in the polls, he wasn't drawing many web searches. Regardless, if he continues to poll like this, the former New York mayor may consider throwing his hat in the ring.
[And yes, the 2012 GOP candidate emergence post with April data is long overdue. I haven't forgotten loyal FHQ readers.]
But what about Huckabee and Romney? And hey, I've gotten this far in to a post on 2012 without mentioning Sarah Palin.
Let's deal with the former first. These are more solid polling numbers for Huckabee. The thing that is striking to me is that the former Arkansas governor is doing so well (relatively speaking -- It is just 16%.) among independents polled by FOX. Giuliani besting him with that particular group isn't a shock, but seeing Huckabee atop the list of remaining prospective GOP candidates for 2012 is still something I need to think some about. This is the guy whose stalking horse in the January RNC chair race, Chip Saltsman, was dubbed, along with fellow southerner, Katon Dawson, a symbol of the Republican Party's inability to stretch its success any further than the South. I thought Huckabee would be there in 2012, but I didn't see support necessarily coming from this direction.
For Romney, it's good but not great news. He's among the top candidates, but not tops. And he's still losing to a guy who was able to beat his money with better organization in Iowa in 2008. The former Massachusetts governor is still within the margin of error of Huckabee with both groups sampled in the poll.
And Sarah Palin? In 2009, three years before the contests begin for the 2012 cycle, the presidential nomination race is all about name recognition, and it says something that the power of the former vice presidential candidate's name has decayed to the point that she is barely garnering double digits in one of these polls. There are a lot of names in this poll, but for someone who was a potential number two, not to mention someone with such a loyal following among conservatives, this is yet further evidence of the Alaska governor's 2009 slide.
Finally, it is nice to see Mark Sanford included in the polling. The South Carolina governor's name has been in the news because of his reaction to the Obama administration's stimulus plan, and has been mentioned in the context of a 2012 run, but he hadn't appeared in any polls as of yet. Also, it is nice of FOX to throw in the Jeb Bush wildcard to test for Bush fatigue. It looks like it is still too soon for another Bush. Yeah, it has only been four months since the last one left office. I think that qualifies as too soon.
Hat tip to GOP12 for the link.
Recent Posts:
Time Running Out for Frontloading Bills in 2009
Much Ado About Nothing in Texas
Back in Business
Among Republicans:
Huckabee: 20%
Romney: 18%
Gingrich: 14%
Palin: 13%
Giuliani:12%
Sanford: 4%
Jeb Bush: 3%
Jindal: 3%
Among Independents:
Giuliani: 19%
Huckabee: 16%
Romney: 12%
Palin: 10%
Gingrich: 5%
Jindal: 2%
Jeb Bush: 2%
Sanford: 2%
Sure, I could have put Giuliani in that byline at the top as well, but this is the first time he's been polled in the handful of 2012 polls. That isn't anything monumental, but the total lack of chatter around a repeat bid for America's Mayor, to me, is telling. And let's not get started on this Giuliani thing again anyway. It isn't like 2008 turned out well for him. Polling propped up something that wasn't there. We can argue about the merits of Google Trends data all day, but it does show that while Rudy was up in the polls, he wasn't drawing many web searches. Regardless, if he continues to poll like this, the former New York mayor may consider throwing his hat in the ring.
[And yes, the 2012 GOP candidate emergence post with April data is long overdue. I haven't forgotten loyal FHQ readers.]
But what about Huckabee and Romney? And hey, I've gotten this far in to a post on 2012 without mentioning Sarah Palin.
Let's deal with the former first. These are more solid polling numbers for Huckabee. The thing that is striking to me is that the former Arkansas governor is doing so well (relatively speaking -- It is just 16%.) among independents polled by FOX. Giuliani besting him with that particular group isn't a shock, but seeing Huckabee atop the list of remaining prospective GOP candidates for 2012 is still something I need to think some about. This is the guy whose stalking horse in the January RNC chair race, Chip Saltsman, was dubbed, along with fellow southerner, Katon Dawson, a symbol of the Republican Party's inability to stretch its success any further than the South. I thought Huckabee would be there in 2012, but I didn't see support necessarily coming from this direction.
For Romney, it's good but not great news. He's among the top candidates, but not tops. And he's still losing to a guy who was able to beat his money with better organization in Iowa in 2008. The former Massachusetts governor is still within the margin of error of Huckabee with both groups sampled in the poll.
And Sarah Palin? In 2009, three years before the contests begin for the 2012 cycle, the presidential nomination race is all about name recognition, and it says something that the power of the former vice presidential candidate's name has decayed to the point that she is barely garnering double digits in one of these polls. There are a lot of names in this poll, but for someone who was a potential number two, not to mention someone with such a loyal following among conservatives, this is yet further evidence of the Alaska governor's 2009 slide.
Finally, it is nice to see Mark Sanford included in the polling. The South Carolina governor's name has been in the news because of his reaction to the Obama administration's stimulus plan, and has been mentioned in the context of a 2012 run, but he hadn't appeared in any polls as of yet. Also, it is nice of FOX to throw in the Jeb Bush wildcard to test for Bush fatigue. It looks like it is still too soon for another Bush. Yeah, it has only been four months since the last one left office. I think that qualifies as too soon.
Hat tip to GOP12 for the link.
Recent Posts:
Time Running Out for Frontloading Bills in 2009
Much Ado About Nothing in Texas
Back in Business
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
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
Thursday, July 31, 2008
5% of Democrats Say They'll Vote for McCain
The question is: How consequential is that? Is that enough to swing the election to McCain or are those Democrats concentrated in comfortably red states already? I don't have an answer, but I would like to open the topic up for discussion.
These numbers are based on the current Rasmussen national poll that was released under the somewhat misleading (yet more eye-opening) headline, "30% of Conservative Democrats Say They'll Vote for McCain." That's great, but only 18% of those Democrats polled in the two weeks the survey was conducted said they were conservative. The release goes on to list the numbers broken down by age and race, but not by region or by state. Now, I'm sure that information is available via subscription, but I'm not privy that information (Perhaps some of our readers are.).
But what do you think? Is 5% enough to hurt Obama? It is certainly better than the 28% of Hillary supporters who said they'd vote for McCain back in March (if Obama became the nominee).
Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (7/30/08)
BarackBook: An Experiment Gone Wrong
Frontloading Under Fire, Part II
These numbers are based on the current Rasmussen national poll that was released under the somewhat misleading (yet more eye-opening) headline, "30% of Conservative Democrats Say They'll Vote for McCain." That's great, but only 18% of those Democrats polled in the two weeks the survey was conducted said they were conservative. The release goes on to list the numbers broken down by age and race, but not by region or by state. Now, I'm sure that information is available via subscription, but I'm not privy that information (Perhaps some of our readers are.).
But what do you think? Is 5% enough to hurt Obama? It is certainly better than the 28% of Hillary supporters who said they'd vote for McCain back in March (if Obama became the nominee).
Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (7/30/08)
BarackBook: An Experiment Gone Wrong
Frontloading Under Fire, Part II
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Happy New Year! It's a Presidential Election Year!
Here we are a day away from the official kickoff of the presidential primary season (Sorry caucuses, but research shows that you take a backseat to primaries--see Gurian. Ah, shameful namedropping.) and things are still up in the air in both parties. It's the beginning for the American electorate (or at least for those that care to show up for the primaries) and the beginning of the end for all but the most viable candidates with the exception of perhaps Dennis Kucinich and Alan Keyes. So what's been happening on the trail since the last update?
1) Paul sent this over today (via the latest Pew Research Poll):
McCain Rebounds In National Poll; Clinton Holds Big Lead
January 2, 2008 10:25 AM
Pew Research Poll
Rudy Giuliani's once solid lead among Republicans nationwide has vanished,
and John McCain -- whose campaign was regarded as dead in the water this
summer -- is back on top with the GOP leaders. McCain has 22 percent support
among Republicans, followed by Giuliani at 20 percent and Mike Huckabee at 17
percent. Mitt Romney follows at 12 percent with Fred Thompson at 9 percent.
The survey was conducted Dec. 19-30 and has a 5 percent margin of error.
Giuliani was counting on the 21 states that vote Feb. 5, but the poll indicates he
is in a virtual tie with McCain in those states.
On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton maintains her large national lead over
Barack Obama, 46 percent to 26 percent, with John Edwards at 14 percent.
So the national polls indicate McCain is a factor again in the race for the GOP nomination and Hillary is running away with things on the Democratic side. And while the US has the closest thing it has ever had to a national primary day with this year's February 5 Super Tuesday, these nominations still play out on the state level with Iowa and New Hampshire still going first.
2) Let's deal with the Republicans first:
Mitt Romney at one time or another had fairly comfortable leads in both Iowa and New Hampshire. But Mike Huckabee and John McCain have challenged those leads in Iowa and New Hampshire respectively. With McCain basically writing Iowa off to focus on New Hampshire, the two-pronged attack on Romney in both early states is causing the former Massachusetts governor to split time between both states instead of going it one at a time. Here's the deal though. Romney and Huckabee are in essentially the same position as the top three Democrats in Iowa: neck and neck. That one could go either way. In New Hampshire though, McCain is going to rely on independents to once again deliver a victory in the Granite state. However, the LA Times is reporting that Obama could be siphoning off some of that independent support from McCain in the state (I apologize for the link to an Obama supporter blog, but the LA Times has already password protected that article For those that want to read the article from the source, a link is included and registration for the paper's site is just a click away.).
3) Which brings us to the Democrats:
Still locked in a three-way tie in Iowa, Clinton, Obama and Edwards continue to make last minute pitches to potential caucus goers. The thing that is going unnoticed again (as it did in the 2004 Iowa Democratic caucus) is the second choice voters. Now, the rules of the caucuses stipulate that supporters of candidates receiving less than fifteen percent can move to those other candidates in the upper tier. NBC Nightly News on Sunday (December 31) reported that Edwards was becoming the favorite second choice of those not already aligned with any of the top three candidates. The Edwards camp is also playing up the results of a poll that reallocates based on second choice votes (Edwards enjoys a 41-34-25 edge over Clinton and Obama respectively.). These second choice folks were the same ones that catapulted Edwards to his surprising second place finish in the state in 2004 and that bloc is still one to keep our eyes on tomorrow night.
UPDATE: Kucinich has urged his Iowa supporters to back Obama in the event that he does not reach the necessary fifteen percent.
4) If you haven't already and like to reminisce about campaigns past, be sure to check out CQ's review of presidential nomination campaigns since 1912. It's a nice eight part read.
5) Paul mentioned it before in an earlier email, but let me mention it also: C-SPAN is offering live coverage of the Iowa caucuses again this year. Here's the link. If I find that it will be simulcast online I'll send around that link as well. If they aren't covering it online (and I'm sure Paul will tape it), I'm going to try and DVR it through my media player and briefly post a "pirated" version on either this blog or my website tomorrow night at the conclusion of the coverage. I'll need to check on the space capacity of both first. But I'll find a way to get it up there for the group. Also, I'll be online tomorrow night to post and discuss the results, so come on by at your leisure to talk about all things Campaign '08.
1) Paul sent this over today (via the latest Pew Research Poll):
McCain Rebounds In National Poll; Clinton Holds Big Lead
January 2, 2008 10:25 AM
Pew Research Poll
Rudy Giuliani's once solid lead among Republicans nationwide has vanished,
and John McCain -- whose campaign was regarded as dead in the water this
summer -- is back on top with the GOP leaders. McCain has 22 percent support
among Republicans, followed by Giuliani at 20 percent and Mike Huckabee at 17
percent. Mitt Romney follows at 12 percent with Fred Thompson at 9 percent.
The survey was conducted Dec. 19-30 and has a 5 percent margin of error.
Giuliani was counting on the 21 states that vote Feb. 5, but the poll indicates he
is in a virtual tie with McCain in those states.
On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton maintains her large national lead over
Barack Obama, 46 percent to 26 percent, with John Edwards at 14 percent.
So the national polls indicate McCain is a factor again in the race for the GOP nomination and Hillary is running away with things on the Democratic side. And while the US has the closest thing it has ever had to a national primary day with this year's February 5 Super Tuesday, these nominations still play out on the state level with Iowa and New Hampshire still going first.
2) Let's deal with the Republicans first:
Mitt Romney at one time or another had fairly comfortable leads in both Iowa and New Hampshire. But Mike Huckabee and John McCain have challenged those leads in Iowa and New Hampshire respectively. With McCain basically writing Iowa off to focus on New Hampshire, the two-pronged attack on Romney in both early states is causing the former Massachusetts governor to split time between both states instead of going it one at a time. Here's the deal though. Romney and Huckabee are in essentially the same position as the top three Democrats in Iowa: neck and neck. That one could go either way. In New Hampshire though, McCain is going to rely on independents to once again deliver a victory in the Granite state. However, the LA Times is reporting that Obama could be siphoning off some of that independent support from McCain in the state (I apologize for the link to an Obama supporter blog, but the LA Times has already password protected that article For those that want to read the article from the source, a link is included and registration for the paper's site is just a click away.).
3) Which brings us to the Democrats:
Still locked in a three-way tie in Iowa, Clinton, Obama and Edwards continue to make last minute pitches to potential caucus goers. The thing that is going unnoticed again (as it did in the 2004 Iowa Democratic caucus) is the second choice voters. Now, the rules of the caucuses stipulate that supporters of candidates receiving less than fifteen percent can move to those other candidates in the upper tier. NBC Nightly News on Sunday (December 31) reported that Edwards was becoming the favorite second choice of those not already aligned with any of the top three candidates. The Edwards camp is also playing up the results of a poll that reallocates based on second choice votes (Edwards enjoys a 41-34-25 edge over Clinton and Obama respectively.). These second choice folks were the same ones that catapulted Edwards to his surprising second place finish in the state in 2004 and that bloc is still one to keep our eyes on tomorrow night.
UPDATE: Kucinich has urged his Iowa supporters to back Obama in the event that he does not reach the necessary fifteen percent.
4) If you haven't already and like to reminisce about campaigns past, be sure to check out CQ's review of presidential nomination campaigns since 1912. It's a nice eight part read.
5) Paul mentioned it before in an earlier email, but let me mention it also: C-SPAN is offering live coverage of the Iowa caucuses again this year. Here's the link. If I find that it will be simulcast online I'll send around that link as well. If they aren't covering it online (and I'm sure Paul will tape it), I'm going to try and DVR it through my media player and briefly post a "pirated" version on either this blog or my website tomorrow night at the conclusion of the coverage. I'll need to check on the space capacity of both first. But I'll find a way to get it up there for the group. Also, I'll be online tomorrow night to post and discuss the results, so come on by at your leisure to talk about all things Campaign '08.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)