A Woefully, nay, Dreadfully Tardy Update of the 2012 Presidential Trial Heats

Last month*, Public Policy Polling [pdf] released the results of another round of 2012 presidential trial-heat surveys. As has been their custom in monthly installments over the last three months, PPP has attempted to gauge how four (of the most) likely Republicans (Gingrich, Huckabee, Palin and Romney) stack up against President Obama. [For a full look at the March (for a Palin-only version), April and May iterations, see here, here and here.] The most noticeable trend has been that Obama has been above the 50% mark and more than double digits up on each candidate in each month with but one exception. Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee kept the president under 50% and came within seven points of Obama in his first appearance in the poll in April. And that was the only incidence in which those two indicators coincided until the June survey.

And it wasn't Huckabee who fared best.

[Click to Enlarge]
Obama: 49 Gingrich: 41

Newt Gingrich pulled Obama below the majority line and simultaneously broke the 40% barrier himself for the first time in three tries. Still, the former speaker bests only Sarah Palin in terms of unfavorability in these polls.

[Click to Enlarge]
Obama: 50 Huckabee: 43

On favorability, Mike Huckabee has been the most likable Republican of the four across these three polls, yet only marginally better than Mitt Romney. Both still maintain fairly high levels of undecideds. Huckabee, though narrowly missed out on keeping Obama under 50% (The president was right on that mark against Huckabee in June.) while pulling in the highest percentage against Obama of any of these four Republicans.

[Click to Enlarge]
Obama: 52 Palin: 40

It seems silly at this point to dissect the Palin numbers post-July 3, but I'll give it a go. Even before the Alaska governor's surprise resignation announcement, she was performing the worst of the GOP quartet in these polls. More importantly for her, though, she continues to be among the best of the best in the 2012 Republican primary polling conducted thus far. And that performance expands past her announcement into the first Rasmussen poll of the race this past week. If electability was an issue in a tight primary race, though, it could hurt Palin. But in the position we're in the cycle, I don't think now's the time to be making that call. I'll plant the idea, though.

[Click to Enlarge]
Obama: 48 Romney: 40

Finally, Mitt Romney fared much better in June than he had when he bottomed out in the May survey. While 40% isn't anything great for the "next in line" candidate, the former Massachusetts governor came within eight points of Obama; the lowest level the president has been at during the course of these several polls. Amid all the hoopla surrounding Mark Sanford, Sarah Palin and to a lesser extent, John Ensign, Romney's low-profile, picking his spots strategy seems shrewd for the moment. It is 2009 after all. Romney's position in this poll and consistently through the few primary polls (Oh, and I should mention the Pew findings concerning Romney's favorability ratings as well.) in conjunction with the calendar, as it currently exists but is likely to change, continues to be the best-positioned candidate for 2012. But Huckabee is at least on par with Romney on all of those counts with the exception of the calendar (especially if Palin enters too).

Here's an interesting note to end on: Is Huckabee, the 2012 version of John Edwards to Palin's Obama and Romney's Clinton? There are some interesting parallels there. Huckabee is a former Iowa caucus stand out, Palin is the upstart from the grassroots and Romney is the GOP establishment pick. If only there were proportional-only delegate allocation rules, lightning could maybe, just maybe, strike twice. I won't count those chickens, though. [I will also try to limit my cliche usage.]

*Ugh, that's hard to type, but in true Brady fashion, "something suddenly came up" each time I was set to bang out the post. Alas, I'll post these in the right hand side bar for permanent horse-race coverage. PPP should have another update out within the next week to ten days if the past four months release times are any indication.


Recent Posts:
A 2012 Minnesota Toss Up, Too?

A 2012 Texas Toss Up?

State of the Race: New Jersey (7/9/09)

A 2012 Minnesota Toss Up, Too?

Eh, not so much.

I couldn't get much more than a tweet out yesterday about the Public Policy Polling [pdf] survey of Minnesota (It was my last day on the beach. What can I say?), but I don't want to let the results go by without comment.

First of all, PPP at least one-upped the Texas poll released a day earlier, by asking the hypothetical 2012 general election question with two candidates (Tim Pawlenty and Sarah Palin) instead of one (Mitt Romney). It would have been nice if they would have included all of the primary prospective candidates the organization has been polling on the national level. [Speaking of which, be on the lookout Sunday for an updated and long overdue version of the trial-heat graphs I started a while back to account for the changes from June.] But PPP didn't ask the hypothetical, "if the election were held today" question with Gingrich, Huckabee or Romney alongside Obama.

Oh well. I'm not going to get picky. This isn't 2011.

But PPP did provide us with some interesting information about the state of play in Minnesota:

Obama: 51%
Pawlenty: 40%
Not Sure: 8%

Obama: 56%
Palin: 35%
Not Sure: 9%

President Obama, then, is ahead of the state's outgoing (as of 2010) governor by roughly the same margin he bested John McCain by in the North Star state last November and he's leading the soon(er)-to-be outgoing Alaska governor by nearly twice as much. Now, this isn't earth-shattering news here. Minnesota has been a reliably Democratic state throughout much of the last few decades, but has tightened some in recent elections until 2008. As others have pointed out (here and here), the approval numbers for Obama, Pawlenty and Palin may be another number to focus on, but I'll stick with the election question.

What these results tell me is that 2012 is going to be a very difficult year for sitting or recently term limited/"stepping down" governors to do well in the presidential primaries. There is just too much for them to answer for, it appears. Granted, things could turn around on the economic front, but this past few years won't necessarily be kind to governors in the near future. Tim Pawlenty is exhibit one: a Republican governor in a blue state who is trailing the incumbent president in a poll of said state. And the speculation surrounding his decision not to seek a third gubernatorial term places him squarely in the 2012 sweepstakes discussion. It isn't as if John Hoeven was the prospective Republican candidate and the poll was conducted in North Dakota. Pawlenty is at least a legitimate candidate for the GOP in 2012. He may not win the nomination, but he is legitimate. To come up so far behind the president, then, is a bit of an eye-opener. Yes, this is still just one poll, but I do think it speaks to this larger point about governors in the next cycle. The task is going to be a daunting one with all the red ink at the state level these days. And for Pawlenty (and Palin, too), he won't be around to reap any rewards if things start turning around in any noticeable way between now and 2011-12. I mean, we're not talking about George W. Bush in the late 1990s here (popular governor of a populous state during an economic boom).

So let's put this idea on the shelf for the time being and revisit it when the field of candidates starts to take shape. Governors from states that are doing relatively well may have an advantage over those who either are from states that are doing worse or have since left office. Does Haley Barbour fit in the former category? Who else fits in the latter (other than Palin and Pawlenty)?

Thoughts?


Recent Posts:
A 2012 Texas Toss Up?

State of the Race: New Jersey (7/9/09)

Which is Bigger?

A 2012 Texas Toss Up?

National polls are fine, but FHQ's bread and butter are the state-level polls that give us a glimpse into the state of the electoral college race. Of course, considering that the US is still over three years away from the next presidential (general) election, the expectation is that we just aren't going to see that many state polls (...not until after the 2010 midterms, at least). It is a good thing then that the good folks at the University of Texas threw us all a bone -- and an interesting one at that.

You have to dig, but buried within the survey notes [pdf] headlined by the lead Rick Perry has over Kay Bailey-Hutchinson in the much anticipated 2010 Republican gubernatorial primary, is a question asking respondents about the 2012 presidential race.

Q24: If the 2012 presidential election were held today, which of the following would you vote for, or haven't you enough about it to have an opinion?

Among the full sample of 924 Texans, Barack Obama edged Mitt Romney 36-34 (with a full 30% still unsure). There is a lot there at which to look. For starters, Barack Obama is ahead in Texas; that's fairly monumental whether it is July 2009 (Well, actually June, since the poll was conducted from June 11-22.) or July 2012. Granted there are some caveats. First of all, the above numbers are pooled from the full sample of respondents. Among just the registered voters, Romney leads Obama 39-34. And while that's more in line with where we'd all expect Texas to be from a partisan perspective, there is a note of caution for Republicans there (and Democrats, too). First of all, let's not read too much into a state poll three years in advance.

That said, is Mitt Romney a good candidate for the GOP? If Texas is a toss up, the White House will be a tough proposition for the Republican Party; it's that simple. Without those 37 or 38 electoral votes (after the 2010 reallocation), there just aren't that many paths to 270 for the GOP. Before this runaway train gathers too much speed, let's attempt to put on the brakes. Much of this is attributable to the fact that Texans (a quarter of them) just don't have that much knowledge about Mitt Romney. 27% of the respondents weren't sure enough about the former Massachusetts governor to offer an opinion on whether he was from outside of government, someone with experience or somewhere in the middle of that spectrum. It could simply be that Texans are waiting for the identity of the Republican candidate -- any Republican candidate -- to be revealed.

And this is where the Democrats come in. This is the type of poll that sends Democrats to Texas to register new voters. It isn't unlike how Republicans are looking at New Jersey in the governor's race right now. Early polls are deceptive. Though, if the GOP doesn't do something to pull in Hispanic voters in Texas (and elsewhere), those states won't be like New Jersey to the GOP for long; they'll shift toward the Democrats (with all other things held constant).

Finally, why was only Mitt Romney included? No Palin. No Huckabee. No Gingrich. And this poll was in the field before the Palin announcement last week. It is a curious move, but perhaps an interesting nod to the fact that Romney is still the odds on favorite to be the next GOP nominee (albeit it an only slight one). I really would like to have seen some of those other prospective candidates included.

But with three years to go, beggars can't be choosers. A poll is a poll is a poll, after all and FHQ will take what it can get.


Recent Posts:
State of the Race: New Jersey (7/9/09)

Which is Bigger?

State of the Race: Virginia (7/8/09)

State of the Race: New Jersey Governor (7/9/09)

Just over a week since the last update, there is little perceptible movement in the New Jersey governor's race. Republican Chris Christie still maintains a nearly ten point lead over incumbent, Jon Corzine, but the latest poll from Rasmussen on the race adds a twist. Yes, Rasmussen is back with the leaners/without leaners distinction the polling outfit used during the mid- to late summer last year during the presidential race (Read more here and here). The goal of the leaner distinction is to provide a glimpse into a race if some of the undecideds were categorized as for one candidate or another. In the New Jersey race, the leaners had Christie ahead 53-41, which isn't that out of line with where the polling the race has been. That places the Republican slightly higher than he has been in any other poll, but, again, it doesn't stray that far from where he's been.

With the leaners numbers excluded, Corzine hovers around that 40% mark, but Christie drops to 46%. Rasmussen calls the five point drop from its previous poll of the race an end to Christie's post-primary bounce. That may be the case, but the without leaners numbers basically mirror FHQ's graduated weighted average in the race. In other words, Christie is ahead, but Corzine is still within striking distance; especially with so many respondents in this poll either undecided or open to the idea of switching candidates between now and November.

Before I close, let me add one more note on these Rasmussen polls. FHQ's policy is to use the without leaners data in our updates, but to also mention how the averages would be affected had the leaners been "pushed" into one or the other candidate's categories. For this poll, Christie would have gained a few tenths of a percentage point and Corzine would have inched up even less (47.8-38.3).


Recent Posts:
Which is Bigger?

State of the Race: Virginia (7/8/09)

2012 GOP Primary Polling (June 2009 -- Rasmussen)

Which is Bigger?

You'd think a hybrid hiking/Argentine vacation and extramarital affair would top a governor resigning from office.

...until you consider who it is resigning. A very interesting, albeit unsurprising visual from Google Trends. [Bobby Jindal's response to Obama is but a mere blip on the radar now.]


You can play around with the Candidate Emergence Tracker here.


Recent Posts:
State of the Race: Virginia (7/8/09)

2012 GOP Primary Polling (June 2009 -- Rasmussen)

And Another Thing About Those Winner-Take-All Primaries

State of the Race: Virginia Governor (7/8/09)

[Click to Enlarge]

The Deeds' post-primary victory boost seems to have peaked. After handily defeating his Democratic primary opponents, Virginia state senator, Creigh Deeds, jumped past his Republican counterpart, Bob McDonnell, in the polling of the Virginia gubernatorial race, but has remained virtually stationary in the (scant) polling conducted since that immediate, after-primary period. In fact, other than the Rasmussen poll that was in the field the day after the primary, Deeds has been at either 43 or 44 points in every poll since the May 22 Washington Post endorsement (other than the Daily Kos poll that was in the field just prior to, during and after the June 2 primary). [As you can see in the graph below, McDonnell has ever so slightly stretched his lead from the last update and has pulled ahead since Deeds surged to the lead following his win in the primary.]

The real story, then, seems to be McDonnell's approaching that 50% mark FHQ has been discussing in the New Jersey race. The new Public Policy Polling poll out for the race has McDonnell ahead 49-43 and that keeps Deeds just within the 4 point margin of error for the survey. Sure, this is just one poll, but McDonnell's ability to stay at or around that mark, puts the onus on Deeds and the DNC to turn this race around. Regardless, this poll doesn't particularly change the long-term outlook. The race still "feels" like a toss up with a slight lean toward McDonnell at this point. And in that case, turnout becomes highly important. If Democrats can remain as enthused as they were throughout 2008, that likely helps, but if not, this becomes McDonnell's and the Republican Party's race to lose.

In any event, there is quite a bit of time between now and November. This one should continue to be a tight one.

[Click to Enlarge]

Recent Posts:
2012 GOP Primary Polling (June 2009 -- Rasmussen)

And Another Thing About Those Winner-Take-All Primaries

Happy July 4th! No More 'Politics as Usual' Palin Edition

2012 GOP Primary Polling (July 2009 -- Rasmussen)

Is Palin in? Is she out?

That's been what everyone has been trying to hash out over these last few days since the former VP nominee's resignation announcement Friday. Regardless of the answer, though, Palin remains among the top tier of candidates in Rasmussen's first poll of the 2012 Republican presidential primary race (a poll conducted after the announcement). The soon to be former Alaska governor continues to poll nearly evenly with both Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee and as a trio they consistently run about ten points ahead of former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich and well ahead of the other potential challengers.

Between the two early CNN polls on the race (here and here) and the newly released Rasmussen poll, there is a fairly clear picture of where things stand. There is a top tier of candidates that has been solidified -- whether they enter or not -- and an as of yet undetermined group of secondary candidates. And those options haven't significantly changed since last November's election. Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee had their hats thrown in the race by virtue of their showings in the 2008 Republican primaries. Similarly, Sarah Palin being tapped as the 2008 presidential ticket number two and Gingrich's continued outspoken manner kept the two of them toward the front of the 2012 presidential queue.

[Click to Enlarge]

Those four options have been there, but the darkhorse options behind them have emerged and faded very quickly for still being three years away from the next round of primaries and caucuses. By this point, it is a bit redundant to recount the stories of Jon Huntsman, John Ensign or Mark Sanford, but it is the candidates of that ilk who will likely fill out the primary field in just two short years. This time around, Tim Pawlenty and Haley Barbour are the secondary candidates included in the poll. And as has been the case in the CNN polls (with Bobby Jindal and Jeb Bush ), the candidates outside of the foursome mentioned above lag well behind. However, among likely Republican primary voters, it is this group of candidates that still has the most to gain. Opinion has largely solidified around Palin, Romney, Huckabee and Gingrich and it is overwhelmingly positive (favorability to unfavorability ratio) as one might expect for well-known, prospective candidates among Republican voters.

[Click to Enlarge]

And while the "not sures" are well into the single digits for that quartet in the Rasmussen poll, over a quarter of respondents are still unsure about both Pawlenty and Barbour. In other words, there is still a significant faction of likely Republican primary voters who have yet to fully weigh in on those secondary candidates. And there is still plenty of time for each to grow his or her support, but the second tier candidates have the most wiggle room and can yet make it up to the top tier.

Time will tell...


Recent Posts:
And Another Thing About Those Winner-Take-All Primaries

Happy July 4th! No More 'Politics as Usual' Palin Edition

State of the Race: New Jersey (7/1/09)

And Another Thing About Those Winner-Take-All Primaries

In the car yesterday, I was thinking again about the possibility of the Democratic Party utilizing winner-take-all primary rules in some states in 2012. And killjoy that I am, I was probing the idea for unintended consequences. [I had plenty of time.] Perhaps you've noticed that the problems with the current system are the unintended consequences of its piecemeal construction and evolution over the last nearly forty years. Everything from frontloading to the proportional allocation of delegates on the Democratic side to the proliferation of primaries has developed in that span of time.

Anyway, it occurred to me that there is already a line of demarcation drawn between early states and late states and that that line has become quite a problem over time. In actuality, though, I suppose that the line between early states and earliest states is the one that is more problematic. However, that raises an interesting question: Instead of two classes of states based on when a state's primary or caucus is held (something that just recently led to Florida and Michigan going rogue), could the line between proportional states and winner-take-all states similarly set up two classes of states? And do the Florida and Michigan examples from 2008 make that more likely in the future?

Let's take a state like Georgia as an example. The Peach state is already situated on Super Tuesday (February 7, 2012 and every other first Tuesday in February from then on) and is a nicely-sized state from a delegate standpoint. But Georgia is stuck behind the Californias and New Yorks of the world on that particular date. "Fine, the Democrats are allowing winner-take-all rules in some cases (the later states), says the Georgia Democratic Party (because that would be the decision of the state party and not the state legislature). "Why don't we adopt those rules and differentiate our state from the pack?"

Why, indeed? Georgia would certainly provide a much larger delegate cushion with a winner-take-all format than other delegate-rich states using a proportional method of allocation.

Of course, there are a couple of caveats here. First, this sort of delegate allocation difference between states has been the norm in the Republican nominations for quite a while and has gone on without incident. It is, after all, an intra-party issue (between the national and state parties). Theoretically then, the national party should hold some sway over the state party. Florida and Michigan, however, demonstrated that that is not necessarily the case on the Democratic side. And that's the difference. The enforcement mechanism is not as strong for the Democrats as it seemingly is for the Republicans.

Secondly, I find it somewhat hard to fathom a situation where a state (party) like Georgia would buck the national party on the newly changed delegate allocation rules and not go ahead and challenge the party on the scheduling issue as well. If you're going to break the rules, go ahead and break the rules. In other words, why not have a winner-take-all primary that challenges Iowa and New Hampshire on the calendar?

Again, the enforcement mechanism would have to be prohibitive on this point. The backtracking the Democratic Party did on the Florida/Michigan matter was not helpful to its cause (as a national party); both states ultimately got their delegates back. States, then, are certainly less likely to take the party's word on it in the future. [Why not move forward if the party's just going to give our delegates back?] However, the candidate sanctions the Democratic Party used in 2008 kept the candidates (or most of them) out of both states. Yet, the candidates are not operating in a vacuum and would potentially be less likely to follow those rules in 2012 or 2016. The underlying issue is the same for the candidates as it is for states: If we can get a competitive advantage by campaigning here/moving forward, then why not go for it?

And that is the real point. Sure, allowing for winner-take-all primaries may open the door to a new form of rules violation, but the conundrum for the Democratic Party is determining a way of keeping states and state parties in line. The Change Commission is about superdelegates and caucuses and the 2012 calendar, but what lies under the surface is the idea that the national party has to have everyone on board. Their recommendations may represent the new rules structure, but that has to trickle down and be implemented by the state parties. They are the entities charged with structuring and submitting delegate selection plans to the national party for approval. But all of this is an intra-party struggle unlike the court battles witnessed over similar issues between the parties and state governments. The party took precedent in that case, but in a state party versus national party debate, legal challenges are of a different breed.

This is the real issue to be looking at as the Democratic Change Commission continues its work.


Recent Posts:
Happy July 4th! No More 'Politics as Usual' Palin Edition

State of the Race: New Jersey (7/1/09)

Could Open Primaries Actually Help the GOP in 2012?

Happy July 4th! No More 'Politics as Usual' Palin Edition

First off, FHQ wants to wish everyone out there a Happy Independence Day.

Good, now that that's out of the way, we can get down to the real business of the holiday weekend: Sarah Palin's surprise (Is it still a surprise today? Yeah, I think it is.) announcement that she's not only not seeking re-election to her current position as Alaska governor, but that she will be resigning the post altogether toward the end of July. Half a day later, I'm still trying to make sense of the move. Of course, in retrospect, it may be futile to try and make sense of it.

Is she running for president?
Some think so.

Is she running for senate?
That idea has been thrown out there.

Is she done with politics for good?
That, too, is on the table. I couldn't say I'd blame her.

Could it be all three? Well, it couldn't be (not if she's done "for good"). But let's assume she's just taking a break* and that she and Lisa Murkowski have a "deal" to basically switch places. Palin runs for Senate and Murkowski comes home to run for governor in 2010. Is it far-fetched? Sure. Lt. Governor Sean Parnell will certainly have a claim to the governor's office at that point. However, Murkowski would start out with name recognition in the state; an understatement considering her father, Frank, served as the state's governor earlier this decade (not to mention a senator for two decades prior to that.).

Well, why would Palin quit her current job to do this? I'd argue that a backroom deal such as this proposed political switch is a direct challenge to the "politics as usual" she has been fighting against. Yes, it's still far-fetched, but I'm throwing the idea on to the table.

I'm on the road today (and was yesterday), so I'll be back later with more. In the meantime, consider this an open thread on the Palin issue. I'll move the comments already made (in the New Jersey post) over here later on.

Happy 4th everyone! (Oh, and thanks to Jack for the Mitchell and Cillizza links above.)

*I'll define break as building the organizational infrastructure necessary for a national run.


Recent Posts:
State of the Race: New Jersey (7/1/09)

Could Open Primaries Actually Help the GOP in 2012?

Did Democratic Superdelegates Write Their Own Epitaph?

State of the Race: New Jersey Governor (7/1/09)

What is this? A presidential race? Another day brings another new poll in the New Jersey gubernatorial race. There's no real news here other than the fact that Chris Christie is below the 50% mark against Jon Corzine for the first time since his Republican primary victory on June 2. But I'm not reading too much into that. For one thing, Fairleigh Dickinson, if you look across the full list of polls conducted in this race since the first of the year, has been an outlier in terms of the number of undecideds that are revealed in each poll. There's no reason to doubt the FDU results, but it is clear that both Christie's numbers in this poll and the undecided proportion of the responses are different from what we've witnessed in the most recent polling of the race in the Garden state. Oddly enough, Corzine's numbers are fairly close to where they have been in other polls.

Does that mean Christie is being undervalued or that there is some evidence of the "Democrats and independents will come home to Corzine in November" hypothesis in this undecided figure? I'd have to say the former. FDU's final poll of the presidential race in New Jersey last year had Obama up 18 points with about a week to go (which wasn't too far off), but with 10% still undecided. That's a pretty substantial number of undecideds that late in any presidential race, much less 2008 (in a blue state). No other polling organization covering the New Jersey race (other than Strategic Vision) had anything approaching that high a number that late in the contest.

In other words, despite the low total in this most recent poll from Fairleigh Dickinson, Chris Christie is likely still at or above that magic 50% mark. And just for the sake of comparison, the Republican challenger's weighted average only dropped by two tenths of a point from yesterday's update.



Recent Posts:
Could Open Primaries Actually Help the GOP in 2012?

Did Democratic Superdelegates Write Their Own Epitaph?

State of the Race: New Jersey (6/30/09)