Never too early for a horserace.
Last night I procrastinated by looking at some recent polling. Republican-leaning outfit Strategic Vision has been posting up results of some state polls of what registered Dems and Repubs think of their prospective 2008 fields. (Come on, I deserve this. I've done plenty of serious blogging lately!)
Here are the early results (sorry for the ugly formatting; my tech support's mother is visiting this week):
Florida (posted July 21)
Republicans
Rudy Guliani 28%
Jeb Bush 19%
John McCain 17%
Newt Gingrich 9%
Bill Frist 5%
George Allen 4%
Mitt Romney 2%
Rick Santorum 2%
Chuck Hagel 1%
George Pataki 1%
Undecided 12%
Democrats
Hillary Clinton 35%
Al Gore 17%
John Kerry 15%
John Edwards 5%
Wesley Clark 5%
Joseph Biden 4%
Bill Richardson 1%
Ed Rendell 1%
Tom Vilsak 1%
Evan Bayh 1%
Barbara Boxer 1%
Undecided 14%
Georgia (posted May 17)
Republicans
Rudy Giuliani 22%
John McCain 19%
Bill Frist 11%
Newt Gingrich 9%
George Allen 7%
Mitt Romney 5%
Rick Santorum 3%
George Pataki 1%
Chuck Hagel 1%
Undecided 22%
Democrats
Hillary Clinton 30%
Al Gore 19%
John Kerry 13%
John Edwards 8%
Wesley Clark 6%
Bill Richardson 3%
Evan Bayh 2%
Joseph Biden 2%
Ed Rendell 1%
Tom Vilsak 1%
Barbara Boxer 1%
Undecided 14%
New Jersey (posted July 19)
Republicans
Rudy Guliani 39%
John McCain 22%
George Pataki 8%
Mitt Romney 6%
Bill Frist 6%
Rick Santorum 5%
Newt Gingrich 3%
George Allen 1%
Chuck Hagel 1%
Undecided 9%
Democrats
Hillary Clinton 40%
John Kerry 12%
Al Gore 10%
Ed Rendell 8%
Joseph Biden 7%
Wesley Clark 4%
John Edwards 4%
Bill Richardson 1%
Mark Warner 1%
Tom Vilsak 1%
Evan Bayh 1%
Barbara Boxer 1%
Undecided 10%
As an excited supporter of Newt Gingrich, the one and only Atari Republican, for the '08 GOP nomination, I'm thrilled to see my man almost breaking double digits in a couple of states. But what surprises me here is how Giuliani is absolutely kicking the collective asses of the rest of the Republican field, even in conservative Georgia. He's even beating Jeb Bush out in Florida! These are the same conservative Republican base voters who, for the most part, rejected McCain in favour of Bush in the 2000 primary, yet they look to be leaning toward supporting a pro-choice, pro-gay, pro-homeland security Republican in 2008 in almost the same proportions that Democrats are flocking to presumptive frontrunner Hillary Clinton. This might say somethng about how strongly grassroots Republicans still prioritize a strong role in the War on Terror (sorry, I guess that's now that's now the Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism). It also means that the McCain-loving media should maybe stop talking about their man as the "800 pound gorilla" of the Republican field.
On the Dem side, the results are less surprising I think, except maybe for John Edwards' current poor showing among prospective Dem primary voters. Though it's worth remembering that early polls aren't just about name recognition but about postive name recognition. Almost any Democrat polled knows who John Kerry is, so the fact that he only averages about 15% in these polls is bad news for him (though I still think he's capable of surprising everyone again). HRC's numbers certainly look formidable. They're slightly lower than the numbers Gore was putting up among registered Democrats at roughly the same time in 2001 (45% according to Zogby; 44% according to TIME/CNN in May of 2001, and archived at the indespensible-to-junkies Polling Report). But, then, absent 911, Gore would probably have been unbeatable for the 2004 nomination in a crowded field.
Speaking of Gore, Ezra Klein and Matt Yglesias make the case for him today. I think Matt in particular gets it right -- though I'm not sure the hawk-who-nailed-Iraq argument has much currency beyond the 18% or so of registered voters who indentify as "moderate Democrats" -- but in any case the point is moot if HRC runs. He'd never run against her, which is a damn good thing because the media coverage of such a contest would give any Democrat a perpetual migraine.
To be honest, I'm not sure Kerry would run against Clinton either. And I'm not sure that she, in the end, will run herself (in fact, I'm sticking to my prediction, however naive it may be, that in the end she won't, or at least won't if she thinks there's a decent field without her). So the multitude yelling "early polls are meaningless!" might be right, yet again. But, like last time, their correctness will depend on the decisions of the principles and on unforeseen external circumstances rather than on what the early polls inherently can't tell us. But I'm a big defender of polls. They're statistical populism. And they're so much fun.
Here are the early results (sorry for the ugly formatting; my tech support's mother is visiting this week):
Florida (posted July 21)
Republicans
Rudy Guliani 28%
Jeb Bush 19%
John McCain 17%
Newt Gingrich 9%
Bill Frist 5%
George Allen 4%
Mitt Romney 2%
Rick Santorum 2%
Chuck Hagel 1%
George Pataki 1%
Undecided 12%
Democrats
Hillary Clinton 35%
Al Gore 17%
John Kerry 15%
John Edwards 5%
Wesley Clark 5%
Joseph Biden 4%
Bill Richardson 1%
Ed Rendell 1%
Tom Vilsak 1%
Evan Bayh 1%
Barbara Boxer 1%
Undecided 14%
Georgia (posted May 17)
Republicans
Rudy Giuliani 22%
John McCain 19%
Bill Frist 11%
Newt Gingrich 9%
George Allen 7%
Mitt Romney 5%
Rick Santorum 3%
George Pataki 1%
Chuck Hagel 1%
Undecided 22%
Democrats
Hillary Clinton 30%
Al Gore 19%
John Kerry 13%
John Edwards 8%
Wesley Clark 6%
Bill Richardson 3%
Evan Bayh 2%
Joseph Biden 2%
Ed Rendell 1%
Tom Vilsak 1%
Barbara Boxer 1%
Undecided 14%
New Jersey (posted July 19)
Republicans
Rudy Guliani 39%
John McCain 22%
George Pataki 8%
Mitt Romney 6%
Bill Frist 6%
Rick Santorum 5%
Newt Gingrich 3%
George Allen 1%
Chuck Hagel 1%
Undecided 9%
Democrats
Hillary Clinton 40%
John Kerry 12%
Al Gore 10%
Ed Rendell 8%
Joseph Biden 7%
Wesley Clark 4%
John Edwards 4%
Bill Richardson 1%
Mark Warner 1%
Tom Vilsak 1%
Evan Bayh 1%
Barbara Boxer 1%
Undecided 10%
As an excited supporter of Newt Gingrich, the one and only Atari Republican, for the '08 GOP nomination, I'm thrilled to see my man almost breaking double digits in a couple of states. But what surprises me here is how Giuliani is absolutely kicking the collective asses of the rest of the Republican field, even in conservative Georgia. He's even beating Jeb Bush out in Florida! These are the same conservative Republican base voters who, for the most part, rejected McCain in favour of Bush in the 2000 primary, yet they look to be leaning toward supporting a pro-choice, pro-gay, pro-homeland security Republican in 2008 in almost the same proportions that Democrats are flocking to presumptive frontrunner Hillary Clinton. This might say somethng about how strongly grassroots Republicans still prioritize a strong role in the War on Terror (sorry, I guess that's now that's now the Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism). It also means that the McCain-loving media should maybe stop talking about their man as the "800 pound gorilla" of the Republican field.
On the Dem side, the results are less surprising I think, except maybe for John Edwards' current poor showing among prospective Dem primary voters. Though it's worth remembering that early polls aren't just about name recognition but about postive name recognition. Almost any Democrat polled knows who John Kerry is, so the fact that he only averages about 15% in these polls is bad news for him (though I still think he's capable of surprising everyone again). HRC's numbers certainly look formidable. They're slightly lower than the numbers Gore was putting up among registered Democrats at roughly the same time in 2001 (45% according to Zogby; 44% according to TIME/CNN in May of 2001, and archived at the indespensible-to-junkies Polling Report). But, then, absent 911, Gore would probably have been unbeatable for the 2004 nomination in a crowded field.
Speaking of Gore, Ezra Klein and Matt Yglesias make the case for him today. I think Matt in particular gets it right -- though I'm not sure the hawk-who-nailed-Iraq argument has much currency beyond the 18% or so of registered voters who indentify as "moderate Democrats" -- but in any case the point is moot if HRC runs. He'd never run against her, which is a damn good thing because the media coverage of such a contest would give any Democrat a perpetual migraine.
To be honest, I'm not sure Kerry would run against Clinton either. And I'm not sure that she, in the end, will run herself (in fact, I'm sticking to my prediction, however naive it may be, that in the end she won't, or at least won't if she thinks there's a decent field without her). So the multitude yelling "early polls are meaningless!" might be right, yet again. But, like last time, their correctness will depend on the decisions of the principles and on unforeseen external circumstances rather than on what the early polls inherently can't tell us. But I'm a big defender of polls. They're statistical populism. And they're so much fun.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home