Gallup released their latest presidential race related survey, which asked the general public which figure they would most like to see elected President in 2008.? The poll also asked if respondents would like to see particular presidential candidates run.
Here’s what the poll says:
? ? Would Like
To See RunWould Not
Like To
See Run?Unsure ? ? ? % % % ? ? ? John McCain
? ? ? ? 11/27-29/06
56 40 4 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Rudy Giuliani
? ? ? ? 11/27-29/06
55 43 2 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? John Edwards
? ? ? ? 11/27-29/06
45 49 6 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Hillary Rodham Clinton
? ? ? ? 11/27-29/06
44 55 1 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Barack Obama
? ? ? ? 11/27-29/06
38 48 14 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Condoleezza Rice
? ? ? ? 11/27-29/06
38 60 3 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Al Gore
? ? ? ? 11/27-29/06
31 67 2 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? John Kerry
? ? ? ? 11/27-29/06
23 74 2 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Newt Gingrich
? ? ? ? 11/27-29/06
18 78 4 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Mitt Romney
? ? ? ? 11/27-29/06
16 58 26 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? George Allen
? ? ? ? 11/27-29/06
13 62 25
As one can see, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani appear to be the only ones for whom a majority of Americans would like to see in the race.? Edwards and Clinton closely follow, but don’t quite make the cut.? Surprisingly, a near majority of Americans prefer not to see Obama in the race.
Unfortunately for Gingrich and Romney, who score in league with ousted Sen. Allen, there seems to be little support amongst the general populace for their candidacies.? With nearly identical name recognition levels, Romney only scores a hair better than Allen, whose career was tarnished by oddity after scandal after oddity this summer, which eventually led to his untimely removal from his post by the people of Virginia.? And further reinforcing my opinions about the incredible weakness of a Gingrich presidential candidacy, surprisingly, Newt has higher negatives than either Allen or Kerry, the highest of the whole lot in fact, with almost 4 out of 5 Americans not wanting to see him around in ’08.? While Newt makes for a great lecturer and congressperson, my opinion that he would be a terrible presidential candidate is only becoming continually reinforced by his lackluster performance on the campaign trail and his even more lackluster poll numbers.? He will definitely be a policy bulwark, but the nomination will never be his, hope as some may.
The other half of the poll, which is pretty much meaningless, since a third of respondents refused to answer the question and since the format of an actual election only offers two major choices, is as follows:
“Thinking ahead to the election for president in 2008, who would you most like to see elected president?” Open-ended
? ? ? ? ? ? .
? ? ? % ? ? ? ? Hillary Clinton
15 ? ? ? ? John McCain
11 ? ? ? ? Barack Obama
6 ? ? ? ? Rudy Giuliani
5 ? ? ? ? “A Democrat” (non-specific)
3 ? ? ? ? John Edwards
2 ? ? ? ? Condoleezza Rice
2 ? ? ? ? Newt Gingrich
2 ? ? ? ? “A Republican” (non-specific)
2 ? ? ? ? Al Gore
2 ? ? ? ? Mitt Romney
1 ? ? ? ? Joe Biden
1 ? ? ? ? John Kerry
1 ? ? ? ? Bill Frist
1 ? ? ? ? Colin Powell
1 ? ? ? ? Other
7 ? ? ? ? No one
5 ? ? ? ? Unsure
33
As of now, it appears that, if the race for the Republican presidential nomination has any frontrunners at all, then they are (no more and no less than) Rudy Giuliani and John McCain.? While candidates like Mitt Romney will surely hold much sway in the campaign to come, it is far too early at this point to declare him an “upper tier” candidate.? Romney has an enormous amount of uphill work to do, probably moreso than any other serious contender.
December 6th, 2006 at 3:00 am
What? no Mike Huckabee???
December 6th, 2006 at 3:20 am
I always find it interesting to extrapolate out the undecideds in polls like this, because I see no reason to suspect that the undecideds, who are largely those who haven’t heard enough about the candidates to make up their minds, would break down any differently than those who have heard enough to adjudicate the candidates.
If you extrapolate out the undecideds proportionately in the cases of Allen, Newt, and Mitt, you find that Allen actually has a 17%/83% run/don’t-run ratio, while Newt’s is 19/81 and Romney’s, 22/78. I suppose those are all statistically very similar, and I agree that it doesn’t bode well for Newt or Romney to be polling so similarly to George Allen given the way he’s been presented to the nation.
December 6th, 2006 at 5:49 am
I have to wonder what polls like these are intended to measure. I find the question’s like this to be entirely unhepful to be honest. For instance, to what extent does this question differ from a question which aks “do you think X would make a good president?” or something to that effect. Because it strikes me that the question presented here doesn’t separate that question, likely the more relevant one ultimately, from the question that asks “do you think X can win the presidential election?”. Which is why I loathe to draw many conclusions from polls such as these. If, for instance, the only thing you know about Mitt Romney is that he’s a Mormon, and the media is constantly hinting that a Mormon can’t be elected president, you’re going to be less likely to want to see him run (if you’re a Republican or Republican leaning voter). I’d imagine the same thing, though to a lesser extent as the media hasn’t been constantly harping on the point, applies to someone like Obama (can a black man named Obama really be elected president?). I’m not trying to spin this as favorable for Mitt, or dismiss it out of hand. I think it clearly has some relevance, and does not bode well for the type of work he’ll have to do to both be nominated and elected. But I’d like to see data that asks the first question (would X make a good president), partly because of problems like these. Another thing to consider: it’s easy to imagine why a large portion of the public doesn’t want Allen or Gingrich to run. And thus it this poll perhaps reflects more significantly on them. But with the exception of his Mormonism, an issue which will either be overcome or not (there’s not likely to be a scenario where people are “sorta” willing to vote for a Mormon candidate), there’s no conceivable reason, except for perhaps that he’s a Republican, that the public should look disfavorably on him. He’s only been in the news a handful of times (during the Big Dig, Health Care, the huge floodings earlier this year) and discounting the Mormon issue for a moment they have, without exception, reflected favorably upon him.
December 6th, 2006 at 9:16 am
Wait…McCain has a net of 16% and Rudy has 12%? McCain is 6 points higher than Rudy as well on the “who would you like to see as president rating.” Those have to be the best numbers I’ve seen McCain poll at. Usually his and Giuliani’s numbers are reversed.
Perhaps McCain’s Iraq position isn’t so disastrous politically (at least for the time being) after all.
December 6th, 2006 at 9:42 am
This is just so silly! How do you take these polls seriously when hat least 1/3 of these candidates have ZERO name recognition and haven’t “entered the race” yet, especially given the history of the nominating processes proper?
Oh, because you’re Rudy fans…;)
December 6th, 2006 at 9:44 am
It is difficult to contemplate a more meaningless poll that these types of surveys which do little more than measure name I.D. While a blog dedicated to examining every facet of the 2008 race should note such a poll, you read significance into such numbers at your own peril.
December 6th, 2006 at 9:57 am
The common criticism of early polls measuring name ID only doesn’t really apply this year, when you have an unusually high number of candidates with near-universal name ID. It really is incredible: Giuliani, McCain, Clinton, Gore, Edwards, Rice, Kerry, Gingrich — all of these people flout the normal rule about name ID. In that poll Allen, Roney, and to a lesser extent Obama are the only ones to whom that rule applies.
December 6th, 2006 at 11:36 am
The thing with McCain is much of his support comes from liberal-leaners who will no longer support him once a general election gets ugly. My liberal friends speak glowingly of him now simply because he has made a reputation as going against Bush and the conservative grain, so they all say they would like to see him as President (liberals also love to sound “moderate” so saying they like McCain as Pres. lets them do that). Once the media gets there hooks into McCain and everyone knows he wants mor troops in Iraq and liberal leaners are in the voting booth and see an “R” next to McCain and a “D” next to Hillary/Edwards/Obama/whoever, anyone really think they pull the lever for McCain? I feel bad for McCain because he was a great candidate in 2000, but that happened to be the time W was making his move. Conservatives will not trust him, and liberals might now, but not after a rough campaign.
I would also like to see an inverse of this poll, “who would you least like to see be pres?” – I bet that Hillary, McCain, and Obama would lead on that negative front also.
December 6th, 2006 at 11:48 am
Great post, thank you. I don’t know if you saw but Al Gore was interviews on the today show–I put it up on my blog: http://www.minor-ripper.blogspot.com –also wrote about Bloomberg’s chances in 2008
December 6th, 2006 at 12:18 pm
I think these “who would you like to see run” questions are worse than meaningless. Are the people who want to see Hillary run Democrats who think she would make a great President, or Republicans who are convinced she would be a disasterous candidate? And are the people who don’t want Rudy to run conservatives who don’t want a pro-choice Republican candidate or hard-core Democrats who don’t want to face him in November?
December 6th, 2006 at 12:20 pm
Amen, Brother Sean P! Well-said.
December 6th, 2006 at 12:30 pm
Sean P nailed it. And on top of that strategic element of cross-party polling you have the people who are nearly clueless. How many people in this poll who were “decided” could name any policy positions of the candidates they voted for or against?
This is more than a tad heavy on the pollophilism.
December 6th, 2006 at 1:04 pm
I agree with what has been said about the meaninglessness of the polls and the particular question. My instinct would be to answer yes to everyone on the list – I think everyone who wants to run should run, and I would like to see them do so. The more the merrier – it makes our democracy richer, and insures that all points of view get their proper hearing.
Part of the value of these campaigns is the notion of buy-in. To the extent that your favorite candidate actually runs, and the ideas you support are put to the electoral test, one ends up with a deeper appreciation of democracy, and a tendency to feel less alienated. Even though your candidate loses, they do so for the most legitimate reason – not getting enough support after getting a fair hearing. I think people feel more accepting of the final result if they feel their positions were given a fair shot, and this probably is a good thing for the nation.
December 6th, 2006 at 1:43 pm
But, see, that’s the whole problem with the poll. Some people answer yes to every candidate, some answer yes only to the candidates they like, some answer no to candidates they find acceptable but who they fear will take the nomination from their preferred candidate, some answer no to candidates from the other party that they fear could win the election if they are nominated, and some answer yes to candidates from the other party that they believe will guarantee defeat for said party.
Moreover, since there is no follow-up questions, there is no way to gauge the support between candidates. Is John McCain a better candidate than Rudy because his “he should run” numbers are slightly higher? Is Hillary a better candidate than Obama because her “(s)he should not run” numbers are slightly lower, on a percentage basis? Or is there some gaming of the numbers going on? And how much? A poll that simply judges preference within a party, or hypothetical one-on-one general election matchups, has a lot of limitations at this stage in the game, but they have some value. This poll has none.
December 6th, 2006 at 1:44 pm
Tano makes me feel all warm and fuzzy about democracy.
December 6th, 2006 at 1:45 pm
I agree completely Tano. That’s one of the reasons I so strongly object to, for instance, the Supreme Court, taking it upon themselves to answer the big social questions of the day. Because judicial decisions by their very nature do not allow people a stake in the process or a horse in the race. They do not even bring about anything resembling consensu often. Indeed, I’d suggest this is one of the most important element to consider when assessing the Supreme Court’s success, as an original matter, in “settling” social issues. Leaving aside whether such issues need be in their domain at all, we must simply ask “has this worked?” If 30, 40, and 50 years hence vast segments of the population remain in virulent opposition, and/or if the rules set forth have proven to be unworkable, then the decision was almost certainly wrong.
December 6th, 2006 at 3:03 pm
If a woman’s “right to privacy” is the reason she can allow an abortionist to kill her unborn child, then why don’t murderers and burglars have that “right” when they kill people and rob houses?
December 6th, 2006 at 8:51 pm
Well OK Matt, Maybe we should start at first principles. Do you accept, at least in theory, that there is a legitimate role for the judiciary to enforce the principles and explicit text of the Constitution against legislative acts that may be in violation of those principles?
For example, if some future Congress and president were to ban all firearms, do you think there is a role for the courts to strike down the law, or would you be content to live with that ban until such time as you could organize the political support to retake the Congress?
What about cases where the legislature might pass laws (expressing the will of the majority) that are clearly (to you and me) unjust and unfair and unconstitutional, but whose impact is born by a minority that will always be a minority.
A common example used in these theoretical discussions is the notion of a 51% majority voting to enslave the other 49%. Is there unlimited scope for action by a majority in your view, or are there principles that even a majority cannot impose?
This is, of course, not an entirely theoretical question, given that vast swathes of this country were areas where minorities were denied any semblance of equality, by the majority, and it wasn’t until the courts struck it down that it ended. We might still be waiting otherwise….
December 6th, 2006 at 9:48 pm
As far as the power of judicial review, as an original matter, I’m pretty ambivalent on the issue, although I generally find Yates’ argument, against Judicial Review, mildly more compelling than that expounded by Marshall in favor of judicial review. I reject Judicial Supremacy altogether though. As a modern matter, I tend to adopt a departmentalist view of the constitution (i.e., each branch interprets the constitution in it’s own sphere, and none can bind the others in terms of precedent) that was advanced by individuals like Lincoln. But, yes I’m generally willing to accept the general principle of judicial review for practical, debate purposes.
December 6th, 2006 at 9:51 pm
It’s quite hard to be someone interested in the law and deny principles like judicial review or, one person one vote, though they may be constitutionally suspect.
December 6th, 2006 at 10:33 pm
I wonder how a departmentalized schema would work. Given that the executive has the enforcement mechanisms under its control, how would your approach avoid slipping rapidly into an executive dictatorship? A president could ignore laws he didnt like, do things explicitly forbidden him, given only the rhetorical skills needed to articulate his alternative interpretation of the law.
One of the driving concerns of the founding fathers was to not recreate the monarchy. They were the descendants of 500 years of political movement away from absolute executive rule. By allowing the executive to interpret the laws anyway he sees fit, constrained only by the threat of impeachment, the executive would be dominant. The rule of the people, through their representatives would be illusory.
These objections could apply to the legislature as well. Without the ability of the judiciary to strike down laws, the Constitution is rendered meaningless. How would a minority be able to prevent their rights (even the ones you would recognize) from being taken away by the majority?
December 7th, 2006 at 5:23 pm
“I wonder how a departmentalized schema would work. Given that the executive has the enforcement mechanisms under its control, how would your approach avoid slipping rapidly into an executive dictatorship? A president could ignore laws he didnt like, do things explicitly forbidden him, given only the rhetorical skills needed to articulate his alternative interpretation of the law.”
Because Congress holds the purse strings! That is what is so ingenious about the government our founders gave us. Every branch has check on the other. If a POTUS went out of control, Congress could cut of the funding in areas of his perogative to ensure his compliance. Congress could also use this check on the judiciary.
And if the American people disliked the actions of Congress, they get the chance to throw the bastards out every two-years. American Democracy is a great thing if people will just trust in it’s design.
December 7th, 2006 at 9:40 pm
“American Democracy is a great thing if people will just trust in it’s design.”
Yes Kavon, and much as it seems to pain you guys, the judiciary was part of the plan.
December 12th, 2006 at 7:36 pm
mieowcs tdqirsofee tkawqypy
vnpzwzyjznk mpnmiuiojlw iylczechge nmejfgq