According to senior Romney strategist Alex Gage, via The Hotline:
If Ex-MA Gov. Mitt Romney’s poll numbers don’t rise over the next few months, don’t worry, writes Alex Gage, a senior Romney strategist: Romney is “well positioned” — more than most — to win the nomination over the long haul.
Gage made this innocuous and fairly difficult-to-deny point in an expectations-lowering memo the campaign sent to a few hundred members of the “Romney for President Leadership.” We’ve obtained the memo from a friendly member of said Leadership Team.
Gage does not disclose any of the campaign’s internal polling. Instead, he uses public polls and an historical assessment of small state governors to make the point that Romney is ahead of, say, where Bill Clinton was at the equivalent point in 1991.
Romney, writes Gage, is viewed favorably by more than 80 percent of Republicans who know him. He’s performing about his national average in the key early states. And besides — only a quarter of the electorate is paying attention.
“Observers in the media will inevitably question why our numbers don’t immediately rise after being up on the airwaves, but we must remain patient.” Remember that “our ads are only airing in a few states,” and history shows that “nationwide polling will continue to reflect name recognition until voters start to pay attention to the election.”
Well — any member of the media expecting Romney’s poll numbers to jump nationally after running ads in five states should turn in the membership card. But all this provokes the question: if the television ads won’t have any effect on Romney’s poll ratings in the five states, why are they being run at all?
I’ve discussed Romney’s poll numbers several times over the past few months. Even though I’ve been very critical of Romney, there’s no denying that he’s put together a very impressive campaign organization and has demonstrated the ability to raise the vast sums of money needed to stay competitive in the primaries. Despite all that, he’s only just now fighting his way out of the margin of error in most polls. In Gage’s memo, he notes that
Carter, Dukakis, and Clinton were all governors of small states who began their campaigns with low national exposure and went on to win their party’s nomination. At this point in 1975, Carter was polling at 1%; in 1987, Dukakis was polling at 1%; in 1991, Clinton was at 2%. In the latest Gallup poll, Gov. Romney polled at 5% an impressive level given that he remains almost entirely unknown on the national stage. It’s also useful to remember that John McCain was unknown on the national stage in the spring of 1999, polling at just 3%, and didn’t begin to attract any significant support until late October.
That’s all very true, but he misses the main difference between those candidates and Romney’s current status. They had almost no money at the time (Jimmy Carter virtually lived in Iowa for months prior to the Caucuses in ’75-’76 and John McCain did the same thing in New Hampshire in ’99-’00 because they couldn’t afford to campaign in multiple states) and outside of a select few early states, almost no tangible organization. Romney has, as I said, quite a lot of money and a large organization in at least 2 dozen states. He’s frequently mentioned in the media alongside McCain and Giuliani as a member of the Big Three. Romney’s certainly no Mike Huckabee, that’s for sure. There’s really no reason that he shouldn’t be between 10%-15%.
So, why isn’t he? Well, I think I found the reason why. Gage notes that the latest Gallup poll has Mitt Romney at an “impressive” 5%. But, again, he only mentions part of the story. But on February 14th, Gallup released a wide ranging favorability poll. It has some numbers that must be very disconcerting news for Romney. In December 2006, he had a national name recognition of 48% and his favorability/unfavorability/no opinion rating was 19%/12%/17%. But when they surveyed people between February 9th-11th, Gallup found some shocking numbers. While Romney’s national name ID has grown to 53%, his new rating is 18%/18%/18%. The only way to read that is that as more people found out about him, his favorability decreased and his unfavorability shot way up. Unfortunately, there’s no way to determine the precise reason for the shift in disapproval. It’s easy to speculate that people have discovered his previous flip-flops, or maybe that he’s a Mormon or that he’s from Massachusetts, or they just don’t like his hair. Who knows, but something about him is bringing his numbers down. He’s in a very dangerous position right now because of the people who know about him, a third like him, a third don’t like him and another third has no opinion of him. He has to do something to make sure that this doesn’t turn into a trend, otherwise he might not even make it out of the gate.
February 26th, 2007 at 5:16 am
The critical flaw of Team Romney’s arguments is that they can only cite examples from the Democratic side of the aisle. The fact that there is no corresponding example from Republican history (someone who actually won the nom) tells you all you need to know.
February 26th, 2007 at 8:17 am
I’m not too worried about Mitt. He has a fine organization here in Iowa.
http://www.iowansforromney.com
February 26th, 2007 at 11:09 am
I must argue with your assertion that Mitt has 53% name recognition. While 53% of the people may have heard his name mentioned once on the evening news, they probably know NOTHING about him other than the fact that he is LDS (the media loves to mention that one). Then you look at McCain and Rudy. While their name recognition might be in the 80′s, I would say that 60% of the people know ABOUT them. More than 50% would probably be able to tell you that McCain is a senator and Rudy was mayor of NYC. Contrast that with the, say, 10% who know the most about Mitt and they MIGHT be able to tell you that he was governor of Massachussetts. I agree, however, that if Mitt want to succeed he must concentrate on getting his name out there. He has the fundraising capability, the campaign structure, the endorsements, the inside-the-beltway support from the pundits (National Review, Laura Ingraham, etc), but he lacks the name recognition to have much in the way of grassroots support.
February 26th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
The difference in between the favorability/unfavorability numbers is hardly significant. So a few people that don’t know much about Mormons found out that Romney’s mormon. Those people probably weren’t going to vote for him anyway. And as far as the argument that Republicans only nominate frontrunners and Romney isn’t one, in any usual election year I might buy that argument. But as many people have said before me, this isn’t just any presidential election. There is no heir apparent on either side of the aisle, even though Hillary is having trouble getting over that. 2008 isn”t a conventional election, so conventional wisdom doesn’t always apply.
February 26th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
It isnt downplaying your chances to admit that “over the long haul, Romney stands a good chance to win it all”, because we are having these debates a full 20 months before America votes for President.
Look, Romney is running a smart campaign winning endorsements, raising money, and organizing. Considering how few really give him a chance, im more impressed at what he has done so far. Thats why I am convinced that when America knows him as more than “the Mormon candidate” in the field, and gets to know his record and his values, his stock will go through the roof.
Consider too that Romney has Reagan good looks, Clinton charisma in dealing with others, Carl Rove type passion for numbers and figures, and leadership (CEO type) quality of nobody in 50 years or more. His stock will go up, and he will be competitive. I dont expect any of the big 3 not to raise the $100 million or so, and each will be around till at least Feb 5.
February 27th, 2007 at 1:16 am
Quite agree with Texas Conservative. His name recognition is meaningless until people know more about him. He is in the top 3 at the moment on potential, and as SunsFan says, that potential is rather promising.
If conventional wisdom is true, then Romney will do well simply because he’s a Governor. Senators don’t do well, and Mayors don’t do at all. Assuming that executive experience is still important to the American people, the options are narrowing rapidly (Vilsack being the latest to go). Dems still have Richardson (& maybe Gore). Repubs still have Romney & Huckabee in the ‘realistic’ category. But given how different 2008 is, maybe Senators will prevail? Hillary obviously thinks so!
February 27th, 2007 at 3:08 am
Conventional wisdom dictated that an ex-hollywood divorcee will never be president. This next election will be another time to throw all that ‘CW’ out the window. I agree with you that the current trend favors governors more than any other elected position, but the trends are only good until they’re bucked. In the current climate, I believe executive experience will always impress voters more than legislative experience. Additionally, Romney has the double whammy of both gubernatorial and CEO experience to demonstrate to voters.
That’s why the ‘Rudy was only a mayor’ stigma will not stick. Face it, New York is bigger than many states and even countries. That puts him in a league easily on par or above senatorial capability. I think that his decision not to compete for the empty Senate seat (which Hillary won) will ultimately haunt him. Some perceived him as running away from a fight only to delay it inevitably with the stakes much higher with momentum on Hillary’s side. Though, if he were defeated back then, it would not have bode well for higher aspirations. Rudy still seems like he is playing it safe right now, not commiting himself in the ways you see other candidates are doing. He is coasting on his post 9-11 positive press image. If Rudy continues to play coy with the Republican base, he will see support go elsewhere.
In short, Rudy has nowhere to go but down. Romney has nowhere to go but up.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
I think that his decision not to compete for the empty Senate seat (which Hillary won) will ultimately haunt him.
I dunno BarkTwiggs, I’m very keen to give folks with prostate cancer a free pass. Am I missing something?
February 27th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Giuliani truly did have to battle his disease instead of Hillary. Lets face it, I dont think a senator has ever won the presidency, anyway, right?
February 28th, 2007 at 1:20 am
I didn’t realize how much the cancer was an issue and am thankful that Rudy was able to combat that instead of Hillary (so he could be in a position to be a great responder during the terrorist attacks). I did not follow politics much in the few years before 9/11 and you have reminded me that I need to research and check my assumptions more carefully.