Washington Post/ABC News 2012 Presidential Survey
If the 2012 presidential election were being held today and the candidates were Barack Obama, the Democrat and Sarah Palin, the Republican, for whom would you vote?
If the 2012 presidential election were being held today and the candidates were Barack Obama, the Democrat, Sarah Palin, the Republican, and Michael Bloomberg, an independent candidate, for whom would you vote?
If Sarah Palin runs for president in 2012, would you definitely vote for her, would you consider voting for her, or would you definitely not vote for her?
If Barack Obama runs for re-election in 2012, would you definitely vote for him, would you consider voting for him, or would you definitely not vote for him?
If Michael Bloomberg were an independent candidate for president in 2012, would you definitely vote for him, would you consider voting for him, or would you definitely not vote for him?
Survey of registered voters was conducted December 9-12, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 3.5 percentage points.
Even among Republicans, Palin has detractors, with 29 percent saying they would definitely not back her candidacy. Her highest support comes from Republican women and conservative Republicans. Even so, only about one in five in each group say they would certainly support her presidential bid.
Neither does Palin enjoy wide support among independents: 62 percent say they definitely would not vote for her. Among moderates, 66 percent write off her prospective candidacy.
Still, the survey shows limits to Obama’s appeal. Among independents, 40 percent say they would not vote for him, 36 percent say they would consider it and 21 percent say they would certainly back him.
Bloomberg’s highest levels of support come from independents and young voters, although Obama far outpaces him in both groups. He also draws 25 percent of the vote from those who disapprove of Obama’s handling of the presidency, with Palin taking almost six in 10.
Hotline on Call has the scoop:
The Iowa Republican Party announced late Thursday that the Iowa Straw Poll will be held on August 13, 2011. It will take place at Iowa State Univ. in Ames.
The straw poll will be paired with a debate that the Iowa GOP will host with Fox News two days earlier at the university.
This is a major milestone that has been set for the 2012 campaign. It would be difficult to overstate the importance of the Ames Straw Poll to the campaign at large, but especially for the Iowa caucus. For some history and background on the straw poll and why it’s important, click here. (You can also see the strategies the candidates utilized in 2007 here.)
In short, nobody has ever won the Iowa caucus without placing in the top two at Ames, and poor showings at the straw poll have historically caused at least one or two of the lower-tier candidates to drop out of the race.
This will be a huge decision for Romney, a huge opportunity and challenge for Pawlenty, and a huge fight between Huck and Palin.
Of course, we will keep you updated as the ballots are set, the real estate is awarded, and the candidates make decisions to participate… until then, mark August 11 and 13 on your calendar
Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Health Care Survey
Which one of the following comes closest to what you would like to see lawmakers do with the new health care law — would you like lawmakers to repeal the law entirely, repeal parts of the law, expand the law, or leave it as is?
Among Republicans
Among Democrats
Among Independents
Some Americans choose not to buy health insurance even though they can afford it. The president’s plan requires all Americans who can afford it to have some form of health insurance or else pay a penalty. Failure to pay the penalty would result in an even larger fine, a jail sentence of up to one-year, or both. Do you think the government should be able to require all Americans who can afford it to have health insurance or pay a penalty, or not?
Among Republicans
Among Democrats
Among Independents
Survey of 900 registered voters was conducted December 14-15, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 38% Republican; 35% Democrat; 21% Independent.
PPP (D) 2012 Wisconsin GOP Primary
Among Conservatives
Among Moderates
Among Men
Among Women
Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}
Among Conservatives
Among Moderates
Survey of 400 Republican primary voters was conducted December 10-12, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 4.9 percentage points. Political ideology: 77% Conservative; 21% Moderate; 2% Liberal. Results from the poll conducted October 26-28, 2010 are in parentheses.
Among Conservatives
Among Moderates
Among Men
Among Women
Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}
Among Conservatives
Among Moderates
Survey of 400 Republican primary voters was conducted December 10-12, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 4.9 percentage points. Political ideology: 73% Conservative; 24% Moderate; 3% Liberal. Results from the poll conducted October 28-30, 2010 are in parentheses.
“As I’ve said previously, my highest priority is to have the policy that best enables our armed services to do their job,” Senator-Elect Toomey said. “Our civilian and professional military leadership have now spoken and said we should repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. I would support a free-standing measure to do so.”
This ain’t your father’s conservative movement.
RedState recently polled their readers to see who they would like to see as the GOP Presidential nominee. The winner was Herman Cain.
Who is Herman Cain? Cain is a big private sector candidate – he was a former Pillsbury executive and later ran Godfathers Pizza. He’s also a talk show host and PAC founder. He had previously ran for US Senate in Georgia in 2004 – he came in 2nd place, but did not garner enough support to force a runoff. He’s a great speaker who, apparently, can energize RedState readers quite a bit.
He’s known among conservative circles because of his role in helping fight Clinton’s version of nationalized healthcare in 1994, that’s when he became a conservative legend. As the President of Godfathers Pizza at the time he challenged Bill Clinton personally to a town hall style debate / meeting – and he accepted. The result? Cain pointed out the flaws in the plan when he bold face asked Clinton what he should say to workers he could no longer afford to keep on staff due to the increased health care costs from the “employer mandate.” Clinton said that there would be a number of subsidies for small businessmen to which Cain replied, “Quite honestly, your calculation is inaccurate…In the competitive marketplace it simply doesn’t work that way.” This helped reshape the debate, of which conservatives ended up winning the day.
Now, Cain has said that he’s considering a bid for President in 2012. Should we take such a bid seriously? I’m not sure yet – he does have quite a fan base among conservative activists and knows how to fire up a crowd, but isn’t very well known to the general public. That said, he’s someone to keep track of – with a strong and motivated fan base, with enough money / organizational support he could make waves in caucus states.
_______________________________________________________
Gallup: President Obama Approval Slips Among Lib Dems
Survey Methods
Results are based on telephone interviews conducted as part of Gallup Daily tracking Dec. 6-12, 2010, with a random sample of 3,089 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia, selected using random-digit-dial sampling.
For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±2 percentage points.
Quinnipiac Pennsylvania Political Survey
Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as President?
If the 2012 election for President were being held today, do you think you would vote for Barack Obama the Democratic candidate, or the Republican candidate?
Do you feel that Barack Obama deserves to be reelected, or do you feel that he does not deserve to be reelected?
Do you think Barack Obama is too liberal, too conservative, or about right?
Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bob Casey Jr. is handling his job as United States Senator?
If the 2012 election for United States Senator were being held today, do you think you would vote for Bob Casey Jr. the Democratic candidate, or the Republican candidate?
Do you feel that Bob Casey Jr. deserves to be reelected, or do you feel that he does not deserve to be reelected?
Do you think Bob Casey Jr. is too liberal, too conservative, or about right?
Do you think Bob Casey Jr. generally shares the views of Barack Obama on major issues or not?
Do you think the U.S. is doing the right thing by fighting the war in Afghanistan now, or should the U.S. not be involved in Afghanistan now?
Among Democrats
Among Republicans
Among Independents
Do you think Congress should try to repeal the new health care law, or should they let it stand?
Among Democrats
Among Republicans
Among Independents
As you may know, President Obama reached agreement with Republican leaders in Congress on a broad tax package that would extend the Bush-era income tax cuts for two years, reduce worker payroll taxes for one year, and continue unemployment benefits for an additional 13 months. Do you approve or disapprove of this plan?
Among Democrats
Among Republicans
Among Independents
(If Disapprove) Do you disapprove of the deal mainly because the tax cuts increase the federal deficit or mainly because tax cuts should not go to the wealthy?
Among Democrats
Among Republicans
Among Independents
Survey of 1,584 Pennsylvania voters was conducted December 6-13, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 2.5 percentage points.
PPP (D) Ohio 2012 Senatorial Survey
Do you approve or disapprove of Senator Sherrod Brown’s job performance?
Do you approve or disapprove of Senator George Voinovich’s job performance?
Among Democrats
Among Republicans
Among Independents
Do you approve or disapprove of Governor Ted Strickland’s job performance?
Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}
Survey of 510 Ohio voters was conducted December 10-12, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 4.3 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 44% Democrat; 39% Republican; 18% Independent/Other. Political ideology: 42% Moderate; 40% Conservative; 18% Liberal.
NBC News/Wall Street Journal 2012 Presidential Survey
Now I’m going to read you the names of several public figures, and I’d like you to rate your feelings toward each one as very positive, somewhat positive, neutral, somewhat negative, or very negative. If you don’t know the name, please just say so.
Barack Obama
Mitt Romney
John Thune
Sarah Palin
In general, do you approve or disapprove of the job that Barack Obama is doing as president?
Do you generally approve or disapprove of the job that Barack Obama is doing in handling the economy?
Which ONE of the following statements best describes your feelings toward Barack Obama?
As you may know, recently President Obama announced an agreement with the Republican leadership in Congress to accept a continuation for two years of the Bush tax cuts for all taxpayers, including those with incomes over $250,000. In exchange, the Republican leadership in Congress is accepting an extension on unemployment benefits for another year and a two percent reduction of Social Security payroll taxes for all taxpayers for one year. Do you approve or disapprove of this agreement?
When it comes to this agreement, do you think President Obama gave up too much, that the Republican leadership in Congress gave up too much — or that it is a fair compromise on both sides?
Survey of 1,000 adults was conducted December 9-13, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 3.1 percentage points.
PPP (D) Wisconsin 2012 Presidential Survey
Among Independents
Among Moderates
Among Conservatives
Among Men
Among Women
Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}
Among Republicans
Among Independents
Among Men
Among Women
Do you approve or disapprove of President Barack Obama’s job performance?
Among Independents
Survey of 702 Wisconsin voters was conducted December 10-12, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 3.7 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 35% Democrat; 31% Republican; 33% Independent/Other. Political ideology: 41% Moderate; 40% Conservative; 19% Liberal.
Last week, Rasmussen Reports showed 56% of Americans supporting the tax compromise offered by President Obama.
Today, Rasmussen shows those numbers declining among all Americans overall – and declining quite rapidly among two key political groups: Republicans and Independents.
Do you favor or oppose the tax bill agreement?
- Favor – 52% (56)
- Oppose – 31% (29)
- Unsure – 17% (15)
Numbers in parentheses are from last week’s Rasmussen poll.
Republican support for the compromise has slipped from 70% last week to 60% this week.
Independent support for the compromise has fallen by a comparable 8 points in one week, from +20 to +12.
What a difference a week makes… it reminds me of the anecdote Mike Pence told of talking to one of his constituents:
Pence said that the man responded, “At first I thought it sounded pretty good, but the more I hear about it, the more it sounds like same old, same old in Washington, D.C.”
Amen to that.
The Senate passed the compromise this afternoon, and the House will take up the bill tomorrow.
In an interview with the New York Times from Monday, Representative Ron Paul announced that there’s a 50% chance that he’ll run for President again in 2012. Here’s an excerpt from the article:
He is pondering another presidential run on his own.“I’d say it’s at least 50-50 that I’ll run again,” he said, adding that he would look at where the economy is. (Aides add that it would depend a lot on what his wife, Carol, says.) But for all the ways the Tea Party echoes Mr. Paul on fiscal issues, it is not clear such support would carry over into a presidential campaign. The last time he ran, he won less than 2 percent of the vote, though that was before the Tea Party became a force in politics.
Even many Tea Party conservatives are not on board with Mr. Paul’s beliefs about scaling back the United States military worldwide. And Paul supporters look on the Tea Party with some disdain. Mr. Paul acknowledged the sometimes competing interests among Tea Party supporters and his fans. “What brings them together is this acceptance that there’s something really wrong, that we’ve spent too much money and government’s too big,” he said.
Paul has a scattered, but dedicated support base. In 2008, Paul raised $35 million in his bid for President, most of which were from individual donors. Depending on the national mood, Paul’s platform may be more appealing in 2012 than it was in 2008 among primary voters.
_______________________________________________________
Nancy Reagan and the Reagan Library made a splash last month when they announced they intended to host the first Republican primary debate sometime in “Spring 2011”. Now, as 2011 draws closer, more news organizations and state parties are jumping in on the fun. Just in the past two days, we’ve had announcements for two more debates, as well as rumors for some others:
Spring 2011 — Reagan Library / NBC News / Politico — @ The Reagan Library, California
May 5, 2011 – Fox News / South Carolina GOP — @ The Peace Center, Greenville, SC
June 7, 2011 — CNN / NH Union Leader / WMUR-TV — @ TBD, NH
NBC and the Reagan Library announced their debate as the first debate of the campaign… Fox News and the South Carolina GOP are advertising their debate as the “First in the South” debate of the campaign… CNN and the Union Leader are billing their debate as the “First Primary Debate” of the campaign, which I guess is kind of, sort of technically true… Everybody wants to be first in something, I suppose.
Fox News is working with the Florida GOP to host a debate in October 2011 as well.
As a comparison point, here is what the final debate schedule for 2007 looked like:
May 3 – Reagan Library, CA
May 15 – Columbia, SC
June 5 – Manchester, NH
August 5 – Des Moines, IA
Sept 5 – Durham, NH
Sept 17 – Ft Lauderdale, FL (Values Voter)
Sept 27 – Baltimore, MD (Tavis Smiley)
Oct 9 – Dearborn, MI
Oct 16 – Washington, DC
Oct 21 – Orlando, FL
Nov 28 – St Petersberg, FL (YouTube)
Dec 9 – Miami, FL (Univision Spanish Debate)
Dec 12 – Johnston, IA
In other words, here’s what we’re looking at: a few debates to kick off the campaign in the spring/early summer, then a lull during the sleepy (for politics) summer months. Then we’ll see half a dozen debates crammed into the final four months of the year, prior to the calendar flipping to 2012.
The early debates in 2007 were what helped propel Romney to early state frontrunner status and established “The Big Three” in the race as Rudy, Mitt, and McCain.
What effect will they have in 2011?
With reasoning and logic that sounds awfully familiar:
“I’ve been fighting since last summer to extend all the tax rates… we needed to make sure that no American faced a tax increase January 1.
I’ve struggled to determine what is right here. I know the American people did not vote for more stimulus, more debt, more uncertainty in the economy. I will not vote for this deal. I believe this is a bad deal for taxpayers, it will do little to create jobs, and I can’t support it…
This is a hard call. This is a tough one. The best thing we can do for the unemployed, the best thing we can do for the American people is put permanence in the tax code, and create certainty to begin to invest and create jobs.”
For whatever it’s worth, I completely agree with both Romney and Pence, and this was my thinking ever since the compromise was announced. the major thing holding back the economy right now is uncertainty. Businesses are sitting on loads and loads of assets, but they are unwilling to spend them because they don’t know what the landscape holds for business in the future.
Obama has been very unfriendly to business thus far in his presidency. Couple that with economic uncertainty and you get the current economic situation we find ourselves in: unable to pull ourselves out of the housing-market sub-prime caused crisis. With tax rates scheduled to skyrocket in two years now, why should businesses approach hiring (or investing, or whatever else) any differently after this compromise than they would have before it?
Kudos to Romney and Pence for taking a politically unpopular stance in order to stand up for the American economy.
Politico/Penn Schoen Berland 2012 Political Survey
Among Independents
Among D.C. Elites
Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}
Among D.C. Elites
Who is most likely to win the Republican presidential nomination in 2012?
Among Republicans
Among D.C. Elites
Do you think Sarah Palin is qualified to be president?
Among Republicans
Among Independents
Among D.C. Elites
Do you think Sarah Palin is a breath of fresh air or a negative influence in national politics?
Among Republicans
Among Independents
Among D.C. Elites
Do you support or oppose the repeal of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ – the military’s current policy which bars openly gay or lesbian troops from serving?
Among D.C. Elites
Among Republicans
Do you think President Obama should follow his deficit-reduction commission’s recommendation to raise the retirement age for Social Security
from 67 to 68?
Among D.C. Elites
Among Republicans
Do you think President Obama will be re-elected in 2012?
Among D.C. Elites
Do you think President Obama will face a Democratic primary challenger in 2012?
Among D.C. Elites
Which is closest to your views?
Among D.C. Elites
Survey of 1,000 people in the U.S. with a representative distribution of Americans and 225 Washington D.C. Elites was conducted December 3-8, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 3.1 percentage poins among all Americans; +/- 6.53 percentage points among D.C. Elites.
PPP (D) Wisconsin 2012 Senatorial Survey
Do you approve or disapprove of Senator Russ Feingold’s job performance?
Do you approve or disapprove of Senator Herb Kohl’s job performance?
Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}
Survey of 702 Wisconsin voters was conducted December 10-12, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 3.7 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 35% Democrat; 31% Republican; 33% Independent/Other. Political ideology: 41% Moderate; 40% Conservative; 19% Liberal.
Step 1: Go to DeMintRubio.com
Step 2: Notice how it redirects you to Jim DeMint’s US Senate reelection website.
Step 3: Think to youself – is this a potential ticket in 2012?
I know that during the 2010 election cycle, DeMint was a big supporter of Marco Rubio’s candidacy. He was one of the earliest supporters of Rubio, back when Charlie Crist was still a Republican and it looked like he would sweep the primary. Could DeMint be planning something we don’t know about? Or is it a leftover from the 2010 election cycle?
There used to be a donation site to help donate to Rubio through DeMint’s PAC that was based on DeMintRubio.com, if I remember correctly. Why does he still have the domain name active and redirecting to his website? Wishful thinking or just a coincidence? I’m assuming the latter, but feel free to let the speculation abound.
As for me, I could think of much worse we could do than DeMint-Rubio in 2012.
_______________________________________________________
USA Today/Gallup: Americans Supportive of Proposed Tax Compromise
Support highest among those paying close attention
PPP (D) Ohio 2012 Presidential Survey
Among Independents
Among Moderates
Among Conservatives
Among Men
Among Women
Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}
Among Republicans
Among Independents
Among Men
Among Women
Do you approve or disapprove of President Barack Obama’s job performance?
Among Independents
Survey of 510 Ohio voters was conducted December 10-12, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 4.3 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 44% Democrat; 39% Republican; 18% Independent/Other. Political ideology: 42% Moderate; 40% Conservative; 18% Liberal.
Mitt Romney has written an op-ed for USA Today discussing his opposition to the tax deal reached by Obama and Republicans in Congress. Here’s an excerpt from the article:
Death and taxes, it is said, are life’s only two certainties. But in the wake of President Obama’s tax compromise with congressional Republicans, only death retains the status of certainty: The future for taxes has been left up in the air. And uncertainty is not a friend of investment, growth and job creation.The deal has several key features. It reduces payroll taxes, extends unemployment benefits and keeps current tax rates intact. So far, so good. But intermixed with the benefits are considerable costs of consequence. Given the unambiguous message that the American people sent to Washington in November, it is difficult to understand how our political leaders could have reached such a disappointing agreement. The new, more conservative Congress should reach a better solution.
The deal keeps current tax rates from rising to pre-Bush era levels for two years. But in 2013, unless Congress acts again, rates will increase dramatically.
Of course, delay now is better than an immediate tax hike. But because the extension is only temporary, a large portion of the investment and job growth that characteristically accompanies low taxes will be lost. When entrepreneurs and employers make decisions to start or expand an enterprise, uncertainty about tax rates translates directly into a reduced propensity to invest and to hire. With only a two-year extension, investors know that before their returns are realized, tax rates may be jacked up to the levels favored by President Obama. So while the tax deal will succeed in temporarily putting more money in the hands of consumers, it will fail to deliver its full potential for creating lasting growth.
It will also add to the deficit. In many cases, lowering taxes can actually increase government revenues. If new businesses, new investments and new hiring are spurred by the prospects of better after-tax returns, the taxes paid by these new or growing businesses and employees can more than make up for the lower rates of taxation. But once again, because the tax deal is temporary, a large portion of this beneficent effect is missing. What some are calling a grand compromise is not grand at all, except in its price tag. The total package will cost nearly $1 trillion, resulting in substantial new borrowing at a time when we are already drowning in red ink.
I have not seen much commentary from the other lead contenders for 2012 on the new tax deal, so it’ll be interesting to see a) their thoughts and b) their respons, if supportive, of Romney’s arguments.
_______________________________________________________
PPP (D) 2012 Minnesota GOP Primary
Among Conservatives
Among Moderates
Among Men
Among Women
Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}
Among Conservatives
Among Moderates
Survey of 387 Republican primary voters was conducted December 4-5, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 5 percentage points. Political ideology: 74% Conservative; 25% Moderate; 1% Liberal. Results from the poll conducted October 27-29, 2010 are in parentheses.
Washington Post/ABC News Survey on Negotiated Tax Deal
For each item I name, please tell me if it’s something you support strongly, support somewhat, oppose somewhat or oppose strongly.
Extending the Bush-era tax cuts for all taxpayers, including wealthy people as well as the middle class
Funding an additional 13 months of unemployment benefits for people who are out of work
Cutting Social Security payroll taxes by two percentage points for all workers for the next year
Increasing the exemption on inheritance taxes so that only estates worth more than five million dollars are taxed
Obama and the Republican leaders of Congress have reached an agreement to do all four of these things together as a package. Is this plan something you support strongly, support somewhat, oppose somewhat or oppose strongly?
Some people oppose this agreement because it will increase the federal deficit by 900 billion dollars, and some also say it fails to raise taxes on wealthy people who can afford it. Others say it’s worth it in order to let people have more money to spend while the economy is still weak. Given these arguments, is this agreement something you support strongly, support somewhat, oppose somewhat or oppose strongly?
Over the next year or two, do you think this agreement will help the national economy, hurt the national economy or won’t make much difference?
National survey of 1,001 adults was conducted December 9-12, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 3.5 percentage points.
Inside the numbers:
Some 54 percent of all Americans support an extension of the Bush-era tax cuts for all taxpayers, including wealthy people and the middle class. It’s this provision that generates the biggest partisan gap: 85 percent of Republicans say these tax cuts should be continued for all taxpayers; 38 percent of Democrats (31 percent of liberal Democrats) agree. Among independents, 49 percent back the full extension; 46 percent oppose it.
Thirty-nine percent (39%) of Democrats, 36 percent of independents and 34 percent of Republicans say they think the tax agreement will help the nation’s economy.
Majorities of Democrats and Republicans support a 13-month extension of unemployment benefits. Support for the tax exemption on inheritances to $5 million also tops 50 percent among Republicans (60 percent) and Democrats (52 percent).
Majorities across party lines also oppose the provision on cutting the payroll tax for Social Security by two percentage points for most workers. The reluctance to back this specific tax cut may stem in part from a general resistance to any changes to the popular social insurance safety net.
Jaws were agape throughout the political world when, just over a decade ago, GOP presidential nominee George W. Bush selected Richard Bruce Cheney to be his running mate in his quest for the presidency. The former congressman from Wyoming brought neither geographic nor demographic strengths to the ticket; indeed, it seemed as if Dubya was selecting a Chief of Staff, not a running mate to win a state or two for Team Bush, and then to spend four years attending funerals. Two terms of Vice President Cheney elevated the once sleepy office to a level never before seen in American history, and that trend has not been reversed by the current POTUS, whose Number Two, Joe Biden, is performing key functions once reserved for the president, such as negotiating major legislation on taxes and unemployment benefits that will probably be passed by Congress this coming week. It was Biden, not Obama, who pulled the weight of the Executive Branch in those negotiations with Congress. But it is Obama, not Biden, who is responsible for selling the deal to the American people — for presenting it to them, explaining it to them, and taking the credit or the blame for the ultimate outcome.
All of this begs the question as to whether Bush and Obama are simply two presidents who, due to their youth and lack of experience with Beltway politics, needed veeps with gravitas to take on the role of pinch hitter, or whether an elevated role for the modern vice presidency is becoming “the new normal.” I argue that the latter is more likely to be true, and that the country’s cultural divisions, as well as the superficiality enabled by modern media, benefits candidates who would make poor Heads of Government, but stellar Heads of State.
The reasons for this are legion. First, in a high-tech, high-information, technology-driven society, where time is one of Americans’ greatest commodities, and where news and entertainment have been irrevocably fused, successful politicos are going to be those who can reduce complex issues down to effective sound bites, and whose personality, appearance, and body language exude charisma and instill confidence. Suffice it to say that a presidential candidate like Calvin Coolidge, who was by all accounts an understated, wonkish fellow, would have never been elected to the White House in the modern era. In a broader sense, none of this is especially new or novel. JFK likely bested Richard Nixon due to the former’s telegenic qualities that were favorably contrasted with Nixon’s dearth of the same during the 1960 presidential debate. And Ronald Reagan most certainly knew how to run circles around a media that is normally hostile to conservatives. But both of those men were very strong presidents who didn’t require a quasi-co-president to help run the show. So what has changed in the past decade or so that has contributed to the rise of the veep?
I believe that the difference between then and now is the importance of cultural cues in our nation’s politics. Put simply, in today’s America, voters don’t just want a charismatic president who speaks in sound bites. They want a charismatic president who speaks in sound bites who reminds voters of themselves. Americans no longer want someone who simply thinks like them to be president. Americans want someone who is like them to be president.
This dynamic has seemingly come to the forefront of national politics within the past decade, prior to which Americans regularly cast ballots for politicians with whom they had little in common. Indeed, as recently as the mid ’90s, both parties were led nationally by southerners with strong academic credentials, each of whom had marital problems under his belt. But liberals happily voted for Bill Clinton, a churchgoing good ‘ol boy from the South, and conservatives considered Newt Gingrich, a former professor, as their man of the hour. That’s because voters considered the ideas of each of these men to be far more important than the specifics of their respective backgrounds.
But today’s America has become so culturally stratified that Americans no longer trust politicians who claim to share their policy goals absent some evidence that a meeting of the minds exists on a deeper, more primal level between prospective officeholders and the voters they attempt to woo. As such, while just 22 years ago, Bob Dole could win the evangelical-heavy Iowa Caucus, it has become something of a Known Fact that a non-evangelical will never again take the top spot in Iowa. The rise of new media, and the realities of our modern, highly mobile society have allowed Americans to interact primarily with other Americans who are similar to them, and to immerse themselves in news and entertainment that fits their specific cultural niche. Why then would Americans not expect their leaders to be a mirror image of themselves as well?
Of course, this creates problems for both major parties as they attempt to field presidential nominees. If Red America will only vote for someone like George W. Bush, whose cultural cues are rural, evangelical, and anti-elitist, and if Blue America will only vote for someone like Barack Obama, whose cultural cues are urbane, secular, and intellectual, then where does that leave candidates like Mitt Romney, Mitch Daniels, Mark Warner, and Hillary Clinton, all of whom have the policy chops required of an effective president, but not the stylistic qualities?
The result of all of this is the separation of the presidency into sort of a dual office, with the vice president often selected to take on the role of Policy Wonk in Chief and Congressional Liaison in Chief, while the president remains the Public Opinion Maker in Chief and the Face of the Nation. In other words, the president becomes Head of State, and the vice president, Head of Government.
To be sure, it wouldn’t be impossible for either party to field a presidential candidate who both checks the appropriate boxes when it comes to personal qualities and cultural cues, and who is an uber-wonk filled with big ideas. But such candidates are few and far between. One such candidate on the Republican side, at least a few years down the line, will probably end up being Senator-elect Marco Rubio, who strikes me as a modern-day, Republican JFK, and who would almost certainly be able to fill both the roles of Head of State and Head of Government quite effectively. But aside from Rubio, it’s difficult to produce candidates who are the total package, as it were. Indeed, the most popular Republican among Republicans in America today, Sarah Palin, becomes eons more attractive when paired with someone like Paul Ryan on a presidential ticket. The reason is that even though Sarah has expressed her support for Ryan’s agenda, Ryan is the one that conservatives really trust to implement his agenda, and a Vice President Ryan acting as Head of Government would have the opportunity to do just that. So why involve Sarah at all? Because her charisma, her ability to mobilize the masses, and her culture-based support among lower-income Americans would be necessary to actually win high office, and to deflect the inevitable Democratic attempts to morph Ryan-ism into an agenda that is adverse to the interests of the working class. Ryan’s intellectualism and bland Midwestern-ness doesn’t excite the populace on a personal level. But Palin does, and that’s a trait needed by an effective Head of State.
As such, unless voter behavior somehow changes dramatically in the very near future, I suspect that the days of the vice presidency existing as a largely ceremonial post are over, and I anticipate an era in which candidates’ veep selections become more important than ever.
Tom Jensen, of PPP, posted an intriguing write-up this past week, where he posited that one of the biggest obstacles to a Palin presidency lies within her own party:
It’s not that Republicans don’t like her- on our last national poll 68% rated her favorably, making her easily the most popular prospective 2012 candidate with Mike Huckabee at 63%, Newt Gingrich at 57%, and Mitt Romney at 56%. It’s that a lot of the Republicans who don’t like her- in contrast to the Republicans who don’t like Huckabee, Gingrich, or Romney- aren’t willing to hold their nose and vote for her in the general election.
Across the 7 individual states where we’ve done 2012 polls so far- Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Montana, and Virginia- Palin averages receiving 77% of the Republican vote against Barack Obama. That puts her slightly behind Gingrich at 80% and well behind Romney and Huckabee at 84%. Palin does the worst of the Republicans among Republicans in Montana, Missouri, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Minnesota. Only North Carolina where she does better than Romney and Virginia where she does better than Gingrich and Romney serve as exceptions to the rule.
Well, if that doesn’t challenge conventional wisdom, I don’t know what does. Of course, we always have the possibility that the Republicans who said they would not vote for Sarah in the poll want to make a statement and dissuade the party from nominating her. Leading up to the ’08 election, a lot of people predicted that voters would not bring themselves to vote for Obama, and look what happened. The bottom line: people may say one thing before elections and do another when they actually enter the voting booths.
I remain persuaded that Palin has as good of a chance as nearly anyone to take the 2012 nomination. Her hopes in the general, however, are another story.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
