March 26, 2011

Four Years Ago, Version 2

I enjoyed Matt Coulter’s recent post showing how different the race for the Republican presidential nomination looked in March of 2007, compared to how things eventually turned out.  But, since this election season is beginning so much later than the last one, I think it might be even more accurate to look at where the race for 2008 stood when, like today, there were only three major candidates (Governors or federal office holders) with exploratory committees.

At this point in time, only former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former Governor Tim Pawlenty, and former Governor Buddy Roemer have presidential exploratory committees.  None of these committees are even a month old.

On November 10, 2006, there were three major candidates with exploratory committees: Congressman Duncan Hunter, Senator John McCain, and former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani (for all practical purposes a governor).  In early-to-mid November of 2006, which is more comparable to this point in the 2012 election, the polls looked like this:

The national numbers according to Rasmussen:

  • Rudy Giuliani – 24%
  • Condoleezza Rice – 18%
  • John McCain – 17%

According to McLaughlin & Associates:

  • John McCain – 28%
  • Rudy Giuliani – 22%
  • Condoleezza Rice – 13%
  • George Allen – 2%
  • Bill Frist – 2%
  • George Pataki – 1%

According to Gallup:

  • Rudy Giuliani – 28%
  • John McCain – 26%
  • Condoleezza Rice – 13%
  • Newt Gingrich – 7%
  • Bill Frist – 4%
  • George Allen – 2%
  • George Pataki – 1%
  • Chuck Hagel – 1%

And, finally, according to Pew:

  • Rudy Giuliani – 27%
  • John McCain – 26%
  • Condoleezza Rice – 20%
  • Bill Frist – 4%

The race for Iowa looked like this:

  • Rudy Giuliani – 28%
  • John McCain – 26%
  • Newt Gingrich – 18%
  • Chuck Hagel – 6%

The race for New Hampshire looked like this:

  • John McCain – 29%
  • Rudy Giuliani – 25%
  • Newt Gingrich – 14%

What I find most fascinating is not how only the candidates changed positions, but how many names were being purported as serious, major potential contenders for the Republican nomination, only to stay out of the race completely–as well as the candidates who weren’t even on anyone’s imagination yet, but would eventually become major players in the election.

For instance, for 2012, what if Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin never even run, and some out-of-left-field individual like Stanley McChrystal or Clarence Thomas suddenly swoops in during the last leg of the race, in response to some major dissatisfaction with the field, and instantly becomes a frontrunner, a la Fred Thompson?  Might one misworded joke send a presumed frontrunner like Mitt Romney or Tim Pawlenty tumbling into oblivion, a la George Allen?  I’m not making any predictions here, but it’s interesting to note that, at this point, it’s so early, we don’t even know who the candidates are going to be, let alone their polling statuses.

Trackback URL for this post:
http://race42012.com/2011/03/26/four-years-ago-version-2/trackback/

5 Responses to “Four Years Ago, Version 2”

  1. Jerald Says:

    Nice post….and so very true…

  2. teledude Says:

    Well, I guess some people need to be shown in black and white.

    Maybe it’s just that I’m older than some of you, but I have been saying these early polls are meaningless.

    They are meaningless.

    I am going to enjoy all the press that will be generated by the new “comeback kid’ (who never went anywhere, but they have to have a narrative):

    Sarah Palin!

    It’s a miracle how she was able to turn those numbers around! (not a miracle, actually easy)

    So obvious to anyone who understands whats going on ;-)

  3. Smack1968 Says:

    tele,

    I do agree with that these polls are useless..however..

    …so when you say TPAW is a 2nd tier candidate that’s not base on polls, but on what??

    Is it because Palin has a higher ID#?

    Is it because Palin has more Facebook friends?

    Is it because Palin was picked by McCain over TPAW?

    It surly isn’t because Palin served 2 terms..er I mean 2 years and TPAW served only…oh..wait..2 terms..nevermind.

    Why the classification of Palin 1st tier and TPAW 2nd tier in your mind tele if not based on these early polls?

  4. Jerald Says:

    #3….Smack……touche!

    #2…teledude…..the polls are not meaningless…..they are just not an accurate way to tell the outcome in a year.

    The meaning of the polls is showing current trends.
    The current trends are that Huckabee is pulling to a slight lead over Romney nationally and is starting to show well in many states.
    Gingrich is declining and Palin is crashing nationally but is also starting to do well in some individual states.

    That’s what the polls mean today.
    They actually have more meaning than your oft stated belief that Palin will suddenly take over and lead all polls just by announcing.

    I remember the Fred Thompson supporters saying the same thing last cycle….and it actually worked for a few weeks……until people got to see Fred on the campaign trail…..and then it was crash and burn…

  5. Jack Says:

    Smack1968:

    It is because Palin is Palin. That makes all the difference.

Leave a Reply

State of the Race


Obama Approval


Support R4'12

Meta

Recent Posts

Buy This Book

Categories

Archives

Search

Blogroll

Site Syndication

Main