The Republican Nomination For President: The Race For The Race For The White House

Isn't Sharron Engle still around?

Posted at 4:00 PM ET, 03/ 7/2011
The frontrunner-less Republican presidential field
By Chris Cillizza

For months now, it's been clear that the 2012 Republican presidential field lacks a strong frontrunner.

A case can be made for how either former Gov. Mitt Romney (Mass.) or Mike Huckabee (Ark.) -- or even former Gov. Sarah Palin (Alaska) -- should be anointed as the true frontrunner, depending on the weight you give to polls, access to campaign cash and staff. (Romney is probably the closest thing to a frontrunner in that group.)

But, poll after poll -- both nationally and in early voting states like Iowa -- suggests that while Romney, Huckabee and Palin garner the most support of potential Republican voters, none of them can rightly be described as a frontrunner.

And now,new data from Gallup suggests the decided lack of a leader of the pack is a historic anomaly of major proportions.

In the ten contested Republican presidential primary races between 1952 and 2008 -- nine open seat fights and the 1976 face-off between President Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan -- Gallup polling has always shown a clear frontrunner by this time.

And, in eight of those ten contests, the polling frontrunner at that moment went on to be the party's presidential nominee. (The exceptions: Barry Goldwater trailed Richard Nixon at this point in the 1964 election and John McCain trailed Rudy Giuliani at this point in the 2008 election.)

Of the eight frontrunners in Gallup polling who went on to win the nomination, none took less than 31 percent in Gallup's hypothetical primary ballots. (That was Reagan, again, in 1980.) The average for the eight frontrunners was just over 40 percent of the vote -- well more than double the amount of support that Huckabee, Romney or Palin each received in the latest Gallup numbers on the race.

It's worth noting a few caveats in regards the numbers.

First, national polling at this point in a presidential race is almost entirely a function of name identification. It's why Giuliani was over 40 percent in Gallup data in the spring of 2007 but never came anywhere near winning the nomination -- or even carrying a single state -- in 2008.

While Republican voters knew and liked Giuliani from his stewardship of New York City during and after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, his moderate -- at best -- issue positions on things like abortion and gay marriage ensured that he was not ultimately competitive for the nomination.

Second, national polling is a lagging indicator of a candidate's chances of winning their party's presidential nomination.

Remember that even in the fall of 2007, then Illinois Sen. Barack Obama was being forced to answer questions about why he still trailed then New York Sen. Hillary Clinton so badly in national polls.

Obama, rightly, noted that the nominating contest is not a national election but a series of state votes -- starting with the Iowa caucuses where he was polling far stronger than his national showing. Obama's Iowa victory turned national polling on its head as momentum in Iowa drove a national surge for him.

That said, the record of frontrunners winning the Republican nod is hard to ignore and makes the race for the 2012 nomination all the more unique.

"History provides no guidelines for how today's highly fragmented Republican race might play out, or when a strong front-runner is likely to emerge, or who it will be," writes Gallup's Lydia Saad -- rightly capturing the level of unpredictability in the race.

What the data does tell us is that there is still plenty of room for late-arrivers or dark horses -- pick your metaphor -- to emerge.

The lack of anything close to what would historically be considered a frontrunner in the GOP field is what left so many political observers baffled by Sen. John Thune's (S.D.) decision to pass on the race and why it's nearly impossible to totally rule out the likes of either Govs. Chris Christie (N.J.) or Rick Perry (Texas). While both men have said they are not interested in running, it may be hard for them to resist a field as wide-open as this one.

With such a large number of undecided voters, the 2012 nominating fight is looking more and more likely to be a momentum contest. Most Republican voters are looking for someone to like but haven't found anyone yet.

That's a similar dynamic to what happened in the 2004 Democratic presidential primary when former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean went from nowhere to the race's frontrunner thanks to the relative lack of energy for anyone in the rest of the field. Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, who picked up the pieces of Dean's eventual implosion, used that same momentum premise to effectively end the race after back to back victories in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Could 2012 be the Republican version of what happened to Democrats in 2004?

By Chris Cillizza | March 7, 2011; 4:00 PM ET
Categories: Eye on 2012

I think Cillizza is a douche, but this article is not bad.

Quote:

Posted at 4:00 PM ET, 03/ 7/2011
The frontrunner-less Republican presidential field
By Chris Cillizza

Could 2012 be the Republican version of what happened to Democrats in 2004?

I didn't say it would be a great victory at all - that is merely your projection of your own juvenile way of thinking about these things.

Instead, I said that winning the Senate was more important for Republicans, probably more likely, and in the long run probably just as effective from their perspective. I also believes that history provides ample support for this interpretation of the consequences of a Republican Senate win.

I believe a Republican win in the Senate will enable them to gut the components of Obamacare one by one, and gradually substitute a more rational and more market based solution that retains more individual freedom by both consumers and providers.

More fundamentally, I believe a concerted Republican attack on our overreaching federal government prograns through the Federal legislature and the state governments is a process that both better responds to the currentl financial crisis, and in particular to the empowerment of responsible local government that, in any event, is needed to solve their sill unfolding crisis. In short, I believe the core connecting issue to the key problems we face is the greater empowerment of state and local government, and that is best done through the Federal legislature and the state governments themselves. An Obama in office in such conditions can placate some foolish zealots but do little harm.

Your link, CI, came up for me with "page not found."
The Ras poll from 3/6 showed 39% in favor of repeal/modification of Obamacare vs 54% against - a margin of 15.
I found 6 other polls taken since the 1st of the year with pretty similar results. Averaging them together, it comes out to 39-51% - a margin of 12.
The standard disclaimer: polls consisted of LV, RV & Adults and each phrased the question in different ways.
It appears that those who currently have insurance seem to be less in favor of repeal then those who don't have insurance.

How can they do that? Obama will refuse to sign the bills gutting his signature legislation. Not only that, but the public supports EVERY ASPECT of the bill - other than the mandate. You'd be fighting public opinion at every turn on this one, against a popular president who just got re-elected.

In short, I think you are badly mis-reading the political situation here.

Quote:

More fundamentally, I believe a concerted Republican attack on our overreaching federal government prograns through the Federal legislature and the state governments is a process that both better responds to the currentl financial crisis, and in particular to the empowerment of responsible local government that, in any event, is needed to solve their sill unfolding crisis. In short, I believe the core connecting issue to the key problems we face is the greater empowerment of state and local government, and that is best done through the Federal legislature and the state governments themselves. An Obama in office in such conditions can placate some foolish zealots but do little harm.

Well yeah, but you're a Conservative Republican. You've been saying the same line for something like, oh, your entire adult life, now. This isn't really a meaningful statement about the future; more of a 'hope' on your part.

[I don't know why you think we've entered some sort of Conservative golden era, in which the public suddenly realizes that you're right, after all this time..

I did however indicate that the still unfolding financial crises in state and local governments would continue to fuel the movements we are currently seeing.

The 'movements' we are seeing aren't based on financial crises. Not in the slightest. Our situation, in real economic terms, is no worse than it was during the 8 years in which the Bush WH added 5 trillion to the debt. And not a single person in this 'movement' gave a ****.

The entire thing is political, based around the idea that - when the other guys are in charge - cutting everything is the way to go. And there is not a small bit of racism/xenophobia pushing it as well.

The past behavior and statements of those in your 'movement' - which is nothing more than the same old GOP its' always been - give the lie to your statement.

Part of the reason Dems are calling for higher taxes, George, is that we are currently paying historical lows in tax levels. And when you are in a so-called crisis, that's not sustainable. You'll begin to see more and more of your own politicians admit this over the next two years, and it'll be fun to watch them battle the unrealistic base of your party.

Cycloptichorn