April 06, 2007
On The Weak Democratic Candidates...
Ben Smith points out the corollary:
Rudy Giuliani and John McCain are very strong general election candidates, in part for the same reasons that they're flawed primary candidates.There are two sets of evidence. One is that John Edwards, he of the high favorables, and the closest thing to a generic Democrat in the polls, also loses to Rudy in every poll I can find. Edwards loses to McCain in recent Zogby and Quinnipiac polls, though he beats him in the Newsweek poll. In the general election polling, Edwards does show an edge on Clinton and Obama, but nowhere near enough to explain that 18-point gap.
More compelling: When Clinton and Obama are pitted against actual generic Republicans -- Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney, of whom roughly nobody has ever heard -- the Democrats win by double digits every time, though Clinton and Obama do generally do a bit worse than that generic number.
A few conclusory thoughts:
1. The Democratic brand is not nearly as weak as it is supposed to be. Remember the post-2004 recriminations and fearfulness among Dems? The Republican brand seems irredeemably damaged among independents, who are leaning D in just about precisely the same proportions as they did in 11/06. (Maybe the Dem brand isn't so good.. it's just that the GOP brand is so god-awful right now). It's CW to say that McCain and Giuliani may be the only two Republicans who can repair Republicans' standing with indies -- at least right now.
2. Republican presidential candidate polling suggests that "conservative" is still a favorable attribute, much more so than "liberal." So Pres. Bush and the last Republican Congress may have damaged the Republican brand, but not the "conservative" brand.
Posted at 01:00 PM
Comments
Its all about how much people know about each candidate.
- There is only one candidate about whom people think that they know almost all about and that is Hillary Clinton.
- People don't know much about Obama.
- More people know about Edwards than Obama but he is still not as "known" as Hillary/McCain/Rudy are.
- People know who McCain is based on his maverick image from 2000 and not based on his changed views of last year.
- To vast majority of people Rudy is all a glossy cover and they have not read the book yet.
Rudy's general election numbers will go down substantially once all the scandals (three marriages, Kerik's ties to the mob, firfighter's opinion, hardcore abortion stance, stances on civil union and gun control, etc) come out of his closet and to the mainstream press.
Same is true with McCain. His aura is gone. He is outdoing Bush on Iraq which will be a disaster for him in generals.
Hillary is a known commodity and and its hard ti imagine that her numbers will change much in either direction.
Overall, Edwards and Obama's numbers have no where to go but up while Rudy/McCain's numbers will only go down and Hillary's numbers will remain static.
If Iraq remains in bad shape next year the republicans will be doomed no matter who Democratic nominee is.
Matt | 04.06.07 02:13 PM
 |
How does GOP polling suggest that conservatives are viewed favorably? Guiliani and McCain are both distinct for being different from the standard conservative Republican.
Also, a presentation from Celinda Lake found conservatives are viewed less favorably than in 1994.
http://www.lakesnellperry.com/new/pdf/Lake%20Research%20Partners%20Slide%20Analysis%20of%202006%20Election.pdf
It is the case that the exit polls show there are more conservatives than liberals, but that hasn't changed in a very long time. William Galston and Elaine Kamarck's Politics of Polarization suggest 30 years, and Harris's index suggest as far back as '68.
There was also the Pew study which found weaker levels of the underlying trends behind social conservatism, stronger support for a social safety net, and less support for military action.
college kid | 04.07.07 02:09 AM
|
08 will be about which party can shed its partisan label. part of why there is no #1 on the Repu side is that none (sans FThompson) really capture the imagination of the right, whoever gets the nod may still have to campaign to the right in the general and give up the middle in the process, bad news since campaigning to the base is always divisive and people are looking for someone they can unite around. Rudy will lose moderate republicans if he has to give up too much ground on b&b conserv. issues. Nor is that problem easily fixed by annointing newt the vp. Romney's comes off as a bit manufacturered (the multiple choice candidate as Kennedy dubbed him). And McCain seems to be cursed. (Jude the Obscure of Repu politics.) That being said it's not as if the country is just going to jump to the left and dems would be wise to remember the middle; this they can do since their base will forgive them because they don't have to think too hard to imagine the alternative. So advantage dems. FThompson, if he ever gets in, can change the equasion completely but he will have to survive some knocks along the way, and show he really is big daddy, only late april might be too late. romney's numbers were in some sense bad news for him since it kept him in the top tier. hunter and tancredo just hang around to show how little the top tier fit the conservative bill.
JC | 04.07.07 08:05 PM
|
By the time Baby Bush is done with the republican party,it just may be that not only will the democrats control the white house,but all the congreess for years to come.
I can see 10 to 15 more senate seats going Dems in 08.And they can thank George Bush right now.
Lance | 04.08.07 11:50 AM
|
If the Democrats are smart they would pick somebody, anybody other than that awful scandal ridden has been Hillary Clinton. Please no more Clintons in the White House!! I'm sick of scandal after scandal. Get some new blood in there. Nothing will mobolize the Republicans to vote in the general election more than a choice of Hillary or somebody, anybody else. Give the voters a real choice. GO OBAMA, EDWARDS!!
N. Otter | 04.09.07 09:52 AM
|
Post a comment
The Watergate · 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069
NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.
