The Candidates
Featured Archives
I have been writing quite a bit lately about the long history of the GOP nominating frontrunners (the definition being the candidate who has lead in the polls from the earliest point, or the candidate that came in 2nd place the last time).
I am in the process of researching a more in depth piece on this topic. However, I thought that I would report my findings so far as it has been a topic of contention around here.
So without further ado, let me present to you a sampling of 2000 Republican primary polls:
Harris Poll, July 1998 (equivalent of 7-2006). 1st number w/Colin Powell – 2nd w/o C.P. MOE +/-4%
Colin Powell 24%/#
George W. Bush 20%/27%
Elizabeth Dole 10%/13%
Dan Quayle 7%/10%
Jack Kemp 5%/8%
Steve Forbes 5%/6%
Christine Whitman 4%/5%
Newt Gingrich 4%/5%
————————–
Wirthlin Worldwide Poll, November 1998 (equivalent of 11-2006)
George W. Bush 41%
Elizabeth Dole 13%
Dan Quayle 6%
Jack Kemp 6%
Steve Forbes 6%
———————————–
Gannett #quot;Mood of America#quot; Poll, January 1999 (equivalent of this point in time)
George W. Bush 39%
Elizabeth Dole 22%
Jack Kemp 8%
Dan Quayle 6%
Steve Forbes 5%
—————————–
Republican Leadership Poll, February 1999 (equivalent of one month from now)
George W. Bush 40%
Elizabeth Dole 27%
Dan Quayle 9%
Steve Forbes 6%
John McCain 3%
———————
Research 2000 Poll, May 1999
George W. Bush 41%
Elizabeth Dole 19%
John McCain 12%
Dan Quayle 9%
Pat Buchanan 4%
———————–
Washington Post Poll, June 1999
George W. Bush 49%
Elizabeth Dole 20%
Pat Buchanan 5%
John McCain 5%
Dan Quayle 4%
——————————————————–
Gonzales/Arscott Research & Communications Poll, August 1999
George W. Bush 59%
Elizabeth Dole 12%
John McCain 6%
Steve Forbes 5%
Dan Quayle 4%
—————-
ABC News Poll, August 1999
George W. Bush 56%
Elizabeth Dole 14%
John McCain 6%
Steve Forbes 6%
Dan Quayle 5%
———–
Marist Poll, October 1999
George W. Bush 62%
John McCain 10%
Steve Forbes 7%
Gary Bauer 3%
Alan Keyes 3%
So basically what we see here is that the early co-frontrunners (Colin Powell & George W. Bush) were essentially tied until Powell dropped out.
Then we have Dubya and Liz Dole #1 & #2 until Dole dropped out.
We then see #3 John McCain moving up to #2 spot to fill the void left by Liz Dole which is how it ended up.
Also interesting to note, that Dubya had already been leading in the polls for months by this point in time in the 2000 cycle.
I am working hard to come up with more numbers from the 1996 and 1980 contests.
So how significant is this history? State your case in the comments.
January 10th, 2007 at 2:38 am
Funny I forgot how popular Dole was in that campaign. She fizzled out real fast!
Assuming things stay the same, this tells us a few things. First, excellent news for Rudy. Although Bush in 1998 seemed to be accepted as front runner by a wider audiance than Rudy is this time around (McCain is still routinely called the front-runner by the MSM, who barely mention Rudy despite the polls), Rudy does lead most polls and arguably should be called the front-runner today.
Second, excellent news for Romney, who just needs to hang in there and wait until one of the two top guys drops out. Kinda confirms what’s been said numerous times elsewhere on this site.
Finally, not so great news for McCain, assuming one agrees that Rudy is the front-runner right now. Early number 2’s don’t seem to fare well.
One major difference: Bush was seen early on as the realistic clear choice of the conservative wing, even with Quayle, Kemp and others in the polls. Also, Dole, if I remember right, was never seen as acceptable to the right. These points don’t bode well for Rudy this time around.
Biggest difference: The conservatives had a choice last time, but don’t have many options in 2008. That could be what makes 2008 so different from 2000.
Great research Kavon. Now, when you’re done with the 2000 election polls, see if you can do the same with 1992 and 1996 for us, ok? (Just kidding)
January 10th, 2007 at 8:50 am
It also shows that a candidate who is behind by 52% a mere 3
months before New Hampshire can still win. McCain basically didn’t
show up in the final Oct ‘99 poll, and almost took the whole thing.
January 10th, 2007 at 8:57 am
I don’t have the data, but you might want to show how Bill Clinton was doing in presidential polls in 1990 and 1991 against other Democrats and then George H. W. Bush. I know the GOP ain’t the Dems, but still…
January 10th, 2007 at 9:57 am
And where did McCain end up? 2nd place…
January 10th, 2007 at 9:59 am
At this stage of the game, polls are about as meaningful as the second inning baseball game score. By the same token, to say that Republicans always nominate their early frontrunners is akin to saying a certain football team has won in the last ten games where they’ve score first.
No, early polls do have meaning, and they do have bearing on the final election results, but they must be taken with a very large grain of salt.
January 10th, 2007 at 11:13 am
I would note that evidently the claim was made by his own people in the infamous 140-page strategy memo that was lost and leaked that the current poll numbers of Mayor Giuliani are inflated and destined to drop when conservative Republicans are educated and challenged as to his moderate to liberal positions on social issues and reminded of his personal baggage.
Having said that, all the GOP frontrunners (Gingrich, Giuliani, McCain, and Romney) have significant issues that arguably could sink their candidacies. Unfortunately, that may bode for a very nasty primary and caucus campaign season on the Republican side. And that makes you wonder whether the campaigns that refuse to go negative may connect better with 2008 voters. So far, from what I have seen, McCain and Romney seem willing to go negative, while Giuliani and Gingrich appear to be taking the high road.
January 10th, 2007 at 11:35 am
Republius, could you please enlighten me as to how McCain and Romney and have already gone negative. I have read many of your posts/comments and like what you have to say. This is for informational purposes not a challenge to your credibility.
January 10th, 2007 at 11:58 am
[...] so much. I forgot that W. was a relatively late entrant to the race in 2000, but when he did get in… well, just take a look at the numbers. Red State Dems feel the MoveOn heat. They gotta dancethem the ones that brung ‘em. Hillary to run inside-the-Beltway campaign. Hugh Hewitt on the iPhone: “Thethem and give them away to the young men of Baghdad, fully programmed with music, video and games.” How about using them to call in tactical air support?# [...]
January 10th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
In 1994 and ‘95, Bob Dole led the GOP primary polls by huge numbers, coming in around 45 or 50% in nearly every poll with Gramm and Wilson the only other two contenders even cracking low double digits. We all know how that one turned out.
Gives creedence to the theory that GOP nominates their frontrunners.
I also am looking for more poll numbers further back.
January 10th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
Throughout ‘78-79, Reagan was the frontrunner in all the polls as well. In fact, he led by such large margins he made the decision to skip a lot of straw polls, debates, and other pre-primary events – and pretty much coast into the nomination.
It wasn’t until Bush started winning these straw polls and other events that Reagan was skipping that the poll numbers started to narrow between the two. Reagan didn’t really take his campaign off auto-pilot until Bush beat him in the Iowa caucus in January 1980, an event Reagan described as a “kick in the pants” that got his campaign going again.
Reagan went on to win pretty much every other state primary and, of course, the nomination, showing once again the GOP nominating their early frontrunner in the polls. This is very problematic for candidates like Thompson, Huckabee, and Brownback, and pretty problematic for Romney unless he can move his poll numbers up in a hurry now.
January 10th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
But when was the last time, two years out, no candidate has consistently broke 30%. While it’s easy to say the GOP tends to nominate front runners, the GOP also tends to have very indentifiable frontrunners. Who’s the frontfrunner now? McCain? Giuliani? It depends on which poll you look at. Neither comes near to dominating the way Bush and Dole did in early polls.
January 10th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
But both McCain and Rudy eat up over 55% combined in many polls.
How much will be left for Romney, Brownback, Huckabee, Thompson, etc… It will get even more crowded if Newt enters the fray.
FWIW, I believe that if Rudy wasn’t running (which he clearly is; you don’t get people like DuHaime and Pack signing on if you’re only kicking the tires), that Mitt would get much of his support.
January 10th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Matt,
It’s hard telling, really, because each primary season is slightly different than every other one. The only other time that comporable in recent election history would have to be 1976 when Reagan and Ford were pretty equal in polls and expectations. Of course, even then, Ford’s status as frontrunner and incumbent won out in the end and he was the nominee who lost to Carter.
But even that isn’t a good comparison because ‘76 was just a two man race. In ‘08 we’re going to have at least a 6 or 7 man race, if not a lot more, so it’s really difficult to say. Overall, however, regardless of other circumstances one thing has remained fairly consistent over history: the GOP nominates their frontrunner. Whether that’s Giuliani or McCain right now is yet to be determined, but I’m going to say in the eyes of voters it is probably McCain because of the “it’s his turn” principle. Much like Reagan lost to Ford in 76 and came back to be the nominee in ‘80, McCain is trying to do the same. The difference, of course, is that Reagan lost much more narrowly than McCain and faced an unpopular incumbent. McCain is facing an open field subject to much more scrutiny and careful decisions by the electorate.
January 10th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
As a history buff I agree that understainding modern events in a historical context is very importatn. But also consider that modern presidential politics is a very new game (historically speaking) and we really do not have a huge test sample to draw from. One personal anectdote:
I visited an old professor soon after it became evident Kerry was going to be the Dem nominee. This prof. was very liberal (as most are) and was absolutely beaming, telling me he was very confident the Dems would wim back the presidency. I asked why he was so sure and he gave me a stat something to the effect of: “no sitting president who has an approval rating of below 50% at this point before the election has ever gone on to be re-elected.” Obviously, things dont always turn out as history indicates they will.
Nevertheless, Kavon is engaging in an important exercise, I would just caution all not to try to take our current situation and forcibly apply a historical rule. This is the only presidential primary for us Republicans (at least that I can think of off the top of my head) where no matter who wins it would be a minor upset. I have trouble pegging any individual’s chances at over 30%. You name a candidate and we could collectively tell you why he won’t win.
January 10th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
John R,
You are 100% correct in your assessment. This is being presented solely as evidence for everyones consideration (and mainly because I love to hear everyone debate each other’s ideas).
The future certainly is not set in stone. Anything can happen.
January 10th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
The fact that Elizabeth Dole got that level of support is disturbing.
In any event, what these polls all show is that if someone is the claer frontrunner as W was, that’s good news for their campaign. It’s better to be leadeing than starting from way back in the pack.
Also, 2000 saw the GOP trying to retake the WH after 8 years of Clinton, 2008 will see the GOP trying to hold the WH after 8 years of Bush, a slightly different dynamic. And when one factors in issues like Iraq, Iran, Terrorism, Stem Cells, etc… and other issues that didn’t exist in 2000 and that issues that did exist in 2000 won’t be so important in 2008, it’s really a whole new ballgame.
That said, I’d rather be where McCain or Giuliani is in the polls than Romney or Brownback.
I see Rudy as the Colin Powell of 2008. He gets poll support and he appeals ot a wide range of people. But his candidacy is never really serious, due to a wide range of factors.
Basically, though, the entire 2008 election will come down to Iraq. If, by next year, Iraq is still seen as a liability and there hasn’t been any significant progress, if another 1000 Us troops have died, and Iraqis are still getting blown up every day, and the sectarian violence is still there, and the govt is still in hoc to Iran, as I beleive John Podhoretz said on NRO today, the risen Christ couldn’t win for the GOP.
So, if Iraq is still bad, then all these discussions won’t matter, the Dems will win comfortably.
I think it’s going to come down to McCain and Romney in the end and I think McCain will get it. Rudy has a certain baseline of support though so if he is serious, he does have something to work with.
A lot depends on the dems, though. The dem primaries are all before the GOP ones. SO, we’ll know which dem won IA before the IA GOP caucus. Same with NH, SC, etc… If Hillary wraps it up by SC, the GOP may be tempted to go with someone more competitive in the general.
It’s way too early, though. So many things can and will happen between now and 2008. I think the best thing to do is at least wait for the first debate in the spring, see wher the candidates are fundraising wise, see what their positions are, see where Iraq is, and then we’ll have a better idea.
January 11th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
In 1988, VP Bush was challenged by 7 Republicans. I was at the Bush Library in College Station yesterday, (130 miles from Houston) and it is a wealth of information.
Can you image the VP of a strong president like Reagan being challenged as president by 7 other people and being able to win? Today, some say Cheney was the Heir apparent, but even if he had decided to run, he would have still been challenged just like Bush, Sr.
John R., speaking of history, the past presidential races are an excellent way to study what makes one candidate more successful than the others.
Elizabeth Dole was seen as a VP potential as well in previous races,(it was either Ford or Bush, sr who had her on his list) and she was in the Cabinet of the Bush 41 Administration. Many people believed she would be the VP in 2000 with Bush, so she was strongly supported by the people. She allowed raised over $10 million before she dropped out in October 1999.
Right now, she is doing a good job as Senator and is making her mark on history as well.
Interesting to think to Gore being challenged by Bill Bradley who gave up his Senate seat. Bradley raised over $20 million and pointed out many errors of Gore and led
the way to show that he would be defeated. Remember this too, Gore lost his home state of Tennessee by over 100,000 votes and failed to win any Southern state.
For a VP to be linked to a strong president, it sometimes is more like getting out from their shadow. The BIG MAN Clinton did overshadow Gore and I think he will also
overshadow his wife. No matter where Bill goes, he makes the headlines, even when he is standing next to Hillary as she was sworn in by Cheney for the private ceremony.
The only way Hillary is going to have success is to get Bill to stay home and do the cooking. Otherwise, he is just seen as the man behind her and that he is trying
to back into the White House. That 2 for the price of 1 statement in 1992 will be a rock around her neck.