GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
Robert Novak reports in his Evans-Novak Political Report for February 28 on the results of a “push poll” conducted?for former Virginia Governor James Gilmore in Iowa with respect to the state’s?2008 Republican presidential caucus. Once Iowa Republicans are informed or reminded of some liberal tendencies on the part of Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Mitt Romney, the support for the purported “Big Three” drops precipitously. And it sounds from Novak’s reporting as if some of the 2008 Republican presidential campaigns are going to take the gloves off and start contrasting their primary opponents as this weekend’s CPAC commences. I cannot recall a Republican presidential primary where the front-runners were more vulnerable to attack and the field lacked a consensus, heavyweight conservative; everyone would be well advised, as Novak opines, to take current polling numbers within the GOP field with a huge grain of salt given their softness. Here is the applicable excerpt from the report:
“Republicans around the country are now talking about the possibility that a conservative candidate outside the ‘Big Three’ could suddenly catch fire and suck support away from both the frontrunners and several of the minor candidates. A push poll for the 2008 Iowa presidential caucuses is instructive on the reality of conservative discontent with the current ‘Big Three’ GOP candidates. The poll gives Sen. John McCain 20.5 percent, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani 16.3 percent, and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney 3.5 percent. The candidate for whom the push-poll was conducted, former Virginia Gov. James Gilmore (R), leads them all with 31 percent.
- This is not a legitimate survey, of course — it’s a ‘push poll’ that tells respondents positive and negative things about various candidates. The pollster peppered respondents with tales of the liberal deviations by McCain, Giuliani and Romney, and the true-blue conservatism of Gilmore. But it proves a point that is widely accepted in Republican ranks: None of the ‘Big Three’ is a natural fit for the nation’s right-of-center party. A conservative void unquestionably exists. The question is whether there is anyone who can fill the void.
- The name usually mentioned as the void-filler is not Gilmore but Newt Gingrich. A straw poll by the right-wing Citizens United organization of contributors to its political fund showed Gingrich ahead with 31 percent (followed by Giuliani at 25 percent, Romney at 10 percent and McCain at 8 percent). But based on his record as Speaker of the House, Gingrich’s conservative record is far from flawless.
- Before the ‘push’ element of Gilmore’s poll, the unadulterated results showed McCain leading in Iowa with 33 percent, followed by Giuliani at 31.5 percent and Romney at 8.8 percent (the unknown Gilmore took just 1.3 percent). That the pollsters could cause so much movement by pushing — or ‘informing’ — respondents that McCain opposed tax cuts, Romney took a pro-choice abortion stance in Massachusetts, and Giuliani supported Democratic Gov. Mario Cuomo’s re-election in New York, for example, is very telling as to just how committed voters are to the ‘Big Three,’ even the ones who say they support them. Giuliani dropped by nine points with pushing, Romney lost five points (McCain actually rose 2 points).
- Then the pushers went to work projecting Gilmore as a tax-cutting, job-creating governor of Virginia, head of a congressionally appointed commission on terrorism, chairman of the Republican National Committee and a National Rifle Association member. With that buildup, Gilmore finished first, well ahead of the field. That suggests that, under the current conditions, a campaign knocking down the conservative credentials of the ‘Big Three’ could make a nominee out of even a long shot such as Gilmore — at least theoretically.
- With Gilmore a latecomer to the presidential fundraising game, it is doubtful that he will have sufficient funds to tear down his opponents and build up himself nationally or even in the state of Iowa. But he or any other long shot will have a lot of help beating up on the ‘Big Three.’ This week, the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) will attract right-wingers from all over the country. They will receive a 23-page attack on McCain from the right-wing group Citizens United, declaring: ‘He’s no Ronald Reagan.’ (McCain is the only announced Republican presidential hopeful not scheduled to attend CPAC.) At the same time, McCain operatives are putting out material casting Guiliani as a throwback to the old Tammany Hall Democratic machine that rode into City Hall on the shoulders of the New York Liberal Party, which cross-endorsed him in New York.
- There is plenty of time for such negative campaigning to tear down the Republican front-runners as having inadequate conservative credentials. At this point in the 2000 election cycle, Bush was far in front with 45 percent in the polls, with Elizabeth Dole second at 29 percent, and McCain at a forgettable 3 percent. McCain went from that 3 percent to run a strong insurgent campaign that nearly delivered him the nomination.
- The lesson is that the prominent coverage of the ‘Big Three’ is by no means an indicator that they will remain out front. The conservative void on the Republican side is simply too great. Nature abhors a vacuum, as does the political world.”
February 28th, 2007 at 8:20 pm
This type of analysis makes the claim that front runners can be identified by polling ridiculous. Voters are generally so weakly committed to the candidates that the race could be much different than what they imply.
Remember that John McCain was at 3% in the polls at this point in the last primary. He went on to be Bush’s main competition.
February 28th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
A push poll by the Gilmore campaign that “shockingly” shows him as the frontrunner…! Gimme a break Novak…!
Good grief! And this site is criticized for blogging on supposed “non-news”…
February 28th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
“At this point in the 2000 election cycle, Bush was far in front with 45 percent in the polls, with Elizabeth Dole second at 29 percent, and McCain at a forgettable 3 percent. McCain went from that 3 percent to run a strong insurgent campaign that nearly delivered him the nomination.”
Nearly delivered him the nomination? By winning New Hampshire then getting crushed in SC (which is the only primary that has truly mattered in the modern history of the GOP nomination proecess)? I must have missed the “nearly delivered…the nomination” part.
February 28th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
Once Giuliani starts talking about his record - by which
I mean achievements in the real world that you can touch,
taste, see, hear and smell - both McCain and Romney will be
toast. Neither one has demonstrably accomplished anything
remotely near what Giuliani did. What did John McCain ever
do compared to getting 750,000 people off welfare? What did
Mitt Romney ever do compared to lowering the murder rate in a
city from 2300 per annum to 600? If you wanna talk conservative
prinicples - the Brooklyn Museum had a painting in an exhibit that
showed Virgin Mary smeared with cow dung - Giuliani immediately
shut off all public funding for the museum. What kind of similar
Deep Red action - not talking, but actually action - has ever McCain
or Romney ever done? This will be one of Giuliani’s main themes -
talk is cheap, but what has the candidate actually *done*.
February 28th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
The push polls that don’t change the numbers are never reported, for reasons that I hope would be obvious to contributors to and readers of this site (though you have to wonder when one of the greatest political reporters and columnists of our generation, and the only one who predicted ahead of time the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994, is referenced as some kind of a bumpkin). With all due respect, I think that this site has gone overboard and become a debating forum for 2008 GOP presidential candidates rather than a source of news and analysis, with most of the contributors losing a great deal of their credibility.
Those who fail to believe that the numbers of Gingrich, Giuliani, McCain, and Romney could be significantly eroded by a well-designed and funded negative campaign, which seems to include most of those who have declared a 2008 GOP allegiance around here, are fooling themselves. Why do you think Gingrich has stayed out thus far? The leaked internal campaign documents of Giuliani and Romney admit to their guys’ weaknesses, yet the supporters of those candidates on this site are oblivious to such vulnerabilities. I am waiting to encounter a Brownback, Gingrich, Giuliani, Huckabee, McCain, or Romney supporter who posts on this site and is realistic about their candidate’s strengths and weaknesses; I won’t hold my breath because everyone around here seems to be in denial and simply serving as a campaign advocate and flak, which is too bad because there is no real analysis therefore.
There are going to be a lot of twists and turns on the GOP side in 2008. This is not a typical Republican field or presidential election cycle. What the Gilmore “push poll” shows is the potential volatility of the numbers and the inherent weaknesses of the front-runners; this is the point of the Novak report, not that James Gilmore can win the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, which is easily missed by those trying to spin the horse race angle their candidate’s way. Novak has forgotten more about politics than most of the contributors to this site are every going to know (and had McCain won South Carolina in 2000 after winning big in New Hampshire he would have won the GOP nomination, which is arguably in the range of “nearly delivered”). Focusing on the post-push poll number for Gilmore is the sign of folks who don’t know how to and have no experience in conducting or reading a poll, which seems to be par for the course around here, sadly.
Enough is enough. Is this a site for reporting and analysis or spin and political food fights?
February 28th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
All this means is everyone will get muddy, Even Huckabee and Brownback. I can’t think of a single person in the field and out without their flaws. No on is going to escape the mudslinging.
Guiliani is staying powder dry right now, but I have feeling that won’t last long (and not because of what Simon said to day!)
February 28th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
I stand corrected. Jason gets it (and I do not recall if he supports a particular 2008 GOP candidate). Maybe we can build on that. But I am still not holding my breath.
February 28th, 2007 at 9:15 pm
[...] post by Republius and software by Elliott [...]
February 28th, 2007 at 9:15 pm
Peter,
I do not want to diminish Giuliani’s record at all, as I agree with you that it is quite impressive. I believe him to be a competent leader and for that reason (and others) would be comfortable with him as the nominee.
However, Romney is also using the “talk is cheap, actions count” theme in speeches, and he too has the record to back it up. If you have not already done so, I’d encourage you to look into his record of leadership in business, the Olympics, and as governor. His accomplishlments are also very impressive, and he has a good mix of solid leadership experience in both the public and private sectors.
February 28th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
Republius,
Thanks, I think. I will say I don’t think anyone has a fully objective opinion- all though yours is closer than mine.
We all put the things we like in a better light. That’s why I am always so surprised when I look at my gut in the mirror.
I understand fully where Romney’s weakness’s are, I have been following him since 1995 waiting for the day he would run. My problem isn’t so much that people talk about them, it’s that they are not honest about where other candidates lie, and will over state some of Mitt’s weakness’s. But that’s part of the process and there is a spot for everyone. The quasi-objective observer and the under cover paid shill. I admit I am not paid, but I probably am close to shill-dom.
As for the numbers in Evans-Novak, it does show they are all volatile. Maybe they are volatile because the public is volatile themselves? Yet I don’t think there is a candidate that isn’t stuffing there armory to the max right now, ready to shoot down the highest balloon. Because of this I really doubt that a smaller candidate is going to pop up. I am sure every candidate is surveying for any potential candidates and preparing for the possibilities.
February 28th, 2007 at 10:29 pm
Jason, it was meant as a compliment, however inartfully worded or provided contextual background.
I agree that we all have biases, but my take is that there is too often a complete lack of effort at any objectivity whatsoever around here.
The worst thing, in my opinion, about the way contributors and posters on this site are arguing for their candidates is that it is so juvenile. If this is a site where some analysis is supposed to take place rather than mere full-throated advocacy, even the most partisan and loyal supporter would try to think like a campaign manager or campaign strategist and admit to and shore up weaknesses while emphasizing strengths - and do so for their opponent as well as their favorite.
It is ludicrous for someone to attack Robert Novak’s integrity and insight in reporting on an internal poll from an early caucus state.
It is ludicrous for someone to fail to admit that Gingrich, Giuliani, McCain, or Romney have tremendous weaknesses as candidates.
It is ludicrous for someone to fail to admit that Gingrich, Giuliani, McCain, or Romney have tremendous strengths as candidates.
It is getting to the point where posts on this site are like press releases from the candidates - they can be dismissed out of hand as tendentious.
February 28th, 2007 at 11:11 pm
Republius,
I have never stated in any way that Rudy Giuliani is a sure thing. Nor have I ever stated that he is invulnerable. I realize that he has weaknesses as a candidate, as do McCain and Romney.
My thesis has always been that the GOP nominates front-runners and heir apparents. There are two of those in this race: McCain and Rudy. Since McCain is so disliked on a personal level by the base, my belief is that Rudy Giuliani will emerge as the Republican nominee. Am I stating that as an absolute fact? No… Have I ever? No…
As far as Novak goes, I’m pretty sure that he’ll survive a critique from a piss-on like me. Republius, you know far better than I how push polls work. I could commission a push poll that will conclude that I will defeat Rudy Giuliani for the GOP nomination. Push polls are most effective as a weapon to smear your opponent, not as a gauge of public opinion. (for those that may be unfamiliar, a push poll works like this: let’s take Allen vs. Webb for the VA Senate seat. Let’s say Webb comissions a poll where people are called and asked their opinion of George Allen. They are then read a statement like, “are you aware that George Allen is personally responsible for the termination of 10,000 puppies by tossing them alive into bonfires?” They are then asked again what their opinion of George Allen is. )
I could have set up this site as a Kavon fiefdom, where my word is law and not a single word of opposition to my beliefs is allowed. Instead, I have invited 7 other writers to pimp their candidates to their hearts content on my dime. The only rule of this site is no draft Condi Rice talk (sorry Debbie). Other than that, any writer can write on anything and everything they wish to. Have I ever cencorsed a single person for something other than profanity?
This site is the way it is on purpose because I designed it that way. I thought to myself, “Wouldn’t it be great if there was a group blog like Polipundit out there that was only devoted to 2008 and had great writers who each supported different candidates; and the commenters could play an enormous role in the site by arguing back and forth with each other in a respectful manner?”
Since that site didn’t exist, I thought I get off my butt and create it. I really like the way it’s turned out so far. I don’t believe there has ever been a site like this. It’s our niche. I have made some good friends here, 90% of which I don’t agree with on 2008, but we still leave here as friends at the end of the day.
I agree that sometimes the banter gets a little childish (and I think that everyone here knows who the guilty parties are), but people are free to make asses of themselves here as well (myself included
)
March 1st, 2007 at 12:13 am
Kavon, I think the site should be proud of the way any point of view is allowed other than the profane (in any instance) and personal (in instances concerning contributors and other posters).
What I don’t think the site should be proud of is how it is devolving into an on-line version of the on-site, post-presidential debate media spin rooms. I see virtually no specific admissions as to the weaknesses of candidates each contributor (or poster) favors; I see increasingly less objective analysis from contributors (or posters) and increasingly more advocacy for specific candidates by them, which results in knee-jerk and often ad hominem and poorly reasoned attacks on any post that is detrimental to the contributor’s candidate of choice, such as yours on the Robert Novak report of the James Gilmore push poll (and it is representative rather than isolated, and I do not mean to single you out). And the most difficult part of the whole thing is that such attacks cannot go unanswered and necessarily require a harsh response, which denigrates the dialogue and turns it into a competition.
Did you really think that the objective reality that the Giuliani numbers can and will come down once a negative campaign is run against him (which his own operatives admit) could be mitigated or denied by attempting to discredit Bob Novak and the Gilmore push poll? This is the kind of reflexive and, frankly, brain-dead mindset that this site is creating. Wouldn’t a more prudent response from a Giuliani partisan have been that while the Mayor is admittedly (again, by his own staff!) vulnerable to such attacks he can overcome them with his strengths and turn the attacks on his opponents? And shouldn’t the site be inspiring the prudent response rather than the reflexive and brain-dead?
The site can and should be better than that. The contributors can and should be better than that. I think this site can and should be more Michael Barone and less Paul Begala and Mark Levin. But I think what we have is the inevitable result of contributors aligning against each other as cheerleaders for specific candidates. In each contributor’s profile you might as well list which specific 2008 GOP presidential they are for so as to obtain full disclosure and eliminate pretense.
When contributors are in “ready, fire, aim” mode, as is usually the case lately, analysis is lost as attack and defend become the modus operandi - and a lot of unnecessary collateral damage occurs when so many wayward shots are being taken.
Why doesn’t the site just divide up into teams for each candidate and have specific debates by topic? Again, the pretense for analysis and reporting have been lost and all we have left is flak advocacy. Early on we eventually refused to allow Condi Rice posts because they were clearly pure and subjective advocacy from some. But then that is basically what most of the rest of the posts have become for the other Republican candidates, both announced and unannounced, so I do not see how we can justify refusing the Rice supporters their time. Gingrich may or may not run, as well, but we allow talk by his supporters.
I liked that you brought Jennifer Rubin onto the site and that she has done some opposition research type reports on various 2008 GOP presidential candidates to show their vulnerabilities. I would like her presence even more if I could be confident that she will write similar pieces on all the 2008 GOP presidential candidates in order to be even-handed and objective.
On the other hand, Deroy Murdock’s pieces are always going to be pro-Giuliani and anti-everyone else in the 2008 GOP presidential primary, and so there is little to anticipate or be able to consider objectively. I, for one, no longer even read them; just as I am not going to read anything further that Hugh Hewitt has to say about Mitt Romney - because it is sheer advocacy with no objective and critical analysis (and, worse yet, he won’t admit it and claims he is neutral with respect to the 2008 GOP presidential race).
I had hoped this could be a forum for lively and objective discussion of the 2008 GOP field, with all kinds of perspectives represented - insiders, outsiders, politically experienced, politically inexperienced, blue collar types, white collar types, conservatives, moderates, economically focused, socially focused, internationally focused, etc. - and weighted equally, as occurs at the ballot box. But I think what we clearly now have is lively and subjective campaigning. And if someone is going to act like a campaign flak, rather than as a town hall or debate participant, and take a shot at something or someone I attempt to write objectively about, on behalf of a specific candidate in order to score points for their guy, then I am uncomfortably forced to respond in campaign mode and in-kind - and attempt to discredit the analysis and its source, which is not what I came here to do if for no other reason than such gets personal and antagonistic very quickly.
And I dare say that this devolution, as I see it, can only get worse since the real campaigning has barely begun. Wait until all of the GOP 2008 presidential candidates stop being nice to one another and sound the attack. I can only imagine and shudder to think at how that will be reflected here on the site. Choosing between failing to participate or fighting it out in the gutter is not very appealing.
March 1st, 2007 at 10:45 am
Mes Confrères:
I find that I must agree with Kavon on all counts here: that Rudy will win the Republican nomination; that he (Kavon) has never propounded this opinion as a fait accompli; and that this site is truly set up to promote robust debate. One of the inevitable side effect of the freedom of expression needed to debate robustly is that “a free people” will express opinions ranging from the puerile to the juvenile to the inane to the pernicious to the uninformed to the brilliantly stated to the deeply profound. Indeed, I have myself read at least one opinion — indeed in fact more than one — on this site that would fit into each of those categories. That, my friends, is the price of freedom. That is also, in my judgment, a mark of real success for a political discussion web-site. To suppose that such a web-site could possibly be otherwise is one of the more puerile opinions I have read on this site.
As for Mr. Novak’s reputation, and/or the relative impunity of same, there is not one single pundit/political-commentator of this or any other generation who has not made an ass of himself, or shown himself to be a bumpkin, on more than one occasion. The only question with any of them is how often they do it. Thus, not a single one of them is or should be above robust criticism in any individual case. To suggest otherwise is downright juvenile.
As for the substance of the Novak piece, I agree with the comment to the effect that it is sad that “push-polls” are generally not reported when they do not cause polling numbers to change. That said, I am aware of several-to-many “push polls”, some of which have been reported in this space and some elsewhere, that show that Rudy’s numbers indeed do not drop, or do not drop significantly, when poll respondents are informed of his “liberal positions on social issues”.
Of all the kinds of polls that ought be thoroughly discounted, if not entirely dismissed, one is certainly a “push poll” conducted by the campaign organization of an essentially unknown candidate that shows him going from essentially no support to a 10-point lead over the Party’s “Big Three” as a result of the “push-polling”. My Gawd! By using such a poll as the framing device for his piece on the potential political vulnerability of the “Big Three”, Mr. Novak has indeed shown himself to be a bumpkin, at least on this issue (Did someone say “juvenile?”), and no one should expect that “a free people” will not call him such.
Now, please forgive me, but I feel it would be pertinent to cross-post here an opinion I expressed elsewhere on this site, in response to a recent posting showing huge Giuliani leads in several polls:
“[T]he polls are all over the map. One has Romney at 10%, the other at 4%?”
Fair comment, though it does evidence a certain wishful thinking, coupled with a distinctly perceptible failure to grasp the reality of the moment. Please allow me to illustrate my point by re-phrasing the comment with equal accuracy: “[T]he polls are all over the map. One has Rudy at 53%, another at 33%, another at 29%, the other at 20%!”
The old adage is certainly true: Polls represent (at best) a “snapshot” it time, and they very well may, indeed probably will, change over time. At this moment in time, however, Rudy is the clear frontrunner for the Republican nomination in 2008. Even NPR (for Gawd’s sake) proclaimed him so this morning, with no qualifiers or equivocations, albeit more-or-less en passant..
That said, I must say also that I have NEVER been able to fathom, and do not fathom now, the fascination of some with Mitt Romney. Polling numbers like his have in the past caused many good men to give up the quest. One the other hand, a few, a very few, have persevered in the face of such poll numbers and ultimately won. Cf: Jimmy Carter.
The surest truism is this: “No poll is worth a damn, including this one!” That said, I believe it to be equally true that, where a large number of polls, independently of each other and over a significant period of time, show essentially the same thing, then one would be advised to sit up and take notice. This is really no more than that other bit of truly sage advice: “If one person tells you you’re drunk, and you don’t think so, you may not be. If ten people tell you you’re drunk, however, you had best sit down and not drive home.”
Translation: There have been enough polls as of now to show BEYOND DOUBT the following: Rudy is the clear frontrunner and Mitt Romney is hovering in 3rd or 4th place, sometimes lower, and is most often unable even to break into double figures.
The message is harder to read for John McCain: The most recent round of polls, that prompted this discussion, all show McCain’s support within a relatively small percent range, i.e., 16.4 to 23%. They also show him to be solidly in 2nd place: clearly behind Rudy and clearly ahead of Gingrich and Romney. The rub is that his numbers have “tanked” only relatively recently. Not too long ago, he was a much much closer second place to Rudy. At the same time, however, there were all those niggling surveys of opinion among the “hard-care” of the GOP showing HUGE disdain for McCain. In sum, it’s difficult at the moment to read McCain’s prospects with any confidence, although he certainly ought to have a back-up plan where he simply stays in the Senate.
Now, it’s certainly fair game to continue to support Romney and hope that he will win the nomination. Indeed, the tendency of some to beat their collective head against the wall is part of the “great mosaic” that “makes” politics and horse races. To continue to insist, however, that: “Romney numbers will certainly go soaring up once people just get to know him!” or “Rudy’s numbers will inevitably tank once people get to know his positions on social issues!” is nothing short of self-delusional.
My ultimate conclusion: Run Rudy Run!
March 1st, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Wow, what a surprise, a contributor who is an avowed Giuliani supporter thinks it is a good idea for the site to become a debating forum by candidate, and then proceeds to discount the chances of McCain and Romney to overtake his guy while failing to acknowledge any weaknesses the Mayor may have. Simply brilliant!
This is the kind of sterile and tendentious cheerleading that is not worth wasting bandwidth on.