The Unpopularity of Mitt Romney

It's been argued to me that the unpopularity of Mitt Romney is stemming from his comparatively low name recognition. I'm prepared to give that some credence, but it's worth diving into the data. For one thing, the questions do specify partisan affiliations, so even if you have no idea who Mitt Romney is you've still got something to base your choice off of.

So it seems noteworthy that asking "Do you lead more toward Edwards, the Democrat; or Romney, the Republican?" -- this is Romney's worst matchup -- inspires fully 25 percent of self-identified Republicans to declare for "Edwards, the Democrat" on route to a shocking 61-27 route. You would think that the number of die-hard "I'll vote GOP no matter what" Republicans would be higher than 27 percent. Even in Romney's worst matchup, Hillary Clinton is getting 54 percent of the vote, which is outstanding considering how high her negatives are.

Comments

LDS simply loses him too many of the kinds of votes a GOP candidate needs to win a general election.

He's running to get that issue aired enough that it recedes as a concern to the point that he becomes viable for the #2 spot. Nothing else.

Posted by Petey | May 7, 2007 2:52 PM

You mean Romney's best matchup, right?

Posted by djw | May 7, 2007 2:59 PM

I suspect that the Romney numbers are accurate. Many people see the LDS as a cult and it's ok to be openly bigoted against Mormons in this country.

OTOH, I fear that Obama and Clinton poll higher than they ever will on Election Day because people who won't vote for them based on race or gender won't tell the pollsters that.

Since one of them will more than likely be the nominee, I certainly hope I'm wrong.

Posted by howie | May 7, 2007 3:00 PM

In "route" to a rout?

Posted by Hunter Quinn | May 7, 2007 3:01 PM

You mean Romney's best matchup, right?

no way man, Romney has two worst matchups. He's JUST THAT BAD.

Posted by PK again | May 7, 2007 3:04 PM

Actually, 27% sounds about right.

http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2005/10/lunch-discussions-145-crazification.html

Posted by Dan Miller | May 7, 2007 3:09 PM

I fear that Obama and Clinton poll higher than they ever will on Election Day because people who won't vote for them based on race or gender won't tell the pollsters that.

This was consistently the argument made about Harold Ford in the Tennessee Senate race last year and it turned out to be completely wrong. Ford actually did equal to or better than the polls right before election day indicated he would. And that was in Tennessee. While there might be some Deep South states in which Obama does worse than he polls it is not like a Democrat will be winning those states anyway.

As for Hillary. There are plenty of women in Congress. And I haven't seen any evidence that poll numbers for female candidates are better than the actual results on election day.

Posted by Brian | May 7, 2007 3:13 PM

fully 25 percent of self-identified Republicans to declare for "Edwards, the Democrat"

I'm not a Romney fan, and suspect that the thrust of Matthew's post is correct. Nevertheless, that +/-8% margin of error makes this result pretty suspect.

Posted by Al | May 7, 2007 3:21 PM

I supposed LDS has something to do with it. But Romney's main problem is that he is so repellently unctuous and smarmy. Even conservatives understand that this guy is so slimy that he managed to get elected to the most liberal state in the country, only to totally change his tune over the course of two years.

He drips smarm.

Posted by owenz | May 7, 2007 3:28 PM

For a long time, minorities did much better in pre-election polls than in actual elections. However, newer research suggests that gap is narrowing.

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/408/can-you-trust-what-polls-say-about-obamas-electoral-prospects

Posted by mike | May 7, 2007 3:33 PM

What low name recognition? Anybody who has in any way, shape or form been politically aware enough to earn the title of "citizen" knows that Mitt Romney is the Republican who managed to become the governor of Taxachussetts -- proving, according to the MSM, that the GOP is truly invincible and mainstream and that the Dems. are so out in left field they can't even win in Taxachussetts anymore.

Of course, Romney's MA connection might be as damaging for him amongst GOoPers to whom New England, excepting NH, might as well be New France, but I hardly doubt people are unaware of Romney.

Posted by DAS | May 7, 2007 3:34 PM

Everyone is seriously underestimating Romney. He's got two of the craziest rightwingers on his side in Lopez and Hewitt.

Romney's shtick about people looking for a person of faith not a person of a specific faith will prove influential. Actually, I'm of the mind that the more people bring up the Mormon thing, the more appealing he becomes.

The other stuff (flip flopping) will hurt him, but considering the weak alternatives, he's going to take the nomination.

Posted by goosen | May 7, 2007 3:35 PM

Owenz has got it right. Romney is transparently false in everything he says or does. The addition of that "aww shucks" Mid-American BS -- really, who the hell says "golly" in earnest anymore? -- makes it even worse. It's as though Iago tried to improve his image by wearing kitty-kat face paint; it's futile, and additionally insults the viewer/audience via the transparency of the deception.

Posted by Ben Cronin | May 7, 2007 3:45 PM

Also, New France = Quebec.

Posted by Ben Cronin | May 7, 2007 3:46 PM

And, thinking like a hick as I do so well, what the hell kinda benefit is it to have name recognition when your name is "Mitt"?? He just sounds like some kinda sore joke. People don't give a shit for his ideas. No one without a blog pays attention to that. He's got a stupid name, looks like a rich dumbass, and is Mormon. Game over.

Posted by bubba | May 7, 2007 3:54 PM

It's too bad that Romney does so terribly, since he's precisely the sort of Republican I wouldn't mind having in office.

He transparently doesn't have any ideological consistency, but exudes technocratic competence. Given how the years of the Bush administration have gone, I just want competent government and accountability, and of the Republican candidates, Romney seems the most likely to provide that...

Posted by TW Andrews | May 7, 2007 4:04 PM

You mean Romney's best matchup, right?

Coming on the heels of (dis)approbation ... Yglesias, have you ever been checked for some low-level dyslexic-type thing?

I'm totally serious -- you're obviously smart as a whip, but this gift for using the exact opposite of what you mean, sounds like it might have something organic at bottom.

Posted by Anderson | May 7, 2007 4:10 PM

Anybody who has in any way, shape or form been politically aware enough to earn the title of "citizen" knows that Mitt Romney is the Republican who managed to become the governor of Taxachussetts . . .

At the time of the debates I didn't know what state Romney was governor of. I looked it up while I was reading some of the post-debate discussion.

Posted by David Tomlin | May 7, 2007 4:15 PM

DAS, I think you seriously overestimate the general population's level of political awareness. I've brought up Romney's name a couple of times in groups of highly educated, politically aware types and in both conversations I've had at least one person ask me who Romney was.

Folks in the political blogosphere make the common mistake that Americans are paying much more attention to national news, politics, and public policy than they actually are. In this case, Romney, even now, stands for "generic Republican", and I wouldn't extrapolate anything more from these numbers other than an enduring GOP problem generally, notwithstanding Newsweek's

That said, even though Romney has some real strengths as a candidate (as smarmy as he is, he presents well on the teevee), he's probably the weakest general election candidate of the bunch, to the extent that he probably can't present himself as anything other than Mr. Republican.

Posted by Ryan | May 7, 2007 4:23 PM

It's pretty clear from the entirety of DAS' first paragraph that he was speaking ironically.

Posted by Steve | May 7, 2007 4:32 PM

"technocratic competence"? Like Mike Dukakis? That's the kind of person that Republicans should nominate?

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | May 7, 2007 4:52 PM

It's pretty clear from the entirety of DAS' first paragraph that he was speaking ironically. - Steve

Actually, I had, when I started typing that paragraph, sincerely believed what I was saying, but the very act of writing convinced me that I had not realized how ironic my belief system was.

Is that pomo enough for y'all?

Posted by DAS | May 7, 2007 5:29 PM

I made a comment earlier about Romney's name recognition, and I'm willing to concede the point that there's active dislike of him out there that may be pushing his numbers even lower.

I guess the real question is: how does he perform against numbers for "generic Republican"? (Or, to really test MY's case, you'd need polling of HRC v. generic Republican. Is anyone taking polls like that?)

My guess is that MY is right, Romney's numbers are probably a bit lower, but I would also guess that it's not hugely different, and that the relative strength of McCain and Giuliani have to do with their well-cultivated media images that raise their favorables far above the baseline support for a generic Republican.

Posted by Philly | May 7, 2007 5:59 PM

Uh, that should be "cede the point," not "concede." I'm recovering from a concussion.

Posted by Philly | May 7, 2007 6:03 PM

You would think that the number of die-hard "I'll vote GOP no matter what" Republicans would be higher than 27 percent.

How are you getting the number 27 percent here? Romney pulls at least 64 percent of Republicans in the Newsweek matchups. 27 is what he gets (vs. Edwards) among all registered voters.

Posted by Whick | May 7, 2007 6:48 PM

There is no well I'd vote for Romney. I've already signed the Conservative Exodus Project.

http://www.conservativeexodusproject.com/

I'll only vote for real conservatives.

Posted by TS Eliot | May 7, 2007 7:31 PM

He transparently doesn't have any ideological consistency, but exudes technocratic competence. Given how the years of the Bush administration have gone, I just want competent government and accountability, and of the Republican candidates, Romney seems the most likely to provide that...

This is what I like best about him. It would be nice to have someone with a track record of being a competent manager in the White House. As far as I can tell only he and maybe Richardson fit the bill.

Posted by right | May 8, 2007 1:05 AM

Mike Huckabee is the only Repub I'd vote for. Unless he starts kissing Robertson's ass like the rest of them do.
Of course, they can't be nominated without the ass kissing, so never mind.

Posted by merlallen | May 8, 2007 5:05 AM