Weak Field

Adam Nagourney noted in yesterday's Week in Review that Republican primary voters aren't just having a hard time making up their minds, they don't really care for their choices: "A New York Times/CBS News poll last week found that none of the Republican candidates — not even the suddenly hot Mr. Huckabee — was viewed favorably by even half of Republican voters." Check out the result in graphical form:

This is in stark contrast to the Democrats. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are seen favorably by majorities of Democrats, and John Edwards has a very favorable ratio. The general pattern, is just that the more famous the Democrat is, the more Democratic voters like him or her:

Basically, if either Clinton or Obama winds up winning, the nominee is going to be someone who even many of the supporters of the other candidate have a favorable view of. It seems likely, meanwhile, that Edwards will become similarly well-liked if he has a breakout moment in and after Iowa. The Republicans, by contrast, are going to wind up nominating someone who many Republicans dislike.

Comments

This will undoubtedly just bring down the wrath of the Edwards people, but I'd like to call their attention to that second graph and to the many polls that show him third in Iowa, the state where he has spent the most time as has the best ground organization.

While some Democrats find him inspiring and daring and charming and persuasive, many don't.

It's time Edwards looked in the mirror and faced the truth: maybe the Democrats just aren't that into him.

Posted by joe | December 17, 2007 1:57 PM

The Republicans, by contrast, are going to wind up nominating someone who many Republicans dislike.

The graph only indicates that if their nominee is Giuliani or McCain. Romney's unfavorable rating among Repubs isn't too bad--in fact, his ratings in both categories look almost exactly the same as Edwards' among the Dems. Huckabee's unfavorable is actually lower than any of the top 3 Dems, although that might be more malleable than the other candidates who have been getting far more attention than him until very recently.

Posted by Haggai | December 17, 2007 2:06 PM

Can we compare these graphs to past Presidential races? My off-the-cuff inclination is that the Democrats usually "have a favorable view" of their candidate more often (until they lose the election; then Democrats stick a shiv in their candidate). Not overwhelmingly so, but at least a little more often than GOPers do.

Perhaps it wouldn't make a difference this time; Democrats seem to be energized and Republicans not so much, but it would seem to me that there is an inherent Democratic advantage in the "do you have a favorable impression of your candidates" question, considering Democrats promise federal aid for all causes...

Posted by P | December 17, 2007 2:06 PM

Wasn't this true of polls of Democrats as of December 2003? What short memories we all have ...

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | December 17, 2007 2:29 PM

My off-the-cuff inclination is that the Democrats usually "have a favorable view" of their candidate more often.

Really? I'd have exactly the opposite inclination "off-the-cuff" - except for '92 and '96 the Republicans have ALWAYS seemed more pumped about their candidates than the Dems to me. Even in '92 the Dems didn't seem that pumped about their choice of candidates - but the GOP base was really down on Poppy Bush. (In '96, IIRC, the Dem base was pumped for Clinton and the GOP base was resigned to losing to him with Dole - but no one was seriously pumped for Dole, they just were kind of resigned to the fact he was going to win).

Now, unlike Matt, I think that the GOP candidate who wins Iowa will get a bounce in favorability - and it won't matter which one it is. I also think that whoever wins NH and SC will also get a bounce - and if the same guy wins all three his unfavorables will drop and his favorables among GOP voters will rise some. Because at the end of the day what the GOP base really likes is a winner. And their malaise about their candidates this time around (much like in '92 and '96) is mainly because they know they have a pack of losers to choose from.

Posted by NonyNony | December 17, 2007 2:30 PM

On the Dem side this is an inversion of 2000 and especially 2004, when no one was enthusiastic about Kerry.

This is why the Democratic nominee will win by at least 5% of the popular vote, more likely closer to 10%, in any matchup permutation of the candidates listed in the graphs above.

How many senate seats will the dems pick up? Based on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2008
my guess is 5. 4 is almost certain, and there's a chance for 6. Given the recession of 2008, Bush's favorables/unfavorables, and the fact that the housing problems will persist through the election, every toss-up and perhaps more will go Dem. It'll be a repeat of 2006.

What suprises me most about the chart above is Clinton's favorability rating, considering that basically every criticism leveled at her by Edwards and Obams is true. Before she even announced her candidacy in 2000, her actual goal was the White House. She couldn't care less what state she ran for Senate in. She will take whatever position is most expedient to winning the White House. She is very beholden to lobbyists, etc. In this regard she and her favorability rating reminds me a lot of GWB. The partisans just want a candidate with a name who can win. It's a real test of the Democratic Party and Democrat voters to see if they'll elect such a soulless candidate. The ultimate goal of politics is not to win the Presidency, the Presidency is a means to an end; it's to pass legislation you think will benefit the country. I don't think Bush and HRC understand this. They really are like Robert Redford in The Candidate.

Just checked out Dennis Kucinich's platform for the first time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Kucinich_presidential_campaign%2C_2008
Better than any of the big 3, easily. Only Democratic candidate who has not gotten on his/her knees for AIPAC too. I know Matt doesn't agree with his position on gun control, but me I agree. If people want shotguns, I'm fine with that.

It's too bad the Democratic Party isn't as devious and clever as the Republican Party. If it was they could run Kucinich (or someone with his policies) as roughly a Hillary Clinton equivalent and then once elected push a highly progressive agenda, the same way that Bush ran as a compassionate conservative espousing a humble foreign policy and then passed tax cuts and legislation that take from the poor and gives to the rich and a neoconservative "we rule the world" foreign policy.

Posted by blah2 | December 17, 2007 2:42 PM

It's a real test of the Democratic Party and Democrat voters to see if they'll elect such a soulless candidate. The ultimate goal of politics is not to win the Presidency, the Presidency is a means to an end; it's to pass legislation you think will benefit the country.

Accepting arguendo your premise that Clinton is uniquely soulless I think you need to read your second sentence again. much better legislation will be passed under Clinton than under any conceivable Republican, simply because her self-interested political calculations will be made in response to a different set of interests. It will be very important for her to keep unions, enviro groups, African-Americans happy, just as any Republican has to keep the evangelicals and Club for Growth types happy. And she's unlikely to block positive actions coming out of Congress even if they go beyond what she would choose to do on her own.

I think Americans -- and maybe especially liberals -- really overrate personal principles or "soul" as opposed to the routine operations of politics. I don't necessarily want a heroic leader as president, I want someone who will reliably respond to organized pressure from our side.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | December 17, 2007 2:50 PM

Graphics like these are really only valuable when the scale is the same. Because the Dem graphic is zoomed to a larger size, it exaggerates the positives. You have to look closely to make Haggai's observation that Edwards' numbers are the same as Romney's. Next time, Matt, put all the graphs in the same image.

Also, what lemuel pitkin said.

Posted by Rob Mac | December 17, 2007 2:58 PM

Obama is a "more famous" Democrat than the guy whose name is still on my bumper from 2004?

Posted by Aaron S. Veenstra | December 17, 2007 3:09 PM

NonyNony:

Yeah, I think that's right. I stand convinced. As a proxy, one might look at "party loyalty" voting, and Republicans are almost always more loyal to the party's nominee in terms of the voting booth. Granted, there is a difference between "view favorably" and "will vote for", but it is a decent proxy absent actual "fav/unfav" graphs.

Posted by P | December 17, 2007 4:04 PM

Strange how all 3 Democratic candidates have virtually the same unfavorable numbers among self-described Democrats (around 12%). My guess is that this is the group of Democrats that Mickey Kaus, Michael O'Hanlon, Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman belong to.

Posted by Jinchi | December 17, 2007 6:25 PM

I think you need to read your second sentence again. Much better legislation will be passed under Clinton than under any conceivable Republican, simply because her...

I agree completely. The first thing I wrote was that the Democratic candidate is going to win in 2008. The Republicans were trounced in 2006, the domestic situation is worsening, and the Republican candidate is going to run largely on the same platform (stay in Iraq, tax cuts as the cure for all ills, etc.), even if they do avoid mentioning Bush. So I don't quite get this statement of yours.

I think Americans -- and maybe especially liberals -- really overrate personal principles or "soul" as opposed to the routine operations of politics. I don't necessarily want a heroic leader as president

I agree with this more than your first point. I don't want the presidential race to be framed by or based on heroism or cult of personality at all. I want the race to be about who will be the best CEO of American government and not who will lead the US as some city on the hill; this is real life, not the Lord of the Rings; we don't need heroes. In other words, I want the best policies, not the most charismatic leader. My criticism of soulless is based on her lacking convictions on policy matters and, to me at least, taking whatever policy is most expedient politically.

I don't buy into the notion that "this is a significant (some use the word historic) moment for Democrats and they need to take advantage and run a progressive candidate." True, the Democratic candidate is going to win walking away. The fact is that the Democrats should make a case for progressive issues and run a progressive candidate every time. Waiting for the cards to be stacked in your favor in every way is not a good long-term strategy; it's why the "center" of politics is decidely conservative.

I personally know only one person who has worked in DC politics. I saw him a few months ago and he said that a lot of the talk he hears about politics is not Democrat vs. Republican but democracy vs. capitalism (corparatism, really). To some not insignificant extent, he's right. And Hillary doesn't understand this as much as Obama or Edwards do. Personally, I don't think she cares about it at all because I believe she sees policy and rhetoric largely as a means rather than an end.

Though he overstates it a bit, I think Petey's critique is basically my critique of Hillary:
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/12/the_yglesias_theory_of_change.php#comment-991545

Or as another friend put it immediately after the above comment, "If Hillary wins it'll prove Ralph Nader was a good deal more right (the two parties both value pleasing big business more than doing what's best for America) than liberals would like to admit."

I don't know HRC or Obama or Edwards and I couldn't care less about their personality or inspiring leadership qualities. Recognize the problems this country faces and work on them. Hillary, the candidate of large corporations and lobbyists, can not do that as well as Obama or Edwards because most of our problems stem from the power of large corporations and lobbyists.

Posted by blah2 | December 17, 2007 6:43 PM

Shorter blah2: Hillary Clinton is the Mitt Romney of the Democratic field, but Democrats don't want to admit that she is always and everywhere politically expedient, far too friendly with big business, and extremely calculating and articifial because, hey, she's on their side.

Posted by blah2 | December 17, 2007 6:52 PM

My guess is that this is the group of Democrats that Mickey Kaus, Michael O'Hanlon, Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman belong to.

Possibly Kucinich voters, as well.

Posted by Jason C. | December 17, 2007 6:57 PM

Edwards is less famous than Barack Obama? Having been the Vice Presidential candidate? That's hard to believe. I think people have just made up their minds not to care about him anymore.

Posted by Mike | December 17, 2007 7:09 PM

Edwards is less famous than Barack Obama? Having been the Vice Presidential candidate?

Yes, he's less famous than Obama.

Quick, who was Walter Mondale's vice-presidential pick?

Posted by Jinchi | December 17, 2007 8:06 PM

What Mike and Aaron said: the notion that John Edwards somehow isn't famous enough among Democrats after running for VP is really quite preposterous.

A big chunk have clearly decided they aren't very excited about him and view him neither favorably nor unfavorably. Hard to see what Iowa can do to change that.

Posted by right | December 17, 2007 8:06 PM

Quick, who was Walter Mondale's vice-presidential pick?

Seriously? That was 1984.

Posted by right | December 17, 2007 8:15 PM

Seriously? That was 1984.

It was also the first time a woman was on the ticket for a major party. If people still can't remember her name it tells you something about how famous presidential running mates are.

Edwards is pretty well known. But he's not as famous as Obama. That's a simple fact.

Posted by Jinchi | December 17, 2007 10:27 PM

It was also the first time a woman was on the ticket for a major party. If people still can't remember her name it tells you something about how famous presidential running mates are.

Edwards is pretty well known. But he's not as famous as Obama. That's a simple fact.

But Geraldine Ferrero hadn't run two long presidential campaigns in the last 5 years; John Edwards has. We're talking about who is famous among Democratic primary voters and the notion that the problem with Edwards is that somehow they don't know who he is is just lunacy.

Posted by right | December 18, 2007 9:59 AM