Open Minds

One problem with Jim Pinkerton's optimistic take on Mike Huckabee's electability (and he's by no means alone in this regard) is that in the real world Huckabee seems to be very unpopular. Check this out from the latest CNN / Opinion Research Corporation poll (PDF), for example. Of course if that's bad news for Huckabee, it's terrible news for Romney. I think the best face he could put on those results is simply that it's extremely implausible any nominee could possibly do as badly as this suggests he would. The poll also agrees with my intuition that Hillary Clinton has the higher floor, but Barack Obama the higher ceiling of the two candidates and that John McCain is hard to beat but by no means a shoo-in.

Comments

Matt

Do you see any chance of Obama winning the nomination?

If so, what would he have to do in the coming days?

Posted by eorse | January 14, 2008 2:08 PM

Matt

Do you see any chance of Obama winning the nomination?

If so, what would he have to do in the coming days?

Posted by eorse | January 14, 2008 2:08 PM

I will be shocked, SHOCKED, if Mitt pulls out a win in MI tomorrow. There's just too much dislike for the guy.

Sad thing is, if he loses, the right-wing blogs will get to trumpet that General Kos-imo and his orange coats have lost another battle in the Great Rat-F*cking Wars.

Mark my words, the righties will be laughing their asses off on Weds. But I guess you can't win if you don't throw the dice once in a while.

Posted by afferent input | January 14, 2008 2:14 PM

I think the Obama numbers are not reliable. You are putting too much faith in the sincerity of the people who say that they are open-minded about him.

Or my thirty years of living here has not been enough to learn about the racial sensitivity of our countrymen. Color me cynical anyhow.

Posted by gregor | January 14, 2008 2:24 PM

These numbers are questionable. We know the country, generally, likes the Democrats more than the Republicans. In fact, We know people of all stripes hate the Republicans at the moment. But when push comes to shove, how many conservatives who want to tout their dislike of all these candidates will stick with that "Definitely Not"? Because I have a pretty strong hunch that a hefty portion of that column belongs to conservatives who want to tell us they hate McCain for his rare bouts with independent thinking and Giuliani for wanting to kill all the babies and marry all the gays. But on election day, you know they'll come home to vote against any of teh eevl sosh'lists!!11! the Democratic Party might nominate.

Posted by jhupp | January 14, 2008 3:26 PM

I doubt he'd fair any better than Romney, but any numbers for Fred Thompson in this study.

Posted by Justin K. | January 14, 2008 3:48 PM

What are there only two democrats that are viable. I feel the need to say John Edwards.

Posted by cheflovesbeer | January 14, 2008 4:51 PM

I'm probably being dense but why does the "definitely for" column add up to more than 100%? How can someone be "definitely" in favor of more than 1 candidate?

Posted by Rab | January 14, 2008 5:14 PM

Rab,

It was worded as whether you are definitely for the candidate if he/she were to win the party nomination. This would allow for multiples.

Posted by Ronnie Pudding | January 14, 2008 5:28 PM

The interesting figures to me are those of the "Consider Voting For". Note the large disparity between Clinton and Obama. 13% more people will consider voting for Obama than for Clinton.

Meanwhile the difference between them on "minds made up" is only 7%, and "Definitely Not" only 5%.

What this tells me is that New Hampshire was a fluke based on Clinton media coverage the day or two before the primary (and possibly a superior Clinton machine in NH), and that most of the "not sure" crowd is still in play - and twice as many of them prefer Obama as do Clinton.

If Obama can avoid being typecast as a "political black" and somehow avoid Clinton's "Crying Game" techniques or blunt the media effects, he should do well in further primaries.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 14, 2008 10:58 PM

I am guessing that many of McCain's "definately not" crowd is actually traditional republicans who resent him beating their republican candidates of choice. If he wins the election, many of these people will reluctantly get behind him. I don't think that the same thing can be said about Hillary. The anti-Hillary crowd will never let go of their prejudice.

Posted by Rory | January 15, 2008 12:38 AM

So dems need to get behind Romney now!

Romney = landslide and huge mandate and huge coattails in Nov!

Posted by Tim | January 15, 2008 1:01 AM

> I will be shocked, SHOCKED, if Mitt pulls out a
> win in MI tomorrow. There's just too much
> dislike for the guy.

> Sad thing is, if he loses, the right-wing blogs

Typical, isn't it, at the objectively least appealing, most hopeless GOP candidate also happens to be a personal favorite of clueless righties such as Hugh Hewitt and K-Lo...

I'm personally rooting for a Romney victory, but a loss would be no bad thing considering I then get a chance to watch the disappointed spin of some of the Right's most obnoxious commenters.

MARCU$

Posted by MARCU$ | January 15, 2008 2:27 AM