The Presidential Popularity Contest
By Alan Stewart Carl | Related entries in ElectionsHere’s some interesting figures on the popularity of leading presidential candidates as supplied by Dick Morris by way of Fox News.
The first number is a candidate’s favorable rating within his or her own party. The second is the favorable rating amongst Independents. The third number is the percentage gap between party members and Independents.
Hillary Clinton
Dems: 82%
Inds: 48%
Gap: 34John Kerry
Dems: 73%
Inds: 40%
Gap: 33Al Gore
Dems: 54%
Inds: 34%
Gap: 20Condi Rice
Reps: 66%
Inds: 47%
Gap: 19Rudy Giuliani
Reps: 81%
Inds: 63%
Gap: 18John McCain
Reps: 64%
Inds: 57%
Gap: 7
A couple things jump out at me. The first is that Al Gore is a long way from getting another shot at the presidency. With only a 54% favorable rating in his own party, he is a serious long shot. Oddly, Kerry (who lost to Bush far worse than did Gore) has a healthy 73% rating among Dems. Perhaps that’s because Kerry, while labeled a flip-flopper, has been much more ideologically pure throughout his career than has Gore who has morphed from a New Democrat centrist into a rabble-rousing lefty.
Or maybe it’s just that Kerry is fresher on people’s minds.
On the Republican side, Giuliani’s numbers are surprisingly high. Do Republicans know he is solidly left-of-center on social issues? In fact, McCain is more firmly conservative on matters such as abortion, but he still suffers from less than robust Republican support. Nevertheless, with a favorable rating of 57% amongst independents, McCain is still highly electible. But so is Giuliani with a 63% rating from indies.
What’s all this mean. Probably little. Clinton’s favorability amongst Democrats is most likely buoyed by name-recognition and is likely to dip once the race really gets going. While Giuliani, for all his September 11th heroics, is still a rather unknown commodity to most Americans. I would expect his numbers to shift a lot as he becomes better known.
This is the most wide-open race in several generations with neither a sitting President nor a sitting Vice President running. Interest will be intense. Money will be flowing. And you got to think it helps to have good numbers even this early.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, February 14th, 2006 and is filed under Elections. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
February 14th, 2006 at 5:15 pm
[...] Donkelephant has some ‘08 presidential poll numbers. [...]
February 14th, 2006 at 8:16 pm
“Kerry (who lost to Bush far worse than did Gore)”
I don’t think the term “far worse” really applies the two tightest elections in US Presidential history. But it is a surprise in some ways how much better liked Kerry is. I think this has more to do with who Dems think have a better shot at the Presidency, as my impression is that Gore is much better liked, but Kerry, like you said, is fresher meat.
I also think Condi’s numbers will go up, while Rudy’s numbers will go down, as Republicans realize they may get a healthy amount of Dem votes. Rudy, on the other hand, went from the darling bud with a clear shot at the Presidency to just another partisan politico when stumping for Bush in 2004.
February 15th, 2006 at 3:39 pm
As a Canadian (american mother) educated at Stanford, I take a
peek fondly at events down your way, and I hope for a much more JFK or FDR level of leadership, or the world is in worse trouble than i think it already is! Surfing around, listening to speeches, I like McCain. I also like Gov Mark Warren from Virginia who has been the centermost of the centermost and who, say with a running mate like the experienced Sam Nunn, would be more formidable a team than Hillary Clinton, imho. My guess is the GOP would more easily beat Hillary, but someone like Mark Warren might get them worrying. What do you think?
February 15th, 2006 at 4:38 pm
I haven’t tested Al Gore, but ideological purity doesn’t seem to have been a feature of John Kerry’s tenure in the Senate. Instead, his sponsorship record suggests one who reacted to events rather than maintained an ideological line.
But you may be right; He might have been more consistent than Gore.
I’d have to find a way to put Gore to the same test.
More here:
http://theleotest.typepad.com/the_leo_test/2005/07/case_study_john.html