Bad news for the GOP
By John Burke | Related entries in News
A new CNN/Opinion Research poll of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents asking their current choice for the 2012 GOP Presidential nomination shows Mike Huckabee in the lead with 34% and Sarah Palin nipping at the Huckster’s heels with 32%.
This is no big surprise, of course, since both have high name recognition and were popular with GOP voters this year. Huckabee burst into the big time by winning the Iowa caucuses and then gave John McCain a tough time in a bunch of southern states. Meanwhile, Palin fever seems not to have cooled for a lot of more conservative voters, although Huckabee still beats her by nine points among evangelical Christians.
But the Democrats won the center a month ago, and based on his approach so far, President-elect Obama seems intent on keeping it for a long time. That’s not to say a lot can’t happen in three years or so to move swing voters the other way again, but if the Republican Party hitches its wagon to either Huckabee or Palin, it’s likely to get permanently stuck in a right-wing ditch. Yet, two-thirds of its “base” is still smitten by one or the other.
Mitt Romney runs a close third, grabbing 28%. One should never underestimate Mitt’s ability to remold himself, especially since he’s still got most of his money, but he’s no McCain and would have a great deal of difficulty winning the nomination and pivoting to the center. Somewhat surprisingly, Newt Gingrich is right behind Romney at 27%, possibly reflecting the nostalgia of economic conservatives for the old days. Then comes Rudy Giuliani at 23%, the only big name with a moderate pedigree who is remotely in contention. Finally, Bobby Jindal, who has probably received the most attention as “a rising star” gets a respectable 19%.
In my view, Rudy is washed up on the national scene, although he might well be able to win the New York governorship. That could give Jindal an opening to snare a larger share of moderate Republican voters, but he would need to stick close to rigid conservative doctrine in order to beat Huckabee, Palin, Romney and/or Gingrich in the primaries. In any case, at such a tender age with a short tenure as Louisiana governor, he’s not likely to jump into on a national run in 2012 against a well-liked incumbent.
So the outlook for the GOP is looking pretty dismal. If he starts now (and unofficially, he has), Huckabee is the most likely Presidential candidate. As amiable a guy as Huck is, good luck with that.
(Visit me at The Purple Center)
This entry was posted on Sunday, December 7th, 2008 and is filed under News. 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.
December 7th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
It’s not “Bad”.
This poll shows nothing more than by-the-numbers collect means
“Who is the best sacrifical lamb in 2012 presidental run?” of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents level-headedly who has already watched over Obama’s reordering of the economy toward 2009-2011.
Gop already looks ahead to 2016.
December 7th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
[...] John Burke adds, "Huckabee burst into the big time by winning the Iowa caucuses and then gave John McCain a tough time in a bunch of southern states. Meanwhile, Palin fever seems not to have cooled for a lot of more conservative voters, although Huckabee still beats her by nine points among evangelical Christians." [...]
December 8th, 2008 at 2:28 am
Why does anyone care about 2012? We haven’t even inaugurated the new president yet!
Just deal with the election-data withdrawal and get over it!
December 8th, 2008 at 3:42 am
Mike Huckabee would be the very best choice for Republicans - he is one of the very few who spoke out against the bailout; he is for the Fair Tax which we desperately need; he understands that small businesses are vital to economic growth; and he is a man of principle who can’t be bought by Wall Street and Washington Insiders.
Mitt Romney would be the worst thing that could ever happen to our party. He is dishonest and would end up being a mouth-piece for Wall Street - the man doesn’t have a single conviction. He just wants to be president and will do or say anything to achieve it.
December 8th, 2008 at 5:15 am
John, you’re definitely jumping the gun with the “bad news” bit, but hey, it stirs the pot so I feel where you’re coming from. The assumption that I think you make is that Obama will deliver on the campaign promises he’s made for the past two years. That people will love Obama the President as much as they loved Obama the Candidate.
The fact is, Obama was elected as a referendum against Bush, not as a progressive mandate. This nullifies the “bad news” bit. Americans still have plenty of traditionally conservative viewpoints and behaviors, so a conservative candidate isn’t going to instantly lose at the polls. However, if all the candidate is is a bundle of social conservative philosophy without any actionable ideas that improve the country, THEN they’ll lose.
Based on how far and how fast Obama (and the heavily Dem Congress) pushes things, there could definitely be a climate where Americans are greatly attracted to a smaller government/states rights model, of aggressively lean fiscal policy. Another terrorist attack on US soil would amplify interest in national security, and an attempt at a new Fairness Doctrine would shift the playing field to turn conservatives into the party of free speech. Based on Prop 8, various surveys and polls, it’s clear that the “average” American still holds socially conservative viewpoints, so a socially conservative candidate, who has viable domestic and foreign policy ideas, could certainly do well in 2012.
December 8th, 2008 at 6:28 am
Hi phankledot.
EI’s assessment sounds good to me. Plus, I wonder how Obama fared in an equivalent poll for the DOP in 2004?! Nowhere near as well as Jindal I bet. So no need for doom and gloom for the GOP -as long as they back the right guy.
December 8th, 2008 at 8:05 am
I wouldn’t underestimate Romney. He won as a republican in Massachusetts. He knows how to talk to both sides. But forecasting now is pointless. Who knows what things America will have an appetite for in 4 years?
Of course, it makes sense to track who is expected to be in the ballgame, because that’s what creates the dynamic. Recall how out of it McCain was. But he ended up with his own niche, while other candidates with overlapping niches split the vote. That’s where Huckabee comes into it. He has populist appeal, which means both that he can “distort” the preferences for the other candidates, and that (if history is any judge) he may well have a ceiling on his support.
If Palin and Huckabee both run, aren’t trying to eat from the same trough?
If Romney is smart, he talks hard partyline fiscal conservatism. Lower taxes, smaller government focused on core services, spending within the gov’t means, encouraging small businesses and entrepreneurship, deep skepticism about the government’s ability to pick winners and losers while reading economic tea leaves. Huckabee only talks this at about 55% strength (he has some boutique perspectives), and Palin is nowhere near as convincing on it.
That would leave Romney well-postioned in 3 years to be the economic standard bearer for a different approach, presuming we have not recovered from the recent downturn.
Based solely on the scope of the current decline, it seems reasonable to think that we won’t turn it around quickly. The most likely narrative for 2012 is likely to be over whether or not to stay the course and give Obama more time to ‘finish the job.” This is always part of the discussion when an incumbent is on the ticket. And this is bound still be “about the economy, stupid.”
But that’s projecting way out. Never forget how sensitively dependent an election’s outcome can be upon the particular circumstances of few months around the time when the voting happens.
December 8th, 2008 at 9:06 am
Mitt Romney is political history. California’s Prop 8 assured that. The disaster for the religionists will still be riniging in the ears of the electorate at both the 2010 mid-term election as well as the 2012 presidential election.
December 8th, 2008 at 10:01 am
lol, did a space alien conclude with this analysis.
Well, first, the poll for GOP prospects in 4 years is pointless since Obama hasn’t been sworn in yet. Second, the valuable part of the analysis is that Obama seems intent on owning the middle ground. Yes, he seems like a centrist and so far, so good. (See the story out today on how liberals are already upset with some of his P-E moves.)
But the rest of it is totally wrong. First, Mike Huckabee is anything but amiable, and he has no shot at winning the nomination. If his latest book of grieveances against all who didn’t support him in 2008 doesn’t finish him off with the establishment, who never liked him to begin with, then the existence of Sarah Palin will since she has a far stronger appeal to the same demographic, save for religious bigots. Also, it’s stated that Jindal can make a play for moderates since Rudy’s exiting the national stage. Well, the author would be smart to learn that Jindal has a very strong appeal to cultural conservatives, nearly exclusively actually. In other words, the same demographic that Palin and the Huck service. So if known quantities of today are a) accurate and b) trasmit to the future in 3 years, then the affect of this dynamic will be dilutive, rendering each and every of the Culturalist voices losers for the nomination.
As it happens, if today’s givens are tomorrows still, none other than Mitt Romney is better positioned to reap the rewards of the divided Culturalists in the primary. Then again, with Obama also being like Romney in terms of being intelligent, articulate, handsome, reasonable, fair, and maybe even pragmatic, it may not matter whether the right guy gets nominated for the GOP in 2012 anyway. However, Obama does have is flaws and it’s worth noting that no one better than Romney could point them out, and so he would be the best bet, again from what we know of the existing talent.
Past the current roster, we have people, younger people, coming up in the shadow of Jindal and Palin and Pawlenty (who probably could himself best straddle the culturalist and economic divide among conservative blue collar voters) named Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor, Jon Huntsman, Mike Pence, and Mark Sanford. And of course I’d love for Geneal Petraeus, who is Republican, to throw his hat in the ring if the state of the world is still at war.
But for purposes of today, the only value I see in these polls are that media use them to make Republicans look even worse than they are by making them look like a bunch of weirdos who like Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin and think Obama’s a secret muslim who isn’t even an american citizen.