Gallup: Only Three Candidates Acceptable to Majority of Republicans

By: Lowell
Published On: 7/19/2006 1:08:38 PM

Gallup just released a poll on 2008 Republican and Democratic Presidential contenders.  The results are surprising.

On the Republican side, for instance, only THREE candidates are considered "acceptable" by the majority of GOP voters.  Leading the list is former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, with 73% of Republicans saying he's acceptable.  That's amazing, considering how liberal Giuiliani is on social issues like gay rights, abortion, immigration, etc.  Giuliani is followed by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (68%) and U.S. Senator John McCain (55%), neither of whom is known as an arch conservative.

Besides those three, everyone else is under 50%, including just 36% for George Allen.  Trailing the pack is arch-social-conservative Sam Brownback, with only 14% of Republicans saying that he's "acceptable," and another 43% saying he's "not acceptable."  What does all this say?  Perhaps Republicans are as tired of hard right wing ideology as the rest of us?

On the Democratic side, four candidates - Edwards (71%), Clinton (69%), Gore (68%), and Kerry (59%) - score over 50% "acceptable."  Strangely, the candidate who fares worse is Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack, with 19% rating him "acceptable" and 47% saying he's "not acceptable."  What's THAT all about?  Another candidate who does poorly in the poll is, surprisingly, Mark Warner, with just 29% saying he's "acceptable" and 42% saying he's "unacceptable."  That puts Warner just behind Russ Feingold (29% "acceptable," 41% "unacceptable").  Weird.

One other thing that jumps out at me here is the apparent disconnect between this national sample on the one hand, and the partisan blogs on the other.  On the Republican side, it's hard to believe that many Republican bloggers support Guiliani for President, or that Brownback and Allen would score so low.  On the Democratic side, blogosphere favorites like Russ Feingold, Mark Warner and Howard Dean don't do too well, while two that are NOT favorites on the blogs - Hillary Clinton and John Kerry - do quite well, thank you.  Is this more evidence of a disconnect between the blogosphere and the general public?  Or is something else going on here?  I'm puzzled.

Lowell Feld is Netroots Coordinator for the Jim Webb for US Senate Campaign.  The ideas expressed here belong to Lowell Feld alone, and do not necessarily represent those of Jim Webb, his advisors, staff, or supporters.

Comments



Regular old disconnect (pitin - 7/19/2006 1:29:13 PM)
I think the blogosphere respects "fighting" and partisinship more then the general public.  Dean, Fiengold and Warner are all very different in terms of style and ideology, but each in their own way, has fought and stood up for the party or it's members.

Warner, by going out to "red" counties and winning votes, Dean by smacking down the "insiders" and by creating his 50 state strategy, and Fiengold for standing up to the President at a time when no one else was.

Just my $0.02



Blogosphere (va.walter - 7/19/2006 1:40:57 PM)
Does the blogosphere (to the extent it speaks in one voice) like Warner for electability issues or something else?  It's hard to see how the blogosphere as a group could support Fiengold and Warner ideologically.  Obviously, the blogosphere doesn't speak with one voice so there could be different reasons but I've been curious for sometime why the blogosphere (which tends to the liberal side of the party) likes Warner.  Maybe because he's so actively courted the blogosphere?


Because he fights (pitin - 7/19/2006 2:20:23 PM)
Same as Murtha, not really as liberal as they come.  Or Paul Hackett, not really liberal either (and remember we supported him over Sherrod Brown in the non-primary primary

Warner doesn't so much stand up and say "Fuck you GOP", but he is a proud unapologetic Democrat who is willing to get his hands dirty and invest money and time in "red" areas, thus expanding the party.

And yeah, not one voice, speaking in generalities here.



Interesting because I've never thought of Warner as a fighter. (va.walter - 7/19/2006 2:46:43 PM)
Exactly the opposite, I've viewed him as a coalition builder.


Fighting for the party (pitin - 7/19/2006 3:21:31 PM)
and taking chances by reaching out to non-traditional Democrats.  Not neccesarily fighting against R's but for D's.


RE: Anti-establishment, underdog (JPTERP - 7/19/2006 3:13:10 PM)
I suspect the strong appeal of guys like Warner and Feingold versus Hilary Clinton has a lot to do with group identification.  Warner and Feingold--like most bloggers--are outside of the establishment--so I suspect there's an identification that goes beyond simple ideology. 

It's also no accident that the WaPost seems to have fully embraced Hilary Clinton.  Once again, I suspect group identification may be coming into play.

Beyond ideology or identification I support John Warner because he was a great executive.  Virginia is, in many ways, a microcosm of the U.S.--with a sharp political divide across the state (unlike say Massachussetts or Texas, which have islands of political countrariness--but a strong partisan tilt in one direction). 

So if Warner is capable of managing a state like Virginia, I suspect he'll be well adapted to handling politics on the federal level.  On top of this Warner achieved a lot of success in a state with a rightward lean.  On a national level the same dynamic comes into play--except on a much bigger scale.

On economic issues Warner was a great governor.  Warner did what was best for the state (retaining a A bond rating) and getting the states finances back on track--he did so, even though some of the measure (tax increases and budget cuts) were not popular and required creating bipartisan support. 

I don't support Feingold for president, although I respect his idealism.  Warner, on the other hand, has the right balance of idealism and pragmatic judgement--I think he'd make a great president.



No. 1 (seveneasypeaces - 7/19/2006 3:34:08 PM)
If I remember correctly, during Mark Warner's reign Virginia was voted the best run state by the Bloomberg Report.  That is saying a lot.  All states are in terrible straits with the cut in fundings by bush.  Warner kept Virginia at the top.  So whatever complaints people had about funding cuts I told them there were 49 states that were worse run! 

I wish he would take a stand on Iraq.  He is squeeqy clean for not having helped send us to destroy the world.  He is DLC which scares me but I would love to see a Warner/Clark ticket.  I am concerned that if he got the nomination he would choose hillary and absolutely ruin everything. I would vote but not campaign.  Two DLCs would be too much and she has managed to polarize her own party (even though I will always love her for her courage). 

WAPO may be endorsing her, but they would never vote for her.  I'm tired of the media choosing our candidates.



Poll results (va.walter - 7/19/2006 1:38:08 PM)
Looks to be completely about name recognition and electability.  People with high name recognition (Giuliani, McCain, Rice, Edwards, Clinton, Gore and Kerry) all led the way.  Everyone else trailed badly.

Two most surprising numbers to me were Brownback terrible numbers and Warner very surprisingly high "unacceptable" numbers.  I can sort of understand Brownback but Warner makes no sense.

As for conclusions, I don't think you can conclude much about the "rejection of right wing ideology" because there aren't any Republicans on that end of the spectrum with any name recognition (although Brownback's number may be a hint).  As for the disconnect, I definitely think one exists but I'm not sure I see it in this poll.  This poll was just about the average person's name recognition of candidates.



Beat me to it. (I.Publius - 7/19/2006 2:56:07 PM)
This poll is simply stating the obvious -- people know the big names, and many find them acceptable.  People won't generally "find acceptable" a candidate they've never heard of.



Is this more evidence of a disconnect between the blogosphere and the general public?

More stating of the obvious.

Anyone who thinks that bloggers and/or political junkies are representative of Joe Average Voter is delusional. 



Yep (Vivian J. Paige - 7/19/2006 3:42:09 PM)
Anyone who thinks that bloggers and/or political junkies are representative of Joe Average Voter is delusional.

I have to agree. And I had this exact same conversation last night. The folks who have intimate knowledge of the goings on seem to think that everybody else does, too. It just isn't the case. Instead of "talking amongst ourselves" we need to be trying to educate others. And sometimes, you have to get out from behind the keyboard to do this.



It does make sense ... (Terry - 7/19/2006 7:47:31 PM)
Sorry, VA Walter but I have to say that negative numbers on Warner do make sense to me. He has zero foreign policy experience and doesn't seem to have been spending any time trying to study the issues. All we have to do is turn on our TV or radio for two minutes and see that Mark Warner would be swimming in very deep water with no expertise. He never initiates discussion of foreign policy when it is the first thing on voters' minds.


I would understand him having high unknowns (va.walter - 7/20/2006 8:50:10 AM)
I'm just shocked that so many people actual know him and don't want him.


To be honest... (doctormatt06 - 7/19/2006 2:25:21 PM)
I've been hearing a lot of people who see me as the activist person in the family...or the activist person from all my friends..and they are all pyched about Hillary and expect me to be like..oh yeah..GO HILLARY too.  That's why I'm always half and half on Hillary, I think she's divisive, but I can't help but root for her sometimes too.  A lot of young and minority democrats love her.


Hillary has Bill... (Delta Mike - 7/19/2006 4:13:50 PM)
... who is the American Idol in the African-American community. It was his work for Gore in 2000 that got super-minority turnout in Florida and (almost) tipped the election.


If Rudi runs... (thegools - 7/19/2006 4:12:41 PM)
...which i think is near certain, unless is cancer returns.  Will the sex-scandal stuff that hurt his Senate bid 2000 come back to haunt him again?


I guess this is a good sign in a way... (Delta Mike - 7/19/2006 4:15:24 PM)
... I could live with Giuliani (not a wingnut) or McCain (not a moron) as President.

I may have to move to Canada if any of the other clowns are elected.



Just my opinion (ScoopJacksonDemocrat - 7/19/2006 6:28:10 PM)
I agree with those who say that this opinion poll , while certainly interesting, is largely a measure of name identification rather than a true gauge of popularity or of electoral prospects.  Among the Republicans, McCain, Giuliani and Rice are simply the best known figures.  Jeb Bush might have done reasonably well in this poll, but he sensibly is not running, given what a mess brother George has made of absolutely everything and how controversial he is.  (Note:  Watch for Jeb Bush to make his move in 2012, when the nation may have forgotten just how bad things have been under this Bush Administration.) Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Gore and Kerry are also all household names. Vilsack, Warner and Feingold are simply not that well known.  I noticed that Bayh and Richardson do not even register, but they are not well known national figures either.  It could be that Warner's negatives are attributable to some Liberals regarding him as too centrist, which I find troubling.  However, he is going to have to sell himself to Democratic activists.  That is just a fact of life.  I am puzzled that Gen Clark doesn't rate any mention either.  It is also noteworthy that Biden merits no mention, even though he is a national figure, or at least appears frequently on national TV.  The same goes for Christoperh Dodd, who has been on the national scene a long time. The poll that should have Vilsack worried is the recent poll of Iowa voters in which Edwards and Senator Clinton did quite well and home state candidate Vilsack did not do well, if I remember correctly.  In any case it is a long time before the first primaries and caucuses. 

I think that Russ Feingold's poor showing in this poll does not reflect his true prospects.  I would imagine that Feingold will have substantial support among Liberals, especially inasmuch as Howard Dean has pledged to remain at the DNC and not make another run for the Presidency.  Hillary is an imponderable.  She is divisive.  However, the Republican spin machine has spent the years since 1992 driving up her negatives.  She is at least a fighter and will go down swinging. Hillary does not have Bill's charisma, but it is hard to imagine that she will not have an extremely well managed and aggressive campaign.  Of course, she is hardly popular with the left wing of the Party, as witnessed by the treatment of her on the Blogs.  Edwards would seem to be somebody to watch.  He seemed to resonate with many Liberals and Moderates in 2004 and appears to have retained his popularity among Iowans.  Kerry ran an ineffectual campaign.  It is hard to imagine Democrats nominating him again, unless they are seized by collective amnesia or a new, exciting and previously unknown Kerry appears on the campaign trail this time around.  That is hard to imagine, but politics is full of surprises.  Bayh may not have started out his pre-campaign as a very well known figure, but his inability to register in the polls should give him pause.

With regard to the Republicans, I used to like McCain.  I still do to some extent, but not so much now that he has ditched the progressive and iconoclastic rhetoric of his 2000 campaign.  Senator McCain began to lose his allure for me, when he aggressively hit the hustings in 2004 for his old nemesis Bush.  I also don't much like how he sidled up to Jerry Falwell recently in hopes of repairing the breach with the religious right.  I liked the straight talker of 2004, the man who denounced both Falwell and Robertson as symbols of intolerance.  Unfortunately, McCain seems t have turned his back on his chance to be a modern day Teddy Roosevelt.  He was never a real Lincoln-Roosevelt-Rockefeller progressive in any case.  On to Giuliani, who is a contentious personality and may not come across well in primary contests.  In any case, it is hard to imagine the modern right wing Republican Pary nominating either McCain or Giuliani, especially if Conservatives can rally around one candidate.  Unfortunately for them, no charismatic Conservative has emerged to capture the imagination of the right.  That might be to the advantage of America.  It is hard to imagine that Rice will end up running at all.

Sorry about the lengthy musings.  Just thought I would add my two cents ...