iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

GOP Nominee In 2012: What The Early Polls Tell Us

Mitt Romney

First Posted: 01/04/11 06:20 PM ET Updated: 05/25/11 07:25 PM ET

Speculation about the 2012 Republican nomination is already underway and, as always, national "horse race" poll questions are central to that conversation. While we will certainly track those polls on HuffPost Pollster, anyone hoping to make sense of the battle for the Republican nomination should be forewarned: Over the course of the next year, such polling for national primaries will have little value in predicting the ultimate winner.

Let's consider the dynamics of the presidential primary campaign. Since the 1988 dawn of "Super Tuesday" -- a single day in February or March when a huge number of states hold primaries or caucuses -- the presidential nomination process has had three distinct phases: An early period before the Iowa caucuses, the weeks of early state primaries between Iowa and Super Tuesday, and the months between Super Tuesday and the conventions.

In the first phase, presidential candidates raise money, hire staff and build early state-level field organizations. As Jonathan Bernstein said last week, this phase is is mostly about a process in which "activists and politicians, campaign professionals and interest group leaders, members of the partisan press and governing professionals, and even officials and staff of formal party organizations, local and national, coordinate and compete over the various candidates and over the policies those candidates commit to."

However, as Bernstein also noted, "ordinary voters" don't get involved in the process "as voters" until the Iowa caucuses kick off the second phase. And even then, with the possible exception of the New Hampshire primary, the turnout among eligible voters remains low, at least as compared to the fall election. In 2008, for example, more than half of eligible voters (53%) cast ballots in the New Hampshire primary, but only 16 percent participated in the Iowa caucuses, only 20 percent in Michigan, 10 percent in Nevada, 30 percent in South Carolina.

While the absolute number of participants in phase two is relatively small, these early primaries and caucuses get heavy national news coverage that significantly increases the level attention paid by ordinary Americans. Consider the chart below, created and updated by our colleague Charles Franklin, which shows the percentage of Americans who told the Pew Research Center they were paying "very close attention" to the presidential campaign in surveys conducted since 1988.

2011-01-04-Blumenthal-20110104VeryClosely475.png

Since 1988, only a small fraction of the public has paid close attention to first phase of the presidential campaign -- less than 20 percent from 1988 to 2004, roughly 20 percent during 2007 -- but public engagement jumps significantly after the Iowa caucuses and typically continues to grow until "Super Tuesday" in February or March.

Another very critical facet of phase two: The number of viable candidates typically shrinks to just one or two and awareness and recognition of those candidates grows significantly. The increased engagement and narrowing of the field makes for considerable volatility in national horse race polls.

Typically, the remaining primaries and caucuses held during the third phase effectively ratify the choices of voters made during the second. The third phase of the epic 2008 Democratic contest, which remained close until the very end, was something of an exception, but voter preferences for either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton largely persisted throughout.

The key point here is that during the first phase, national horse race poll questions are of dubious value. Until the Iowa caucuses, the vast majority of primary voters nationwide are not paying attention to the campaign and will be largely unfamiliar with the announced or potential candidates. The candidate preferences that voters share with pollsters are extremely tenuous -- they will typically grasp for familiar names -- and can be highly unreliable in predicting the nominee. Just ask presidents Hillary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, Mario Cuomo or Edmund Muskie.

Horse race poll questions start to matter more in the second phase of nomination campaigns, as the field of candidates narrows and as previously little-known early primary winners rocket up in the rankings. Once the second phase is complete, primary voters have usually form preferences that persist with relatively little variation through the convention.

But again, we pay far too much attention to national horse race polls in the first phase. In the books that chronicle the 2008 race, the players that look most foolish in retrospect are those that asked endlessly during 2007 why Barack Obama's campaign was failing to "move" in the national polls. Our trend estimate of Obama's support in national polls for that period hovered just below 25 percent, and Hillary Clinton's support appeared to grow over the summer. But between the Iowa and Super Tuesday in early 2008, those preferences turned upside-down. Obama's campaign team deserves immense credit for ignoring the national polls during 2007 and focusing their resources on the early primaries.

2011-01-04-Blumenthal-USTopzDems500.png

So if the national horse race polls are of dubious value, what national polls on the Republican presidential battle do merit our attention? First and foremost, we should watch the questions that ask about each candidate separately. These may not tell us who will win, but they will tell us something about where each candidate starts in terms of name recognition and -- for those that are better known like Palin, Huckabee, Romney or Gingrich -- about the more specific perceptions that voters have already formed. More on these questions in a future post.

If there were a dominant front-runner in the Republican field, like Sen. Bob Dole in 1996 or Vice President Al Gore among Democrats in 2000, early horse race questions might have greater value. But if you just want to know who will win the Republican nomination in 2012, the early horse race numbers are telling us very little.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
Speculation about the 2012 Republican nomination is already underway and, as always, national "horse race" poll questions are central to that conversation. While we will certainly track those polls on...
Speculation about the 2012 Republican nomination is already underway and, as always, national "horse race" poll questions are central to that conversation. While we will certainly track those polls on...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 1,634
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (27 total)
06:16 PM on 01/08/2011
no question, mitt romney would be the likely choice at this point in the race for 2012...he is the most reasonable out of the bunch, with me being a center right republican, I would definitely see myself voting romney in '12, if anyone else gets the nomination at this point, I could only go back to Obama as my choice.
05:54 PM on 01/06/2011
They should ask the potential Republican candidates again about evolution so that we can renew our laughingstock status in the rest of the world. Exceptionalism, indeed.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
White Horse Seer
ROOTS of VIOLENCE
10:16 AM on 01/06/2011
Why are Republicans hopeing it is Obama and not Hillary?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lwallis
Liberalism on the move again, finally.
09:50 AM on 01/06/2011
The problem is with the republicans period. They have managed to alienate so much
of the electorate. Gays, immigrants, minorities,muslims, poor people,the list goes on
and on. I really think that their tactic in the last two years was good for the short term, but
will basically hurt them in the long run.
08:40 AM on 01/06/2011
WE NEED POLITICIANS------------------THAT DO NOT SUPPORT ECONOMIC TERRORIST-----------------THAT HAVE BROKE AMERICA-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BROKE EDUCATION------------NO JOBS------------BROKE HEALTH CARE-------COST OF HEALTH CARE----------NO BANKING REFORM FOR ECONOMIC TERRORIST--------------------------------------------------------CORRUPTED CHEIF JUSTICES-------------CORRUPT JUDGES-----------CORRUPT POLITICIANS---------------------------ALL BOUGHT AND PAID FOR BY BIG INTEREST AND THE EXTREME WEALTHY------------------FIXED AND CORRUPTED ELECTIONS-------------------------------WE NEED ELECTION REFORM----------TAKE ALL MONEY OUT OF POLITICS-----------DO NOT VOTE IN CORRUPT ELECTIONS TIL THIS HAPPENS-------------------CALL YOUR BOUGHT AND PAID FOR POLITICIANS AND TELL THEM---------------------------------------------------JOIN AMERICA DON,T VOTE----------------SAVE OUR FURTURE
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michele Allison
08:56 AM on 01/06/2011
Absolutely!!!!! This has been a free-for-all that have connections.
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
photo
luckincan
That rug really tied the room together
08:16 AM on 01/06/2011
Larry Craig/Mark Foley stand a better chance
08:44 AM on 01/06/2011
Or Larry, Moe, and Curly.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michele Allison
08:57 AM on 01/06/2011
LOL!!!
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
pantherburns
labor creates all wealth
07:59 AM on 01/06/2011
Has there ever been a party less able to govern and more likely to lie to the voter minions? Since 1980, all the republican party has delivered is less taxes on the wealthy, less taxes of corporations, less taxes on capital gains, less taxes on estates.
Meanwhile, the rest of us have received more payroll taxes, taxes on unemployment earnings, lower pay, fewer jobs, a crumbling infrastructure, a complete trashing of the environment, decades of record deficits, a complete meltdown of the financial community twice (Savings and Loan scandal 1980’s and again in 2007), and a republican refusal to pay or take responsibility for the wars they are so fond of starting and a refusal to care adequately for the veterans of those wars:
Panama, Grenada (that one was just for fun), illegally in Nicaragua, Iraq (twice), and Afghanistan.
And what social restrictions have the cons gotten for their effort. No prayer in school, no flag burning amendment, no ban on abortion. Nothing. Nada. Even when the republicans controlled all 3 branches of government.
Notice a pattern here? Notice the singular focus of republicans?
When the republican politicians and their wealthy benefactors and string pullers have moved every job they can offshore, destroyed our natural resources, and reduced wages to third world nation status, they will sail off to their gated communities with private security forces and leave behind their befuddled faithful servants who will wonder what the hell happened to their beloved America. (And blame it on Democrats)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Eugene Skidmore
the real deal
06:59 AM on 01/06/2011
hopefully all thier foolish ideas and bumper sticker reality will be fully vetted and aired by "responsible press" (you know thee lame stream media) and america will get to actually hear the nonsense these people expouse as truth.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
06:51 AM on 01/06/2011
Republicans might have a chance of winning the 2012 presidential election IF they nominated a relatively unknown candidate because the nation is still looking for a change in the government and an unknown (psychologically) seems more capable of doing that in the public's mind.

Obama will not be primaried - not even by Grayson or Kucinich or Dean (Sanders has to run for the Senate again in 2012 so that will take him out of it too). Nader might run again as an independent, but that is doubtful (he's kind of burned out on running). Perhaps the biggest chance Obama has of being primaried is from a blue dog, like Evan Bayh - a long shot would be H. Clinton. But Clinton will probably leave the administration in 2012 to start gearing up for another run in 2016 (also I think the Clintons would very much like to regain control of the democratic party political machinery).

My guess is that Obama will win reelection in 2012 but in a closer race and much lower turnout. He will lose some of the states he carried last time. A lot of liberals will stay home or vote third party, so it could be a squeaker.

The republican I am most afraid of is not Palin (if she were to win, hers would be a "managed" presidency). The one to really be concerned with is Huckabee because he is a true believer in his own ideological perspective. He acts benign, but look out.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
06:59 AM on 01/06/2011
Oh forgot to mention that though Obama will win reelection in 2012, democrats will lose the Senate, sparking a new crisis for democrats over how to proceed - more left or more right? More right will win, again, and liberals will be without a political home (they will also be the political scapegoat for the democrats who will blame their ineffectiveness with voters on liberals). That's the way I see it.
08:47 AM on 01/06/2011
You also forgot to mention that no one can predict the future two seconds out let alone two years.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Bon1042
10:09 PM on 01/07/2011
sounds like Dem political history repeating itself in cycles...the way of our Dem world since 1968 culminating in the Party selling its soul to Wall Street after 1984 Reagan re-election, move to center (right), and creation of DLC. No more emphasis on civil, labor, disabled, women's rights.

Remember Reagan's Interior Dept Sec'y I think, James Watt referencing political correctness as being.... "a black, a woman, two cripples and a jew."

Also, I remember the comments of Nixon's Sec'y of Agriculture, Earl Butz... "all a black man needs to be happy is "a tight p***y, loose fitting shoes, and a warm place to s**t."

It was difficult for me (being a woman) to type the last quote.
07:23 AM on 01/06/2011
If you seriously think that Obama will win reelection in 2012, you ain't been paying attention.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
07:35 AM on 01/06/2011
Social psychology has found that when people are faced with a complex decision that they don't know the answer to, they opt for the default choice. In this case that choice is Obama. In 2004, the default choice was Bush.
07:40 AM on 01/06/2011
He will be reelected, in part because the GOP has no electable candidates.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
donnie-cheesehead
06:12 AM on 01/06/2011
So last night I get word Michelle Bachman is almost certain to run,
thats entertainment.
08:46 AM on 01/06/2011
She was JUST waiting for the collect call from GOD for the go ahead.
06:10 AM on 01/06/2011
Thank goodness Palin doesn't seem to stand a chance.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
MissVirginiaVoter
Turn your radio down!
01:54 AM on 01/06/2011
They have NO ONE! It's so funny
01:16 AM on 01/06/2011
With the coming of 2012 and the obvious takeover of the re slum lie cans all but a done deal, the future of this country is bleak.
As George Carlin once never said " I think I heard the fat lady sing"..but he should have.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Bon1042
01:01 AM on 01/06/2011
Did anybody watch Governor Mitch Daniels of IN on L. O'Donnell MSNBC tonight? I've never voted for a republican, except for Lowell Weicker's re-election in1990 I think, but beaten by Lieberman in CT. He was the only U.S. Senator who stood up vigorously defended women's reproductive rights on the Senate floor, more than once. Bob Packwood, Dem of OR , the supposed feminist democrat, was too busy doing sexual harassment, ironic.

I don't know anything about Daniels but I was completely impressed with his responses to LO, especially on Social Security. He talked of means testing, said people like Warren Buffet don't need the fed gov't sending them SS checks. And he blew off Grover Norquist completely !

I WAS impressed!
05:24 AM on 01/06/2011
>Robert William "Bob" Packwood (born September 11, 1932) is a U.S. politician from Oregon and a member of the Republican Party. He resigned from the United States Senate, under threat of expulsion, in 1995 after allegations of sexual harassment, abuse and assault of women emerged.< Wiki

A Google or Bing Search, Wiki, AOLAnswers, Yahoo,... a call to your local High School Govt Department,... would tell you Packwood wasn't a Democrat.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Bon1042
09:54 PM on 01/07/2011
I stand corrected !! You're right ! Too tired at 1:00 a.m. and I notice too many senior moments at 68 now.... and also it was yrs ago, my recall was off. I worked on the Hill in mid '60's, a better place then.