Gallup has an interesting new poll out. Althoguh I rarely report on 2008 polls, I will report on this one, because it has a real twist. Rather than conducting either a trial heat or favorable / unfavorable battery, they instead asked the following question:
Next, I'm going to read you a list of people who may run for the Democratic nomination for president in 2008. For each, please tell me if you would find that person to be an acceptable nominee for president from the Democratic Party, or not. First, [RANDOM ORDER].
For Democrats, here were the results:
June 26-29, 496 Democrats or Democratic Leaners
(Candidate: Acceptable / Unacceptable)
Edwards: 71 / 25
Clinton: 69 / 29
Gore: 68 / 31
Kerry: 59 / 40
Biden: 44 / 37
Clark: 42 / 49
Dean: 40 / 54
Richardson: 36 / 38
Daschle: 35 / 50
Feingold: 29 / 41
Warner: 29 / 42
Kucinich: 21 / 51
Vilsack: 19 / 47
One thing to note about this poll is that when people have never heard of someone, they seem to break toward "unacceptable" on that person. For example,
according to Pew, in April Russ Feingold only has a 28% name ID nationwide. However, 70% of the people responding to this poll seem to have an opinion of whether or not he would be an acceptable choice. The same problem seems to be affecting Warner and Vilsack. Pew only found a 27% name ID for Warner, yet 71% of the people responding to this poll bothered to venture an opinion anyway. For some odd reason, if someone has never heard of someone, they don't want that someone to be President. Strange, that. Doesn't anyone trust strangers these days?
Given that, who are these numbers really bad for? Wesley Clark, John Kerry and Howard Dean (not that Dean was considering running). All three have pretty high name recognition (69% for Dean, 74% for Clark, and 99% for Kerry). All three also have high "unacceptable" ratings: 40% for Kerry, 49% for Clark and 54% for Dean. I should note that the last name ID taken for Clark was during the 2004 primary season, so it is very possible his name ID has slipped quite a bit, and he too is suffering from the same problem facing Vilsack, Warner and Feingold.
Who are these numbers good for? Edwards, Clinton and Gore, but especially Edwards. The guy has a much lower name recognition than either Gore or Clinton, yet higher acceptable ratings. It still blows my mind that more people don't take him seriously in 2008. He could really run the table--and I say that as a supporter of someone else.
June 26-29, 441 Republicans and Republican leaners
Giuliani: 73 / 25
Rice: 68 / 29
McCain: 55 / 41
Gingrich: 45 / 50
Jeb Bush: 44 / 52
Frist: 38 /44
Allen: 36 / 35
Cheney: 34 / 61
Pataki: 33 / 51
Romney: 31 / 42
Huckabee: 17 / 40
Brownback: 14 / 43
The Republican side is far, far more stratified. Two potential candidates, Guiliani and Rice, are viewed as far more acceptable than the other high name ID potentials. McCain is at 41% unacceptable. Gingrich is at 50% unacceptable. Jeb Bush is at 52% unacceptable. Cheney is laughably at 61% unacceptable. Even Republicans hate that guy. Of course, Rice isn't running, and what these numbers really do is reaffirm my longstanding belief that McCain has no chance to win the Republican nomination, Guiliani maintains a real, though long, chance.
Looking at these numbers on the Republican side reminds me of a time last summer when I was stumped over who would become the Repulican nominee. Could we really be so lucky that Republicans would nominate Frist, and thus we waltz to victory carrying 40 states? Just then, a smart friend of mine reminded me of the real danger on the Republican side: Mike Huckabee. Man, that guy wouldn't have the baggage that nearly every national Republican spokesperson has now. He also doesn't have the overt racism and neo-fascism of Geroge Allen. He doesn't have the dead-cat charisma of Bill Frist (the guy who finally makes Bob Dole seem warm and exciting). Huckabee would be a serious threat. Keep your eyes peeled, and start your oppo work on that guy.
