First Post-Kerry National Poll Shows Opening For Lower Tier Candidates

In their most recent national survey, CNN apparently conducted a national primary trial heat that did not include John Kerry. The results were as follows (percentage of transferred Kerry voters in parenthesis):

Clinton: 36% (2)
Obama: 18% (0)
Edwards: 16% (1)
Gore: 12% (2)
Biden: 3% (0)
Clark: 2% (0)
Kucinich: 2% (0)
Richardson: 2% (0)
Dodd: 1% (0)
Sharpton: 1% (0)
Vilsack: 1% (0)

On a small note, CNN should be including Gravel in their polling, especially if they are including Clark, Gore and Sharpton. Gravel has announced--none of those three have.

On a larger note, it is instructive that Kerry's 5% of the vote when all candidates were included in the poll went entirely to the other well-known candidates. In fact, as Pollster.com shows with a neat chart, no matter which of the well-known candidates are removed, virtually all of their supporters transfer to one of the other well-known candidates. In fact, of the 82% of poll respondents who choose one of Clinton, Edwards, Gore, Kerry or Obama as their first choice when all potential candidates were listed, all but all but 10% named one of Clinton, Edwards, Gore, Kerry or Obama as their second choices. People are simply sticking with the candidates who they know. This means that Hillary Clinton is not the only candidate whose high poll standing is supported largely through high name recognition, as much the same can also be said for Obama, Gore and Edwards.

I am not writing this to denigrate any candidate. Rather, I wish to point out that there clearly is an opening for the second and third tier candidates to move up, especially if they see a bump in name recognition. If the entire top tier's poll lead is predicated on high name recognition, that it follows that high (and positive) name recognition among Democrats and Democratic-leaners is all it would take to become top tier right now, at least in terms of polling. As the campaign moves forward, that should almost inevitably happen to nearly every single candidate in the lower tiers. This should ultimately produce a significant tightening of the race, and a blurring of the differences between the current tiers.

Right now, conventional wisdom might be that this is primarily a three-person race between Clinton, Edwards and Obama. However, even a quick analysis of the polling situation should reveal that the campaign is more fluid than CW ever suggests. Given the time between now and the Iowa caucuses, quite a bit can change.



Display:


What about the money? (none / 0)

The likely difference in donations between the big three and the rest is likely to reinforce the concerns about viability for the rest of the field.

Bayh had plenty of money, and even he didn't think he could compete.


John Edwards 2008
by MeanBoneII on Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 05:33:20 PM EST

Re: First Post-Kerry National Poll Shows Opening F (none / 0)

One outcome that I've wondered is what will happen if Vilsack manages to eek out a win in Iowa - something that is entirely possible.  How will that change the dynamic of the race, if at all?  Will an Iowa victory make him a serious contender in the eyes of future primary voters or will they merely look at it as Iowans voting for their hometown boy?


Netroots for Gore
by NYPopulist on Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 05:43:08 PM EST

Re: First Post-Kerry National Poll Shows Opening F (none / 0)

That's not going to happen.  He has low support now and everyone knows him.  His numbers in Iowa aren't going anywhere.


by blueryan on Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 07:43:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: First Post-Kerry National Poll Shows Opening F (none / 0)

No. If he wins in Iowa, people say of course he won, he's the Governor, they've voted for him a lot, they love him there, they know him there. Iowa wasn't even in play in '92 when Harkin ran. If he loses, for obvious reasons, his campaign is over. He needs to not only overcome his poll deficit in Iowa, but also in NH, SC, or NV.

The Wayward Episcopalian: Nathan in New Orleans
http://waywardepiscopalian.blogspot.com/


Ever heard of a Blue Moose Democrat?
by Nathan Empsall on Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 09:31:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

not that surprizing (none / 0)

I do look forward to some non Gore polling though.

I love the guy, I mean he works for Steve Jobs, leader of my almost religious cult, but it seems pretty clear he's not in. Wish he was but, alas, the tea leaves are saying Gore is out.

That's when this national polling may become useful IMO.


by Trowaman on Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 05:47:08 PM EST

Re: not that surprizing (none / 0)

Isn't he a board member?
Doesn't that mean Steve Jobs works for him?
Ever heard of a Blue Moose Democrat?
by Nathan Empsall on Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 09:31:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: First Post-Kerry National Poll Shows Opening F (none / 0)

There might be a small opening for another candidate but it appears it is a lot of distance between the top 3 Clinton, Obama, and Edwards and the rest of the field. Those who are 1, 2, 3% will have a difficult time raising any money.


BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog
by robliberal on Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 05:58:59 PM EST

Re: First Post-Kerry National Poll Shows Opening F (none / 0)

Why does Gore keep getting included? And where do his supporters go if he declines to run?


by niq on Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 06:01:59 PM EST

Re: First Post-Kerry National Poll Shows Opening F (none / 0)

probably not to Hillary, which makes it anyone's game.


John McCain wants to stay in Iraq for a century.
by jkfp2004 on Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 06:07:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: First Post-Kerry National Poll Shows Opening F (none / 0)

 I can't imagine ANY Gore supporters going to Hillary, so if he doesn't run, Edwards might see a boost.

 But of Gore DOES run, he's got a better chance than anyone of rescuing us from Hillary.

 This is Hillary's message: "Even though we've all become aware that the Iraq war was based on lies and deceit, even though the war has created far more problems than it's solved and it's been ineptly run, even though the Iraq war heas weakened America at just about every conceivable level, I still think it was a good idea to invade."

 Think that message is going to win in the fall of 2008?

 


by Master Jack on Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 06:08:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: First Post-Kerry National Poll Shows Opening F (none / 0)

I can't imagine ANY Gore supporters going to Hillary

Hm. Just curious, why do you say this?


by Silent sound on Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 07:58:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: First Post-Kerry National Poll Shows Opening F (none / 0)

   Iraq.

   Decisiveness vs. triangulation.

   Willingness to hold Republicans accountable.

   Willingness to address IMPORTANT issues -- global warming, Iraq vs. banal ones like video games and flag-burning.

   Iraq.

   Basically, Gore's strengths are precisely Hillary's weaknesses. So what draws voters to Gore is exactly what pulls voters AWAY from Hillary.

   If Gore is not an option, his voters will go somewhere other than Hillary.


by Master Jack on Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 08:09:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I disagree (none / 0)

Last cycle I would have agreed with you, but not this cycle, I must disagree. Money is going to be too important and the primaries are already so bunched together in Jan and Feb that you will need money to make it from one to another. California moves up its primary, money will be decisive.

In Nov 03 Kerry had slid to the back of the pack; he was a third tier candidate,  he lent himself a few million, gambled on campaigning in Iowa only to propel him back into the race.  When he won then he raised the money.

The primaries in 2004 were serial, not almost simultaneous as they will be in 2008 and with enough time in between to raise money from a win.  Now they are too many too close together.

The early money race this time is even more important.  I was on John Kerry's finance committee last time.  Calls were made to those folks up through the weekend.  John, I think, would agree with the above analysis and when his Finance chair in 2004, Hassan Nemazee, announced he was going with Hillary, he had enough foresight and dignity to realize that he shouldn't sully his legacy with a run he was going to lose.

I think the 2nd and 3rd tier candidates are going to starve to death for money.  Clinton, Obama and Edwards will take it all. Only they at this point can contest the huge number of primaries.

For that I am sorry, I know people like Markos have always decried Iowa and New Hampshire, belittled the value of retail, in your livingroom politics and so campaigned for Nevada etal.  I think that was a mistake because the slower pace and the retail politics of those states did indeed give 2nd and 3rd tier candidates a time to emerge.  Now with more early primaries ...the increase in democracy, states, diversity being representative of democracy... makes money and not ideas the determinant of who becomes our nominee.

Beware what you wish for.


by debcoop on Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 06:09:34 PM EST

Re: I disagree (none / 0)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/25/us/pol itics/25vote.html?hp&ex=1169787600&a mp;en=d7c7f5f0aa7675dd&ei=5094&p artner=homepage

I hate agreeing with Adam Nagourney ---I really hate agreeing with Adam Nagourney...but he's right

"Democrats and Republicans said that the changes would be the latest step in the evolution of a presidential nominating system that increasingly seems resistant to the kind of dark-horse presidential bid that was possible back when small states like Iowa and New Hampshire enjoyed such influence over the nominating process."  

The changes that the net has pushed for will only keep the 2nd tier from getting a chance.

Ironically for Kos the changes he wants so badly will help propel Hillary clinton to the nomination, probably way down on his list of  candidates.

Sometimes you have to recognize the evil spirits that could fly out of Pandora's box.  Changing the primary calendar is just this dangerous box.


by debcoop on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 01:58:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I disagree (none / 0)

Agree with your analysis. Though I would say that Iowa and New Hampshire have been absolutely awful at selecting democratic nominees so a process that gives so much weight to who wins these two states just has not worked for us in recent times.

In the new environment a candidate has to start running in 2005 so they can build support in the polls before the financial side comes into play. If you are at 10%-12% in the polls you are in the race and people will be prepared to fund your campaign. If you are 5% or less at the start of 2007 you might as well forget it.


by kundalini on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 05:11:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

To be fair (3.00 / 1)

If they include Gravel they should also include Sand and Stone.


by dpANDREWS on Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 06:16:41 PM EST

Re: First Post-Kerry National Poll Shows Opening F (none / 0)

Edwards lead in Iowa has just gotten bigger now that Kerry's 3%in polls will go to him.


by Djneedle83 on Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 06:40:43 PM EST

Who are the Hillary supporters? (none / 0)

I'm still waiting to see who these Hillary supporters are?  I look around the comment sections of a lot political blogs, I speak to other democrats, I even check out the off-topic section of my favorite Mets internet site, and I just don't see the support for her that equates anywhere near these poll numbers.  Everyone else I can believe, but Hillary being way above Obama and Edwards just doesn't ring true to the reality I'm looking at.


by dougdilg on Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 08:13:34 PM EST

Re: Who are the Hillary supporters? (none / 0)

Hillary supporters seem to be coming out of the woodwork. I have a feeling some of it is coordinated plan and part of it is some supporters have been given a pep talk by their leaders to spread the word. Part of it is also some of her supporters who didn't have the guts to defend her in the past now feel emboldened to defend her now that her polling numbers are high and the national media is kissing her ass. It also helps Hillary is off to a polished smooth start with good polling numbers and they are trying to use the inevitability argument to crush her opponents.

I still have not gotten an answer from Hillary supporters. What CRUCIAL progressive positions has Hillary taken that is better than that of the other candidates? Don't give me an itemized list of 2 or 3 progressive positions she is better on if they do not come close to negating the disastrous Iraq war issue she is worse than every single candidate (including Edwards who voted for the resolution) on. When they keep saying how good is she on some issues, are you trying to imply that we should vote for her because the other leading canddiates are not good on those issues and so on the balance sheet , their iraq war oppostion gets negated?


by Pravin on Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 08:30:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who are the Hillary supporters? (none / 0)

HRC is not a progressive. Neither are Obama or Edwards. Feingold is but he's not running. Kucinich is but he's barely in the race.


by kundalini on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 05:18:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Excellent point. (none / 0)


by dpANDREWS on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 09:42:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who are the Hillary supporters? (none / 0)

They're not on the internets for the most part.

Or, they're online but not really on sites like these or other political blogs. Doesn't mean they don't exist.

Though I will agree that her numbers seem a little bit high, in spite of that.


by Baldrick on Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 08:45:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who are the Hillary supporters? (none / 0)

You've got to remember, the "netroots" and bloggers only make up one small part of the party. The whole Democratic Party didn't suddenly jump online in 2004. Many Democrats who don't follow politics too closely but still vote - those who aren't activists - know Hillary, and think they'll support her in the primaries.


Ever heard of a Blue Moose Democrat?
by Nathan Empsall on Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 09:35:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who are the Hillary supporters? (none / 0)

Not sure if there is a connection between know her and will support her.  I think a lot of her numbers right now come from a non-active, non-aware public who when given the names Obama, Edwards, Clinton...go I know Clinton, I'll take that one.  It's not just lack of support on Kos and MYDD, it's people I speak to, it's other non-polit sites I see.  You see her negatives all the time.  You can't help but bump into her negatives.  Shouldn't the same be able to be said of her positives?  I rarely bump into any shred of support for her.


by dougdilg on Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 11:25:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who are the Hillary supporters? (none / 0)

Yes I have never heard of 2004 vice-presidential nominee John Edwards. Or for that matter Osama/Obama or whatever he calls himself.


by kundalini on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 06:39:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who are the Hillary supporters? (none / 0)

Take a look at Chris's post on the recent PEW and GWU studies of Internet activists. Readers of the progressive blogs tend to be secular, privileged, white and male. Not exactly the Democratic base. The broader 'netroots' --- MoveOn members, campaign and party online activists -- are more like the general population, though still not like the demographics of the Democratic party.

As Clinton, Obama, Edwards and the other candidates begin campaigning in earnest more regular Democrats and activists will show up on blogs and the representation in comments will begin to reflect the actual Democratic party. Large segments of Democratic activists have not been particularly engaged with blogs between presidential campaigns, and Dean supporters (like me) are probably over-represented, but the early start of the primaries and the really excellent set of candidates who are using the Internet will probably draw them in.

It will be interesting to watch how that changes MyDD and DailyKos.


by souvarine on Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 11:02:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If no underserved market, then no opening (3.00 / 1)

That's my theory, anyway.  (Kept on meaning to do a diary about it.)  When a candidate blazes out of nowhere to near the top of the primary field, it's because the original set of well-known candidates left some fairly substantial bloc of voters not particularly well-represented.

For instance, at the beginning of 2003, with Gephardt, Loserman, Kerry, Edwards, etc. having all voted for the Iraq AUMF, the antiwar Dem market was way underserved.  Howard Dean had that market all to himself, and shot up into the lead.

Similarly Gene McCarthy in 1968, to go back to the other end of time.

By 1975, a lot of Dems were a bit out of breath after the changes of the previous decade, wanted a pause before pushing further left, and to try to knit the country back together again.  Carter was the only one who captured that mood.

And so forth.

I don't see an underserved market on the Dem side, unless Edwards collapses and Gore stays out.  If you want a cautious, triangulating, pro-war centrist, you've got Hillary.  If you want a reunite-and-heal-the-country centrist, you've got Obama.  And if you want someone more progressive on social issues, who's willing to actually criticize leading Republicans, you've got Edwards.

That doesn't completely cover the waterfront, but it doesn't leave a major underserved voter bloc.

On the GOP side, it's very different.  I don't see that the evangelicals are particularly excited about McCain or Romney, and if they like Giuliani, it's only because they don't know him very well yet.  (Allen was their man, before he had his personal macacalypse.) There's an opening for a Brownback or Huckabee to rocket to the top tier.  This may or may not actually happen, but the opening is there.


by RT on Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 09:09:48 PM EST

Re: If no underserved market, then no opening (none / 0)

If I could give you a 4 or 5 I would, for macacalypse alone deserves it.


by debcoop on Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 11:01:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

macacalypse (none / 0)

I must credit poster Johanna over at the Straight Dope Message Board for that neologism.  Definitely worth stealing, huh?


by RT on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 01:37:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

yup (none / 0)


by debcoop on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 01:38:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Is Hillary following the Bush PLan? (none / 0)

So far carefully orchestrated appearances with fawning people. Moderated webcasts. What about actually having an open campaign appearance. What is she afraid of? If she can't face the dem base openly, what makes her think she would be able to address the crossover voters?


by Pravin on Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 10:03:06 PM EST

What about the interviews? (none / 0)

She has done the morning shows, and she has done 'Countdown' with Keith.   Her people have been out and about as well.   Wolfson and McAuliffe have both been on 'Hardball' for instance.


by dpANDREWS on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 09:44:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What about the interviews? (none / 0)

I saw the Olbermann interview and commented on it. It was not one of his finest moments. Even the fake Mathews on SNL asked the fake Hillary tougher questions.


by Pravin on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 09:58:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Name recognition (none / 0)

is also what's keeping Biden at the top of the "unknowns," right?  Not a lot of people remember him from 1988, but a few do.

Also, do you think Gore's poll numbers are being kept down by the fact that most people don't think he's running?  Or is that really the ceiling for his support?


ProgressiveHistorians: History For Our Future
by Nonpartisan on Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 10:32:38 PM EST

Lower Tier Candidates Won't Get Heard (none / 0)

I suspect Chris' analysis is based on a somewhat flawed assumption: that lower tier candidates will be able to get their message heard.

The media isn't going to pay much attention to them unless they are competitive in the polls. So they will have to build support first which probably means raising money in order to advertise in order to grow their poll numbers.

Clark might raise some cash on the internet but I doubt even that would be enough to get him into the race. As for the rest, answers on a postcard to the respective campaigns would no doubt be much appreciated.


by kundalini on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 06:20:35 AM EST

"Gore out" most interesting (none / 0)

His 10% doesn't go to the leading candidates and without Gore on the ballot, where will those votes go in the early polls.


by BrionLutz on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 11:10:58 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.