Political Animal
Blog
A Washington Post poll released this morning showed President Obama leading most of Republican challengers in hypothetical match-ups, but Mitt Romney fared much better. Among registered voters, the president and the former governor were tied in the poll, and among likely voters, Romney led Obama by three, 49% to 46%.
This caused quite a stir in some circles — it was Mark Halperin’s lead story for much of the day — so let’s again pause to note some additional context.
In July 1995, a Washington Post/ABC News poll found Bill Clinton and Bob Dole tied at 48% each among registered voters. In June 1995, a Newsweek poll showed Dole leading Clinton by nine, 49% to 40%,
In August 1995, a New York Times/CBS News poll found voter frustrations at some of their highest levels “in modern American history,” and reported these results about the 1996 cycle:
[T]he Republicans at this stage have a more favorable image as a party, with 54 percent of respondents approving and 37 percent disapproving, compared with a roughly even split for the Democrats, 47 percent positive and 45 percent negative.
A trial heat between a generic “Republican candidate” and Mr. Clinton gave the Republican 28 percent and the President 22 percent, with 45 percent undecided. Especially at this very early stage, such questions can be only broadly indicative, but the results certainly suggest Democratic problems.
With Mr. Dole as the Republican candidate, the poll showed 48 percent for the Senator and 42 percent for the President.
At roughly this point in 1983, Reagan was in deep trouble, too. (At this point in 1991, meanwhile, George H. W. Bush was a shoo-in for re-election.)
To be sure, the point isn’t that Obama will be fine because Clinton and Reagan fared well despite trailing at this stage in their respective races. Rather, the point is that horse-race polls a year and a half before an election just don’t tell us much, and have little predictive value.
They’re worth keeping an eye on just to get a sense of the broader trends, but there’s no reason for anyone on either side to get worked up about this. Over the next year and a half, a stronger economy will bolster Obama’s standing and make him a safe bet for a second term. A weaker economy will put the president’s career in jeopardy. This isn’t rocket science.
Facebook
Twitter
DAY on June 07, 2011 4:36 PM:
If you are a salaried reporter, you are expected to file a story every day.
If you are a pollster, you get paid for- wait for it- taking polls.
None of this matter a whit, until after Labor Day, 2012.
Doug on June 07, 2011 4:38 PM:
Obama's team, while stopping the bleeding, left the patient in a coma, and says there's nothing to be done.
Romney and the Greedy Right say there's nothing to be done, and when they get into office, will pull the plug.
Wonderful choices.
Lifelong Dem on June 07, 2011 4:42 PM:
What a shock that Mark Halperin would be all over a poll showing Romney over Obama. Wait, no, not a shock at all.
R on June 07, 2011 4:44 PM:
Steve, you miss the point entirely. The Republicans have learned from elections, and the Dems haven't. The Rs are totally outplaying the Ds. They know that, to win, they have to destroy the economy, and they will continue to do so. The Ds won't stop them -- they'll continue to try to be "right" and "reasonable" and they will get destroyed.
majun on June 07, 2011 4:51 PM:
To be sure, the point isn’t that Obama will be fine because Clinton and Reagan fared well despite trailing at this stage in their respective races.
There is a real significance to this dynamic though. The worse the economy is doing this far out, the better the chance that things will be going in the opposite direction come next election. With unemployment running at about 9.1% now, if the numbers are headed down from there come October 2012 Obama will be looking pretty good. Even if the numbers are still up above 8%. The worse things are now, the better the chance the trends will reverse between now and the fall of 2012. Good for Obama.
But if the economy was looking good now it is more likely that things will either stay the same or get worse by 2012 and then Obama doesn't look so good.
Chris on June 07, 2011 5:09 PM:
Romney is talking about something that Obama hasn't focused on in quite a while...creating jobs.
Romney's policies have done the opposite and will do the opposite...but telling voters that he cares can't hurt.
It's not good enough for Obama to pat himself on the back for his accomplishments. He needs to inform voters that his work of creating more jobs isn't finished yet.
Stephen Stralka on June 07, 2011 6:30 PM:
Absolutely. There are all kinds of other factors that aren't really going to show up in polls right now. Do most likely voters know that Mitt Romney is bereft of anything even remotely resembling a conviction? I mean, other than the conviction that Mitt Romney should be President? Doubtful.
What about the debates? Obama would mop the floor with him. ("You know, Mitt, Obamacare looks an awful lot like Romneycare. Care to explain how the individual mandate is fascist communist freedom-destroying tyranny at the federal level and great policy at the state level? Oh, and I got bin Laden.")
What if the Republicans' hostage strategy with the debt ceiling really does torpedo the economy? Are they going to be able to pin that on Obama?
And so on.
Stephen Stralka on June 07, 2011 6:52 PM:
Oh, and another thing: I once saw an Obama T-shirt for sale in a head shop. Right there between Bob Marley and Jimi Hendrix. I'm not about to predict his reelection based on that alone (I just went in out of curiosity, after all), but it was striking.
Along with a number of other things, I do think it points to an advantage that he has that may not be sufficiently appreciated: Obama is cool. He's gotten into people's psyches around the world in ways that Republicans can't even begin to imagine. After the election in 2008, I remember Time magazine ran a feature showing examples of Obama-inspired art from around the world, and no one had to commission these works. They ran a bunch of images in the magazine, but what they showed there was just a sampling from the gigantic trove they had on their website.
All very nebulous. I know. I don't know if this is really the kind of thing that sways elections, and I don't know if he's going to be as cool in 2012 as he was in 2008. But I do know you're never going to see a Mitt Romney T-shirt in a head shop.
Joe Friday on June 07, 2011 7:17 PM:
Over the next year and a half, a stronger economy will bolster Obama's standing and make him a safe bet for a second term. A weaker economy will put the president's career in jeopardy.
If Obama goes along with Republican spending cuts, the economy will get weaker and weaker, just as we've witnessed in Britain. He needs to pivot NOW and oppose spending cuts as an economy and job killer, and propose a job creation bill and the reversal of failed tax cuts for the Rich & Corporate to address the deficit.
Grumpy on June 08, 2011 12:11 AM:
Your omission of 2003 polls only reminds me of the sad fact that George W. Bush was a two-term president and will be for the rest of history.