Gallup: It’s a little odd not to have a frontrunner by now

posted at 1:36 pm on March 7, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Is it really?  We’re ten months away from the first meaningful caucuses and twenty months away from the general election in 2012 to challenge Barack Obama for the presidency.  Gallup looks at the polling among potential Republican nominees since Eisenhower, which emphasizes the point:

The wide-open battle for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination — with nearly a three-way tie among Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin, and Mitt Romney — is quite different from the typical pattern observed in past Republican nomination contests. In Gallup polling since 1952, Republican Party nomination races always featured a clear front-runner at this stage of the campaign, and in almost all cases, that front-runner ultimately won the nomination.

Between 1952 and 2008, there were nine open races for the Republican presidential nomination — that is, years when a sitting Republican president was not seeking re-election. Additionally, in 1976, incumbent President Gerald Ford faced a strong challenge from Ronald Reagan. Thus, since 1952, the Republicans have had 10 competitive races for the presidential nomination.

Across these 10 elections, 2008 is the only year in which the eventual nominee, John McCain, achieved front-runner status relatively late in the campaign cycle. In the other nine, the nominee rose to the top of the pack in the year prior to the election, and in eight of those elections, the nominee was the front-runner by March.

Interestingly, the sequence has two anomalies.  John McCain trailed Rudy Giuliani by 17 points in Gallup polling at this point in 2007, but ended up outlasting everyone to get the nomination.  In 1979, Reagan only had a five-point lead over Gerald Ford, which recalls the discomfort of the GOP establishment with Reagan even after Ford’s futile attempts to hold office in 1976.

Otherwise, the history of the GOP in open cycles is to give the nomination to the candidate perceived to be next it line.  But in this year, that could describe all three of the candidates leading the polling so far.  Huckabee and Romney finished second and third in 2008′s primaries in delegates, and Palin ran on the ticket.  However, more and more people wonder whether Huckabee or Palin will actually run — and whether Romney will suffer as a result:

Huckabee has insisted that he be taken seriously as a contender in interviews, but he appears to bedoing little to prepare for a run. Politico’s Mike Allen recently noted that neither Palin “nor anyone on her behalf, is courting top donors, early-state activists or experienced operatives — all of whom are getting locked down, day by day.” That leaves her entry far from a sure thing. …

After months of polling showing Romney, Huckabee, and Palin each drawing the largest chunks of national Republicans, any dropouts would have strong implications for the second tier of possible candidates who do not have previous experience from 2008, such as Pawlenty, Haley Barbour, and Rick Santorum. Huckabee or Palin’s absence would free up a large chunk of socially conservative and evangelical voters, who are a key demographic in Iowa and who Romney struggled to court in 2008. If doubts from the previous election linger in 2012, these voters could prove a force by consolidating behind one of the less established candidates, elevating one of them into a two-man race with Rommey.

The past few weeks have offered a solid preview of how this dynamic might look against Romney, especially for Pawlenty. The Minnesota governor slammed the health care reform law’s individual mandate in his keynote speech at CPAC last month, which many interpreted as a dig at Romney’s similarly crafted health care law in Massachusetts. Pawlenty is going out of his way to court Tea Party activists, speaking at a national convention in Arizona recently while local activists say his are aides aggressively courting the grassroots in Iowa. He’s also made religion a major theme in speeches and with Mike Pence out of the race, a candidate many considered especially well-suited to court Iowa evangelicals, there’s an even greater opening for him to woo social conservatives unsure about Romney.

I’ve heard similar analyses from conservatives as well, who think Romney will end up getting shellacked in the primaries if both Huckabee and Palin pass on 2012.  David Brooks recently wrote about it as well.  The lack of ground action by Huckabee certainly seems indicative of at least some hesitation.  In Palin’s case, it’s probably less indicative, as she can tap into the Tea Party organizing efforts that Palin routinely conducts and assists; she can afford to wait longer to jump in, too, because of her already-high name recognition and draw.  Romney will still have considerable resources, but will find it more difficult to position himself as the conservative choice in a field dominated by sitting or recent governors without a RomneyCare on their records.  The same is true of Newt Gingrich — and Gingrich’s entry might have both men competing for similar voters.

Meanwhile, even Romney is delaying his entry into the Iowa sweepstakes, so all of this may be a little premature anyway:

The race to the White House begins in Iowa this week. Five possible presidential contenders will be in Iowa Monday to grab the support of caucus-goers.

Three of the five have already made several visits. Those include former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum.

The two other potential candidates include businessman Herman Cain, best know as the former Godfathers Pizza CEO, and former Louisiana Gov. Buddy Roemer.

Actually, the analysis of Gallup misses the important context of the present cycle.  Conservatives are less focused on the 2012 cycle at the moment than they are on Congress and the budget.  Usually an off-year doesn’t provide much in the way of political fireworks, but the biggest issues on the conservative agenda are ObamaCare and stopping the massive deficit spending that has us on the road to our big, fat Greek default.  The 2012 election is still a sideshow at the moment, and most of the grassroots activity now focuses on keeping Republicans in Congress on track to honor their campaign pledges and conduct serious spending reforms.

Otherwise, Gallup’s analysis is mostly good news.  The last thing the GOP needs now is another anointing as we saw in 1996 and arguably in 2008.  If the potential candidates have to work hard for support, then we’re much more likely to get a better candidate out of the process.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Been to many TEA party rallies, have you? Or are you merely engaging in rectal speak?

As usual…

JohnGalt23 on May 24, 2013 at 1:46 PM

As I just posted HotairLib has their whole head up their six o clock.

hamradio on May 24, 2013 at 2:43 PM

Who wrote the speech? Or are you just praising the messenger?

mixplix on May 24, 2013 at 2:57 PM

MSNBC consensus: Obama’s speech was historic, amazing, “one of the best of his presidency”

Connect the dots: journolist meeting by invitation only at the White House on, what Tuesday?, “big”speech by Obama on Thursday, lame stream media fawning over speech on Friday. Who would have seen that coming, huh?

parke on May 24, 2013 at 2:58 PM

They need the “war on terror” in order to further erode our Constitutional freedoms and to deflect criticism from the administration’s and Federal government’s ongoing corruption.

They are just trying to massage it so that they don’t offend the Muslims, international Libtards and their own sensibilities anymore than necessary.

A few Muslim terrorists here and there are quite expendable to this Administration despite their sympathies for them. These drone attacks also do much deflect any potential criticism that the Administration is weak in dealing with such matters.

Dr. ZhivBlago on May 24, 2013 at 2:59 PM

MSNBC is nothing but a left wing propaganda machine serving their master, Obama.

rplat on May 24, 2013 at 3:07 PM

Nobel Peace Prize that he totally earned a mere nine months into his presidency? Yeah, that one.

I believe that he was officially nominated 10 days after he was sworn in. Wow! The WON really worked long hours that week and a half to earn that POS medal. During those ten days he ordered NO DRONE STRIKES to keep his peaceful record clean.

fred5678 on May 24, 2013 at 3:22 PM

Obama: Don’t worry about that Ben Ghazi guy. I killed Bin Laden, and Bush didn’t!

And Obummer still wants to close Gitmo? Good luck with that–not even Upchuck Schumer was willing to hold trials in New York!

Steve Z on May 24, 2013 at 3:24 PM

They need the “war on terror” in order to further erode our Constitutional freedoms and to deflect criticism from the administration’s and Federal government’s ongoing corruption.

They just changed the definition of terrorist. They used to be jihadis from the Middle East–now they’re Minutemen in Arizona and Tea Partiers in Ohio.

Steve Z on May 24, 2013 at 3:29 PM

…bromides about what we’re told are President Foreign Policy’s miraculous yet still oddly unmaterialized abilities to move us drastically closer to world peace.

Erika, sometimes your writing shows signs of rivaling even the Master of Snark himself, Allahpundit. Good work!

KS Rex on May 24, 2013 at 3:45 PM

I love how crazy Al invoked the Nobel Peace Prize in praise of a speech that spoke about dropping bombs on people’s head. Maybe it was the “fewer” bombs than before that raised this to historic levels.

Do they even know or care that they are morons.

marnes on May 24, 2013 at 3:46 PM

His speech made less sense than Bluto’s Animal House Speech and was far less entertaining. Nothing less than base rallying time. Never thought I would say this, but Code Pink was the best part.

DDay on May 24, 2013 at 4:01 PM

Sperling posted this at the Examiner on May 23 about this “historic speech of Obysmal’s:

During his foreign policy speech Thursday afternoon, President Obama warned that domestic terrorism would increase in the modern age of the Internet.

“[T]his threat is not new,” Obama said. “But technology and the Internet increase its frequency and lethality.”

Obama warned Americans that materials on the Internet could influence people to commit terrorist acts.

“Today, a person can consume hateful propaganda, commit themselves to a violent agenda and learn how to kill without leaving their home,” he said.

To combat domestic terrorism, Obama reminded Americans that it was important to reach out to Muslim communities.

“The best way to prevent violent extremism is to work with the Muslim American community — which has consistently rejected terrorism — to identify signs of radicalization and partner with law enforcement when an individual is drifting towards violence,” he said. “And these partnerships can only work when we recognize that Muslims are a fundamental part of the American family.”

You see, we are just not working hard enough to “work with the Muslim American community” who are a “fundamental part of the American family.” Watch out, too, because Obysmal is again trying to limit the impact of the Internet.

onlineanalyst on May 24, 2013 at 4:22 PM

That Chris Hayes is a bit of a twink, isn’t he?

onlineanalyst on May 24, 2013 at 4:25 PM

Obama apparently gave two speeches yesterday and I watched the other one.

myiq2xu on May 24, 2013 at 5:03 PM

Comment pages: 1 2