Unlike Romney 3.0, Ex-Nominees Do Not Historically Poll Very Well In National Primary Surveys

Looking exclusively at losing presidential nominees, Al Gore's 2004 primary polling numbers most closely resemble Mitt Romney's current status among the 2016 GOP field. Of course, Al Gore never took the second plunge. Photo courtesy of the Associated Press

Former Presidential candidate Mitt Romney has stormed back onto the political scene in a big way this month, reaching out to former mega-donors, reassembling the 'old team,' and meeting with fellow potential major candidates. And as poll after poll has shown, rank-and-file Republican Party members across the nation have taken notice.

A surprisingly solid 59% of Republicans say they'd like for the former nominee, who attracted just over 47% of the popular vote in his failed 2012 bid, to give it another go in 2016. Only 26% think he should sit it out. Romney consistently sports the highest favorability ratings of the potentially large field of Republicans candidates, at least where it counts - among the base. Last but not least, he leads comfortably in every national horserace survey of the GOP primary taken to date.

That final fact is somewhat unique in a historical context, and especially so when looking back over the last thirty years. Ex-presidential nominees frequently pop-up in the following cycle's primary polling. But it's much less frequent that they cast such a dominating presence over the rest of the field, so consistently.

In fact, looking back at ALL twenty-one ex-nominee's polling performance in the following cycle's presidential primary in the modern polling era, former presidential nominees can be said to fall into three tiers.

1. Tier 1 - this group of former nominees had no trouble recapturing the party faithful's hearts and minds for the second time in a row following their presidential loss. Qualification for membership in this group requires the ex-nominee poll in first place in at least half of the following presidential primary surveys taken that include that candidates name. For example, because Mitt Romney has appeared in eight national 2016 GOP primary surveys to date, and has led in each, he would qualify for membership in this group. Other ex-nominees falling into this group are Al Gore in 2004, Richard Nixon in 1964, Adlai Stevenson in 1956, and Thomas Dewey in 1948.
2. Tier 2 - this group of former nominees polled reasonably well in primary surveys taken after their presidential loss, almost always hitting double digits, even finding themselves at the summit of some random surveys. They fall short, however, of the polling status achieved by the failed nominees in the above group. Seven of the twenty-one ex-presidential nominees from 1936 to 2012 fall into this category.
3. Tier 3 - ex-nominees in this group are defined either by their surprisingly shoddy, if not embarrassing polling performance in the following cycle's primary survey, or by their unwillingness to even entertain the idea of the presidency ever again, evidenced by their total exclusion from the following primary's polling. Nine of the twenty-one ex-presidential nominees from 1936 to 2012 fall into this category. 

How Concerned Should Hillaryland Be About Barack Obama's Political Standing In 2016?

Though Clinton's soaring approval ratings seemingly did little to help Gore in 2000, and McCain's popular vote percentage far exceeded the number who approved of the job Dubya was doing, the elder Bush's electoral performance in 1988 closely mirrored public approval of his boss, Ronald Reagan. Photo taken July 1988, courtesy of the Reagan Library.

President Barack Obama's job approval rating currently sits at about 45/50% per the Real Clear Politics aggregator, 44/50% according to Huffington Posts's Pollster, or 46/49% per TPM Polltracker.

All in all, these are some pretty rough numbers for the President, especially considering where he stood for most of the 2012 election year, and represents one of his worst periods in terms of job approval since the Fall of  2010 and 2011.

Fortunately for Obama, he'll never have to stand before voters for re-election again. Unfortunately for Democrats, they'll endure the burden of running for office with the anchor of an unpopular Presidency around their neck, assuming Obama's ratings hold at current levels or get worse.

In fact, recent history would suggest that 2014 Senate and House contenders should fear the President's popularity the most. In 2010, Obama sported an abysmal 44/55% job approval rating, and Republicans won in a landslide. Something similar happened in 2006, when George W. Bush had a 43/57% approval rating, and the Democrats won in a landslide. In 2002, a hugely popular post-9/11 George Bush was able to flout tradition when his party won an impressive popular vote victory and picked up several seats.

But what if we look further down the road? Can the way voters feel about President Obama on election night 2016 affect the vote count for Hillary Clinton? Or Joe Biden? Or Howard Dean? Or any number of possible 2016 Democratic nominees? Intuition and common-sense suggests yes, and at least one poll-analyst seems to agree. But historical evidence provides room for doubt.

The series of tables below detail outgoing Presidential job approval ratings in the final month(s) of the presidential campaigns to replace them. And as you can see, especially with regards to the 2008, 2000, and 1960 presidential elections, the term-limited President's ratings didn't appear to make or break his party's nominee:

Hurricane Sandy's Other Legacy: Did Late-Deciders Throw The 2012 Election To Obama?

President-elect George H.W. Bush greets the man he defeated by 8 points 1 month prior at his home in Dec. 1988. According to exit polls, Dukakis was just coming alive in the final days of the campaign. He defeated Bush among the 15% of voters that made up their mind in the final week by an impressive 55-43% margin. Photo courtesy of The Atlantic.

Yesterday morning,  Chris Christie took to MSNBC's 'Morning Joe'  to praise the President for his handling of storm aide since Hurricane Sandy made landfall in New Jersey on October 29th. In response to a question from host Joe Scarborough, Christie replied:

 "Listen, the President's kept every promise that he made. And the fact is that...that's what I was saying at the time. What I was saying at the time is I was asked about how was the President doing and I said 'he's doing a good job. He's kept his word.' And so, everybody knows that I have about 95% level of disagreement with Barack Obama on issues of principle and philosophy. But, the fact is, we have a job to do. And what people expect from people they elect is to do their job. And that's why they hate Washington so much..."

Nevermind the context of the comment. The bolded section is what received the blaring Drudge Report headline. And if anything gets remembered from this MSNBC segment during primary season 3 years from now, it won't be Christie's eloquent defense of his actions in the days following Hurricane Sandy. It will be the continued praise of a President loathed by Christie's base.

But putting aside how Republicans feel about whether or not Chris Christie actually cost Mitt Romney the Presidency in 2012, a much more basic question needs answering: did Hurricane Sandy flip the election to Barack Obama? Because if it didn't, Republicans can blame Christie for providing comfort to the enemy at most, but NOT for costing them the presidency.

The simple answer to to the above question is no; Hurricane Sandy did NOT flip the election to President Obama, at least not if you believe the exit polling. And as a result, no, Chris Christie did not cost the GOP the election in 2012. Consider the chart below:

2004-present info compiled from CNN and Roper Center. 1976-2000 info compiled from Best & Krueger's Exit Polls. 1984 exit polls did not include a question regarding the timing of respondents vote decision.

Obama apparently won among voters that decided BEFORE the final few days of the campaign by a margin of 51-47%. But among the 9% of Americans who said they made up their mind in the final few days of the campaign, Obama's margin over Romney was even greater (50-44%).

The Predictive Power of Presidential Job Approval on Election Outcomes, according to 1978-2012 Exit Polling

Presidential Job Approval based on exit polling, 1978-2012

It's been posited by some that a president's job approval rating is a pretty decent predictor of eventual election outcomes. But study's that have looked at this before tend to base their findings on pre-election political surveys on who says they will vote, rather than exit poll data that surveys actual voters.

A look at what exit polls have reported on past presidential job approval shows that while attitudes towards the President's job performance are occasionally on-the-mark with regards to the national popular vote, they're not always. For example, voters are frequently willing to vote AGAINST a President or his party's nominee whose job performance they APPROVE of.

More than that, exit poll findings regarding a president's job approval are far more predictive of actual results when an incumbent is seeking re-election, as opposed to the incumbent party's nominee seeking election.

Job performance also tends to be less prognosticative of actual results in midterm elections, as opposed to Presidential, while the President's APPROVAL rating is more likely to reflect his proportion of the vote than his DISAPPROVAL rating is to reflect his opponent's vote share.
The chart below documents the President's job approval rating in every presidential and midterm election since 1978. From 2004-2012, exit poll data from CNN is relied upon. From 1978-2002, exit poll data is provided by Samuel J. Best and Brian S. Krueger's Exit Polls, Surveying the American Electorate, 1972-2010, with the exception of 1988 data, which was retrieved here. Unfortunately, exit pollsters did not ask voters their opinion regarding presidential job approval in 1980, 1984, 1992, and 1996. Thus, in 4 of the 18 elections examined in the chart below, the President's job approval rating is based on the final Gallup Poll taken prior to that election, not exit poll data.

* indicates the President's job approval rating for this year is based on Gallup's final pre-election poll. All other findings come from exit poll results. Red indicates a Republican election victory, blue indicates a Democratic election victory. "H" means "House." "S" means "Senate." House and Senate votes tallies are provided by USHouse.gov

As the chart indicates, excluding midterm elections, voters have frequently voted against Presidents they approve of. A solid 54% majority approved of the job President Barack Obama was doing as they headed to the polls on Nov 6, 2012, but the President only won 51.0% of the vote.

Gaffe-prone Joe Biden Looks Good In Early 2016 Polls, But So Have Other Two-Term VPs

Joe Biden and his boss with the last 2 two-term Vice President's to run for the White House (and their boss).

Vice President Joe Biden, if he runs for President in 2016 and wins, would only be the fourth two-term VP to do so in history, with John Adams (the nation's 1st VP), Richard Nixon, and George H.W. Bush paving the way before him. Only eight VP's have even served two full terms in that office, though only four of them ever ran for President after the fact (John Adams, Richard Nixon, George H.W. Bush, and Al Gore).

Thus it would seem that launching a Presidential campaign after 8 years in the Vice President's office isn't as common, or as advantageous as you may think.

But that certainly isn't stopping Joe Biden from whipping up chatter among political pundits about his own presidential prospects. As early as October 2011, nearly a year and a half before the start of Obama's 2nd term in office, Biden was fanning the flames: "I'm in one of the -- probably the best shape I've been in my life. I'm doing pretty well. I'm enjoying what I'm doing. And as long as I do, I'm going to continue to do it."

And that was far from Biden's last flirtation with 2016. In fact, you could probably spend the better part of a day recounting all the times Biden has noted he's interested in 2016 since taking office as VP in January 2009.


Further buttressing the Vice President’s desire to run for the White House could be the slate of mostly favorable polling that’s come out this year. In 14 hypothetical 2016 match-ups against Republicans Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, and Jeb Bush, Biden only trails in three of them (to New Jersey Governor Chris Christie), and leads by as much as 14 points (against Marco Rubio in a March Marist survey). On average, he leads his GOP opponents by a 46-43% margin and receives a similarly positive overall favorability rating of 45/42% from the American public – not too shabby for a guy who is famous for his lack of discipline, frequent gaffes, and over-the-top theatrics.

Despite all this, Joe Biden and his supporters should exercise cautious optimism regarding early 2016 polling, if any optimism at all. A comparison of his current head-to-head numbers with Al Gore’s in 1997 indicates Joe Biden is slightly weaker than the former Vice President was at a comparable point in the 2000 presidential election.

2008 vs. 2016 Democratic Primary Contests: A Comparison of Hillary's "Inevitability" THEN and NOW

Contrary to what some believe, the Hillary Clinton of 2008 was not nearly as strong in Democratic primary polling as she is today. Photo courtesy of businessinsider.com (left).

 Its been eight years since the Democratic Party has seen a competitive primary contest, but the similarities between this point in the 2008 presidential cycle and today are undeniable; Hillary Clinton is the obvious Democratic standard-bearer, she has a major lead against her possible primary contenders, and the sense of inevitability surrounding her eventual coronation is strong and near-universal.

But for all the comparisons between Hillary '08 and Hillary '16, there are a number of differences. In 2008, she was running AGAINST eight years of Republican reign that had become amazingly unpopular with the American public. This time around, she'll be running to continue the legacy of what has been, based merely on presidential job approval ratings, 8 years of a mediocre presidency.

Furthermore, today, the mere thought of having to compete against a more-popular Clinton-juggernaut has essentially frozen the Democratic Primary field (with the sole exception of the little-known and ambitious Governor of Maryland, Martin O'Malley). In 2005, there was no "frozen field" to speak of. The newly unemployed John Edwards made moves almost immediately following his failed Vice Presidential bid to indicate he was starting a 4-year-campaign for the presidency. Questions abounded regarding the intentions of Sen. John Kerry, the unsuccessful '04 Democratic nominee that only lost by a respectable 2.5 pt margin. The much aggrieved 2000 nominee and former Vice President Al Gore was lurking in the background, as well as 2004 grass-roots super-star and one-time favorite for the nomination, Howard Dean. In the end, only 1 of the above mentioned names jumped into the 2008 primary, but unlike today, potential candidates were making some not-so-under-the-radar movements towards a presidential bid.

Perhaps the most significant difference between the 2008 and 2016 presidential presidential cycles to date lies in the polling. The chart below shows the monthly polling averages of the Obama v. Clinton primary battle from immediately following the 2004 election to the conclusion of the Democratic primary in June 2008, divided into two periods: Nov. 2004 through the Iowa Caucus, and the Iowa Caucus through Hillary's campaign suspension in June. The information in the chart is based off of about 350 surveys compiled from pollster.com, real clear politics, and Wikipedia. The excel file including the 350 survey data-set can be viewed here. To be included in the data set, a 2008 poll must have tested both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in the hypothetical primary contest. Where I was able to track down a survey's cross tabs, a demographic break down of the Hillary/Obama vote is provided, though you'd be surprised as to how difficult it can be to track down obscure, 5-year old cross tabs.

For a full list of the surveys used in compiling the averages, go here.

As you can see, Hillary enjoyed a healthy 16 point lead over Barack Obama during the early stages of the 2008 primary (39-23%), before any contest was held; you know...the period in which pundits were discussing her apparent inevitability. Which begs the question, at least in the context of polling: what was so inevitable about a 16 point lead, especially when the leader was well below 50%?