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. 

The Predictive Power of (Very) Early Presidential Primary Polling Part V - 1980 & 2012 Republican Primaries

Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford were interparty rivals for two consecutive primary cycles. Ford won their first encounter. The two were essentially tied in early 1980 GOP primary polling, until Ford announced he would not run for President a second time. Photograph by David Kennerly.

My original intent was to post this multi-part series all in sequence. But as it often does, life, work, and general procrastination took over. Oh well, better late than never. Here is the completed string of posts, in two final parts, on the extent to which very early primary polling has foretold final primary results, looking only at the fifteen contested presidential primaries dating back to 1976.

The data leaves room for one conclusion - the clear polling "frontrunner" in the first and/or second years following the preceding presidential election is seldom the eventual nominee. So seldom that it has only occurred three times since 1976, as discussed in Part I of this series.

The remaining twelve contested presidential primaries can be split evenly into two groups: (1) those where the eventual nominee appeared in early surveys, but not as the clear frontrunner (as discussed in Parts II through IV, and this post in particular), and (2) those where the eventual nominee seems to have come from nowhere, emerging in much later polling, sometimes after primary contests have begun (which is coming up in part VI).

Joining the 2000 and 2008 Republican and 1980 and 1984 Democratic primaries, the 1980 and 2012 Republican primaries wrap up this discussion of contests falling into group one discussed above. It may be surprising to learn that Ronald Reagan, who won both of his general election contests handily, and carried 60% of the primary vote in what was originally a crowded 1980 field, was NOT the clear frontrunner in 1977 and 1978, years before any contest was ever held. And the same can be said for Mitt Romney in 2012 - despite a decisive overall victory, his polling advantage was no where near as substantial in 2009. Consider the two tables below.

 

As you can see in the 1st table, Gerald Ford, who became an unexpected thorn in Reagan's second quest for the Presidency in 1976, was back and causing trouble again for his third. The unelected former President's close loss to Jimmy Carter led many to speculate Ford might run again, and he did little to squelch the speculation. As far as pollsters were concerned in the first year or so following Carter's victory, Ford's odds of winning the Republican nomination for a second time were as good as Reagan's. Across twelve surveys taken in 1977-1978, the two traded polling leads and averaged 35% of the Republican electorate apiece. Meanwhile, 1980 runners-up George H.W. Bush and John Anderson barely registered in early primary polls.

Mitt Romney, like Reagan before him, had also run for the Presidency before, and also had an old nemesis holding him back from "clear frontrunner" status in those first months of primary polling following Obama's historic win. Mike Huckabee had surged from no where in 2008 to win the Iowa Caucus, and was polling either in 1st or 2nd place in every '12 GOP primary survey taken in 2009. Romney was also locked in a three-way battle for early polling supremacy with the most recent Vice Presidential nominee, Sarah Palin. In fact, it was Palin who had the highest polling average among likely Republican primary voters in 2009, buoyed largely by a Rasmussen survey taken the day after the 2008 election showing her with the support of nearly 2/3 of likely 2012 primary voters. Though he was rarely tested in 2009, the few times he was, Rudy Guiliani posted formidable numbers, even leading the field in one Fox News poll.

Prime-Time Addresses Have Moved Public Opinion Before, But Obama's Starting From FAR Behind On Syria

All five men have delivered prime-time TV addresses regarding imminent military action from behind the desk above, though none have faced a Congress as skeptical, or an American public more unified in opposition.

In less than 12 hours, President Obama will deliver a national address in prime-time in an attempt to rally the country, and congress, behind a possible military strike against a chemical-weapons yielding Middle Eastern dictator.

But it's far from the first time a commander-in-chief has pep-talked the nation in advance of (or as often the case, just after) the commencement of major military endeavors. In fact, Presidents have spoken to the nation in televised addresses designed to coincide with imminent overseas hostilities no less than nine times across the last five Presidents over the last 30 years.

Unfortunately for Barack Obama, his "rally-to-the-flag," pre-war address will have two dubious distinctions.

First, unlike President Reagan's military outings in Grenada and Libya, or George Bush Sr.'s Panama and Iraq Invasion, or Clinton's Somalia, Sudan and Kosovo bombings, or George W. Bush's wars in Afghanistan & Iraq, or Libya in 2011, President Obama is tasked with selling a phenomenally unpopular mission in Syria.

Furthermore, though each of the last four Presidents have seen worse job approval ratings than Obama is currently seeing at some point in their respective presidencies, none of them were so unpopular as he is now on the eve of a potential military strike against another country.

Consider the table below, which documents Barack Obama's job approval rating since the August 21, 2013 Syrian WMD attack that got this mess started, as well as support vs. opposition for military action in Syria since the same date:

The characters beside pollster identification in the table on the right above corresponds to survey question wording. Please feel free to ask me for any particular poll's question wording.

Over the last 2-3 weeks, Barack Obama has averaged a 45/50% job approval rating, while support for the proposed military operation in Syria has been anemic, at 32/52%.

What's worse? Over the last 7 days, Obama's average job approval rating has dropped to 44/51%, while opposition to engagement surged upwards (averaging a 30/60% support/oppose rating).

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:

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.

PPP promotes findings of Republican fringe; glosses over poor job approval for Obama

Public Policy Polling is out with their first post - election take on the American pulse, testing everything from President Obama's job approval rating, to feelings on various political celebrities such as Nate Silver and General David Petraeus. In case you were wondering, Nate Silver's favorability rating is 12% favorable, 10% unfavorable, while 77% are unsure of either who he is or how they feel about him). In a post titled: "Republicans not handling election results well", PPP blogger Tom Jensen fails to make mention of President Obama's abysmally low 37/59% job approval rating with Independents. Not to mention the President's rating with ALL voter's is an unimpressive 50/47%. In fact, it is historically poor when compared to past presidential job approval ratings.

Take, for example, PPP's measure of how Barack Obama was doing at a similar point after his first election (albeit, a little later) in North Carolina: by a 66/25% margin, North Carolinians approved of President elect Obama's transition into office . Granted, the survey questions are different, but they both measured a level of satisfaction/dissatisfaction with Barack Obama shortly after winning a general election. Not only that, but Independent voters gave him a 65/24% approval rating in the days just before his 2009 inauguration, a very far cry from his post-2012 election rating of 37/59%.