More 2012 Myths
Primary polls three years before the vote? "Next in line" nonsense? Here is a debunking of some political legends.
I wrote a column on 2012 myths and misconceptions back in June discussing conventional wisdom that doesn’t necessarily match up with reality. However, we just scratched the surface of the political myth-making business. Several more common memes deserve to be busted.
Myth: 2012 primary polls are legitimate news.
Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, and Mitt Romney have all led trial heats for the 2012 race for the GOP nomination that have been taken in 2009. None has topped 30 percent in any poll, and, generally, all three are within six points of each other. So what does this all mean?
Nothing. Perhaps even less than nothing.
Since I write about 2012 frequently, taking on this myth is akin to a pro-wrestler admitting that pro-wrestling is fixed. However, national 2012 primary heats (particularly those taken 1-3 years before the election) should be regarded with all the seriousness of an MSNBC online poll.
They may be fun, but they aren’t serious news. The polls are, to quote a classic TV line, “very interesting, but stupid.” There are two reasons these trial heats don’t matter.
First, we don’t know which candidates are running. The latest Rasmussen poll assumes candidacies by Palin, Huckabee, Romney, Newt Gingrich, Gov. Haley Barbour (R-MS), and Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN). What if Palin, Gingrich, and Barbour, who got a combined 39 percent of the vote in the Rasmussen poll, decide not to run? Until we know who’s running, trial heats are pointless. It’s like asking someone to bet on who’s going to win the heavyweight boxing championship without knowing who’s fighting.
Second, national polling would be fine if there were a national primary, but there isn’t. The national poll numbers tells us nothing meaningful because we have a primary process where the votes of early states drastically change the race in future states. Rudy Giuliani continued to show strong national poll numbers long after his campaign effectively began its collapse.
The numbers in trial heats only reflect name recognition at a national level. For example, Huckabee and Romney were both nonentities in national polls taken throughout 2007, but emerged as two of the top contenders for the nomination based on Romney’s money and organization and Huckabee’s performance in Iowa.
National trial heats have no predictive power. Doing more polling in early primary states would have some merit, but those voters aren’t focused on the campaign yet, so the results will still be based solely on name recognition.
If there’s one value to a 2012 poll, it’s favorability numbers. The internet conversation is often dominated by people who loathe Huckabee, Palin, or Romney, and these loathers often assume all who don’t favor their own candidate of choice loathe him or her. In truth, polls show the loathers are in the minority. Any of these three would have an easier time uniting Republicans than did John McCain.
However, the headline news of a 2012 poll is a worthless piece of filler that serious people shouldn’t waste time on.
Myth: Mike Huckabee’s performance in the 2008 primary indicates a 2012 campaign will be a bust.
Joshua Lodell of the Detroit Examiner lays out this bodacious case:
In any potential battleground state, Huckabee did rather poorly; he finished 3rd in Michigan, and 4th in Florida. He was also unable to win South Carolina. This is important since any potential GOP candidate is going to have to win South Carolina, Florida and make Michigan competitive. If that is the case, nominating Huckabee at this point would seem to guarantee a second Obama term.
This narrative has three problems. First, it smacks of the Clinton campaign’s narrative during the primary campaign that Obama’s losses in seven of the eight largest states in America meant that he couldn’t win. In the fall, Obama carried seven of these states. Thus, it was proved that the primary is not the general election.
Secondly, it assumes what Huckabee did in 2008, he’ll do in 2012. Senator McCain’s 2000 campaign won only one state outside of the liberal northeast and his home state of Arizona — Michigan. In 2008, McCain lost Michigan, but won in many states in which he lost by wide margins in 2000, such as California and Missouri.
Third, it ignores the reality of the 2008 campaign, which came down to momentum, media, and money.
On the momentum front, McCain’s win in South Carolina was pivotal and without it, he would have dropped out. Conservatives were urged to vote for Romney to stop McCain. The media ruled the race a two-man battle with the choice being between McCain and Romney. That Huckabee even managed to win the states he did under these circumstances was a minor miracle.
A stronger argument could actually be made against Romney’s electability based on 2008 results. While Romney won eleven contests, eight of these were state caucuses where Huckabee and McCain didn’t have the money to create a ground organization to get voters to the polls. The three primaries Romney won were in states he had personal ties to, and only one of those was seriously contested — Michigan. This doesn’t appear to be a great return on a $100 million investment.
While you can make arguments against Huckabee’s electability, using 2008 primary results and pretending the vote occurred in a vacuum is practically pundit malpractice.
Page 1 of 2 Next ->
Adam Graham is a contributor at Race42012.com and host of the Truth and Hope Report podcast. His personal site is Adam's Blog.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
19 Comments
1. More 2012 Myths | Secolul 21 ~ 21st Century:[...] this link: More 2012 Myths This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Pajamas Media. You can follow any responses to this [...]
Jul 29, 2009 - 5:25 pm 2. Sapwolf:Yes it is early.
But primary and general election predictions are WAY FUN!
Aug 3, 2009 - 6:40 am 3. urbanleftbehind:Sonny Perdue lurks in the bushes!!!! Thats where I put my money. Governor of a large state (GA), a cutter, hard on immigration, innovative transportation and infrastructure, has some black cred, access to Atlanta corporate money…….
Was the John Kreese reference actually from Karate Kid I or was it in the part of KK II when John Kreese berated young Johnny (played by legendary direct-to-video actor Bill Zabka) only to end up nearly choked to death by Mr. Miyagi in the parking lot after the tournament? Memory fails me at this moment…
Aug 3, 2009 - 7:42 am 4. dmk3:Chaney in 2012
Aug 3, 2009 - 9:42 am 5. Pete D:In place of irrational speculation forget about the Republican candidate in 2012. Instead focus on races at every level in the 2010 election. If we’re to have a chance in 2012 to break the socialist hold on our country we must do it in steps. The first is stop health care reform as Democrats propose it; Stop a second Stimulus bill; Oppose further Obama nominations to the Supreme Court, and put your Congressman/woman and Senators on notice to do the job you sent him/her to Washington to do or you’ll vote against him/her in 2012. As to Palin, I have nothing against her. Give the woman a break to do her “thing” and let’s see where we’re at after 2010. Finally, if you abhor what’s going on in this country as much as I do then get active and become a participant. Volunteer, donate money regardless of the amount, attend rallies, boycott Government Motors, help to locate viable candidates for office and work to get every Republican vote to the polls in 2010. It’s your call fellow Republicans. Do it or live under the hammer and cycle of Obama.
Aug 3, 2009 - 10:05 am 6. arhooley:>>Whether you decide to go with it or swim against it is entirely up to you.
Casting my vote for “Swim.”
Aug 3, 2009 - 10:23 am 7. John B:I agree with Pete D. Throw the bums put in 2010!!!!! Let’s keep our focus on state elections.
Aug 3, 2009 - 10:29 am 8. SteveB/Colorado:#5 Pete D.: on the surface, this sounds good, but is it really?
Particularly the comment: “…..work to get every Republican vote to the polls in 2010….” What sort of Republicans are we talking here? I’m a life long conservative Republican of the fiscal and somewhat libertarian persuasion. I absolutely abhor the so called social conservatives and their continuing attempts to cram their version of “that old time religion” down everyone’s throats; blurring the line between church and state; pushing their anti-abortion rhetoric; etc. and etc. I’m all in favor of family values, protecting kids, etc. But all the additional religious baggage is not welcome in my conservative Republican world.
Here in Colorado, in the party grassroots/rank & file, the religious conservatives have held sway for 20 years. Other conservatives have largely been pushed out or marginalized. Colorado is a so-called moderate state, which generally means either right or left extreme is not going to win elections. Which is why the Republican party has been decimated here in recent elections. For Republicans to return to power in Colorado, assuming no major Dem blunders, we need to get back to our traditional fiscally conservative and conservationist roots and send the religious groups back to their pulpits.
Aug 3, 2009 - 1:50 pm 9. smith:Please God let it be Sarah Palin.
So we can crush her and the GOP.
Aug 3, 2009 - 3:03 pm 10. sharonsj:Gee, I thought you meant 2012 the end of the Mayan calendar and possibly the end of the world as we know it. Funny how it may happen thanks to the depression, the tanking stock market, the outsourcing of jobs, wacko birthers, lack of health care, tent cities, devaluation of the dollar, choking debt, inflation, and–with any luck–revolution.
Aug 3, 2009 - 3:13 pm 11. AF_Vet:“Please God let it be Sarah Palin.
So we can crush her and the GOP.”
Keep dreaming…the way Obambi and the Dems are going, Capt. Kangaroo would win in a landslide.
Aug 3, 2009 - 4:39 pm 12. Войска ПВО:3. urbanleftbehind writes:
“Was the John Kreese reference actually from Karate Kid I or was it in the part of KK II..”
Actually, it was reference made by my wife (of Japanese descent) to the famous member of Monty Python and actor who played Basil Fawltey in Fawlty Towers.
Aug 3, 2009 - 4:59 pm 13. myth buster:I think we should ban Super Tuesday. No more than two contests per week, except in the territories. This allows campaigns time to build grassroots efforts on the ground, which takes the emphasis off of money and places it on the candidate and organization, where it belongs. Party insiders are right to fear a long primary, but not for the reason they tell us- a long primary doesn’t hurt the party’s chances in the general election as long as the contest is civil, but it does strip the power of party insiders who want to anoint the next candidate so they can retain their own power. If anything, a long primary keeps media attention on your candidates for months instead of settling into a summer lull. Most people don’t even pay attention until after the Olympics anyway, so who cares? Even if everybody spent like Mitt Romney, the coffers still will be refilled come September. It’s more important to have a good candidate than to avoid a crazy primary, even if it means a brokered convention.
Aug 3, 2009 - 5:11 pm 14. Adam Graham:In answer to the most pressing question on this thread, Karate Kid II was where Kreese made his statement.
Aug 3, 2009 - 5:16 pm 15. Roark:Romney is the worst possible GOP candidate. That hack gave MA his own state version of socialized medicine Romneycare. Also, during the last Presidential election Romney sounded like a fluffy piece of RINO garbage. If Obamacare becomes law and Romney were to be he next President, do you really think this pompous fake would repeal it??? Not a chance in hell. Romney IS the problem with the GOP; left leaning, spineless BSer’s. The USA needs real men of fortitude who can defend liberty unapologetically. Men like MIKE PENCE or BOB BARR.
Aug 4, 2009 - 9:35 am 16. Paul -Indiana:#12. BTW, sir, that’s Mr. Fawltey to you.
Aug 4, 2009 - 10:18 am 17. johnpeter:Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, and Mitt Romney have all led trial heats
Aug 5, 2009 - 4:12 am 18. Northern Light:It seems to me that people start predicting the next presidential contest the moment the current one has ended.
Of course from that vantage point, the contenders are usually people who were featured in the previous contest.
Did Dan Quayle ever run in a primary? How about Sgt. Shriver? Both of them were considered contenders after they had failed to be elected Vice-President (Actually, I think Shriver did run in 1976, but he was in single digits).
Of course it’s meat for a political junkie to consider elections so far off in the future, but it’s really silly and meaningless and the smarter junkies know it.
The correct time to start making serious specualtion is just before the Iowa caucuses. I remember in 2008 I had made my predictions just before Iowa and I was pretty sure that Hillary Clinton had what it took to defeat Mitt Romney. The only difference between me and thousands of other political junkies is I have the honesty to remember my past predictions.
Aug 6, 2009 - 8:29 am 19. AST:I’m not sure that Sarah Palin is interested in running for President, although everybody seems to assume that she’s like every other politician.
I think that Romney, Huckabee and Pawlenty are definitely going to run, but there could be someone out there that nobody’s really looked at yet. If there is, though, he/she’d better be organizing now.
I think that Huckabee would be divisive and that Romney would be opposed by the evangelicals in the party because Huckabee’s church has campaigned for 20 years claiming that Mormons aren’t Christians. Also, Romney supported the current health care scheme in Massachusetts which is prominent evidence that Obamacare will be a disaster. He might be able to distinguish his ideas from how MA-care has been run, but it’s a deep hole to climb out of. That being said, I don’t know of anyone else who has demonstrated the ability to reverse financial disasters that he has, but I’ll be surprised if he’s the candidate.
Nov 14, 2009 - 9:08 pm