Do four in 10 Republicans really find McCain unacceptable?

I think there’s something wrong with this new Gallup poll.

A new [tag]Gallup[/tag] [tag]poll[/tag] asking Americans theirs views of 25 leading candidates for president in 2008 found that one of the Republican frontrunners, Sen. [tag]John McCain[/tag], is judged “[tag]unacceptable[/tag]” by 41% of those in his own party.

A bare majority, 55%, find him “[tag]acceptable[/tag].” In contrast, 73% of Republicans give their okay to rival Rudy [tag]Giuliani[/tag]. Condoleezza [tag]Rice[/tag] got the thumb’s up from 68%.

Most of the opposition to McCain comes from conservatives, possibly explaining his moves in that direction lately.

A lot of people are picking up on this poll because of the surprisingly strong opposition McCain seems to be facing from Republicans. And, to be sure, if 41% of Republicans have already decided that McCain is “unacceptable,” before campaigning even begins, that would be pretty interesting.

But a closer look at the numbers suggests a whole lot of people, on both sides of the aisle, have already made up their minds about a lot of candidates. So much so that the poll itself doesn’t make a lot of sense.

In theory, I think the idea behind the poll is a good one. Regardless of whether a candidate is a voter’s personal favorite, asking whether he or she is “acceptable” gauges a broader level of interest. As Gallup’s press release explained, “Unlike other nomination ballot questions that measure respondents’ first choice from among a list of possible candidates, this question paints a broader picture of the level of potential support and opposition for each candidate.”

That sounds like a good idea. The problem is, according to Gallup’s poll, most people have already ruled out most candidates, including a series of candidates with whom they are likely unfamiliar.

Look at the Republicans, for example. According to Gallup, more than 40% of GOP voters have already decided that McCain (41%), Gingrich (50%), Jeb Bush (52%), Frist (42%), Cheney (61%), Pataki (51%), Romney (42%), Huckabee (40%), and Brownback (43%) are all “unacceptable.”

On the other side of the aisle, more than 40% of Dems have already decided that Kerry (40%), Clark (49%), Dean (54%), Daschle (50%), Feingold (41%), Warner (42%), Kucinich (51%), and Vilsack (47%) are also all “unacceptable.”

That hardly seems possible. I’d love to believe that so many people are so engaged in the 2008 election that they’ve already started making up their minds about who is and isn’t the kind of candidate they could consider supporting, but a lot of these candidates’ names are hardly recognizable to the typical voter. I suspect most rank-and-file Republicans barely know who Mike Huckabee is, so how could 40% of them already know that he’s “unacceptable”? Mark Warner is just starting to register in name ID surveys, and already 42% of Dems have decided he’s not an acceptable candidate?

It’s an interesting idea for a poll, but I’m not buying it.

I agree. Sounds to me like maybe all these people thought they might win some money for taking the poll, so they just slapped answers on the page without even knowing the people being asked about.

  • In an era of electability-driven thinking during nomination processes, it is quite possible that many taking the poll heard a name like Huckabee or Warner and thought “hmm, I don’t recognize that name as well as the other names, so if they are that unknown, they probably can’t win. that’s unacceptable to me.”

    It would be interesting to see a pure Name ID poll and how the numbers compare. IT does not appear they did name ID simultaneously with their “acceptability” question.

    I think at this early point, the theory behind this polling question is suspect. Sadly, the results will get big play and risk becoming self-fulfilling.

  • That’s really surprising. I would have thought that for example Mark Warner, who did a great job in Virginia, would have more support…

    Perhaps things will change come campaign time.

  • I wonder how many of those polled listed all but their first choice as unacceptable. The election is so far off, that it’s tough to take seriously. So why not game it and run up negatives on all but your preferred candidate?

  • Without following the Gallup link, I have two questions:

    1) What do independents say?

    2) Where’s Hillary in this Gallup survey?

  • The question was

    Next, I’m going to read you a list of people who may run for the Republican nomination for president in 2008. For each, please tell me if you would find that person to be an acceptable nominee for president from the Republican Party, or not.

    If you’ve never heard of the guy, you’re not likely to say “acceptable,” are you?

    It would have been more useful to add a question about familiarity, or to rate acceptability on a scale with Don’t Know as an option.

  • I think Zeitgeist and Scott have it right, except that “No opinion” was an option. Electability may be a big question in people’s mind, which would make only the “Acceptable” part of the survey interesting.

    it also seems possible, since the survey gave each person’s current job title, that people were basing their judgment on prominence in some cases (e.g., governor of Florida trumps governor of Arkansas) without knowing who the candidate was.

  • “2) Where’s Hillary in this Gallup survey? ” – slip

    She’s at 69% favorable, 29% unfavorable.

    So much for unelectability.

  • I think it’s far too early to call these polls reliable. I’m guessing that most Republicans are going to have a change of heart on Guiliani when they learn about his stance on issues like gay marriage and gun control.

  • You know, while I believe the numbers for the Republican’ts, I do find the numbers for the Democrats suspect. I suspose that means the numbers for the Republican’ts are suspect too.

    But for McCain, it just proves that the Republican’t base does not do nuance. They are told that McCain is bad because of McCain/Feingold restricting NRA’s free speech, and they don’t look past that.

    Which is fine by me, McCain is scarily conservative. I have no desire to see him president.

  • Actually, it wouldn’t surprise me. There are a lot of Republicans who still mistrust McCain based on all the mud slung at him in 2000. The Giuliani number seems unrealistic, though I heard someone posit on TV that most Republican voters are unaware of his pro-choice, pro-gay rights and pro-gun control stances — though that would certainly change in a primary situtation.

  • I think it’s inaccurate to describe the survey participants as “voters”. It looks like they’re just random people over 18, with no consideration of whether they’re likely voters, registered voters, or have ever voted before.

  • Lance, McCain-Feingold didn’t just restrict the NRA’s free speech, it restricted everybody’s free speech. No third party of any politcial persuasion can air an ad endorsing any candidate or attacking any candidate within sixty days of a federal general election. Unless, of course, they’re doing it through a 527.

    It also attempted to muzzle politically-oriented blogs as well. Like this one. When the FEC initially declined to include blogs in their rules, McCain took the FEC to court. Which is why we were treated to the surreal vision of Mike Krempasky of RedState.org and Markos Moulitsas Zuniga of dailyKos joining forces to support federal legislation to exempt blogs from McCain-Feingold. Legislation, that to my knowledge, hasn’t passed yet. And if McCain is elected president in ’08 and that legislation still hasn’t passed…well, you do the math.

  • It’s the heat, everyone hates everyone right now.
    I think ruling out someone you don’t know makes sence. You want a prez that has been around and you know about him before his prez grooming. I think it why Kerry didn’t do well and it’s why I think Gore would win this time around, but not the only reason.

  • “Lance, McCain-Feingold didn’t just restrict the NRA’s free speech, it restricted everybody’s free speech.” – fatman

    Yes, but the Republican’t base doesn’t give a damn if I’m not able to practice my free speech rights.

  • Comments are closed.