Hey, remember yesterday’s post about Newt’s high unfavorability ratings? Byron York points out that, as of this morning, the point may be moot:
In a survey conducted January 18-22, the Washington Post found that Gingrich’s favorable-to-unfavorable rating among all voters is 29-to-51 percent. Romney’s is 31-to-49 percent . . .
Among independents, Romney has a 23-to-51 favorable-to-unfavorable rating. Gingrich’s is 23-to-53.
Among Republicans, Romney has a 58-to-32 favorable-to-unfavorable rating. Gingrich’s is 55-to-34 percent.
The paper says that President Obama’s favorable ratings have increased recently and stand at 53 percent among all Americans, and 51 percent among independents.
A couple of readers have pointed to the example of President Nixon as a figure who was not widely liked but who won national races several times. But it’s not 1972 anymore. Can we argue that any figure since then won a presidential race while being disliked? Did any of our elected presidents win while having low favorables and high unfavorables?
Last year Brendan Nyhan pointed out:
In January 1979, Ronald Reagan’s poll ratings were 38% favorable/39% unfavorable in a Cambridge Reports survey (compared to 46%/43% for Carter) but he ended up sweeping the Electoral College in 1980 as a result of the terrible economy.
What seems rather astounding is that Reagan — sunny, funny, principled, but never harsh Reagan! — could have such a mediocre split in his numbers on favorability.
On the one hand, no criticism of Romney or Gingrich that we’ve heard this primary season was going to go unmentioned in a general-election fight against Obama. But one can’t help but look at the way this primary has developed — with candidates using every resource they have to spotlight the other’s flaws, for weeks on end, to as broad an audience as possible — as a formula to drive down their favorable numbers with the electorate at large.
Jim,
Isn't a bit premature to draw such a conclusion from one poll? Looking at both men and their histories, it is pretty obvious who is likely to keep high unfavorable ratings and who is likely to rebound.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI agree. Gingrich will rebound as soon as he is a nominee.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHonestly. All we are told for the last six years is that Romney is the best guy because middle-ers dislike him the least. Not described as a winner, but as a non-looser. Sometimes called the most conservative, sometimes appropriately moderate, but never really pinned down. Just defiend by what his campaing says he is. But Gingrich is bad here because he has caused Romney to have high negatives. And Gingrich is sometimes called too conservative to be the candidate, then too liberal, that he is trying to define himself by saying things he will do. Nope, we are supposed to judge him by his record, which we are told is flip floppy, too conservative, too liberal. No pass given when he was in the House sparring with the liberal Clinton admin trying to barter to get a balanced budget and welfare reform. Newt should have stayed to true conservative principles. But can't say that about Romney because Romney was only flexible in his conservatism because he had to navigate a liberal state legislature. Gotta give him a pass on Romney care, etc...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI like Newt because he can think for himself, and he is realistically conservative. Changes his mind, isn't programmed, sometimes self serving, and sometimes selfless. I have no idea who Romney is.
"What seems rather astounding is that Reagan – sunny, funny, principled but never harsh Reagan! – could have such a mediocre split in his numbers on favorability."
Not astounding at all, if you remember those days. CBS, NBC and ABC ruled the news roost, and nary a day went by when Cronkite/Rather, Tom Brokaw and Frank Reynolds didn't spend a significant portion of their broadcast talking about how Reagan was a senile lunatic cowboy who wanted to blow up the planet and eat poor people--not necessarily in that order. And that doesn't even count further pummeling from Time, Newsweek and the AP wire... you know, back when those organizations actually had influence.
Reagan didn't really break through until the single debate with Carter, followed by his oft-forgotten election-eve 30-minute special. Reagan bought time on every network and talked calmly to the electorate, which realized, "Hey, this guy isn't nuts; in fact, he's a lot more normal than Mr. Peanut."
The next day, much to the dismay of the media, he swept the country.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExactly right. Reagan was so reviled by the press and the Dems that one of my co-workers, usually an okay person, was glad when he got shot.
Also, Reagan was not always sunny or easy going. He could be harsh when he needed to be. It's what made him a good governor and a good president in hard times.
"Answering a question about New Left campus tactics before a meeting of the California Council of Growers in Yosemite, Reagan said: 'If it takes a bloodbath, let's get it over with. No more appeasement.' Liberals howled with indignation. Assembly speaker Jesse Unruh, Reagan's opponent for re-election that fall, said that Reagan 'had forfeited any right to hold public office.' Other complained that Reagan was actually inciting violence on campus. Even Reagan's friends at National Review worried that 'the potential for political disaster here is huge.'" (Steven F. Hayward, The Age of Reagan: 1964-1980, p. 323-324)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFunny thing about the article you referenced is the two guys with the best approval ratings were losers:
George H.W. Bush (80% favorable, 19% unfavorable in a July 1991 ABC poll) vs. Bill Clinton (15%/12%) [April 1991]
Bob Dole (73%/19%) [in February 1995] vs. a March 1995 Gallup poll put President Clinton's ratings at 51% favorable/45% unfavorable
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse