AP Poll Says “None Of The Above” Most Popular Republican Candidate
There’s a new campaign challenger in the Republican 2008 Presidential nomination sweepstakes — a new candidate who’s taking a new poll by storm.
So far he/she has no negatives.
Or positives.
Or anything.
Except that this candidate isn’t one of the ones running — or likely to be on the ballot.
After months of an exhaustive pre-primary campaign, an AP Poll says, Republicans are increasingly preferring a candidate/noncandidate named “none of the above”:
The latest Associated Press-Ipsos poll found that nearly a quarter of Republicans are unwilling to back top-tier hopefuls Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, John McCain or Mitt Romney, and no one candidate has emerged as the clear front-runner among Christian evangelicals. Such dissatisfaction underscores the volatility of the 2008 GOP nomination fight.
In sharp contrast, the Democratic race remains static, with Hillary Rodham Clinton holding a sizable lead over Barack Obama. The New York senator, who is white, also outpaces her Illinois counterpart, who is black, among black and Hispanic Democrats, according to a combined sample of two months of polls.
A half year before voting begins, the survey shows the White House race is far more wide open on the Republican side than on the Democratic. The uneven enthusiasm about the fields also is reflected in fundraising in which Democrats outraised Republicans $80 million to $50 million from April through June, continuing a trend from the year’s first three months
.
In other words, in sheer terms of candidate resources the GOP had better find an exciting candidate soon that can raise the Big Bucks.
None of the Above may excite Republican voters, but that candidate will likely rake in None Of The Dough Needed To Win against a big Democratic bankroll. MORE:
“Democrats are reasonably comfortable with the range of choices. The Democratic attitude is that three or four of these guys would be fine,” said David Redlawsk, a University of Iowa political scientist. “The Republicans don’t have that; particularly among the conservatives there’s a real split. They just don’t see candidates who reflect their interests and who they also view as viable.”
More Republicans have become apathetic about their top options over the past month.
A hefty 23 percent can’t or won’t say which candidate they would back, a jump from the 14 percent who took a pass in June.
Giuliani’s popularity continued to decline steadily as he faced a spate of headline headaches, came under increased scrutiny and saw the potential entry of Thompson in the mix; his support is at 21 percent compared with 27 percent in June and 35 percent in March.
And Thompson? The Law & Order actor didn’t hold his July 4th announcement as planned and now talk is that he’ll wait until September to do it.
Part of the reason is that while Thompson doesn’t announce, he falls into the “none of the above” category in realistic terms. Once he announces, he IS one of the above and the empty slate upon which many conservatives are defining him will be partially erased as his political foes and Democrats draw their own verbal pictures of him.
But the dynamics of a race can change rapidly. One of the present candidates can pull out of the pack. Thompson could have foot-in-mouth disease once he gets in and lose support. And perhaps someone who isn’t yet in the race will jump in — but there is no person being mentioned…yet.
The bottom line is: it doesn’t seem as if any GOP candidates have come close to closing the deal with voters.
Except None of the Above.
14 Responses to “AP Poll Says “None Of The Above” Most Popular Republican Candidate”
[...] Clark Link to Article mitt romney AP Poll Says “None Of The Above†Most Popular Republican Candidate [...]
People are beginning to sense that the Republican Party is in the middle of a total collapse and thus do not feel like investing with a loser.
Also, the attacks from the left have been very effective. It seems that the moveon.org types have adopted the Gray Davis strategy of attacking your future Republican opponents instead of concentrating on the Democratic Primary. Such thinking ensures that Senator Clinton will be the nominee since the Democratic Party does not seem to want to have a serious discussion about the differences among the candidates. It seems that Democrats would rather discuss the bust size of Fred Thompson’s wife rather than the leadership or management abilities of any of their candidates.
It is quite possible that the next president will be know before the end of the February primaries and the U.S. will have 11 months between the real deciding elections and the inaugural.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Anyone recall the haircut megacontroversy?
Since the First Lady is a symbol of American leadership, don’t we have a right to envision the candidates wives in that role?
Its not Jeri Thompson’s bust size that surprised people, but the way she dresses- emphasizing the age difference between her and ol’ Fred.
There really is no justification for attacking a potential president’s wife and family unless said wife and family eat babies. Without ketchup.
None of the above, though…I laugh.
Are personal actions that are in direct opposition of a candidates stated political beliefs alway pertinent? How can a candidates campaigning on a two Americans, let’s help the poor, executive pay is too high justify a $400 haircut or a mansion, or private schools or paying for his daughter’s co-op in NYC?
Of course there has been no discussion of Senator Obama’s high paying job and her continuing to work while her husband as a full time politician.
Several right wing bloggers and politico.com have pointed out that Edwards is supporting a return to forced busing. Why is that not more important that the designers that Jeri Thompson is wearing?
SD,
Being rich and helping the poor are too entirely different things.
Glenn Greenwald said it best:
I’m in the camp that suggests that once you become a presidential candidate you have to expect much closer scrutiny on everything and everyone around you. Is it nice? No. But that’s how campaigns are run. If you don’t want that kind of scrutiny, don’t become a public figure. That’s also true in the Vitter case-where the Senator is now calling his dalliance with prostitutes a private matter. That would be true if he were to resign and go back into the private sector, but as long as he is in the public realm, his transgressions are fair game.
SD All of the presidential candidates are extremely rich – with the exception of Gravel, Paul and Kucinich. Does that mean that none of them have the right to try to help the poor?
Beyond what kim said, his wife has been a political operative for years.
A rich guy who calls for much higher taxes and thus a lower of the standard of living of the middle class is a rank hypocrite and yes I know the meaning of the term.
Edward’s proposals of free health care and free college for all are the worst kind of vote buying and he is using other people’s money to pay the bill. If he really cared about the poor he could live in a modest house and donate his money to charities. However, Edwards decided to use a charity to support his traveling around the U.S. and even put his daughter on the board so that her lousy paying intern job in NYC (before she went to Harvard) could be paid for by others.
It is the same where he propose to bus middle class children into the ghetto for the benefit of Democratic voting blacks while his own children attended private schools when he lived in DC.
SD all government programs are ‘other peoples money’. It boils down to do we as taxpayers want service x for cost y is all. There is not neccessarily a connection between having wealth, using it, wanting programs to help the poor and being a hypocrite that I see. Nor does concern for the poor mean you have to live like your are. Kudos if you do, but no skin if not…
Now should education and healthcare be free or more highly subsudized? Dunno, I know health care/insurance is broken. Then again medicare/aid is pretty bad too.
Free education would let alot of people attend that otherwise would not. But would also lower thier desire to actually achieve anything. Personally, I favor the pay for it approach here. But then again, in Ohio they keep cutting funding for higher education which causes recurring rate increases that are starting to push college out of the reach of lower class incomes, so I can see his point.
sd,
Where did John Edwards promise to raise taxes for the middle class?
Do you suggest the poor count solely on philanthropy for education and health care?
Really? That’s not been my experience though I’ve never used either program.
But my Mom recently had surgery under Medicare and her supplemental insurance. Performed at probably the finest cancer facility in the word by fantastic staff.
And not out of pocket a dime despite a very reasonably priced supplemental policy.
No surprise whatsoever. The GOP field for 2008 may under-achieve the “Seven Dwarfs” lineup by the Democrats during the early part of the 1992 Presidential campaign.