Charlie Cook: Fatal Flaws For 2008 Front-Runners?

The two presumptive favorites for 2008 presidential nominations each face enormous challenges, according to the new Cook Political Report/RT Strategies national poll. Indeed, their problems are almost mirror opposites of each other.

For New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrats and Democratic primary voters nationwide are highly receptive to her strengths and downplay her weaknesses. But among independents the view is considerably cooler, and is downright cold among Republicans, raising real questions of electability.

On the other hand, if Arizona Sen. John McCain were as well regarded among Republicans and GOP primary voters as he is among independents and Democrats, he'd be a cinch to be his party's 2008 nominee.

The new Cook Political Report poll of 1,001 adults nationwide (margin of error +/- 3.1 percent) was conducted by RT Strategies, a newly established bipartisan corporate/public affairs polling firm headed by Thom Riehle, former president of Ipsos Public Affairs and a veteran of the Peter Hart and Patrick Caddell Democratic polling firms, and Lance Tarrance, who was one of the pioneering Republican pollsters in the 1970s and 1980s. Tarrance sold his firm 15 years ago and joined the board of the Gallup Organization and went to Beijing to set up Gallup China.

This is the first in a series of monthly collaborative surveys that the Cook Political Report and RT Strategies will conduct to look at political trends, with an eye toward the 2006 and 2008 elections.

This survey sought to anticipate and deliver both the positive and negative arguments to be made about both Clinton and McCain and to test the receptivity among both their fellow party members, particularly those likely to vote in primaries, and the general public and national general election electorate. Riehle and Tarrance argue that it is only when the "total package" of arguments, pro and con, is brought to the attention of voters that you can begin to anticipate the true shape of the challenges the candidates will face.

For McCain, when respondents were asked if they had "heard, seen or read anything about Sen. John McCain running for president in 2008," 50 percent of Americans said yes, while 48 percent said no. Among registered voters, it was 52 percent yes, 46 percent no, and among Republicans, 56 percent yes, 42 percent no. In sum, the awareness of McCain's likely candidacy among Republican voters is less than one might think.

Then respondents were read the following question: "Some people say that McCain would be a good candidate for president because he has demonstrated a great deal of personal integrity... he has a strong military background and he has independent political views; while other people say McCain would not be a good candidate for president because at age 72 (his age in the fall of 2008) he is too old to run for president, he is too stubborn in his issue positions and he does not always represent Republican views on the issues." (In both the McCain and Clinton statements, the orders of the pro and con statements were rotated and sequence of each statement randomized.) "Which of those two statements comes closer to your point of view on John McCain running for president in 2008?"

Among all adults, 48 percent were pro-McCain and 35 were anti-McCain. Among registered voters, 49 percent were pro McCain and 34 percent were anti-McCain. But among Republicans, just 41 percent agreed more with the pro-McCain statements, while 45 percent favored the anti-McCain arguments. Among Democrats, it was 47 percent pro-McCain, 32 percent anti-McCain. Among independents, a whopping 55 percent agreed with the pro-McCain option and 29 percent agreed with the anti-McCain option.

Among the Republicans and independents who say they usually vote in GOP primaries, it was better for McCain -- 48 percent agreed with the pro-McCain position, and 39 percent agreed with the anti-McCain position, though this may well overestimate the true participation rate of independents in party primaries and caucuses. Among hardcore Republican primary voters, he ran about even -- 45 percent pro-McCain, 43 percent anti-McCain. In short, McCain has a real problem among Republican voters who seem, in Tarrance's words, to be "ambivalent about whether he is a good Republican."

Thus McCain starts off with an impressive level of general election potential, particularly for someone who has never had his name on a ballot in the vast majority of states, if he can get his party's presidential nomination.

There are virtually no differences in attitudes toward McCain between men and women, but his strengths are with those in the middle-age groups between 35 and 64, among whites, and those living in either the Northeast or West. There is also a direct relationship between the level of educational attainment and receptivity toward pro-McCain arguments, with 59 percent of those with a college degree agreeing with them.

Among those who agreed with the pro-McCain package, 41 percent responded most favorably to the "independent views" argument, 30 percent to the "personal integrity" part and 19 percent thought most of McCain's military background. Among just Republicans, independence was obviously less valued, coming in second place with 34 percent, behind integrity at 35 percent and in front of military background at 20 percent. Among Republican primary voters, 38 percent cited independence, 28 percent chose integrity and 23 percent said his military background.

Among all those who chose the negative McCain statements, 35 percent cited the age argument, 32 percent the argument that he doesn't represent the Republican party's views and 24 percent the argument that he is too stubborn in his issue positions. But among the self-identified Republicans who chose the anti McCain case, 49 percent zeroed in on the "doesn't represent Republican views" objection, 23 percent "too old," and 21 percent "stubborn."

Among Republican primary voters, 44 percent objected that McCain "doesn't reflect Republican views," 27 percent said he was "too old", and 22 percent picked "stubborn." The bottom line is that McCain's strength is also his weakness: independence. Independent and Democratic voters love his maverick style, but Republicans see him as a renegade, someone whose ideology and issue positions can't be depended upon.

In sum, Riehle believes that McCain will falter if he appears too old and lacking in ideological (specifically partisan) fervor; his integrity and independence might cause his fellow partisans to look elsewhere for a nominee, regardless of his obvious appeal to the middle.

Sen. Clinton's problems, meanwhile, are the precise opposite of McCain's. She shows great strength inside the party, but receives a tepid-to-hostile reaction among independents and Republicans.

First, 76 percent of Americans and 79 percent of both registered voters and of all Democrats have heard, seen or read something about Clinton running for president in 2008, a truly amazing number for a first-time presidential candidate. Tarrance speculates that she might be the most anticipated presidential candidate since Gen. Dwight Eisenhower in 1951 and 1952.

Respondents were read the following statement: "Some people say Clinton would be a good candidate for president because she has White House experience in her husband's administration, as the first woman president she would bring in new ideas and she is personally a strong and charismatic leader; while other people say Clinton would not be a good candidate for president because she is too tied to all the problems of her husband's administration, she is too liberal to win a national election, she voted for the war in Iraq."

Among all adults, 42 percent chose the pro-Clinton option and 52 percent the anti-Clinton option. The numbers were almost identical among registered voters, with 42 percent choosing the pro-Clinton option and 51 percent the anti-Clinton option.

But as with McCain, the real story is in the party breakouts. A huge 66 percent of Democrats agreed with the pro-Clinton statement, with just 29 percent opting for the anti-Clinton package. But among independents, just 41 percent of independents chose the pro-Clinton case, with 51 percent favoring the anti-Clinton arguments. Not surprisingly, among Republicans, 76 percent opted for the anti-Clinton arguments and 18 percent opted for the pro-Clinton.

Among Democrats and those independents who usually vote in Democratic primaries, 60 percent chose the pro-Clinton package and 34 percent chose the anti-Clinton arguments, while among the hardcore Democratic primary voters, it was 65 percent pro-Clinton, 28 percent anti-Clinton. In Tarrance's eyes, Clinton has a "brand image problem." The negative brand of being "too liberal" is an enormous albatross around her neck among independents and Republicans.

Not surprisingly, there is a huge gender gap. Among all adults, women were virtually tied, 48 percent choosing the pro-Clinton case, 46 percent the anti-Clinton arguments. But among men, just 36 percent picked the pro-Clinton case, and 58 percent chose the anti-Clinton case. And the age differentials are interesting. Among those between 18 and 34 and those 50-64 (her age cohort, the older Baby Boomers), the pro- and anti Clinton cases are almost exactly even, but those 35-49 had 16 percentage points more anti-Clinton than pro, while among those 65 and older, they were 22 points more anti than pro.

In the Northeast, the pros outnumbered the cons by seven points, and in the West, the cons outpaced the pros by five points. In the Midwest and the South, the anti-Clinton arguments prevailed by 16 and 18 points respectively.

Among all those who felt the pro-Clinton arguments more closely reflected their thoughts, it was a close call, with 35 percent citing "strong and charismatic leader," 31 percent choosing "White House experience," and 24 percent (18 percent of men and 28 percent of women) opting for the "first woman/new ideas" argument. Among Democrats, 35 percent chose strong and charismatic leader, 32 percent picked White House experience, and 25 percent selected first woman/new ideas.

The strong and charismatic leader argument surges among both voters who usually vote in Democratic primaries and hardcore Democratic primary voters, 40 and 42 percent respectively, with experience at 28 percent among each group and first woman/new ideas at 24 percent in each.

Among all adults who chose the anti-Clinton case, 44 percent cited the "too liberal" argument, 32 percent picked "too tied to her husband's administration's problems" and just ten percent picked "her vote for war in Iraq". Among just Democrats, 30 percent each picked "tied to husband's problems" and "too liberal", while 20 percent chose the Iraq war vote. The war vote was less of a problem with independents, as just 13 percent chose that issue. Thirty-eight percent picked too liberal and 32 percent chose too tied to husband's problems. Among Republicans, it was 55 percent picking too liberal, 32 percent her husband's problems, and 3 percent war vote. If Clinton cannot shed the liberal tag, it's difficult to see how she can possibly win a general election.

Among Democratic primary voters, it was 33 percent husband's problems, 32 percent too liberal and 19 percent her Iraq war vote. Among hardcore Democratic primary voters, the numbers weren't too different: 34 percent chose too liberal, 28 percent picked tied to husband's problems and 15 percent said the Iraq war vote.

Riehle believes that Clinton operates at the extremes of politics -- she creates wide gaps between women and men, between Democrats and Republicans, between women with postgraduate degrees (increasingly a Democratic base group she energizes with her image of charismatic strength) and the young, religious conservative Republicans and independents, who loathe her.

The bottom line is that each party's presumptive front-runner faces an enormous challenge: Clinton has to find a way to connect with independent and at least a few Republican voters, while McCain has to bond with members of his own party. Each of their tasks are likely to meet strong resistance.

The logical next question is whether the issue of electability begins to erode Clinton's support inside her own party, and if it does not, whether McCain's argument that he is the only Republican who can defeat Clinton will be enough for him to prevail in the primaries.

Also if a Rice or Guiliani got elected President they would still be appointing federal & supreme court judges from a pool of candidates proposed (read vetted) by the GOP.

Like pro-abort Miers? We put our foot down or they would have stabbed us in the back again.

I have never understood the desire to let the 'perfect' be the enemy of 'good enough'. We got in this predicament incrementally and that is the only way we can successfully 'walk back the dog' !

I know these nostrums make liberal Republicans feel good but they're silly. Abortion-on-demand was introduced in one fell swoop. We'll get rid of it in largely the same way with perhaps a little intro music in a few cases. You can argue the merits of incrementalism on many issues but not on abortion. Or gay marriage.

If Rice or Guiliani are the Veep candidates then the 'religious rights' desire to sit out is even sillier !

No one, repeat, no one ever votes based on VP. At most, a VP can get you an extra 5% in their home state. If you're lucky.

If you are fervent in your antiabortion believes a Guilliani (or Rice) as President is at least going to allow you at the table to discuss your views.

If they are pro-abort and elected, they will move within one year to make the entire party apparatus pro-abortion. Just like the Dims. That's how it works.

Your place at the table will disappear the second the election is over.

BUT first you have to win or everything else is academic ! Of course one can whine & claim that you would be voting against your convictions. I say all you are doing is feeding your own ego,you would be basking in your own self-satified sense of moral superiority (Like liberals do !) BUT actually doing nothing concrete to advance your goals. (Again like many liberals do !) Sometimes one's convictions must take the long view and success doesn't have to occur in one's. lifetime. What is key is the direction that the cente-of-mass that the cultural takes and whether you are supporting candidates that keep the momentum going ! Self absorbed temper tantrums advance the enemies agenda not ours !

More bilge. See Encylopedia Brittanica under the entry Harriet Miers.

The Moonbat wing of the dummiecrats understand that key fact !

No they don't. And Republicans win across the board on many issues. Taxes, guns, defense and abortion. And those are all red-meat constitutiencies who won't back down. And the GOP still knows better than to challenge that in any serious way.

Let me break it gently: Guiliani and Rice will never be our candidates in '08. Nor will they be VP candidates. It would guarantee a GOP defeat.

Look at the pro-life run polls on pro-life sites mostly frequented by pro-life conservatives.

Consistently, Rice runs strongest. Consistently when Rice is out of the list, Rudy runs strongest. (When Rice is in the list, she takes most of Rudy's support plus significant support from every other candidate in the poll, including Brownback.)

The reality is that unlike the pro-abort faction most pro-lifers actually don't vote, especially in primaries (with Nov '94 the exception). The reality is that most voters, including more GOP primary voters are not single issue voters. They are pro-life. But it is not a litmus test for them. What is a litmus test for most voters is mean-spiritedness.

In 2002 IL primary pro-abortion Republican Woods was doing quite well in January, especially among the PTA moms (aka soccer moms). Then abortion extremists ran extremely strident pro-abortion TV ads. Immediately she lost half her support, especially from those PTA moms. she lost that support, not because of the position she took. But because her ads were so abrasive and rubbed people the wrong way.

The same was true of Keyes in 2004. A sympathetic reporter in Republican Bloomington IL asked Keyes "You were ambassador to the UN and have international experience. Tell us your views on Iraq and the international situation."

Keyes gave a hostile pro-life answer and did very poorly on election day.

The people on both extremes of the life issue do not realize that most people are neither truly pro nor anti-life. They want to avoid the issue, which makes them uncomfortable. They want to avoid any person who makes them uncomfortable in the way that he raises the issue.

Still hung up on Miers ! Amazing !

I view the Miers nomination as Bush rewarding a loyal hardworking supporter. Now tell me thats not done in politics ! Also there is a long history of putting supporters on the USSC. I am unconvinced putting some legal academic or long serving federal judge is any better then a long time supporter.Miers probably would have been a average to above average justice. (Though I think there were better candidates !)
I supported the Mier nomination on the principal of never showing weakness in front of the enemy ! Showing division was just plain stupid ! It boosted dumbocrat morale and gave them energy. When you have the enemy down stomp him !

Also Miers had corporate legal experience, which in the long run would probably be interesting to have a business-oriented legal view on the court. (It would unique to have someone on the USSC bench who doesn't think environmentalists are automatic saints & businessmen are automatically evil!) The only way we can pull out the hammer & smash Roe Vs Wade is when we get 55-60 ironclad votes in the Senate. We are not there by any means ! I don't think the electorate is there in their thinking to elect that majority. You cite polls, polls can prove anything if you ask the questions right & bias your sample. The only poll that matters is election day. Right now I don't see the proof of your statement about wide spread support. If such an electorate existed that was opposed to Rose vs Wade in the numbers you say exist, then why did we almost have to learn to say President Gore or even President Kerry. I still see us at the tipping point in regards to the electorate. (Yes in both 2000 & 2004 there was considerable Dumbocrat fraud !< However lets not blow it out of proportion. There are still many 'stateists' & 'rent-seekers' out there !) It will take time and be a processing of persuading the electorate.

But you can remain pure if you want and demand an all or nothing approach. I think if the GOP tries that we will lose all. We as a nation will then be worse off on all counts. However you will be pure & that is all thats matters.

I view the Miers nomination as Bush rewarding a loyal hardworking supporter. Now tell me thats not done in politics ! Also there is a long history of putting supporters on the USSC.

True enough. But the Left has placed very persuasive scholars on that Court and stacked so many precedents that wee cannot afford to place another weak-minded justice within their reach (Souter, Kennedy). If we succeed in remaking the Court, it will again become routine for presidents to place cronies on the Court if they are not from their home state.

When you have the enemy down stomp him !

We did. And unless she serves as an unswerving originalist judge on the federal bench first, we won't have to worry about her again. In fact, I think Miers should be appointed to the federal bench. I'd be happy to write my senators.

(It would unique to have someone on the USSC bench who doesn't think environmentalists are automatic saints & businessmen are automatically evil!)

I assume you mean the enviro-wacko business-hating justices like Rehnquist, Thomas, Scalia, Roberts and Alito?

The only way we can pull out the hammer & smash Roe Vs Wade is when we get 55-60 ironclad votes in the Senate.

We will get Alito after the Left fleeces its supporters of some cash. (That's a good thing in an election year.) And after we get one more justice, we won't have to worry.

But you can remain pure if you want and demand an all or nothing approach.

If they insist on a pro-abortion candidate, they know what a lot of their voters will do. Stay home. Or deliberately vote for a Dim to ensure that the GOP cannot win by stabbing them in the back by going pro-choice after leading us down the garden path for so many years. A pro-abortion nominee is one of the very few things that could make me personally consider voting for a Dim to deliberately defeat the pro-abortion GOP candidate. Where I live, Dims simply cannot be elected as true pro-choicers. And that's why. The only Dim elected statewide in the last decade was one who sponsored parental notification legislation and was soft on supporting abortion rights. And he's still on shaky ground and isn't trusted much.

I believe the GOP knows far better than you (or I) how to count pro-life votes. They would have dumped the pro-lifers long ago if it didn't mean an absolute disaster at the ballot box. I entertain no delusions that the GOP is loyal to any of its supporters. They aren't even particularly loyal to their big business interests who complain that they won't stay bought on a particular issue.

I think there are millions of very hard-nosed pro-lifers out there. You can go vote for any pro-abortion candidates you like. But I don't think you'll like the results: President Hillary.

The party's platform is pro-life. It would have to be changed to allow a pro-abortion candidate for president. That's when you'd see many portions of the party disintegrate.

I only insist on fielding & supporting winning candidates. I am unconvinced there is any evidence their is enough pro-life support at the national level to do anymore then another coin-flip (ergo 2000 & 2004).

You get a pro-abortion Republican and you can kiss many states goodbye. The pro-lifers will not vote for a pro-abortion president. So you'd better figure out where you get your replacement voters. Hint: you won't get any from the hardcore Dim constituencies (blacks, Jews, eastern liberal types). And the independents will not necessarily respond to either position, being mostly like you, someone who doesn't care about abortion that much either way.

In the midst of the war on terror and don't think we can afford another 'national walk-about-in-dream-land' with another democrat administration.

We're already there. The ports are unguarded, the southern border wide open. Until very recently, those who swore to defend the Republic refused to even consider closing the border and finding out who is here and expelling the illegals, preferring instead to lecture us on the Sacred Rule Of Law and pass law after law to monitor everyone and destroy the last vestiges of genuine privacy.

The potential for another terror attack increases since I guarantee that a democrat administration will be all conciliation & kisses. National security will go back to be something to be 'snickered' when mentioned by the democrat administration beautiful people.

Forty million dead children. But you prefer to worry about a mere 3,000. You would have to wipe out the entire state of California and all its residents to equal the number of children this country has already killed.

I live in flyover country. So I don't lose any sleep over your dreaded terror attack. The liberal states are the prime targets, after all. A terror attack might actually improve their voting habits and prod our glorious leaders to take effective action. I consider that the vast expansion of federalism, the LBJ-style spending, the destruction of Christian values, infanticide, sodomy marriage, empire building, globalism, political correctness, crimes and the hidden costs of the invasion of illegal aliens, etc. to be far graver threats than a mere terror attack.

You're deluded if you think anyone is actually protecting you from terrorism in any significant way. There are plenty of remedies to the problems if there was any interest. But the ruling classes aren't interested.

Again you didn't read my post !
I am simply saying that allowing a dumbocrat administration to be elected because you won't support Guillani or a Rice on the ticket is destructive in the long run to the values you claim to be for. I will say it again even though I doubt you will read it. (you had two previous tries!) I am pro-life BUT the goal will only be met in the long-run. Demanding instant gratification of those goals will mean they will never be reached. I argue that you are actually pro-choice since the result of your approach will be the same as those who are pro-choice.

Also about the statement that you live in fly-over country therefore you are safe. Yes you are safe for now. Put in a democrat administration & that will change. Regarding the ports & borders, the ports aren't as wide open as you think. The borders are still a problem. The problem there is too many GOP supporters & democrat supporters benefit from the cheap illegal labor. I think the tide in attitude is turning there. How will a democrat administration effect that, do you really believe a Hillary administration will improve that? Democrats need a restive underclass to feed tax dollars to and derive power from. So I don't see a border solution from a democrat administration. With enough pressure we will get one from the GOP continuing to control the executive branch. The executive makes policy, & enforces it. Thats why maintaining control of the legislative branch is not enough.
In your previous post, you seem to insinuate that the 'War on Terror' is some sort of PR ploy for beltway types. At best a minor irritation to fly-over country' but not a real war. True it doesn't map well to past modern wars, thats because there has not been a draft, an effort to go on a war industrial footing, etc. Also there has not been a Wake Island, Fall of the Phillipines, Java Sea, & Kasserine Pass, that is a series of military disasters to keep attention focused on the task. Just like WW2 was a war different from previous wars this war is radically different from all previous wars. Currently its not a war of massed armies, mass production, or one of attrition (Trading your soldiers lives for those of the enemy, hopefully they run out first ! Think Grant in the Wilderness,the Russian Front in WW2 & the Allied strategy in Europe. It works if you have more men & material!) This is a war of intelligence, small unit actions by highly trained special troops, also one of patience. Do you really think that a democrat administration will pursue such a strategy? Democrats think its all law enforcement (I think democrats think actual law enforcement functions like CSI or Law & Order. Sometimes I think the whole nation watches too much TV and hence thinks everything is solvable in 45 minutes!) Back to the subject at hand, law enforcement has a role in the WOT, but a subordinate role. Will a democrat administration strengthen tools for fighting WOT or weaken them. I think the answer is obvious. I don't like to think about this next statement because its too cold-blooded for my tastes, but maybe another successful terrorist attack is necessary to refocus attention.(Also military disasters clear out the 'Colonel Blimps' both on the military & civilian level. Our sucesses in the WOT hasn't allowed that to happen!) I am amazed we haven't had another significant attack. Simply on the basis of human nature[meaning humans no matter how well intended eventually make mistakes], odds [terrorist.. try enough times eventually there will be a success). I think the Iraq conflict is one of the reasons we haven't seen one. It draws the Islamofascists there to be killed by the military. I would much rather have terrorists challenging our military then our local police. A democrat administration will claim that terror is a diplomatic (meaning bleating at the UN) and a law enforcement problem. Has the Bush administration been perfect in the strategy or its execution on WOT? No far from it ! However no major attacks on our soil (so far!)a foreign policy that is has gotten Muslim nations on board to fight it also. (Some are fully on board, some fitfully, some superficially but the momentum is in the right direction!) What would a democrat administration do? Again the answer is obvious.
Also another period of 'national weakness' will embolden others, for example China ! A conflict with China will start out subtle and could easily ratchet up to a familiar conflict of massed armies. Again would a democrat administration prepare the nation for that conflict? Again and obvious answer !

{Democrats = National Weakness ! Its not even arguable ! It
almost mathematical in its accuracy!)

Again staying home on election day just to make a anti-abotion point about the ticket will not only make sure your goals are never met it will send the US further down the road to national collapse, strategically, militarily, economically as well as morally. A short term point in order to have some smug sense of moral self-satisfaction will not meet any of the desired goals.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.