Favorable Ratings For Leading Republicans

by: Chris Bowers

Mon May 18, 2009 at 19:00


Here is a simple answer to a simple question: of course Dick Cheney staying in the spotlight is a big negative for Republicans. Polling over the last month on Cheney shows that he is viewed two to three times as unfavorably as he is viewed favorably. It is never a benefit for a political party that your most visible, or even one of your most visible, spokespeople is viewed unfavorably by two to three times as many people as s/he is viewed favorably.

However, here is a more difficult question: if not Cheney, then who should be a leading figure for Republicans? It turns out that most visible Republicans have negative favorable ratings. There are however, some exceptions. In the extended entry, here is a list of the favorable / unfavorable ratings of national Republican figures looking at polling from the previous twelve months.

Republican Favorable Ratings
Republican Net Favorable # Polls
Laura Bush +54% 3
Condoleezza Rice +29% 1
John McCain* +18% 4
Cindy McCain +17% 6
Tim Pawlenty +5% 1
Rudy Guiliani +4% 2
Sarah Palin* +2% 5
Mike Huckabee** +1% 4
Bobby Jindal +1% 2
Mitt Romney** -11% 3
Mitch McConnell -16% 2
Rush Limbaugh -18% 4
Karl Rove*** -19% 2
John Boehner -21% 2
Newt Gingrich*** -23% 2
Dick Cheney -27% 5
George W. Bush* -29% 6
* = Post-2008 election
**  = Polling from January-February 2008
*** = Polling from early 2007

More on these numbers in the extended entry.

Chris Bowers :: Favorable Ratings For Leading Republicans
Here is what I see in these numbers:

  1. Cheney, Gingrich, Limbaugh, Romney and Rove are terrible spokespeople for Republicans. The GOP would do well to hide them all as much as possible.

  2. Boehner and McConnell don't poll any better than the five listed above. However, that would almost certainly be the case for anyone who took over the Republican Congressional leadership right now. Just being a Republican congressional leader is enough to push down your poll numbers, almost no matter who you are.

  3. Condoleezza Rice is obviously who Republicans should make their leading media figure on all matters foreign policy and national defense. No one else with perceived expertise in these areas remotely compares to her poll numbers

  4. McCain / Palin really was just about the best ticket Republicans could have put forward in 2008. McCain / Pawlenty would probably have been about the same, while McCain-Rice would obviously have been superior. However, Rice made it clear on numerous occasions that she was not interested.

  5. Republican women in general poll noticeably better than Republican men.

  6. Unless either Rice runs, or a lesser known candidate emerges, in 2012 the only viable presidential candidates on this list are Pawlenty, Palin and Huckabee.  Mitt Romney will never be President, as his favorable rating is consistently in negative territory. Bobby Jindal isn't running, and Giuliani is clearly an utterly inadequate campaigner.
Not a lot of good options for Republicans.

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Rape And Pillage! (4.00 / 1)
Not a lot of good options for Republicans.

You're forgetting the Visigoth option.

The one they've obviously already chosen.  Pelosi must step down for saying bad things about the CIA.  Long before 2012, Obama must step down for saying nice things about Nancy Pelosi.

Otherwise, the Democrats are destroying America with their divisive ways.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


Those favorability numbers would be even lower... (4.00 / 3)

 ...if you factored Capitol Hill Democrats out of the surveys.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

nice. (0.00 / 0)
also, looking at the top of the list, maybe there is hope for a bush/mccain 2012 ticket.  

[ Parent ]
It's interesting ... (4.00 / 1)
that the Republican numbers would be lower for people like Jindal .. and even McCain ... but they are never attacked in the TradMed like Pelosi is .. hell .. Bonehead and McConnell are never attacked the way she is

it's because we are a center-right nation of course.... (4.00 / 2)
oh wait.  

[ Parent ]
The least insane (4.00 / 4)
Keep in mind you're talking about "the only viable presidential candidates ON THIS LIST".  The GOP nominated McCain because he seemed the least insane, least irresponsible of the GOP candidates.  (Which, considering McCain, really says something about his opponents.)  That Rice - who seems less insane and less irresponsible by contrast with the others - is doing so well in the polls supports this.  

The problem with Rice as a candidate, even if she chose to run, is that Blacks don't vote for Republicans, and Republicans don't vote for Blacks.  This is why there are no Black Republicans in either house of Congress.

The most formidable Republican candidate will be the one who can look like a sober (or at least less drunk) person among drunks.  Huntsman could have done this well, but he's out of the picture now.  The best placed now to do it: Charlie Crist, who is wildly popular in his own state (and who isn't on your list).


Except ... (4.00 / 3)
Crist isn't so wildly popular with the Republican base in his state anymore

[ Parent ]
Then why (4.00 / 2)
does the MSM (and bloggers) continue to portray Republicans as a formidable opposition party? Not only are they rudderless in terms of leadership, but they have a steadily eroding base, according to Gallop:
"The only bright spots for the GOP are three base groups: Frequent churchgoers, with no decrease at all; conservatives, with only a one-point decrease; and voters 65 years of age or older, with a one-point decrease."
(h/t TPM)
In other words, their main demographic base is diminishing at a time when their leadership is eroding. Yet we continue to hear about the need for nonpartisan compromise.


Save Our Schools! March & National Call to Action, July 28-31, 2011 in Washington, DC: http://www.saveourschoolsmarch...

Corporate masters (0.00 / 0)
The MSM has two reasons to play up Republican strength.  The first reason is that it creates a permanent horse race story between two seemingly equal or at least plausible rivals.  If the public really knew what was going on, the Republicans would win many local elections but would not be a contender at the national level.  One sided elections are deemed boring ratings disasters, thus the underdog often gets played up.

More importantly, the big networks are now corporate and serve corporate masters.  When Jack Welch tells Brian Williams that GE wants Republicans to win' that is bad .  When Sumner Redstone makes a similar statement about CBS at pretty much the same time; that is worse.  When the third broadcast network (ABC) is being pressed by Republican censorship concerns and the fourth (Fox) is already in the Republicans pockets we have a real problem. (This was in 2004)

Welch in particular made it clear.  NBC was a propaganda outlet (as was MSNBC).  GE Capital and GE military sales were driving the behemoth.  Welch is gone and subsequent management is more even handed but the neeeds of the advertisers and corporate overlords take precedence over the needs of classic journalism or the public at large.

At one time, CBS, NBC, and ABC depended more on their own earnings and for the most part lacked corporate overlords.  The Fairness Doctrine kept things in check.  We have gone a long way the wrong way just to stuff Rupert Murdoch and Jack Welch's pockets.


[ Parent ]
Its their job (0.00 / 0)


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
Condi's popularity: dangerous, scary (4.00 / 3)
She's favorably viewed by so many, yet scratch the surface and you have G.W. Bush's soul mate, an evangelist for "democracy" via Army and Air Force, a true believer in torture, an academic who was already sold out when she was first appointed but went much further over to the dark side when she decided to sell the Iraq war by any means necessary.

All this is well enough known--and I have to believe her liabilities will start hurting her more if she is ever put forward for high office--but it's still a bit worrisome.  (At least McCain gets his favorables because he has, intermittently over his career, shown independence and conscience.)


Secretaries of State tend to look good (4.00 / 2)
Even when their bosses are jackasses. They seem sober, serious, above the fray, looking out for the US, meeting with foreign leaders, without having to get into the mud. Why do think Hillary took the job?

[ Parent ]
Mostly because she's kept her head down (0.00 / 0)
since 2004.  I doubt she'll ever run for political office. I'm sure she's doing quite well financially and seems more likely to find a quiet place and try to forget about the past.

Personally, I'd rather that she spent her time and fortunes defending herself at trial(s), but I'm not holding my breath.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
Again, all they have to do is wait (4.00 / 2)
the Dems are doing absolutely nothing to address any of the underlying problems in the economic system. The hard Right of the country is going through a purge, which on the surface seems insane, but I believe they are making a shrewd, calculated move that when Obama fails, the hard Right will be all that's left standing of the political spectrum.

Game Over.


I don't think Obama will fail... (0.00 / 0)
...however, the right's resistance to "DLC-ism" is both admirable and pragmatic.  We saw how pathetic our party was when it became repbulican-lite... and as it further capitulated to the right, less and less democrats were winning races or controlling the debate...

The Republican base knows this!  They know how well they played us over the last 30 years... and they know that if they go down the "moderate" path, they will be in the minority forever...

Sure, they will take their hits now, but their time will come again... and when it comes, they won't be pussyfooting around... they will be ready to go.

Could you imagine if we never adopted the failed appeasement strategy that we did?  We would have been much better off overall!

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!


[ Parent ]
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox