Posted on 01/20/2015 9:56:01 AM PST by xzins
Hot Air readers won’t be surprised by the lack-of-dynamic dynamic from the first big names testing the GOP’s 2016 waters, of course, but supporters of Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush might be — if they can be found. According to a new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, approval ratings for both men dropped after making clear they plan to run for the party’s presidential nomination. And that retreat comes from within the big tent of the Republican Party:
Just 27 percent of Americans now offer a positive rating for Romney, the Republican party’s nominee in 2012, compared to 40 percent who give him negative marks. And just over half of Republicans – 52 percent – give him a thumbs up, while 15 percent disagree.
In September of last year, when Romney was widely expected NOT to seek the presidency again, his ratings stood at 32 percent positive/ 39 percent negative. With Republicans, that split was 60 percent positive/ 13 percent negative.
While former Florida governor Jeb Bush is not quite as well-known as Romney, with 13 percent of respondents saying they don’t know the name, he’s also seen a drop in approval since announcing that he’s “actively exploring” a 2016 run.
Just 19 percent of Americans now give Bush a positive rating, while 32 percent assess him negatively. His fans include just 37 percent of Republicans, while 15 percent offer a poor assessment of him.
That’s compared to an overall rating last November of 26 percent positive and 33 percent negative. Among Republicans at that time, Bush’s rating stood at 44 percent positive to 12 percent negative.
It’s actually a little worse than this description indicates, at least among the general population. Romney had a “very positive” rating of 24% in October 2012, just before the election; it’s down to 8% now. That’s still better than Bush, whose “very positive” rating has never gone into double digits in this series, and now stands at 5%. Compare that to Hillary Clinton, who gets 20% — her lowest rating since the summer of 2008, but still far outpacing the two well-known potential GOP rivals.
This is not an issue with name recognition. It’s more than familiarity breeds contempt, even if that contempt may be somewhat unfair to both men. Republicans cannot woo voters by offering another nostalgia campaign, especially since Democrats seem bound and determined to do exactly that with Hillary Clinton and a return to the 1990s. They have to offer a forward-looking campaign set in the present, and as I argue in my column for The Week, the GOP has plenty of talent with which to do so:
When Reagan ran in 1976 and again in 1980, he represented something new within the party. Reagan was a new voice of Goldwater-esque conservatism combined with a record of practical application. By the end of the 1970s, the Nelson Rockefeller Republicans had lost the GOP rank and file and had failed to inspire the moderates in either party. Reagan brought a new approach to Republican politics, a sunny optimism about personal liberty and a fighting spirit for freedom abroad that soared over the heads of his more pessimistic competition.
In short, Ronald Reagan represented not just the future of the Republican Party, but the aspirations of the electorate for the future of the United States. Regardless of their desires, Romney and Bush represent the past: the past of their own track records, and the past of the Republican Party.
Ironically, the GOP may have an abundance of candidates who can lay a better claim to the mantle of Reagan than either Romney or Bush. A number of two-term Republican governors, for instance, who first won office by courting the grassroots and won second terms by fulfilling promises of significant conservative reform. Scott Walker reformed state government and survived a recall challenge by Big Labor in Wisconsin, not all that dissimilar to Reagan’s fight with striking air-traffic controllers. Bobby Jindal reformed state-run education in Louisiana. Susana Martinez cleaned up a corrupt state government in New Mexico. Mike Pence expanded on reforms initiated by Mitch Daniels in Indiana. Nikki Haley in South Carolina, John Kasich in Ohio, and Rick Snyder in Michigan may all make similar claims in the next few months, too.
I’d include Rick Perry on that list too, plus arguably Senate hopefuls like Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and Rand Paul. They have all won elections in the present Republican Party, not the GOP circa 2002 — before bailouts, before ObamaCare, and before the Tea Party became the latest expression of Goldwaterism. These are Republicans of the present, those who know and engage the electorate as it is rather than as it was. They may need some time to match the name recognition of Hillary Clinton, but that investment will make the GOP the party of the future and not the past … unless it chooses to remain hobbled by the latter.
Unenthused?
Unexpected : )
It’s lower than that. They never asked American people if they were “fans” of Jeb Bush. The question was probably who would you vote for if you had to vote R and a gun was to your head right now, and they’d heard the name Bush.
If they truly asked thousands if they were fans of Jeb Bush, they couldn’t get more than three. Not three percent.
Sadly — and I generally don’t lament the stupidity of the GOP-E — they don’t even realize they’re beating a dead horse.
Romney a multi-round loser, but more than that, the guy who DISENGAGED and refused to fight during the last election.
Bush, the poor little rich kid who thinks it’s his turn in the dynasty to play with the family white house thingey.
The GOP-E is deceived by their own blinders.
The RINOs are terrified of Ted.
And they should be.
I donated to tedcruz.org an hour ago.
Romney/Stassen in 2016
Funny how all the media outlets including fox rarely (if ever) include Ted Cruz and Scott Walker when discussing Repub candidates for 2016.
You are right they always say: “The big 3...Romney, Bush, Christie.”
They are determined to brainwash through repetition.
That's akin to saying, "The Americans were unenthused about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor."
These communist RINO pukes are every bit as much enemies of American citizens and the US Constitution as are any actively belligerent enemy or terrorist combatants.
Jeb Bush has a lot of money
Mitt Romney has the GOPe backing
But my vote belongs to (in order): Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, Bobby Jindal, Mike Pence, Sarah Palin
Don’t know much about Susana Martinez.
Stassen has better hair...
Martinez has been conservative as a governor and prosecutor. I would love to run a Cruz/Martinez ticket if she pans out.
Two Hispanics, a female, and both conservative.
So much for the ‘hispanic’ narrative.
I am personally sick of the same old political losers.
I agree.
If the folks at GOP-E came up with an original idea about candidates, I’m afraid the replacement space in their brains would create a vacuum and cause an implosion.
Sample Gop-E ‘original idea’: “I know let’s run John McCain and Paul Ryan. Nobody will suspect that!”
If that's what we want, then we want Mike Pence.
I’m ok with Pence. He’s in my 2nd tier.
My top candidate is, of course, Ted Cruz.
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.