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.
I am distinguishing their attributes. When it comes to voting, it depends upon what the choices are, doesn't it?
He read many things for many hours. If that disqualifies him then most of the gop field is disqualified with some of the stunts far more outrageous than reading Dr. Seuss and most of these utterances by the rest of the gop herd were made as serious policy statements!
Who said anything about disqualification? I was stating a preference. Cruz' talents are rhetorical, which is clearly more suited to the Senate or the SCOTUS. That's a far cry from managing budgets, dealing with team-building, luring talent, or discipline problems as do administrators.
This is the primary talent required of a leader. The Presidency is called the Bully Pulpit for a reason. Cruz can do the job - brilliantly I might add. Plus he's not a fag. Everyone else is a fag.
This is demonstrably untrue.
Because Stassen is dead.
What about Scott Walker and Ted Cruz? Either one on top of the ticket.
I remember wanting Pence to run, but that was before Palin and Cruz became the biggest stars
By that measure, then, Schwarzenegger and Brown should be fabulously qualified in admin experience because 6.5 million is a piddling nothing in California, where L.A. County alone has 8 million people, just the county.
Criticizing Cruz for reading Dr. Seuss in the senate while maintaining that politician A is the better choice because he has wielded government over more people than politician B is ... just sad.
It was a side discussion between carry and I about administrative experience. I think we cleared it up. Carry thought I was talking about Pence when I wasn’t.
Pence is a proven conservative with an admirable administrative record. Cruz is a proven conservative with an admirable rhetorical capability. Hence, this isn't about a governorship alone being qualification, which you knew. But your example was meant to cloud that distinction. That makes it dishonest.
Criticizing Cruz for reading Dr. Seuss in the senate while maintaining that politician A is the better choice because he has wielded government over more people than politician B is ... just sad.
For which you offer no supporting argument. The point is simple: Don't give your enemies weapons without deriving an advantage. Cruz did just that. It was stupid.
poll index bump
Rick Perry, Bobby Jindal, Nikki Haley, Susana Martinez, and even the senators Ted Cruz, and Rand Paul look like Good promises for the future to me.
I don’t know anything about Mike Pence, and Marco Rubio can’t compete with his Governor in the race.
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.