Pitfalls of Name ID
Name Id does have its downfalls. When name Id is near perfect there are few voters who have no opinion of that candidate.
Take Hillary Clinton for example. She has been in front of the media continuously for over 15 years. Her name ID is in the nineties. In a recent survey 40% surveyed find her favorable and 43% find her unfavorable (details).
This means that about half of independent voters have made an opinion about her (About 1/3 of voters are considered independents ((Total favorable and unfavorable)-(GOP and DEM Base))/(Independent Voters).
Should she run for President (duh) she needs to convince 62% of undecided voters to gain the popular vote. (Things are worse considering the base distribution and the electoral college but thats for a different post).
Basically, if the name Id gets too high it provides little room for a candidate to improve their position. Should that position be below 50% then its almost impossible for a candidate to win.
Take Hillary Clinton for example. She has been in front of the media continuously for over 15 years. Her name ID is in the nineties. In a recent survey 40% surveyed find her favorable and 43% find her unfavorable (details).
This means that about half of independent voters have made an opinion about her (About 1/3 of voters are considered independents ((Total favorable and unfavorable)-(GOP and DEM Base))/(Independent Voters).
Should she run for President (duh) she needs to convince 62% of undecided voters to gain the popular vote. (Things are worse considering the base distribution and the electoral college but thats for a different post).
Basically, if the name Id gets too high it provides little room for a candidate to improve their position. Should that position be below 50% then its almost impossible for a candidate to win.
posted by Indiana Pundit at 8:05 PM
7 Comments:
The poll you cite is irrelevant to any intentions Clinton may have in '08.
She hasn't announced her candidacy yet, and when she does that is the poll that will matter.
It's nonsense to suggest her current favorability rating would impact a presidential run. That rating will change when and if she actually runs.
First off, this post was about Name ID.
Second, public opinion of a candidate is directly related to that candidate's chances to be elected. People are less likely to vote for someone they don't like.
If you think that favorability ratings don't impact campaigns then show me some evidence or rational reasoning to your claims.
Her favorabiltiy rating can't impact her campaign, because she hasn't started a campaign yet. She's running for Senate, you do know that much don't you?
Between now and 2008 there is a Congressional election, and many unpredictible issues (Iraq, Medicare etc.)
To state that a poll taken this month will affect a candidates chances two years from now is a bit silly. But it's all part of the GOP agenda. Discredit her now, it's all the less you'll have to do then.
Here's a question for you, Mr./Ms. Pundit: Has there ever been a presidential candidate identified as a front-runner 2 years before the election who has won? If so, who? It seems like all the names that are discussed so early end up on the cutting room floor
And, Craig, who do you really support? Russ Feingold? Howard Dean? Dick Durbin?
The early frontrunner is a recent phenomenon due to technology. Its a lot easier to debate who is a front-runner these days than it was just a few election cycles ago.
You make a good point. Most front-runners don't pan out when exposed to public scrutiny for an extended period of time.
But then again we've never seen a front-runner like Hillary CLinton before. She already has a unique place in American history before being a candidate.
Hillary would provide way too much easy fodder for the 'pukefunnel' as Craig so gleefully refers to the right-wing information machine. Name ID? Sure, that'll work. Stealth candidates would work much better for the Dems this time around...because the higher the profile, the bigger the target.
Post a Comment
<< Home