Postives and Negatives

With eight in 10 Americans now closely tuned in to the presidential campaign, the new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds shifting impressions of the leading candidates. Here's where things stand now.

Kudos to the Winners...

The public appears to have warmed up to each of the four candidates who've won key early contests. On the Democratic side, Barack Obama's strongly favorable rating has climbed 10 points, and with a 63 percent overall approval rating (up 12 points from November), he is the highest rated of all the main contenders.

Following Hillary Rodham Clinton's New Hampshire victory, her favorability rating has bumped up eight points: At 58 percent, Clinton is at her highest mark in Post-ABC polling since June of 1999, when she still served as First Lady.

Two-time New Hampshire winner John McCain zoomed to 59 percent favorable (a 16-point increase), and even better for the senator from Arizona, nearly all of that increase (14 points) came among those saying they feel strongly favorable towards him.

The GOP's Iowa victor, Mike Huckabee, doubled his favorability rating since November (from 21 percent to 42 percent), with much of this gain coming from increased awareness. Back then, half had no opinion of the former Arkansas governor, that number now stands at 20 percent. He's the only one of the four winners to post an increase on the negative side as well: his unfavorable rating rose eight points to 38 percent.

But A Mixed Bag for the Runners-Up...

Rudolph W. Giuliani's favorability rating appears to be following the same path as his support in national polls. At 46 percent, his rating falls below 50 percent for the first time in Post-ABC polling. Last December, amid speculation that he would run, the former mayor earned a 67 percent favorable rating, which at the time placed him higher than other candidates in the race. Now, after a year of campaigning mostly spent as the front-runner for his party's nomination, he no longer leads in votes or likability.

Even with disappointing second-place finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire under his belt, Mitt Romney has boosted his favorability six points to 34 percent. But there is also bad news for the former Massachusetts governor: his overall rating remains a net negative (46 percent unfavorable) and the percentage rating him unfavorably has risen by five points.

Fred Thompson's favorability rating has gotten markedly worse since November. Although the percentage rating him positively remains about the same (30 percent compared to 33 percent in November), the percentage giving a negative assessment has climbed eight points to 45 percent. About a quarter have no opinion on the former senator and Law and Order star.

The lone Democrat in this category, John Edwards, enjoys a higher favorability rating despite stagnant support levels in the latest Post-ABC national poll. The former senator?s favorability rating reached a new high in Post-ABC polling: 57 percent. About a third rate the 2004 vice presidential candidate unfavorably, unchanged since November.

Looking ahead:

To be successful in the general election, the candidates will have to appeal to one key segment of voters, independents. Here's a look at how each candidate is doing among the nation's "non-partisans."

Candidate favorability among independents:
Favorable Jan. 2008 Favorable Nov. 2007 Change
Mike Huckabee 42 24 +18
John McCain 60 43 +17
Barack Obama 66 50 +16
Hillary Rodham Clinton 59 49 +10
John Edwards 56 47 +9
Mitt Romney 31 28 +3
Fred Thompson 27 31 -4
Rudy Giuliani 43 52 -9

Full question text and methodlogy for the poll can be found here.

By Jennifer Agiesta |  January 15, 2008; 4:00 PM ET Polls
Previous: New Year, New Low for Bush | Next: Change I Am

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



I predict that Huckabee has hit his high mark. Even many evangelicals will not like his "We need to amend the Constitution and bring it in line with God" statement.

Look for Huckabee to start shedding about 2 to 3 points a week for the next couple of months.

Posted by: Critter | January 15, 2008 10:19 PM

This sums it up!

The Broadcasters' Big Payday
Posted on Jan 9, 2008
By Amy Goodman

Hillary Clinton's surprise victory in New Hampshire guarantees a longer, more competitive Democratic primary season. It's like money in the bank for broadcasters, as the first billion-dollar presidential campaign continues.

While the world's oldest democracy, the United States, spends trillions of dollars claiming to bring democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq (through the barrel of a gun), what have we got here? A process driven by major donors shoveling huge sums of cash into the troughs of television broadcasters, who are holding the electoral process hostage through their control of the public airwaves. The same broadcasters arbitrarily exclude viable candidates from their so-called debates, elevating themselves to kingmaker.

According to TNS Media Intelligence/CMAG, a group that tracks political advertising, overall spending by the presidential candidates in Iowa topped $50 million. In 2004, spending was closer to $9 million. The group reported that spending on all campaign and issue ads, for all current races (presidential and others) in the U.S., reached $715 million by the end of 2007. WMUR, New Hampshire's only statewide commercial television channel, raked in millions of dollars from political advertising this primary season. WMUR's headquarters is dubbed "The House That Forbes Built," after Steve Forbes spent so much on ads in his 1996 presidential run.

With the new compressed, "front-loaded" primary schedule, with more and more states moving their primary dates closer to those first-in-nation events in Iowa and New Hampshire, the need for money is extreme. Feb. 5, dubbed "Super-Duper Tuesday," will see primaries in more than 20 states, including huge media "markets" like New York, Illinois and California. Barack Obama, Clinton and John Edwards will have to continue to raise huge sums, only to hand most of it over to broadcasters, who, through their control of the public airwaves, dole out access to the electorate.

One way Fox News/News Corp. recently tried to influence the process was to exclude Ron Paul from a Republican candidate forum in New Hampshire, two days before that state's first-in-the-nation primary. Paul was the most successful fundraiser among Republican candidates in the fourth quarter of 2007; he decisively beat Rudy Giuliani in the Iowa caucus, with 10 percent of the vote versus Giuliani's 4 percent. Fox nixed Paul from the debate, while Giuliani was welcomed. The New Hampshire Republican Party pulled its support from the debate. Party chair Fergus Cullen said: "The first-in-the-nation New Hampshire primary serves a national purpose by giving all candidates an equal opportunity on a level playing field. Lesser-known, lesser-funded underdogs have a fighting chance to establish themselves as national figures. [W]e believe all recognized major candidates should have an equal opportunity to participate in pre-primary debates and forums."

Paul appeared on NBC's "Tonight Show With Jay Leno" (which has restarted production despite the ongoing Writers Guild of America strike, which is keeping Democratic candidates away from the strikebreaking network shows). Leno asked him how he was responding to Fox's banning him: "I realized that they really had some property rights ability there, and I wasn't going to crash the party. And I thought, 'Well, maybe I ought to sue them.' I've decided what to sue them over, and that is for fraud, because of this 'fair and balanced' idea."

While threatening to sue the network for its fraudulent claim of being "Fair and Balanced" (a ludicrous motto for Fox), Paul neglects the key point: The airwaves are not the private property of Fox. Rupert Murdoch and his News Corp. profit from their use of the public airwaves, which comes with the responsibility to serve the public interest. If the electoral process itself, the nuts and bolts of democracy, does not rate as a public interest, what does?

ABC News pulled the same stunt on Dennis Kucinich, barring him from the debate it sponsored on Sunday night. Kucinich filed an emergency complaint with the Federal Communications Commission, saying, "ABC should not be the first primary." He noted that ABC "is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Walt Disney Co., whose executives have contributed heavily to ... Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, former Sen. John Edwards and Gov. Bill Richardson." ABC limited the debate to those four by requiring participants to place at least fourth in the Iowa caucus to qualify. But the Kucinich campaign said it "bypassed the Iowa caucuses," preferring to focus resources on New Hampshire, then got shut out of the debate. Kucinich's key points, getting out of Iraq and promoting single-payer health care, went virtually unheard in New Hampshire.

The majority of the money that candidates are forced to raise is for TV ads. They are running to be the nation's top public servant. The networks should provide the airtime as a free public service. The airwaves belong to the public; they are a national treasure. They should be used to enrich our electoral process. Instead, they are exploited by highly profitable TV networks, forcing the candidates to rely on monied interests. This vicious cycle must be broken.

Denis Moynihan assisted on this column.

Amy Goodman is the host of "Democracy Now!," a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on 650 stations in North America.

© 2008 Amy Goodman

Posted by: Marissa | January 17, 2008 9:01 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2009 The Washington Post Company