CNN/ORC Poll: Bush surges to 2016 GOP frontrunner

[mystery-ak]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/28/politics/bush-leads-gop-field-poll/index.html

CNN/ORC Poll: Bush surges to 2016 GOP frontrunner
By Alexandra Jaffe, CNN
updated 10:04 AM EST, Sun December 28, 2014

Washington (CNN) -- Jeb Bush is the clear Republican presidential frontrunner, surging to the front of the potential GOP pack following his announcement that he's "actively exploring" a bid, a new CNN/ORC poll found.

He takes nearly one-quarter — 23% — of Republicans surveyed in the new nationwide poll, putting him 10 points ahead of his closest competitor, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who tallied 13%.



Physician Ben Carson comes in third, with 7% support, and Sen. Rand Paul and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee are both tied for fourth with 6%.

That marks a drop in support for all but Christie and Bush from the last CNN/ORC survey of the field, conducted in November. That poll showed Bush in the lead, but only taking 14% of the vote, while Carson came in second with 11% and Christie tied Rep. Paul Ryan for fourth with 9% support.

Bush's 10-point lead is a milestone for the potential GOP field — it marks the first time any prospective candidate has reached a lead beyond a poll's margin of error in the past two years.



Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is still far and away the favorite to take the Democratic nomination for president if she runs, with the support of two-thirds of Democrats polled. Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a liberal favorite, comes in a distant second place with just 9%.

Bush would still face some skepticism from GOP primary voters if he ran, but the CNN/ORC poll shows they are largely willing to forgive him for some of his more controversial comments and positions.

GOP primary voters are about evenly split on whether his support for allowing some illegal immigrants to stay in the United States makes them more or less likely to support him, or has no difference on their opinion of him.



Forty-two percent say his description of illegal immigration as an "act of love" make them less likely to support Bush, but another 39% say it makes no difference to them.

And while 40% say the fact that state government spending increased under Bush's watch as Florida governor, another 49% say that doesn't matter to them.

Even on Common Core educational standards, which many conservatives vehemently oppose, GOP primary voters are about evenly split on whether his support for those standards would make them less likely to support him.

Regardless, however, Bush may ultimately have little trouble overcoming his sins with the conservative base, as the CNN/ORC poll found Republican primary voters taking a pragmatic stance on the party's nominee.


Sixty-nine percent say they want a nominee that can beat the Democratic candidate for president, even if that person doesn't agree with them on every issue, while only 29 percent of GOP primary voters are purists.

And that makes Bush the candidate to beat in a GOP primary.

Out of all of the seven head-to-head GOP match-ups with Clinton tested, Bush fares the best, trailing her by just 13 points. She takes 54% support to his 41% support.

The survey was conducted by live interview among 1,011 adults nationwide from Dec. 18-21, with a subsample of 453 Republicans and 469 Democrats, via landline and cell phone. The overall sample has a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points.

[Luis Gonzalez]

It's early but the poll results are interesting. 

The combination of Bush, Christie, someone else, no one and not sure takes 59% of the support in the survey, leaving the remaining 13 possible candidates to split 41% among themselves.

[massadvj]

Out of all of the seven head-to-head GOP match-ups with Clinton tested, Bush fares the best, trailing her by just 13 points.

Now there's a platform to run on.  I HAVE 100 PERCENT NAME RECOGNITION AND TRAIL HILLARY BY JUST 13 POINTS.  VOTE FOR ME!

[jmyrlefuller]

Well, gee, I wonder why. With as much media coverage as they've been blasting about him, his name recognition has surged.

If that doesn't tell you how much influence the media still holds over the American people, I don't know what will.

[jmyrlefuller]

It's early but the poll results are interesting. 

The combination of Bush, Christie, someone else, no one and not sure takes 59% of the support in the survey, leaving the remaining 13 possible candidates to split 41% among themselves.

Why is "no one" even allowed? None of the above votes don't count.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Out of all of the seven head-to-head GOP match-ups with Clinton tested, Bush fares the best, trailing her by just 13 points.

Now there's a platform to run on.  I HAVE 100 PERCENT NAME RECOGNITION AND TRAIL HILLARY BY JUST 13 POINTS.  VOTE FOR ME!

Obama  had no name recognition at this time in his first run.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Well, gee, I wonder why. With as much media coverage as they've been blasting about him, his name recognition has surged.

If that doesn't tell you how much influence the media still holds over the American people, I don't know what will.

That's interesting. So you don't think Bush had "100 PERCENT NAME RECOGNITION" before he announced his intentions?

[Luis Gonzalez]

Why is "no one" even allowed? None of the above votes don't count.

They have to account for all the people surveyed.

[massadvj]

Obama  had no name recognition at this time in his first run.

That's the point.  If you are trailing by 13 points and are already known, it means you have no chance.  It is why Romney had no chance.

Someone with high name recognition who is behind must reposition himself.  Someone with no name recognition merely has to position himself.  Positioning is much easier and less expensive than repositioning.  In politics, repositioning adds the extra burden of distrust as the "I voted for it before I voted against it" syndrome can set in.

Therefore, if we have no one who polls close to her, then we are better off nominating an unknown than a known.  This is the lesson the GOP has not learned, but every marketer on Madison Avenue knows very, very well.

It's why Scott Walker may be the best shot we have (although SW is my second choice).

[jmyrlefuller]

Obama  had no name recognition at this time in his first run.

For President? That's not at all true. I remember full well when he rose to national prominence—a full four years before his first election.

It was spring 2004, and Jack Ryan, Republican candidate for the Senate seat from Illinois, just had his sealed divorce/custody papers leaked to the press, containing graphic sexual allegations that effectively ended Ryan's campaign. Ryan's opponent? None other than Barack Obama.

Fast forward a few months later, and Obama speaks at the 2004 Democratic Convention. The media fawns over him. Obama easily wins over cupcake opponent Alan Keyes and a national star is born. By this time in 2006, Obama was already seen as Hillary's most formidable primary challenger.

[flowers]

For President? That's not at all true. I remember full well when he rose to national prominence—a full four years before his first election.

It was spring 2004, and Jack Ryan, Republican candidate for the Senate seat from Illinois, just had his sealed divorce/custody papers leaked to the press, containing graphic sexual allegations that effectively ended Ryan's campaign. Ryan's opponent? None other than Barack Obama.

Fast forward a few months later, and Obama speaks at the 2004 Democratic Convention. The media fawns over him. Obama easily wins over cupcake opponent Alan Keyes and a national star is born. By this time in 2006, Obama was already seen as Hillary's most formidable primary challenger.

I remember that as well. Jeri was Jack wife. She played the poor abused wife and now is famous in hollywood.

[alicewonders]

I still don't put any faith in the polls, especially a CNN poll.  Look at who is conducting the poll and you will already know the results.  They are virtually ALL manipulated to achieve the desired results.  Taking these polls seriously enough to start backing a candidate is to work with flawed information.  The fix is in - Jeb Bush is going to be our next Mitt Romney. 

[jmyrlefuller]

I still don't put any faith in the polls, especially a CNN poll.  Look at who is conducting the poll and you will already know the results.  They are virtually ALL manipulated to achieve the desired results.  Taking these polls seriously enough to start backing a candidate is to work with flawed information.  The fix is in - Jeb Bush is going to be our next Mitt Romney.

Indeed. I don't know ANYONE who seriously sees Jeb Bush as a legitimate candidate that they want for the office. Yet this is the one they're forcing upon us. And it always works. It worked with McCain and it worked with Romney. There were at least a few people who saw Romney as best for the job. But Jeb's record is undeniable, at least for any honest person. (It hasn't stopped the puppet-pundits from trying.) He is a tyrant, totally unfit for public office.

If they truly want to kill off the Republican Party, they would be wise to nominate Jeb Bush.

[MACVSOG68]

That's the point.  If you are trailing by 13 points and are already known, it means you have no chance.  It is why Romney had no chance.

I don't read it that way.  In every poll I've seen, when comparing various potential GOP candidates with Hillary, they all lose, most by double digits.  You're taking a poll where only a quarter of the respondents want Bush over many other choices, and comparing him with Hillary, the one and only poll choice.

I don't have a number one yet, but Bush is certainly up there for a number of reasons.  But I'll wait until the circular firing squad is done with all the potential candidates, which is a year and a half away.

 

[Luis Gonzalez]

That's the point.  If you are trailing by 13 points and are already known, it means you have no chance.  It is why Romney had no chance.

Someone with high name recognition who is behind must reposition himself.  Someone with no name recognition merely has to position himself.  Positioning is much easier and less expensive than repositioning.  In politics, repositioning adds the extra burden of distrust as the "I voted for it before I voted against it" syndrome can set in.

Therefore, if we have no one who polls close to her, then we are better off nominating an unknown than a known.  This is the lesson the GOP has not learned, but every marketer on Madison Avenue knows very, very well.

It's why Scott Walker may be the best shot we have (although SW is my second choice).

I don't get that sentence.

Johnson, Nixon (Ford), Carter, Reagan, Bush1, Clinton, Bush2, Obama.

Apparently Democrats haven't figured out how to win every election either.

[Oceander]

Obama  had no name recognition at this time in his first run.

Obama had a full-court press from the DNC masterminds and the ne plus ultra of liberalism:  the race card.

[truth_seeker]

I'm close to being fed up with these real conservative@ forums, for they are a never ending chorus of:

"If the GOPe nominates another rino like McCain or Romney they will lose again and/or I won't vote for them."

The candidates are NOT clones of each other.  They do have histories, positions, etc. I thought the original idea of forums was to discuss, not echo.

If Republicans are to be faulted for one great big weakness, in my view it is inability to convince voters of the wisdom of their positions. (Persuade, convince, etc.)

America would be better had McCain or Romney won. You chose from the available alternatives, period.

I think the polls are valid. Bush is leading due to name recognition, preference for Governors, positions seem reasonable, Spanish connection, etc.

The "real conservatives@" are going to position themselves too far from the center of American politics and life, and lose the chance to influence the nation. (The GOPe just about shut them out in the midterms)

Unreasonable positions include: Abortion illegal in cases of rape, deport all illegal immigrants, etc.

Palin, Cruz, Carson, West will NOT be the nominees. 

 

[Oceander]

I'm close to being fed up with these real conservative@ forums, for they are a never ending chorus of:

"If the GOPe nominates another rino like McCain or Romney they will lose again and/or I won't vote for them."

The candidates are NOT clones of each other.  They do have histories, positions, etc. I thought the original idea of forums was to discuss, not echo.

If Republicans are to be faulted for one great big weakness, in my view it is inability to convince voters of the wisdom of their positions. (Persuade, convince, etc.)

America would be better had McCain or Romney won. You chose from the available alternatives, period.

I think the polls are valid. Bush is leading due to name recognition, preference for Governors, positions seem reasonable, Spanish connection, etc.

The "real conservatives@" are going to position themselves too far from the center of American politics and life, and lose the chance to influence the nation. (The GOPe just about shut them out in the midterms)

Unreasonable positions include: Abortion illegal in cases of rape, deport all illegal immigrants, etc.

Palin, Cruz, Carson, West will NOT be the nominees. 

 

Now you sound like those who complain about GOPe forums (which this one is regularly accused of being).

[Oceander]

What matters is not really what the base thinks - conservative or GOP-e - but what the unconvinced think.  And that must take into account how much of the DNC narrative - particularly the lies about the GOP nominees - they will accept.  And, with all due respect, the unconvinced will almost certainly be at least somewhat receptive to an anti-Bush, anti-dynasty narrative.

I'll vote for him - Jeb Bush - if he's the nominee, but I will do so with the knowledge that he will not win.

[massadvj]

I don't get that sentence.

Johnson, Nixon (Ford), Carter, Reagan, Bush1, Clinton, Bush2, Obama.

Apparently Democrats haven't figured out how to win every election either.

Reagan had relatively low name recognition outside of California and outside of the GOP.  Bush2, Bush1 and Nixon were high name recognition FAVORITES going into their elections.  Dole, McCain and Romney were high name-recognition UNDERDOGS going in.

The point is, every election is either won by the high-name Recognition FAVORITE or the low name recognition UNDERDOG (Carter, Reagan, Obama).  It is a difficult communication task to win elections with high name recognition underdogs because you have to accomplish three tasks: (1) convince the electorate that the high name recognition favorite is slime (reposition the opponent); (2) convince the electorate that the high name recognition underdog is not the slimeball they thought he was (rehabilitate the underdog); and (3) convince the electorate that the "new and improved" underdog is now better than the high name recognition favorite (reposition the challenger).

When you have a low name recognition challenger, you can win with one communication task, and that is to position the challenger in a superior perceptual position than the one occupied by the HNR favorite.  That was the Carter, Reagan and Obama strategy in a nutshell.

It is why Jeb Bush being this far behind Hillary should be of far more concern than a Scott Walker Ben Carson or even a Rand Paul.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Reagan had relatively low name recognition outside of California and outside of the GOP.  Bush2, Bush1 and Nixon were high name recognition FAVORITES going into their elections.  Dole, McCain and Romney were high name-recognition UNDERDOGS going in.

The point is, every election is either won by the high-name Recognition FAVORITE or the low name recognition UNDERDOG (Carter, Reagan, Obama).  It is a difficult communication task to win elections with high name recognition underdogs because you have to accomplish three tasks: (1) convince the electorate that the high name recognition favorite is slime (reposition the opponent); (2) convince the electorate that the high name recognition underdog is not the slimeball they thought he was (rehabilitate the underdog); and (3) convince the electorate that the "new and improved" underdog is now better than the high name recognition favorite (reposition the challenger).

When you have a low name recognition challenger, you can win with one communication task, and that is to position the challenger in a superior perceptual position than the one occupied by the HNR favorite.  That was the Carter, Reagan and Obama strategy in a nutshell.

It is why Jeb Bush being this far behind Hillary should be of far more concern than a Scott Walker Ben Carson or even a Rand Paul.

That's one of those correlation/causation things.

What could be equally true is voter burn out on the incumbent party.

[ABX]

Just like Rudy and Hillary led early in the 08 race?

[massadvj]

That's one of those correlation/causation things.

What could be equally true is voter burn out on the incumbent party.

Maybe.  I have a PhD in marketing and I was a political operative for Willie Brown for six years.  I'd be the first to say social science is BS.  But I'd also point out that if you are about to fall off a cliff it is better to have one eye open than both eyes closed.  Social science gives us about one eye partially open, obstructed with dirt, and both near-sighted and far-sighted.  But it is still better than nothing.

[massadvj]

Just like Rudy and Hillary led early in the 08 race?

Hillary was defeated by a low-name recognition underdog, so that case follows the pattern.  In Rudy's case, I think he self-destructed.  McCain just ended up being the last man standing.

If you take it out of the realm of politics, the same principle applies.  If you are going to challenge a well-established leader brand it is generally thought to be better to do it with a new, fresh unknown brand than to try to rehabilitate an old, tired brand.  In Men's grooming, for example, Proctor and Gamble took on the market with a new brand called Axe, positioned it as the brand that got men laid and dominated the competition in a short time.

Another axiom of marketing is that to challenge an established brand you have to start with the youngest market segments because they are the easiest to persuade.  You capture the innovators and the early adopters and everyone else follows.  This was the OPapaDoc strategy, and it worked quite well.  The only candidate we have with youth appeal is Rand Paul.  He seems to be the only candidate even interested in the 80 million kids who are going to make up 40 percent of the voters in 2016. 

I think about Jeb Bush and the youth vote and I cringe.

[Atomic Cow]

The media is trying to pick our candidate yet again.