Sometimes polls are good at determining front-runners. Other times, not so much. Witness, from the HuffPost polling composite:
|
9/20 |
12/7 |
Clinton |
45.5 |
48.1 |
Carson |
47.6 |
44.6 |
No other Republican came close to as big a lead over Clinton as Carson in September and October. Dramatically, Quinnipiac had Ben Carson leading Hillary Clinton 50-40 in late October-early November! Then just three short weeks later, the Q-poll had Clinton up 46-43, a 13-point shift.
So what happened? Carson had the kind of profile and personal demeanor enviable in any candidate—a soft-spoken celebrated, accomplished neurosurgeon with a compelling life story. On paper he looked great! Then, the press did a little digging and his entire facade collapsed, making a house of cards look sturdy in comparison.
Fact is, unknown candidates poll better than known ones, as they are a candidate Rorschach test, allowing voters to project their hopes and dreams. But candidates are human and have opinions and life histories, and few stand up to the glare of the spotlight. Hence, Carson was the most electable Republican until he wasn’t. Now it’s supposedly Chris Christie, but does anyone actually believe that? I mean, beside Chris Christie?
Who is the most electable Republican? Certainly Marco Rubio over Carson and Christie, and John Kasich likely the most electable of them all. Scott Walker would’ve trumped them all in the electability scale (no pun intended). But don’t expect to see any poll confirm that. People just don’t know who Walker and Kasich are.
So some recent polls show Bernie Sanders running slightly ahead of Clinton against the GOP field, like the latest Quinnipiac poll, leading his supporters to loudly declare him the “most electable.” But he’s as “most electable” as Ben Carson was. That’s not saying he’s not electable. I think he is, unlike Carson! But you can’t compare a candidate who has been through the media wringer for decades and has universal name ID, with one who is unknown to a quarter of voters (same percentage as Carson), and likely only peripherally known to an even larger number of them.
It generally sucks being a candidate with low name ID, but in this specific instance, it helps. People know Clinton enough to have plenty of reasons to dislike her. Sanders hasn’t been exposed enough to elicit that level of animosity, but the longer he runs, yes, the higher his unfavorables rise.
Quinnipiac University:
Bernie Sanders |
Favorable |
Unfavorable |
5/19-26 |
19 |
18 |
7/23-28 |
32 |
25 |
9/17-21 |
35 |
28 |
10/29-11/2 |
39 |
36 |
11/23-30 |
44 |
31 |
ABC News:
BERNIE SANDERS |
FAVORABLE |
UNFAVORABLE |
7/8-12 |
27 |
28 |
10/7-11 |
35 |
35 |
11/4-8 |
40 |
38 |
PPP:
BERNIE SANDERS |
FAVORABLE |
UNFAVORABLE |
8/28-30 |
31 |
39 |
10/1-4 |
33 |
46 |
11/16-17 |
31 |
49 |
Meanwhile, with her universal long-time name recognition, Clinton is pretty much maxed out on unfavorables.
Quinnipiac:
Hillary Clinton |
FAVORABLE |
UNFAVORABLE |
8/20-25 |
39 |
51 |
9/17-21 |
41 |
55 |
10/29-11/2 |
42 |
52 |
11/23-30 |
44 |
51 |
PPP:
Hillary Clinton |
FAVORABLE |
UNFAVORABLE |
8/28-30 |
36 |
55 |
10/1-4 |
36 |
56 |
11/16-17 |
39 |
53 |
The GOP field is almost entirely in Sanders’ situation, with low name ID suppressing their negatives, but as more people learn about them, the higher their unfavorables. See Rubio, Jeb Bush, and pretty much everyone running for probably every office except … Donald Trump, who is being kept afloat by Republicans who are amazingly warming up to him. But of course, his numbers among independents and Democrats are shit.
Point is, to know a politician is to dislike him or her. No one is immune to that, not even Sanders. So if you want to argue that he is more electable because he runs slightly ahead Clinton in some poll, you’d have to argue that Carson was the most electable because he ran ahead in some poll. Such an analysis has the benefit of being simplistic, but its fundamental flaw is that it’s being simplistic.
If nominated, I have no doubt Sanders would win the White House. But that doesn’t make him the most electable. We can only make that determination after Sanders receives a series, concentrated, and thorough media vetting. And to be honest, the media has little interest in doing that so long as he continues to significantly trail in the Democratic primary.