Be wary of early poll results

OPINION:

Now that the field for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination is starting to settle, it seems an auspicious moment to offer the usual warning about the results of opinion research.  

The problem is, of course, that the legacy media, as always, are obsessed with the national polling results because they are fun, easy to explain, and, like a lot of polling, provide the illusion of precision.

Are survey results at this point in the campaign of any probative value? Maybe. Maybe not.

Recent history suggests that survey results this early in the game tend to lag behind where the voters might be. As late as February 2020, Sen. Bernie Sanders, Vermont independent, had a sizable lead in surveys examining the Democratic primaries. President Biden was a remote second place in those same surveys. In April 2016, Mr. Sanders and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were tied in national surveys.

In that same cycle, Ben Carson had a 6-point lead over then-candidate Donald Trump in a November 2015 survey of Republican primary voters.

In 2008, right before the Iowa caucus, Mrs. Clinton was leading then-Sen. Barack Obama by more than 20 points. In that same January 2008, Rudy Giuliani, the pride of Brooklyn, was leading the race for the Republican nomination. 

Obviously, none of the stories turned out well for any of these front-runners.

There are a few lessons from this.

First, caution is always in order. It is important to remember that we are very early in the cycle, and irrespective of the noise, the campaign has not yet started in earnest. Conclusions about the durability of candidates are premature. In living memory, Sen. Edmund Muskie of Maine, Texas Gov. John Connally, Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Giuliani and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker were all considered certain winners at this point in the cycle.

Second, it turns out that events, people and campaigns — and what happens within them — matter. Florida Gov. Jeb Bush was a good governor and a good man. But his persona did not survive its first contact with voters nationwide. Mrs. Clinton has served her country admirably, but voters do not care for her for whatever reason.

Finally, and this is immediately relevant, people need to think about survey results holistically. Every survey and every response is part of the story the voters are trying to tell us.

For example, in this cycle, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, despite being the recipient of an impressive barrage of paid and earned media, has remained ensconced in second place, within striking distance of the front-runner. No one else on the Republican side has managed to consistently remain in double digits.

For purposes of comparison, on June 1, 2015, (at about the same point in the cycle), the front-runner (Mr. Bush) and a handful of candidates were clustered around 12% to 15%. Mr. Trump had not even entered the race. 

What are the Republican primary voters trying to say with their survey responses to date? Probably the clearest answer is that some of the support for Mr. Trump is wide and shallow. They want to look over Mr. DeSantis (and maybe one or two others) before committing.

The other very clear contextual message that voters in both parties and in neither party are sending is that a strong majority would prefer that the two senescent and fading leading candidates simply go away and give everyone other options. Survey work has consistently indicated that about 70% of voters in each party would rather have someone else carry their standards than the current and former president.

Let the games begin.

• Michael McKenna, a columnist for The Washington Times, is president of MWR Strategies. He was most recently a deputy assistant to the president and deputy director of the Office of Legislative Affairs at the White House. He can be reached at mike@mwrstrat.com.