How difficult is it for a well known political figure to break through the perceptual screens of partisanship, along with the ingrained frames of reference that citizens have developed over years, and boost their standing in the polls?
Consider Al Gore. Despite winning an Academy Award, receiving tons of free (and often glamorous) publicity in news coverage and on entertainment TV, Gore's favorability rating has only nudged up slightly in the latest Gallup polling.
According to the Gallup survey, only slightly more than half of Dems and only slightly more than a third of Independents would like to see him run for president (below). However, in a different question, when grouped together in a list of other candidates for the Democratic nomination, Gore appears to do a bit better: 14% of Democrats, as well as those Democrat-leaning independents, say they are most likely to support Gore, essentially placing him in a tie for second place with Obama (19%) and Edwards (15%), but still trailing well behind Clinton (39%).
Comments
There is more than one way to look at those results. The separation between favorable and unfavorable has increased fairly significantly. However, I do think it's true that once a person has been so successfully smeared, it's hard for them to overcome it.
As to the poll of Democrats that ranks Clinton first, I find that suspect. I think Clinton polls well with pols. I doubt that she would poll as well with a truer cross section of the population, Democrat or Republican.
There is a significant amount of irrational (not to say totally, over-the-brink wacko) hatred for both Gore and Clinton. These people comprise a solid core of voters who will support any Republican, and they are a fairly large component of the population in some states.
Posted by: Mark | April 11, 2007 1:01 PM
Not sure what Republicans opposing a Gore candidacy means. For example, I'd be delighted for Newt Gingrich to run for president, but only because I am fairly sure he's unelectable. Of course that could backfire.
Posted by: decrepitoldfool | April 11, 2007 2:56 PM
Well given the usual error in such polls, Gore probably hasn't even upticked. Why would winning an Oscar improve Gore's chances? Nothing that came out of it really changed ideas about Gore. For those inclined to the frames of the Republican spin-masters it could be seen as proof of the whole "Gore/Clinton are in bed with those Hollywood liberal types who are out of touch with mainstream American values" thereby negating the positives you suggest. The frame has been set and him winning just reinforced it in those people's minds.
Posted by: ponderingfool | April 11, 2007 4:33 PM