search
Scene from movie Dazed & confused of students standing, sitting, and laying on and inside an orange convertible car

We Should Hang Out More

Movies often serve as perfect time capsules, offering snapshots of what life was like in an earlier time. Take Dazed and Confused. The movie is set in late seventies Texas and focuses on groups of ... Read Now >

News

7/21: Baseball Thrown Out as America’s Pastime?

July 21, 2011 | by

By John Sparks

Has baseball lost its place as America’s pastime?  CBS Sports broadcaster Verne Lundquist, who admits he’s lost enthusiasm for baseball, talks to the Marist Poll’s John Sparks about why and shares his thoughts, both, on the proposed realignment of the American and National Leagues and this year’s pennant races.

Verne Lundquist

Verne Lundquist

John Sparks
Verne, we just passed the halfway mark for the baseball season, and I do want to talk about this year’s pennant races, but first I’d like to talk a little bit about the fans.  For the second year in a row, a majority of Americans say they are not baseball fans.  In fact, 52% tell the Marist Poll they won’t watch a single game at all this year.  So, I’m wondering is baseball no longer the national pastime?

Verne Lundquist
I don’t think it is, John.  I think they yielded that title to the NFL and not recently. I think football in general, but specifically the National Football League, became America’s pastime, favorite pastime, oh my gosh, maybe 10, 12 years ago. I think that baseball kind of lost its way, and they’re having difficulty getting people back and caring about it.

John Sparks
I’m curious about the reasons for the decline, time zones, perhaps, after expansion?

Verne Lundquist
Well, I understand that if you’re… listen, I live in Steamboat Springs, Colorado. So I live in the time zone that the country forgot.  We always get irritated, if I can use that word, about the television networks for whom one of which — for whom I work.  That’s grammatically incorrect, but you get my drift. It’s always 9:00 Eastern and Pacific and 8:00 Central, and we sit here with our mountain goats and our mountains and say, “What about us?”  But, I do think that the West Coast teams, you know, it’s tough for East Coast fans to get truly involved in what’s going on.  You could even make the case, I guess, in Texas with Houston and the Astros and up through the middle part of the country, but especially with the teams beginning with the Colorado Rockies, and I don’t think that there’s a fan base that really is evident back East for teams from here in Colorado on out to the West Coast with L.A. and San Francisco and Seattle and San Diego.

John Sparks
You know, I always thought of baseball as a blue collar sport, but I’m wondering, it seems that today’s players are more part of an elite class that I’m wondering if fans can just no longer identify with.

Verne Lundquist
Well, I think economically they certainly are, and you know, it’s tough to be sympathetic to owners who keep paying these astronomical salaries. I don’t remember what the figure is now, but I got tickled in the divorce, the publication of the Frank McCourt divorce papers, when they sought legal help that I think the Dodgers owed, I’m going to say this, and I’ll be within 5 or 6 million, they owed Manny Ramírez $21-million in guaranteed salary, and there was a footnote to the whole thing that somewhere along the line, they owed Vin Scully $165,000.  Well, that tells me something about the relative merits that they place on one of the great broadcasters ever in this pay-for-play guy that was there you know, for a couple of years.  But that’s true.  You know, John, that’s true not only in baseball. The salaries are — and let’s face it, you know, the television networks and the cable networks keep paying these astronomical rights fees, and the salaries are just out of sight — baseball, basketball, and football — in my view.

John Sparks
Is there any way that the waning interest in baseball might be turned around?

Verne Lundquist
I don’t know.  I’m pausing a long time because I would count myself in all candor as one of those people who’s lost interest. I lost interest in the game because I just found — I found the game not…  I mean if you talk to a passionate baseball fan, and I know hundreds of them who just absolutely live and die with their teams, most of them involve the Red Sox, the Yankees, and the Mets, as you can imagine, because my work environment is primarily centered around the East Coast, but they — I mean they can do sermons on the benefits of being a baseball fan. The whole sport has kind of turned me off for a long time.  I find it way too slow paced. I find it difficult… The season is forever, and the single…  I get all the arguments about how it’s a whole 162 game season, but I don’t…  How do you instill a sense of excitement back into the game?  Well, they did one thing, didn’t they, in the ’90s?  They allowed steroid use, and the sport I think suffered for that and is suffering for that, and the ownership kind of looked the other way, and in my view most of the baseball fans, the hard core fans, looked the other way during the steroid era. They were much more excited by the Sammy Sosas and the Mark McGwires and the battle to surpass, you know Barry Bonds.  It was just you know forget what you’re putting in your body, it’s the end result.  So, fans bear some responsibility for that too.

John Sparks
You know, one recent remedy has been suggested.  It’s a new proposal for realignment.  They talk about doing away with divisions and balancing the league so that the American and National League would each have 15 teams, and then the top four teams in each league would be eligible for playoffs, but they would also do away with interleague play. I wonder what your thoughts are around that.

Verne Lundquist
Well. I don’t think…  and again, this is from a guy who does not pay fervent attention to the regular season.  I just don’t..  But I…  again, this is just a personal expression, I don’t think people have ever gotten all that excited about interleague play. I suppose they have in Chicago, and I’m sure they have in New York to a lesser degree probably because everything sports-related in California seems to be less emotional for the fans than it is in other parts of the country.  I suppose where you’ve got San Francisco, Oakland, or you’ve got the Dodgers and the Angels, there’s a certain amount of interest generated by interleague play.  But I think on a whole, it’s not a bell ringer with most folks, and I’d…  The idea of the wildcard, I love the idea of going to the four best teams qualify, and let’s go from there. And then after they do that, they can do away with the designated hitter and everything’s going to be perfect.

John Sparks
Let’s talk briefly about the pennant races.  I’d like to talk about the American League first.  The Yankees and Red Sox are on top in the Eastern Division. In fact, those two teams were the ones that fans that were polled by the Marist Institute mentioned most as being contenders for this year’s World Series.  In the American League Central, surprise, the Cleveland Indians all of sudden have come from nowhere, and they’re in a two-way race with the Tigers.  And then, of course, in the West, the Rangers having come off of a Cinderella season last season are battling with the Angels, but still, Verne, the leaders in the West and the Central as far as their percentage goes is way below that of the Yankees and the Red Sox.  Do you think that in the end it’ll be Yankees and Red Sox again?

Verne Lundquist
That would be my guess.  Boston has kind of owned New York this year, and the country — I think the country cares about those two teams to a much higher degree than they do most others. I don’t want to make that a patent statement. I think you would agree with me that ESPN would have no Sunday night program if the Red Sox and the Yankees didn’t play each other because that is a staple of what they do, but you know, they’ve excelled over the last several years, and my guess is that they will again.  And, I agree with you about the Rangers’ Cinderella season.  I just… as a person who lived in Dallas and Fort Worth for a long time, of course, that is where I have a still live rooting interest, and I’d love to see them come back and do what they did last year.

John Sparks
Very briefly, the National League, the Phillies have become a powerhouse…

Verne Lundquist
Yeah.

John Sparks
…in the East; and in the Central, the Pittsburgh Pirates for crying out loud are kind of like the Indians; they’re back after a number of lean years, and of course, you’ve got the Cardinals and the Milwaukee Brewers, and the Giants appear to be repeaters in the West.  Any thoughts about how the National League might turn out?

Verne Lundquist
Well, I’ve noticed the Lance Berkman contribution to the Cardinals and you know with Pujols hobbled, that’s really good to see. I’m surprised like you are at Cleveland. I think Philadelphia is the best team in the National League, and all they’ve done is in the off season they added Cliff Lee with a wonderfully adept starting pitching rotation. I think that over the long haul, I would be shocked if they were not back in — if they weren’t in the World Series when it was over.  They’ve got to be the overwhelming favorites I think.  Yes, I know San Francisco makes a lusty claim, but — and as one, as I mentioned, I live in Colorado, you can only imagine how excited people in Denver got at the start of the season, and now they’ve kind of settled down, and they’re mediocre. But the whole… The Giants are the best team in the West, and the Phillies are the best team in the East and let’s — as they say, let’s watch them play in the middle of the country.

John Sparks
Well, it’ll be interesting to watch and also to see as we approach the end of July, which is the trading deadline, to see if what kind of fine tuning some of these ball clubs do.  Verne, it’s always pleasure to talk with you.  I know you’ve been on vacation for the last month or so and out of the country. I’m just curious, back to work with CBS and what might be on the horizon for you professionally.

Verne Lundquist
Well, we have enjoyed this time off, and I got in touch with my roots.  Nancy and I spent a month in Norway.  We touched in Denmark and Sweden, but mostly in Norway, and we just had a wonderful time, and it was really invigorating.  I’m up next with the PGA Championship in Atlanta the second week in August and then a little bit of a hiatus, and then we go, Gary Danielson and I are back doing the SEC.  We open with what has become an annual right of autumn for us, Tennessee and Florida, and the game this year will be in Gainesville.  And just one more little plug, John, since you’ve given me a chance to do this, our prime time game, we only get to do one in prime time each year, but we’re doing Alabama at Florida the first Saturday night in October, and I think that could be a doozy.

John Sparks
We’ll look forward to seeing that as well as the other games with you. It’s always a pleasure talking to you.

Verne Lundquist
Thank you, John.

7/11: Budget Battles: In the Meantime for Americans

July 11, 2011 | by

By Barbara Carvalho

While Washington continues to do what Washington does badly… namely, negotiate budget deals…  Americans are impatiently waiting for our national political leaders to provide some relief from this long-lasting economic slump.  I suspect people aren’t finding much solace either in the economic jargon frequently bandied about in an effort to help Americans grasp what they are already experiencing.

A few examples come to mind.  The latest popular phrase that causes Americans angst is “double dip recession.”  Despite the official “end” to the recession two years ago, the public isn’t buying it.  In fact, 75% of Americans in the latest Marist-McClatchy national survey think the U.S. economy remains in a recession.  A double dip?  Not if you don’t think the first one has ended yet.

This isn’t the only offering of termonomics that makes people edgy.  It’s helpful hints to economic understanding like underemployment, stagflation, and the misery index that also come to mind.

Maybe an effort should be made to cut back on the losing lexicon of lousy economics and express money matters in ways that better capture the realities of people trying to make ends meet.  Several findings from our recent national survey might be enlightening.   First, 53% Americans think that regarding the U.S. economy the worst is yet to come.  Second, 72% of Americans expect their personal family finances to remain the same or get worse in the coming year.  This figure is largely unchanged since President Obama took office.  And finally, 39% of people describe the cost of living in their state as not very affordable or not affordable at all.

Hopefully, that provides a little clarity to what’s going on financially outside the budget deliberations.  Sorry, but we didn’t ask about a double dip recession.

7/8: The GOP for 2012

July 8, 2011 | by

By Dr. Lee M. Miringoff

What is particularly striking about our recent national poll on campaign 2012 is the lack of definition of the GOP field of White House wannabes.   Mitt Romney, the generally recognized front-runner, has the support of a mere 19% of Republican and Republican leaning independents.  Not exactly emulating Secretariat’s run in the Belmont Stakes.  Romney is trying to make President Obama’s handling of the economy the central issue of the campaign in the worst possible way.  With his latest flip-flop, it seems he’s doing just that.

caricature of Lee Miringoff

Then, there’s the bench, the second tier in the poll numbers.  What stands out about this group — Giuliani, Perry, and Palin — is that none of them, as of yet, is an announced candidate.  Does one, two, or three eventually get in and what does that do to a changing line-up that has already lost Trump, Huckabee, Christie, Daniels, and Barbour, media grabbing would be candidates?

And, then there’s the long list of niche candidates none of whom breaks into double digits at this point.  Is there a possible future nominee or president among them?  Sure.  But, it’s a very long way for any of them before they earn the keys to the oval office.

Despite this cloudy GOP picture, President Obama should not be drafting his second inaugural address just yet.  His approval rating is mired in the mid-forties and he’s at his lowest point in how voters assess his handling of the economy.  The latest unemployment figures are not likely to ease anyone’s economic anguish.

Not surprisingly, his re-elect numbers are not impressive.  Only 36% say they will definitely vote to re-elect the President, and 42% opt for the so-called “generic” Republican.  Here’s the rub.  When you replace the “generic” GOPer with the name of a specific Republican, President Obama opens up an advantage.  He even breaks fifty against Palin.

No doubt, this is a narrative that is still unfolding.  But, I sense it’s likely to be the storyline for some time.

6/13: The 2012 Republican Field

June 13, 2011 | by

By John Sparks

Election Day 2012 is more than a year away, but for Republicans, the contest to find a candidate to oppose President Barack Obama is in full swing.  What should GOP candidates be doing now?  Which issues will be relevant, and where do the candidates stand?  The Marist Poll’s John Sparks speaks with Marist Poll Analyst and syndicated political columnist Carl Leubsdorf who writes a weekly column for The Dallas Morning News.

Carl Leubsdorf

Carl Leubsdorf

John Sparks
Carl, only 17 months until Election Day 2012.  Now that’s a lot of time unless you’re a potential candidate.  President Obama has a lock on the Democratic nomination, but if you’re a Republican who wants to be president, what do you need to be doing now?

Carl
Well, and it’s, of course, for Republicans, the timeframe is a lot shorter, because the Iowa Caucuses is the first test will take place either in February or perhaps in January, so that’s only seven or eight months.  There’s several things a candidate needs to be doing now.  One is raising money.  The way presidential politics works is you need certain amount of money to maintain an operation and to run media and you use a certain amount to get to the opening test, and then you have to have the facility to raise additional money if you manage to survive the opening test, so candidates may typically spend a lot of time fundraising, and that’s an area where a couple of the potential candidates have a big advantage.  Mitt Romney, who ran before and then showed considerable capability of raising, and has already raised a lot of money, has a big national organization to do it and Sarah Palin because I think she could gem up a campaign very quickly and raise a bunch of money because of the intensity of her following. So, that’s one thing that you do.

You’re getting staff together. You’re getting people to run your operations, especially in the three crucial early states – Iowa, where they have the caucuses; the New Hampshire primary, which comes eight days later; and the South Carolina primary, which has become a crucial test for — especially for Republicans.  Every Republican nominee since 1980 has won in South Carolina. The other early test is the Nevada Caucuses.  That may be less of a significant place to where not all the candidates may campaign there.  So, you’re doing staff.

The third is you have to have a certain understanding of the issues, and for candidates, it’s almost too late to do that. That’s what they’re supposed to have done over the last two or three years because — the reason is because the candidates, it’s fine when they make speeches and do their own thing, but starting on Monday the 13th of June, we’re going to have a series of Republican debates, and that’s a real opportunity for candidates to show that they understand the issues and what their positions are, but it’s also a potential pitfall for candidates who are not up to speed. One of the hints that I got a couple months ago that Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor, was probably not running was that he was at a press session that I was at, and I thought that he was not up to speed on the issues. He’d had problems with that four years ago, but we sort of forgave him because he didn’t have much money and a small staff. Now running the second time, he really needs to know that.  I think Sarah Palin could have problems with that if she runs.  She continually seems to say things that aren’t quite right.  And you’re running against people like Romney, who’s been around the track before, and Michele Bachmann, who’s a member of Congress and so has had to vote on a lot of these issues; Newt Gingrich, who knows a lot of substantive things, so you got to be prepared on the issues.

John Sparks
Let’s say you’re a Republican who wants to be a president, what issues do you believe that President Obama is most vulnerable on?  Bin Laden didn’t buy the groceries for instance.

Carl
Well, clearly the key issue at this point looks like it’ll be the economy and the fact that the economy has not recovered as quickly from the deep recession that President Obama inherited as he would like and as certainly as Americans would like.  There’s a new Washington Post poll and it shows, for example, that more people think the recovery has not started than think it has started.  The statistics don’t say that. Corporate earnings don’t show that.  The increase in employment, modest though it’s been, doesn’t show that, but the public feels that way, and that indicates a vulnerability for Obama and an opportunity for the Republicans.

Now having said that, their issue at this point is it’s easy enough for Republicans to beat up on the Obama just as it was for Democrats four years ago to beat up on President Bush.  What they need to do though is talking to — if they’re going to be talking to Republican audiences, and some of them are going to try to want to draw differences to show that either they’d be a stronger candidate or that they’re a better Republican. It’ll be interesting to see, for example, if differences develop on the controversial Republican budget that passed the House, the one devised by Congressman Ryan of Wisconsin. There are some signs that some of the Republican candidates, while generally in favor of the thrust of that, are not signing aboard the plan to phase out Medicare down the road, which has proved to be very controversial.  So I think there will be some effort to draw differences.

There’ll also be an effort to point out vulnerabilities on the issues of their fellow candidates, and a number of the Republican candidates have vulnerabilities at least in terms of the Republican electorate.  Mitt Romney well publicized because the healthcare plan that he passed in Massachusetts was considered in some ways the model for the Obama National Health Care Plan.  The Republicans are strongly against what they call Obama Care, so that makes Romney vulnerable, especially the concept that everyone would have to buy health insurance, even though ironically that’s something that was originally devised by the Republicans.

Another issue is the environment, the so called Cap and Trade proposal that a lot of Republicans were for in the past, including some of the candidates like former Governor Pawlenty of Minnesota, former Governor Huntsman of Utah, popular Republicans now.  They’re all going to have to be against it, so the candidates will be picking at each other at some of these issues.

John Sparks
How important will social issues be in this upcoming election?

Carl
I think social issues will not be that important.  For one thing, I think that the Republicans pretty much agree on those issues.  There are a couple of small differences. Governor Huntsman, I believe, is in favor of at least civil unions if not gay marriage.  Most of the Republicans are against that.  Romney was for it originally but is now against it.  They’re all strongly against abortion rights.  Now, what will make a difference on the social issues is that I think some of the religious conservatives who were an important block in the Republican Party feel that some of the candidates are much more with them and much more genuine in their positions on these than the others.  So, they’re likely to back candidates like Michele Bachmann, maybe Rick Santorum, and some of the others, maybe Newt Gingrich, more likely to back them they’re going to back Governor Romney or Governor Huntsman.  In the general election, I think it’s the divisions between the parties are pretty well known.  They haven’t changed.  The Republicans will take — will oppose abortion rights in their platform as they have consistently since 1980. The Democrats will support it.  I think within an election where the economy is such a crucial factor and is going to be such a big issue, social issues will not play that a big of role, but you’ll hear a lot about that during the Republican primaries.

John Sparks
What about foreign policy, specifically the Middle East, Israel, Libya?

Carl
Again, I think that it’s too early to understand.  With the economy, we know that whether it’s going to be better next year or worse next year, it’s going to be an issue because Americans, when push comes to shove, they care about their jobs, the future of their jobs, the jobs for their children, and the well-being of their families.  Foreign policy issues come and go, and a lot of that really depends on what’s happening in the world at the time of the election.  President Obama recently got into some problem politically on the Middle East issue by saying something which in fact was true and had been U.S. policy all along, that the starting point for any Arab-Palestinian agreement would — Israeli-Palestinian agreement would be the boundaries from 1967 but with changes.  Critics said, “Oh, he wanted to go back to the boundaries, and Israel would never do that.”  Republicans immediately jumped on that because several said that he had thrown Israel under the bus. I mean this kind of rhetoric you hear always. The fact is Jewish vote has been heavily Democratic in recent years, more because of domestic policy, I think, since all American politicians are in favor of Israel, and I don’t think that’ll be a big issue.

Now depending what’s happening in Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya, that could be an issue. I think President Obama will benefit to some degree from having killed his — American forces having killed Osama bin Laden, and he’ll benefit to some degree if he’s able to show some more drawdown of U.S. forces in some of these wars, something he promised he’d do.

John Sparks
I count about a dozen who have either announced for the Republican nomination or may be flirting with the idea.  I’d like go down my list and have you comment about each one…

Carl
Sure.

John Sparks
…and what do you think the challenges might be for each one of those, and you mentioned Mitt Romney.  He announced June the 2nd.  Would you say he is the front runner?

Carl
He is the closest thing to a front runner that there is.  When you take the non-candidates out of the race, he leads in the Republican polls. The Republicans… And he’ll probably raise the most money.  He has the biggest organization. He has the most experienced staff, and he’s a second time candidate.  The Republicans have had a tendency in the past to nominate the next person in line and to some degree I think that’s true, especially with Governor Huckabee out of the race.  His problem is that he’s not very popular among his fellow Republicans, especially the other candidates.  They don’t think he’s very genuine, and there’s some signs that Republican voters don’t either. In 2008, he was the leader at one point in both Iowa and New Hampshire and ended up losing in both states, and there was some sense that he didn’t wear well as a candidate whereas some candidates, the more they campaign, the more popular they get. Seemed with him, the more he campaigned, the less popular he got.  So, he obviously [has] a lot of strong opposition from the more conservative wing of the party that thinks he’s a closet moderate.  He was pretty moderate when he ran for Senator against Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts in 1994.  He’s changed a number of his positions on social issues since then, and he also politically, he’s unlikely to win Iowa and is unlikely to make it as the major focus of his campaign, although I’m sure he will campaign there, but he’s put all of his major emphasis on New Hampshire.  He was of course governor of Massachusetts. He has a summer home in New Hampshire. He announced his candidacy there, and the fact is he has to win in New Hampshire to be in the race.  You become a player in the race once the voting starts by winning in one of the early states.  If you can’t win in the early states, you’ve got a lot of problems because the support tends to go to those who are succeeding.  He has to win in New Hampshire.  If he doesn’t win in New Hampshire, he’s not going to win in South Carolina, and he probably won’t win in Florida and maybe not even Michigan where his father was governor, so that’s what he has to do.  But, he starts out as the favorite in New Hampshire and is likely to be one of the two or three finalists in the GOP race.

The real wildcard in the Republican race is, of course, is Sarah Palin, the former Alaska Governor who gained instant fame when John McCain picked her as his running mate in 2008.  She has a lot of hardcore support in the Republican Party, but even a lot of Republicans have become increasingly convinced that she would not be a good president.  It’s interesting to note that she’s known for, of course, attacking what she calls the lame stream media, but some of the most trenchant criticism of her have come from Republicans and from conservatives, so it’s not only the liberals who are after her.  She showed in her visit to the historical sites in the week of Memorial Day again her ability to command the spotlight and get attention and did in some way detract from Governor Romney’s announcement in New Hampshire. She certainly got a part of that story with her criticism of him.  So… but whether she’s running for president or just wants to have a role in it, she certainly — she’s expressed views about certain candidates. She’s critical of Governor Romney. She praises Rick Perry whom she supported also when Governor Perry was running for re-nomination in Texas against Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. The general assumption is that she probably is not enthusiastic about Michele Bachmann’s candidacy because she wants to be the número uno conservative Republican Tea Party woman, and it doesn’t help her for someone else to emerge who’s a competitor for that. But exactly what’s she’s up to, whether she’s running isn’t clear. She could have a big impact on the race by supporting one of the other candidates.  She may well do that, so I think she’ll remain a figure to watch even if she’s not going to be a candidate.

John Sparks
What about former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum?

Carl
Now, he’s one of the longer shots in the race.  Of course, the last time he ran for office, which was for re-election in Pennsylvania in 2006, he got beaten rather badly, and he’s one of the very — one of the candidates making a strong pitch for the religious conservative vote.   His… he almost certainly will have to show something in Iowa, and that’s going to be a tough job for him because he’s up against two candidates who are from the neighboring state of Minnesota, former Governor Tim Pawlenty and Congresswoman Michele Bachmann.  And Congresswomen Bachmann, in fact, is an Iowa native, born in Waterloo, Iowa, where she’s going to announce her candidacy.  Newt Gingrich, when he announced — the former House Speaker, when he announced his candidacy a couple of weeks ago, had a rough time because of his criticism of the Ryan budget, the Medicare proposal, and then he got some bad publicity over his buying expensive jewelry for his wife at Tiffany’s, but at the same, he was drawing pretty big crowds in Iowa, and he could be a player in the Iowa Caucuses too.  So, Santorum is going to have beat out most of those three – Bachmann, Pawlenty, and Gingrich, and I’m not sure that he can do that.

John Sparks
Those were the next three on my list, and there’s also another that has consistently made some noise down in Texas, Ron Paul, the Libertarian.

Carl
I think Ron Paul has a limited amount of support.  I mean he has a fervent following, and he will show once again that he has that following, but there’s no sign that he can broaden that support enough to be nominated.  He’s sort of an odd duck in some ways in this field because being a Libertarian, he does not share all of the conservative views on the social issues, and he’s also against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He’s voted against funding for that.  He’s going to be a lively figure in the debates, but he’s almost certainly not going to be the nominee.

John Sparks
There’s another Libertarian, former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, what are his chances?

Carl
Well, I think they’re pretty minimal because it’s hard to get attention in a big field.  The Democrats discovered that last time. There was some fairly prominent Democrats running like former Governor — then Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico, Senator Biden of Delaware, who of course, ended up as the Vice Presidential nominee, Chris Dodd, a prominent Senator from Connecticut, and they were unable to get traction because the race was so focused around Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and even John Edwards, who had made a good run for the nomination four years earlier, before, of course, all of this legal problems arose, had trouble becoming the third getting into that Clinton Obama mix.  So, I think some of the Republicans are going to have the same problem, and a rather obscure figure from a small Western state is going to have a lot of, like Paul Johnson, will have a lot of trouble breaking through.

John Sparks
You mentioned Michele Bachmann, and that makes me think of the Tea Party and another Tea Party type I think of Herman Cain, the radio personality…

Carl
Well and Herman Cain is the early surprise in the Republican field.  Herman Cain is a black businessman from Atlanta who headed — was it Godfather’s Pizza, I think?

John Sparks
Yes.

Carl
And, he also has radio talk show. He… the Tea Party folks love him, and although he’s sort of been dismissed by the establishment, his numbers have consistently risen so that, for example, there was a recent poll in Iowa in which I think Romney ran first, about 20%, but Cain was tied for second with Sarah Palin, and I should’ve mentioned him among the candidates in Iowa who have a potential of breaking into that religious conservative group, the ones that Santorum was going to have trouble beating because Cain is certainly a player in that too. Now, whether he can beat out Michele Bachmann and how Pawlenty figures in it, those are two interesting… the two candidates from Minnesota.  Pawlenty, the former governor, appears to have gone somewhere to the right since he became a candidate.  While he has an evangelical background, his basic appeal was that he was a reasonably successful conservative governor of a liberal state and got along with the Democrats and the legislature for the most part, and that would be his argument. He’s… now he realizes that being from Minnesota he has to make a showing in Iowa, and so he’s trying to do that two ways. One is by spending an awful lot of time in Iowa, which is exactly the right thing historically to do, and the other is putting a little more stress on the social issues that he might otherwise.  Now, he’ll be up against Michele Bachmann, the congresswoman from Minnesota, who was, as I said, born in Waterloo, Iowa.  She’s sort of a surprise in the field.  I think as long as Sarah Palin looked like a candidate, no one had paid much attention to Michele Bachmann, but Sarah Palin increasingly looks to most Republicans and most analysts like she’s not running, and I’ve seen Michele Bachmann speak before conservative audience, and she gets a pretty good reaction. People like Romney and Pawlenty are not very exciting figures, so someone who can create a little excitement in the right of the party, like a Michele Bachmann or like a Herman Cain, might show something.

The Iowa Caucuses are sort of an odd thing because being caucuses, the turnout tends to be less than in primaries when — and tends to be more confined to the activists in the party. Now that was not true of the Democrats in 2008. The turnout for the caucuses was enormous and far exceeded what they had in their previous gubernatorial primaries. Republican turnouts have tended to be smaller and have tended over the last 25 years to become increasingly conservative so that about two-thirds of the turnout for the caucuses are… identify themselves as religious conservatives.  The only way one of those people from that group doesn’t win there is if there’s so many of them that they divide up the group and someone more moderate like a Romney slips through in a crowded field.

John Sparks
There are two other names from the past that sometimes get mentioned, Texas Governor Rick Perry and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani.  What about those two?

Carl
Ironically, Perry, who’s quite conservative, supported Giuliani in 2008.  I don’t think anyone knows quite what Giuliani’s up to.  I mean, we hadn’t heard very much from him. Now, he has shown up in New Hampshire a couple times and is making noises about running. My view of Giuliani is that if he didn’t make it last time, he’s not going to make it this time. It’s four more years since the attacks of 2001, which is where he made his reputation.  The war against terrorism is not a big issue, not as big an issue as it was four and eight years ago.  He still has positions on the social issues.  He’s pro abortion rights and pro gay marriage that are to the left of the Republican mainstream and I just don’t see how he — I think he could play some havoc with the Republican field in New Hampshire, I mean, one of the things — one of the potential problems for Romney in New Hampshire, and we’ve not mentioned one who’s more likely to run, former Governor Huntsman of Utah who was recently President Obama’s Ambassador to China, also on the more moderate side of the Republican party.  If a Huntsman or a Giuliani gained any traction in New Hampshire, and Huntsman will concentrate heavily there, they could squeeze Romney.  Romney… On the right side of Romney are going to be the social conservatives and contrary to some belief, there are more Tea Party types in New Hampshire than one would think.  However, the primary is probably going to be less conservative than say the Iowa Caucuses in part because in New Hampshire independents can vote, and because there’ll be no Democratic contest, you’re going to find a lot of independents voting in the Republican primary, and that’s the hope for Romney, but it’s also the hope of someone like Huntsman or a Giuliani if he would run.  And, if a Giuliani or a Huntsman gains any traction there, I’d say Romney could get squeezed. The centrist sometimes has — probably he’d be the centrist in that field.

Rick Perry, now that’s an interesting thing too. Until a couple of weeks ago, he consistently said he didn’t want to run for president. He had no intention of going to Washington. He wasn’t interested in it.  Then all of a sudden as the legislative session neared the end of its regular session, he said, well, he’s going to think about it.  He would have some appeal in the Republican Party.  Although he started out as a Democrat, he was Al Gore’s state chairman in 1988, he’s been elected statewide six times as a Republican, supports all the social issues, came off a legislative session where they’ve passed legislation to require a sonogram for women who are planning to have abortions, tightened the podium rules, did a number of things the conservatives like.  He could have some appeal to the Republicans. I think he’d be a pretty tough candidate to sell in a general election. For one thing, he also has flirted with the idea of secession. He said a year or so ago that one alternative to the heavy handed Washington was for the states to secede.  Well, it’s hard to run for president of the United States if you’re talking about seceding from the union.  As I say, some of the Republicans might appreciate that, but it’s hard to see how that would help him in a general election. I’m a bit skeptical that either Giuliani or Perry will run.

John Sparks
At this stage of the game with so many out there testing the waters, at this point in time is the 2012 race the president’s race to lose nonetheless?

Carl
I think that’s probably still true.  It’s interesting when you look back at presidents running for re-election and what their record is.  Jimmy Carter in 1980 is the only time since the 1890’s when a president was beaten for re-election four years after his party regained the White House. In other words, the other presidents who’ve been beaten for re-election, and there’s several of them, their party had been either in office several terms, for example former — the first President Bush was beaten for re-election, but that would’ve been the fourth consecutive Republican term in the presidency. The same thing was true of President Hoover in 1932.  Gerald Ford, of course, was beaten in 1976, but he’d never been elected president. So, Carter is the only one who when he brought his party back into office, then four years later his party — he and his party lost it.  Presidents have an enormous advantage running for re-election. On the other hand, there’s been a lot of attention to a statistic that no president’s been re-elected with the unemployment rate higher than 7.2%, which it was when Reagan was elected, re-elected. It almost certainly will be above that in November of 2012.  On the other hand, as Nate Silver pointed out in 538.com, which is a branch of the New York Times, Reagan would undoubtedly had been re-elected with a higher unemployment rate because he won by such an enormous margin.

So, I think that the economy is the real problem but that Obama still starts the year as the favorite, but things change.  At this point before the 1992 election, no one thought there was a realistic chance the Democrats would beat the first President Bush, but — and the top Democrats who were being someone who people thought could be presidents, most of them were not running in the race at the time in the same way that some top Republicans are not running this time.  And, Bush continued to lose support, and Bill Clinton turned out to be a very good candidate, and Bush got beaten by Clinton, so a lot can change. It’s still very early.  The economy at this point next year is going to be a lot more important than the economy at this point this year.

John Sparks

Carl, it’s always a pleasure talking to you, and we’ll look forward to visiting again down the road as the race shapes up.

6/3: The Battle of the Cliches: Is it a “Tossup” or a “Slam Dunk?”

June 3, 2011 | by

By Dr. Lee M. Miringoff

Ever wonder why a landslide election result might be referred to as “no contest” but you’d never hear “nolo contendere” used to describe a sporting event when one team runs up a lopsided score?

caricature of Lee Miringoff

The answer is simple.  Political terminology doesn’t export well outside the Beltway crowd.  In contrast, a sports metaphor can go the distance in providing the dug-out chatter used to describe the ecstasy of victory or the agony of defeat.  That is, after all, what often accompanies election coverage when a candidate lands a knockout punch and his opponent goes down for the count, or his handler throws in the towel.  No split decision there.

As a practitioner of political punditry, give me a good sports metaphor to label a critical campaign moment, preferably during the appropriate sports season (this is the super bowl of primary nights) and voila! I’m in sound-bite Heaven. But, imagine Bob Costas turns to me in the announcer’s booth for a morsel of color commentary, and I pull out a pithy phrase from my Ph.D. dissertation in political science.  I’m one and done, and it doesn’t even have to occur during March Madness!

My list of sports favorites is long.  Baseball provides politics with a whole line-up of candidate commentary.  He stepped up to the plate.   He hit that question out of the park.  He’s pitching a shutout.  He threw ‘em a curve ball. Bet you’ve got a bull pen full of one-liners, as well.

Football phrases are also aplenty. He should drop ten and punt (a Marist Poll office favorite).  He’s doing an end run.  He fumbled that question.  And, of course, there’s the desperate candidate tossing a Hail Mary pass.  Maybe you’d like to suit up and tackle a few on your own.

But, first, grant me a moment of political pollster fantasy and permit my turning the world of sports commentary inside-out, or is it upside-down?  Either way, with the aid of an occasional translation, it might go something like this.

It’s the ninth inning of the inaugural game of the season… Of course, I mean Opening Day.  The pitcher seems to be losing his delivery and is in danger of losing the arms race altogether.  The spectators in the galleries, who turned out in record numbers for the inauguration, are growing restless and calling for cloture.

The commander-in-chief (the manager) consults his Secretary of Health and Human Services (we’re talking team trainer here).  “Relieve him of his responsibilities,” the Secretary pleads.  Costas asks me, “What do you think he’ll do?”   My retort: “Bob, I think the chief executive is going to override the recommendations of his advisor.  There’s no need to ration resources this early in the session or mandate a change.”

The chief executive fears his policy will not be supported by the campaign operations team out in the field and calls for a stoppage to head off the need to exercise his veto.  They gather in the middle of the political spectrum.   They talk and talk and talk.

“Bob, I think the judge (home plate umpire, for those of you who haven’t figured this all out by now) has heard enough and wants to end this filibuster.  Yes, we finally have an executive decision here.   The commander in chief is, indeed, sticking with the incumbent.”

“Right you are, Professor.”

“He’s counting on his opposition research here, Bob.  He’s ordered an over shift to the right. No room for a margin of error…It worked…ball game over, motion to adjourn!”

On the field, “thanks for letting me complete my term,” the pitcher quips to the commander in chief as he leaves the dais.

What have we learned from this “reality politics” word game?  Well, we’re just in time for the opening bell for sports clichés for election cycle 2012.  And, I’m warming up on the sidelines. The morning line has been established.  There are front-runners and long-shots.  Maybe the favorite will put the field away, or maybe, it’ll come down to the wire and be a photo finish.  Can a challenger step up in class and outdistance all comers in this 2012 Breeders’ Cup of politics?

I wonder what the Gallup Poll or the Roper Archives have to say about the current entries.  Or, better yet, the Maris Poll.  Oops, I mean the MarisT Poll.

This much is certain.  The likelihood is that next spring the Triple Crown will not refer to the Kentucky Derby, the Preakness, and the Belmont stakes.  Saddle up for Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, and watch the candidates jockey for position.

5/4: On the Edge of History

May 4, 2011 | by

By Dr. Lee M. Miringoff

Pollsters, in some ways, are like journalists.  We chronicle events, sometimes personal often historic but always with numbers not just words.  We crowd the sidelines forecasting the future and unraveling the past.  On the morning of September 11th, 2001 I found myself in a mid-town hotel preparing to dissect and interpret the election results of New York City’s primary for mayor.  My plans were to review the exit poll for WNBC that afternoon and provide analysis of the election returns that evening.  But, no one’s plans that day went as expected.

caricature of Lee MiringoffMy lasting reflections, beyond the visual images we all share, involve feelings of isolation amid chaos.  Of course, there would be no primary that day.  My route home was temporarily cut off for security reasons as Manhattan truly became an island.  The sirens shattered the silence underscoring the horror that was just beginning to sink in.  The world as we knew it was indeed changing.  When it was finally announced that northern bridges would open, there was only one exit on the west side and national guardsman were posted at every corner.

Soon thereafter, we would do what we do best.  We recorded through polls the emotions and perceptions of, first, New Yorkers and, then, all Americans.  The public had so much to say about terrorism and the impact of those attacks.

Oddly, this past weekend, I found myself in Washington, D.C. for several events including the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner on Saturday night.  It was a fun evening of political satire which camouflaged the plans which the president and his national security team had in place for the next day.

Upon returning from another dinner late Sunday night, I gave a final check of my iPhone only to discover along with the rest of the world that President Obama was about to address the nation on the death of Osama Bin Laden.  Again, there I was, this time in a hotel on 16th Street within sight and sound of the White House.  This time, there was no isolation, no chaos.  The sounds of sirens had been replaced by car horns and cheers of “USA, USA.”  It was a triumphant moment and, yet, at the same time, a reflective and somber one.

Ironically, we had already begun polling New Yorkers in partnership with NY1 in preparation for the 10th anniversary of 9/11 before the events of Sunday night.  Today, we continue to measure how people feel about the War on Terror.  We hope that a milestone has been passed and that public confidence will be different than it was on that fateful day nearly a decade ago or, at least, before Sunday.

5/3: What Do Lee Miringoff and Babe Ruth Have in Common?

May 3, 2011 | by

By Dr. Lee M. Miringoff

The latest joke circulating The Marist Poll these days (courtesy of JS and MG) goes something like this: “What do Lee Miringoff and Babe Ruth have in common?”  Answer: They both hit 60.  For Ruth, it obviously refers to his prodigious 1927 season when he shattered all records for homers.  For yours truly, it refers to all of us baby-boomers who have now reached 6 decades.

Of course, for the birther club of ’51, it was also the year of Bobby Thomson’s shot heard ‘round the world when the “Giants Won the Pennant!  The Giants Won the Pennant!  Of course, “The Yankees won the series!” But, I digress.

Now, I recognize this probably doesn’t qualify for side splitting (or bat splitting) humor.  But, you new media, blog reading youngsters need to realize the years, and apparently, the decades roll by.

So, how does a number crunching pollster come to terms with advancing, or perhaps, retreating middle age?  Why not let the public decide.  And, that’s exactly what we’ve been doing at The Marist Poll on this issue for over 20 years.  Each year, as May 3rd approaches, we ask as part of a national sample whether people consider my age to be “young, middle-aged, or old?”  And, each year, I await the findings with no less zeal than an election eve poll on a closely contested presidential race.

In the past, there have been certain birthday polls that were potentially more ominous than others.  The switch from 39 to 40 and the hazards of turning 50 come to mind.  Yet, my faith in public opinion (and no doubt an aging population) kept the numbers intact.  But now, the big 6-0 is on the table and anyway you slice it that translates into a mess of birthday candles.

Does being 60 years old shake the public’s perception of middle age?  Well, sort of.

The good news:  63% of adults nationwide think someone who is 60 years old is still middle-aged.  Not too shabby.  (I know that technically means I would have to reach 120.  But, we’re talking perceptions here not actuarial tables.).  Under the heading of “misery loves company, “ 26% of people who have already turned 60 think that even if you were born in 1951, you should still be considered young.  Only 15% of my new decade-mates think it is old.  Well, that’s it for the good news.

Now, for the bad news:  Last year, 72% thought being 59 was middle-aged.  That makes this year’s drop to 63% too big to ignore.   Ouch!

And, if that isn’t bad enough, let’s add another wrinkle to the aging data.  A full 23% think, despite the dyed hair, the sixth decade makes you old compared to only 13% who think you remain young.  We’ll skip the cross-tabs containing the views of those under 30 years old.  Didn’t we use to say “you can’t trust anyone under 30?” Or, was it the other way around?

Well, that pretty much wraps it up for this year.  If the “Babe” and I can both hit 60, does that mean next year that my 61st birthday needs to be referred to with an asterisk… “61*”   (If you’re puzzled by this reference, just ask someone who remembers Roger Maris).

Ok.  Where’s that cake with all those candles?

Table: How Old is 60?

Marist Poll Methodology

Lee Miringoff discusses hitting the big 6-0:

4/29: Political Grab Bag

April 29, 2011 | by

By Dr. Lee M. Miringoff

The recent national McClatchy-Marist Poll contains many interesting nuggets.  Here are a few worth examining more closely:

Obama in Trouble?

The numbers suggest that President Obama’s re-election prospects could be in jeopardy.  With everything going for him in ’08, he tallied 53%.  Now, only 37% of the electorate tells us they would definitely vote to re-elect him.

“Why Not Me,” Asks the GOP Field

The GOP clearly wants to run against Obama in the worst possible way, and, so far, that’s exactly what they’ve been doing.  With a potential field of more than a dozen candidate wannabes, no one has come forward who tops Obama.  In fact, it is hard to distinguish a top tier of challengers.  “The Donald” is taking most of the oxygen out of the room leaving the rest of the field trying to catch their breath.  In electoral politics, it is still early.  But, the adage of needing someone to beat someone still reigns in politics.  And, so far, the GOP has to be worried over what they have to offer.

Pointing an Economic Finger

There’s plenty of blame to go around, but…

I must admit to being surprised by the 63% of the national electorate in the latest McClatchy-Marist Poll who still thinks that President Obama largely inherited the country’s economic woes.  The percentage is down from the 80% who expressed this view two years ago.  But, you’d think that by now more of the recession minded voters would be placing their displeasure at the doorsteps of the current occupant of the White House.  If these numbers hold as the president swings into campaign mode, expect Obama to mention it every now and then.  Maybe a little more than that!

Tea-Partiers…Are You serious?

Well, it seems like I’m surprised yet again from the recent national poll.  This time, it’s the Tea Party crowd that caught me off guard.  On the question of cutting Medicare and Medicaid to deal with the deficit, 70% of these anti-spending, anti-big government voters object to going after these programs.

What’s a Washington Pol to Do?

And now, for the understatement of the year (decade? ages?)… Voters around the nation are very dissatisfied with the political leadership in Washington.  64% think the nation is headed in the wrong direction.  President Obama’s approval rating is stuck at 40-something.  But, only 34% approve of job the Congressional Democrats are doing.  As for the beneficiaries of last November’s political shellacking of the president, well, the GOP in Congress bottoms out at a 30% approval rating.

The Congressional Top Spot

Not surprisingly, the top priority for voters is for Washington to reduce the deficit.  But, the devil is definitely in the details.  There is a wide chasm between the public sentiments and what Washington is likely to deliver.  A majority of voters, 54%, do not want to reduce military spending.  A full 80% oppose cuts in Medicare and Medicaid.  And, more than two out of three voters oppose raising the debt ceiling to deal with the federal budget deficit.  The Obama proposal to raise taxes on the wealthy has substantial support with voters but will clearly face major obstacles in becoming law.

What’s a Washington pol to do?  So far, the public has been served with very little beyond partisan bickering and posturing and the approaching elections are unlikely to help.

4/28: Recovery … What Recovery?

April 28, 2011 | by

By Barbara Carvalho

You’d think with the “official” economic recession long over, according to the calculations of economists, and with President Obama and Wall Street imploring the Congress not to do anything to disrupt the supposed economic rebound, that maybe, just maybe, it would show up in the national poll numbers.   Well, hold onto your seats, folks, because it doesn’t!

So, what’s going on in the realm of public opinion?  Is the public not plugged into what the economists know? Or, are the economists not in touch with what the public continues to experience?

About 7 in 10 Americans, according to the latest McClatchy-Marist Poll, still believe the nation is mired in an economic recession.  Admittedly, this represents a drop from the 79% who felt this way in December, but, it’s consistent with the 71% who shared this view in January.

And, what about the future?  A majority of Americans, 57%, think the worst is yet to come for the U.S. economy.  Only 39% tell us the worst is behind us.  That’s a flip in the numbers from January when the holiday economic bounce led 39% of people to think the worst was yet to come but an encouraging 54% thought the worst had passed.

Although people divide between those who think their personal finances will get better or worse in the coming year, this isn’t exactly anything to write home about.  Instead, it’s a departure from prior polls when more people thought their personal finances would improve in the future instead of worsen.

How does this translate for President Obama and his re-election prospects?  Well, already 57% of voters nationwide disapprove of his handling of the economy, typically an ominous sign for an incumbent.  But, voters don’t yet blame him for sky-rocketing gas prices, and by more than 2 to 1 they think these economic conditions are mostly something he inherited rather than the result of his own policies.  Expect the president to periodically remind voters of this perception as he transitions into campaign mode.

3/31: Third Term: A Bridge by Any Other Name

March 31, 2011 | by

By Dr. Lee M. Miringoff

Now that Ed Koch has had the Queensboro Bridge named after him, maybe the “How Am I Doing?” former mayor might be able to teach the current occupant of City Hall a thing or two about how hard it is to bridge the gap between a second and third term.  When it comes to how he’s doing, Mayor Bloomberg is learning that he isn’t immune from 3rdterm-itis just like Koch and former Governor Mario Cuomo before him.  They both learned the hard way.  Bloomberg is also struggling to make the grade.

What is it about third terms that makes for the growing unpopularity of chief executives?  When first elected, freshly minted officeholders typically ride into office on a wave of change and energy.  Their enthusiastic followers have been promised a new day.  The first termer has accumulated political capital as his followers have invested in the new administration.

If handled wisely, the new leader can successfully strategize about his re-election prospects which usually incorporate a “we need to finish what we started” ring to it.  Re-election is never guaranteed but seems to be a frequent happening even in these change-oriented, turbulent times.

Then, the itch for a third term shows up and it’s off to the races once again.  The problem is in finding a new rationale for running and governing. Now, in the case of Mayor Bloomberg, term limits presented a major obstacle. He eked out a surprisingly close win over an underfunded opponent.

But, according to the latest Marist Poll, his approval rating has sunk, his legacy is on shaky ground, and he is plagued by a series of missteps that threaten to make his remaining years in office difficult. How’s he doing? Not so hot. Will his recent TV ads resurrect his third term?  Stay tuned, but the odds are long.