CNN breathlessly touted a new poll Sunday with the headline “Bush surges to 2016 GOP frontrunner.” The network’s Twitter feed was even more breathless: “BREAKING: Jeb zooms to top of GOP field.” The poll in question found former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush leading the Republican presidential field with 23 percent, in front of Chris Christie, with 13 percent, and Ben Carson, with 10 percent.
CNN’s pollsters included a lot of names in the results. In addition to Bush, Christie, and Carson, they asked respondents about support for Mike Huckabee, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal, Rick Perry, Scott Walker, John Kasich, Rick Santorum, Mike Pence, and Rob Portman.
But amid all those names — 15 in all — CNN left one off: Mitt Romney. The 2012 Republican nominee has been leading the GOP field in surveys that include his name — indeed, he led CNN’s November poll, with 20 percent to Bush’s 9 percent. Did Romney’s support disappear in the space of a month, even as Bush announced he is “actively exploring” a presidential run?
Unlikely. If CNN had included Romney in its poll, the ‘Bush zooms’ story probably wouldn’t have been written.
Yes, it is true that a Romney 2016 run seems a remote possibility. But the CNN December poll included other names whose candidacies are far-fetched at best. For example, Ohio Sen. Rob Portman has said he will not run in 2016, and his name was on the CNN poll. Indiana Gov. Mike Pence might run, but again he might not — and his name was on the poll. The same for Ohio Gov. John Kasich. Why include non-candidates Portman, Pence and Kasich, but not Romney?
For that matter, why did the Democratic side of the CNN poll include Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who has consistently said she is “not running” for president? Even if one believes Warren will eventually run, the poll also included Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, who has ruled out a 2016 candidacy. It’s probably accurate to say the chances of a Romney run are at least as great as those of a Patrick campaign.
Many argue that polls at this stage are just measures of name recognition. There’s a lot of truth to that. One the other hand, one could also argue that more than a year before the first voting, political races are often name recognition contests, so the polls do say something about the state of the race at this moment. Also, if having a high name recognition somehow makes Romney’s poll results less reliable, what about a candidate named Bush?
The bottom line is that the Republican field is remarkably unformed and fluid a little more than a year before the Iowa caucuses. Some people are obviously running, while some are obviously not, and others are question marks. Why shouldn’t a poll fully reflect the disarray and unruliness that define the current Republican presidential race?
