GALLUP NEWS SERVICE
PRINCETON, NJ -- Arizona Senator John McCain, the big winner in Tuesday's New Hampshire primary, was clearly helped in his victory by Republican primary voters who admired his honesty, character, vision and relationship to the common voter. Republican voters in the Granite State were well aware of the fact that McCain's principle opponent -- Texas Governor George W. Bush -- was the national front-runner and they granted Bush the best chance of beating the Democrat in November. New Hampshire Republican voters also agreed that Bush had at least a good a chance as McCain to keep the economy strong. But, it appears that other more intangible issues -- on which McCain excelled in the eyes of New Hampshire voters --- were what propelled him forward to victory.
Gallup polled more than 2,000 New Hampshire likely voters in the 12 days leading up to the primary vote on Tuesday. A little more than a week before the vote, on January 21-23, New Hampshire residents who said they would be voting in the Republican primary were asked to explain in their own words why they were voting for their particular candidate of choice. Forty-one percent of McCain voters justified their choice by mentioning some aspect of McCain's honesty, trustworthiness, morals, ethics or character, and another 12% mentioned his military background -- which presumably reflects in part the same character dimensions. Despite the emphasis on the issues in much of the debating which took place in New Hampshire, a much smaller percent of McCain voters mentioned agreement with his stance on the issues as their reason for voting for him, and only 12% mentioned his tax plan.
The portrait derived from an analysis of the responses to the same question given by George W. Bush supporters is different, and more mixed. Only 26% of Bush's supporters in the same poll mentioned honesty, trustworthiness, morals, ethics or character as their reason for voting for Bush. The Texas Governor's voters were more likely to discuss their candidate in terms of his tax plan and his experience, along with their agreement with him on the issues.
The explanations given by McCain supporters can be strongly contrasted with the explanations given by the relatively small number of voters who were supporting Steve Forbes. Almost half of Forbes' supporters said they were backing the millionaire publisher because of his tax policy or plan -- a factor which was a major part of Forbes's campaign in 1996, but had not been emphasized as much this year.
There is additional data that helps understand New Hampshire voters' high levels of support for McCain. Over the last weekend before the primary vote, Republican voters were asked to name the candidate who they thought best fit each of a series of descriptions. McCain did well on most dimensions, but did particularly well on the dimensions of being "in touch" with the average American, "having a vision for America's future," and as "someone you can trust." These dimensions, an analysis of the data shows, are all-important predictors of the voters' choice.
As noted, there apparently was little question in New Hampshire voters' minds about Bush's front-runner status; he received 68% of the choices on the dimension, "has the best chance of beating the Democratic candidate in November." Bush also did relatively well when compared to McCain in terms of the voters' perception that he "can get things done in Washington" and 'keep the economy strong." These are more traditional dimensions, and it appears the Republican voters in New Hampshire, while conceding them to Bush, were more interested in the less traditional qualities which they ascribed to McCain.
In fact, when asked to make a choice, 51% of Republican voters in New Hampshire chose a candidate's vision and leadership skills as being more important in their presidential choice than the candidates' stands on issues, while 31% chose the latter alternative -- a 20-point margin. This can be contrasted to Democratic primary voters in New Hampshire, who opted for the leadership and vision alternative by 44% to 37% -- only a 7-point margin.
Gore Had Edge over Bradley on Economy and Education;
Bradley Fared Well on Trust
The situation on the Democratic side in New Hampshire was somewhat
different. A special statistical analysis shows that the most
important factor influencing the voters' presidential choice was
trust in the candidates, an issue that favored Bradley. But the
poll also shows that two other issues that favored Gore -- the
economy and education -- may have more than offset Bradley's
advantage on trust.
When asked to indicate which candidate was more trustworthy, 41% of New Hampshire Democratic voters chose Bradley and 33% chose Gore. But when asked who would be better able to keep the economy strong, 55% of the voters said Gore, while just 28% said Bradley. Gore also enjoyed an advantage on education, with 50% of the voters saying he would do the better job of dealing with that issue, compared with 37% who felt Bradley would do the better job.
The analysis of Democratic voters in New Hampshire also showed that two other issues were important influences on voters' preferences -- the perception of which candidate had a better vision for the country's future, and who could best deal with health care. The extended debates between Gore and Bradley over various parts of their respective health care proposals left Democratic voters evenly divided on the issue, with 45% favoring Bradley's approach and 43% Gore's approach. Similarly, the candidates tied on the vision issue, with 41% of Democratic voters favoring each candidate on that issue. Thus, while the trust issue was by far the most important issue related to the voters' presidential choice and most probably was related to Bradley's relatively strong showing, the other issues mentioned above also had an impact on the final vote, and may have been just enough to allow Gore to emerge with his narrow victory.
What Now?
The question now hanging over both the Republican and Democratic
2000 primary races: Can the challenger candidacies of Bradley and
McCain use their showings in New Hampshire to build national
support and primary victories in other states over the next month?
For the Republicans, John McCain's hopes to derail George Bush
focus on the single primaries of this month -- in Delaware, Arizona
and Michigan, and then on the onslaught of big state primaries in
March. For Democrats, there is a hiatus now until March, at which
point Bill Bradley will have to do well to have a chance of besting
Vice President Al Gore for the nomination. In the last national
surveys before the New Hampshire primary, both Bush and Gore
enjoyed the support of 60%+ of the members of their parties
nationwide. If McCain and Bradley are going to have realistic
chances of winning significant numbers of the March primaries in
the big states, then national surveys taken over the next several
weeks will need to reflect significant gains in their levels of
national support.
Such changes are not out of the question based on historical patterns. We know from previous years that an upset win in New Hampshire -- such as McCain's -- has the potential to increase a candidate's standings nationally.
The most recent example comes from 1996, when Pat Buchanan eked out a narrow victory in the New Hampshire Republican primary over Bob Dole -- the party's national front runner and eventual nominee. Prior to the New Hampshire primary, Buchanan had been favored by only 7% of Republicans nationwide, near the bottom of the pack of seven candidates. Within a week after beating Bob Dole by one point in the New Hampshire primary, Buchanan surged to second place behind Dole, and was supported nationally by 27% of Republicans. At the same time, his favorable image within the Republican Party also jumped from 33% to 60%.
Not only did the New Hampshire election rescue Pat Buchanan from single-digit obscurity, but according to comparisons with earlier Gallup polls that year, it altered the national images of most of the leading candidates in the race. Buchanan's win, Lamar Alexander's strong third place showing, and heavy criticism of Steve Forbes' negative New Hampshire advertising against Dole all seemed to reverberate in various ways among the national electorate.
However, and this may be the key point, all of these changes after New Hampshire in 1996 proved to be short-lived. In particular, by the time of Gallup's next national poll in early March 1996, support for Buchanan had fallen back to 13%, the New Hampshire primary had been eclipsed by major Dole victories in other states, and Dole had secured his position as the presumptive nominee.
Outlook for McCain and Bradley
The initial assumption is that the chance this year for John McCain
to build on his New Hampshire victory would seem to be higher than
for Pat Buchanan's in 1996. Prior to New Hampshire, McCain had
already emerged as the No. 2 candidate in the Republican field,
albeit far behind George W. Bush. Also, unlike Buchanan in 1996,
McCain's image among Republicans was already highly positive prior
to his spectacular showing on Tuesday; 65% of Americans had a
favorable view of the Arizona Senator, and only 13% had an
unfavorable view. Thus, attracting new voters could well be an
easier task for McCain than it was for Buchanan. Furthermore,
McCain's victory in New Hampshire -- an 18-point margin over Bush
-- was much more substantial than Buchanan's 1-point margin over
Bob Dole four years ago.
The situation for Democratic challenger Bill Bradley may be harder. While he may have exceeded some expectations in New Hampshire by coming relatively close to front-runner Al Gore, he did not win. And, while support for John McCain has been growing to some degree nationally, Bradley's support among Democrats has dwindled over the past month from a high of 39% in December, to 21% in late January. Still, like McCain, Bradley enjoys a positive image in his party, with 63% viewing him favorably and only 13% unfavorably.
The first test will be whether either Bradley or McCain get an immediate "bounce" in public support for their candidacies in upcoming national polls. Then it remains to be seen whether they can repeat, or in Bradley's case improve on, their strong showings in subsequent early primaries.
From a broader perspective, an analysis of Gallup polls over the past 50 years offers little precedent for candidates successfully derailing front runners who enjoy support levels within their party at this point as high as those of Gore and Bush. Prior to the February 1 New Hampshire primary, the Gallup Poll found Bush leading McCain 65% to 15% among Republicans nationally, with all other candidates in single digits. Similarly, Al Gore was beating Bill Bradley among Democrats nationally by a 67% to 21% margin. Since Gallup began measuring primary contests earlier the century, there has not been a situation in which a strong Republican frontrunner at the beginning of the election year did not go on to win his party's nomination. On the Democratic side, only South Dakota Senator George McGovern in 1972 was able to come from behind to win his party's nomination, emerging from single digits in March of that year to eventually overtake the front runner, Edmund Muskie.