Is Mitt Romney Less Well-Known Than He Was in 2007?

Photo: nmfbihop

According to a new Pew Research Center poll, while 54 percent of Americans are able to name at least one GOP presidential candidate, the leading candidates aren’t named as often as in previous years. Only 27 percent of Americans named Mitt Romney and only 28 percent named Rick Perry. That’s below the same measure taken four years ago in October 2007, when 45 percent could name Rudy Giuliani and 30 percent could name Romney. So, well into his second campaign for president, Romney is now less well-known than he was four years ago, when he ran the first time around. Not exactly encouraging.

Also, it’s interesting that Perry is still more recognizable than Romney, despite having fallen in the polls recently — especially since Perry got into the race only about two months ago, and Romney’s been running for much of the last four years. Chalk it up to the Texas swagger versus consultant technocrat?

Here’s some historical comparisons of previous years’ frontrunners from Pew:

Overall, it’s been a good month for Romney. Back in early September, he was essentially neck and neck with Perry. But according to predictions market Intrade (my favorite source for campaign odds), he now has a sizable lead over the Texas governor. Romney’s chances of securing the GOP presidential nomination are now at 59 percent, while Perry’s are down to just 19.4 percent. Looking at Romney’s chart over the last week, is that a Chris Christie bounce I see on the afternoon of Oct. 4?

Leave A Comment

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

 

COMMENTS: 8

View All Comments »
  1. Eric M. Jones says:

    Mitt Romney? didn’t he play left field for the Cubs?

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3
  2. CS says:

    Couldn’t have anything to do with the media obsession with the fringe candidates, could it? It seems obvious that Palin & Bachman get more coverage and attention than Romney (he IS boring, after all). Perry got coverage when he said controversial (often silly) things, not otherwise. I’ve seen/heard a whole lot more about Palin and her inanities than about anyone else, I think.

    Don’t know whether this reflects the well-known media liberal/Democrat bias, but it surely reflects the media bias for silly/sensational news.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
  3. Chris says:

    No mention of margin of error in this report. With numbers that close, the best statement you can make is that he’s not significantly more well-known now than he was 4 years ago.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
  4. Chad says:

    Americans are not as interested in this election as the last? Or we are just not as well informed in general?

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
  5. James says:

    I expect a lot of us just don’t want to know.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
  6. Ed Kay says:

    Not exactly encouraging? Wrong! Romney is just where he should be. A front runner who is not so well established a year in advances as to be stale news by next summer. Thanks for providing the Intrade confirmation.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
  7. dave gershner says:

    Any pub incl romney disastrous. Why? look at pub history:

    What did the government do?

    The president was a Republican, Herbert Hoover. He believed that if you were in trouble you should help yourself and not expect others to help you. This he called “rugged individualism”. Therefore he did not do a great deal to help those out of work.

    Hoover did not believe that the depression would last – “Prosperity is just around the corner” is what he said to businessmen in 1932 when things were just about at their worst. Squalid cardboard campsites were created in cities to live in…called “Hoovervilles”. The nick-name of the soup given out by charities for the unemployed was “Hoover stew”.

    However, Hoover did do some good. Money was used to create jobs to build things such as the Hoover Dam. In 1932 he gave $300 million to the states to help the unemployed (Emergency Relief and Reconstruction Act) but it had little impact as states run by the Republicans believed in “rugged individualism” more than Hoover did and they used only $30 million of the money offered to them.

    Obama’s stimulus in 2009 and 2010 hasn’t done enough to help job growth, but it has stimulated a 50% increase in the stock market (DJIA), which has helped many people.

    Now, saddled with GOP do-nothing House, Obama has had a hard time doing much more than Hoover was able to do. Why? pubs.

    More must be done to help the American people, and not after the 2012 election.
    Help is needed now!
    —————————–

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
  8. mfw13 says:

    Probably has more to with the fact that Americans have become so fed up with politicans that they have stopped paying attention (if they ever did in the first place). It’s pretty much conventional wisdom among political analysts that most voters do not start to seriously pay attention until a month or two before the election, i.e. September 2012, not September 2011.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0