Polarizing Politicians

Dick Morris has a piece today that should be a warning to both parties as they start sorting out their 2008 presidential candidates. Morris' theory says that candidates who are wildly popular within their own party, but not as popular with independents, may be too polarizing to be able to win general election. He gives some examples:

Hillary Clinton is the most polarizing figure tested. Her sky-high ratings among Democrats (82 percent) suggest that she is irresistible in the primaries and a likely bet to win the nomination. But her lower rating among independents shows that they don’t share the enthusiasm. As he amply illustrated in 2004, Kerry is as polarizing as Hillary, running 32 points better among Democrats than independents.

At the other end of the polarization spectrum is McCain, who draws favorable ratings from 57 percent of independents but only 64 percent from Republicans. These ratings indicate that McCain hasn’t solved the problem that handicapped him in 2000: He can be elected but not nominated.

In the Fox News survey, Rudy Giuliani stands out as the most popular Republican among voters of his own party while also ranking first among independents. The gap between the two ratings — only 18 points — illustrates how Giuliani differs sharply from McCain. He can be both nominated and elected. (Of course, one wonders how the Republican right will receive the news that he is pro-choice, pro-gun control and pro-affirmative action).

While Condoleezza Rice gets lower marks than Giuliani among both Republicans and independents — in part because people do not yet see her as a candidate — she clearly would be a candidate who does not polarize the electorate in the way Hillary and Kerry do.

Unfortunately, the survey did not include Sen. George Allen of Virginia, the guy who I think has the best shot at both the nomination and election.