Jamaica | Neither Holness Nor Golding Should Take Comfort in Anderson Poll findings

KINGSTON, Jamaica, June 23, 2025 - In the mercurial world of Jamaican politics, where fortunes can shift as quickly as Caribbean weather patterns, the latest polling data reveals a sobering truth that should give both major party leaders pause: neither Andrew Holness nor Mark Golding commands the overwhelming confidence of the Jamaican people.

Political scientist Damian Gordon has concluded that neither of Jamaica's two main political party leaders should take comfort in the latest poll findings, which show JLP Leader Andrew Holness, holding a 7.5 per cent favourability lead over Opposition Leader Mark Golding.

This assessment, delivered with characteristic academic bluntness, cuts through the partisan spin to expose a more fundamental crisis of leadership credibility that has been brewing in Jamaica's body politic.

The latest RJRGLEANER-commissioned Don Anderson poll, conducted between May 16 and June 7 among 1,033 respondents, presents a complex portrait of leadership dynamics that defies simple interpretation.

Don Anderson, whose name has become synonymous with political polling in Jamaica through his Market Research Limited firm acquired in 1975, has built a reputation for unflinching accuracy that has made his findings the gold standard in Caribbean political analysis.

The Numbers Tell a Complex Story

The comparison of the favourability of the leaders across three polls between April 2024 and May 2025 shows an interesting pattern that reveals the volatility of political fortune in contemporary Jamaica:

“ Despite Holness's statistical edge, both leaders face troubling signs of voter disengagement as Jamaica edges toward general election  ”

April 2024: Holness recorded his highest favourability rating at 40 percent, while Golding achieved 37 percent, giving Holness a 3 percentage point lead.

June 2024: Both leaders experienced declining approval, with Holness dropping to 34.6 percent and Golding falling to 35.8 percent. Critically, this marked the first time Golding was considered marginally more favourable than Holness, leading by 1.2 percentage points.

May 2025: Holness's rating increased by 3 percentage points to 37.6 percent, while Golding's fell by 5.7 percentage points to 30.1 percent, restoring Holness as the better favoured leader with an advantage of 7.5 percentage points.

When unfavourability measures are included in the analysis, however, a dramatically different picture emerges. The net positive ratings (favourable minus unfavourable) reveal:

April 2024: Holness recorded a net positive of +9 percent, compared to Golding's significantly stronger net positive of +19 percent, indicating that Golding's unfavourability rating was much lower than Holness's.

June 2024: Holness posted a troubling net negative of -1.9 percent, compared to Golding's positive +9 percent.

May 2025: While Holness's net positive moved back into positive territory at +7.2 percent, this remained lower than Golding's net positive of +7.4 percent.

The data reveals two critical patterns: Holness consistently records higher unfavourability ratings than Golding, peaking at 36.5 percent in June 2024, while Golding records significantly higher "No opinion" ratings across all three periods, meaning many respondents were unable to rate him on the favourability measure.

Expert Analysis: A Troubling Reality for Both Leaders

Despite the statistical edge enjoyed by Holness, both leaders are underperforming in the court of public opinion, according to University of the West Indies lecturer and political analyst Damion Gordon. He characterizes the findings as "troubling," citing that both men continue to poll under 40 percent in favourability.

"There are clear signs of concern as both continue to receive generally low favourability ratings, below 40 per cent," Gordon told The Sunday Gleaner. He noted that a majority of voters either have an unfavourable or no opinion at all of either party leader, and "this trend reflects strong and consistent evidence of voter disengagement and dissatisfaction, as confirmed by multiple recent polls."

Gordon argues that the high "no opinion" numbers for both leaders, especially Golding, represent either entrenched political apathy or an opportunity for the parties to convert undecided voters. His assessment cuts through partisan interpretation to expose a more fundamental crisis of leadership credibility.

This statistical paradox exposes the Achilles' heel of Holness's apparent dominance: his consistently higher unfavourability ratings. Across all three polling periods, the Prime Minister has recorded higher levels of negative sentiment, peaking at a troubling 36.5 percent in June 2024.

Meanwhile, Golding's challenge lies not in active dislike but in public indifference—reflected in significantly higher "no opinion" ratings that suggest many Jamaicans simply cannot form a judgment about his leadership capabilities.

Gordon's analysis, shared during Radio Jamaica's "That's a Rap" program, strikes at the heart of a fundamental misconception in Jamaican political discourse. His observation that a leader's favourability rating does not necessarily translate into voter intention should serve as a sobering reminder that popularity contests and electoral success operate by different rules.

This disconnect between personal appeal and political support has historical precedent in Jamaica, where charismatic leaders have sometimes found their charm insufficient to overcome deeper currents of voter dissatisfaction.

Gordon characterizes the findings as "troubling," noting that both men continue to poll under 40 percent in favourability. "There are clear signs of concern as both continue to receive generally low favourability ratings, below 40 per cent," he observes.

This assessment places the current numbers in stark relief against historical norms, where successful political leaders typically command majority approval ratings well into their terms.

The structural factors underlying these ratings reveal the inherent inequalities built into Jamaica's political system. Gordon astutely notes that opposition parties and their leaders tend to be marginalized, constrained by their lack of access to resources and the power to implement visible change.

Holness benefits from what pollsters call the "bandwagon effect"—the tendency for people to support those they perceive as winners—while simultaneously enjoying the tangible advantages of incumbency. He has spent two terms building name recognition and demonstrating executive capability, advantages that no opposition leader can easily match.

“ Holness benefits from what pollsters call the "bandwagon effect"—the tendency for people to support those they perceive as winners—while simultaneously enjoying the tangible advantages of incumbency. ”

Yet this institutional advantage comes with its own burdens. As Anderson has noted in previous analyses, rising costs and social media influence have fundamentally altered the political landscape, with younger demographics particularly influenced by digital platforms while often remaining disengaged from the actual voting process.

The Prime Minister's higher unfavourability ratings suggest that prolonged exposure to executive responsibility has also exposed him to greater criticism and disappointment.

The gender dynamics revealed in the polling data add another layer of complexity to the leadership equation.

Gordon notes that women have a considerably more favourable opinion of Holness compared to Golding, while male respondents are almost evenly split in their opinions of both leaders.

This gender gap represents both an opportunity and a vulnerability for both parties, particularly given women's historically higher rates of voter participation in Jamaican elections.

The broader implications of these findings extend beyond individual leadership assessments to fundamental questions about democratic engagement in Jamaica.

Recent local government elections demonstrated disappointingly low turnout despite significant campaign activity, confirming what polling data has suggested: the country is slowly moving away from its traditionally leader-centric political culture toward a more issues-focused approach.

This evolution represents a maturation of Jamaican democracy, but it also creates new challenges for leaders accustomed to personal charisma carrying significant political weight.

Anderson's historical analysis of polling accuracy provides crucial context for interpreting current numbers. His track record of precisely predicting electoral outcomes, including the nail-biting 2016 election and the JLP's landslide 2020 victory, lends credibility to his current assessments.

When a pollster of Anderson's calibre suggests caution in interpreting favorability ratings, political strategists ignore such advice at their peril.

The timing of these polls, conducted as Jamaica approaches another general election cycle, carries particular significance. Both leaders face the challenge of converting tepid approval into electoral enthusiasm—a task complicated by the high percentage of voters expressing uncertainty about their preferences.

This uncommitted bloc represents the ultimate prize in Jamaican politics, but also reflects a broader skepticism about traditional political appeals.

For Holness, the challenge lies in addressing the unfavourability that shadows his statistical lead. His higher negative ratings suggest that while he may be better known, he has also accumulated more political baggage during his tenure.

The Prime Minister's recent increase in favourability, coinciding with what Anderson describes as "an aggressive campaign of ribbon-cuttings, groundbreakings, and benefit handovers," demonstrates the continued power of incumbency when properly leveraged.

Golding faces a different but equally daunting challenge: converting his lower negative ratings into positive engagement while overcoming the institutional disadvantages of opposition leadership.

His significantly higher "no opinion" ratings suggest vast room for improvement, but also highlight the difficulty of building name recognition without the platform that executive office provides.

The ultimate verdict on these polling numbers may depend less on the specific percentages than on each leader's ability to address their particular vulnerabilities while capitalizing on their opponent's weaknesses.

In a democracy where voter engagement appears to be declining and traditional loyalties are weakening, both Holness and Golding must grapple with the uncomfortable reality that neither has yet captured the imagination or confidence of the Jamaican people.

As Gordon suggests, these numbers should indeed provide little comfort to either camp. They reveal not just the competitive balance between two political leaders, but the deeper challenge of rebuilding trust between Jamaica's political class and its increasingly skeptical electorate.

In this context, the real winner may be neither Holness nor Golding, but a more demanding and discerning Jamaican democracy that refuses to settle for mediocrity in its leadership choices.

The road to electoral success will require both leaders to transcend their current limitations and speak to the aspirations of a people who seem increasingly unwilling to accept political leadership that fails to inspire genuine confidence. Whether either can rise to this challenge remains the defining question of Jamaica's approaching electoral season.

-30-