Hot Air>>PPP: Obama, Palin PPP: Obama, Palin tied 46/46 in 2010 polling

[btfoom]

PPP: Obama, Palin tied 46/46 in 2012 polling

Share2626

posted at 12:55 pm on July 15, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

printer-friendly

No, this is not coming from Rasmussen or an internal GOP poll, but from the normally Democrat-sympathetic Public Policy Polling. PPP pitted Barack Obama against five potential Republican challengers for the 2012 presidential campaign, and the only one Obama beat was … Jan Brewer. Even that, PPP admitted, resulted from Brewer’s lack of name recognition. The headline, though, is Sarah Palin’s dead heat with the President:

With his approval numbers hitting new lows it’s no surprise that Barack Obama’s numbers in our monthly look ahead to the 2012 Presidential race are their worst ever this month. He trails Mitt Romney 46-43, Mike Huckabee 47-45, Newt Gingrich 46-45, and is even tied with Sarah Palin at 46. The only person tested he leads is Jan Brewer, who doesn’t have particularly high name recognition on the national level at this point.

It’s not that any of the Republican candidates are particularly well liked. Only Huckabee has positive favorability numbers at 37/28. Romney’s at 32/33, Gingrich at 32/42, Palin at 37/52, and Brewer at 17/20. But with a majority of Americans now disapproving of Obama it’s no surprise that a large chunk of them would replace him as President if they had that choice today.

There are two things driving these strong poll numbers for the Republican candidates. The first is a lead with independents in every match up. Romney leads 48-35 with them, Gingrich is up 50-39, Huckabee has a 46-40 advantage, Palin’s up 47-42, and even Brewer has a 38-37 edge. <

more at link

>

Wow, this isn't good news for BO at all.

[Hubbs]

Well, that's absolutely terrifying.

[PokerPacker]

And to think y'all could've just let her become VP instead of allowing Obama to **** things up and give her a ride to the top.

[SellersHappens]

Right now Palin gets good numbers because, as she is not running for office, she is able to only hang around those that already agree with her.

If she were to actually end up running against Obama, she'd have to answer critical questions from non-sympathetic reporters, and as we saw 2 years ago, she utterly fails at this skill. Palin 2012 equals an easy Obama reelection. This is probably why the Republican establishment is seeming to flow more on Romney's side.

[Burgold]

Well, let's hope that report truly is hot air.

[Baculus]

Luckily there is a second poll that shows an entirely different result, with Obama leading a head-to-head poll 55% to 34%.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/16/obama-palin-polls-dont-se_n_649642.html

Ultimately I suspect she won't even capture the RNC nomination.

[SellersHappens]

Honestly, I don't think Palin will even run.

She is having a lot more fun being a commentator than she was when she was feeling the heat as a politician. She happens to be makes a lot more money as a commentator as well.

[Burgold]

I think Palin likes the spotlight more than she likes power. I may be wrong about that, but that's the impression I get.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Obama vs Palin and we have a repeat of the 1984 election.

[Mickalino]

Can't believe there's still so many people that are so convinced that she'll run AND be the nominee.

[Baculus]

I think Palin likes the spotlight more than she likes power. I may be wrong about that, but that's the impression I get.

Me too. She loves the attention, except when it comes to overly difficult questions from the media, but seeing how she quit her governorship, I don't see how being President would be fun, or profitable, for her.

[EersSkins05]

...seeing how she quit her governorship, I don't see how being President would be fun, or profitable, for her.

Or possible.

[NoCalMike]

The thing is, the Tea party is most likely to split the republican vote, cause most tea partyers are so in over their head with the kool-aid that they will blindly vote for anyone who claims to be a "tea party" candidate. So go ahead and split that vote down the middle.

Also, of course polls will show Obama can be beat, because none of the ® candidates have gone through the media scrutiny of a campaign season yet. As soon as they start campaigning and opening their mouths in debates and/or press conferences, people will see their ideas are no different then they were in 2006 ot 2008.

What a lot of the media is failing to report is that dissatisfaction with Obama & Democrats isn't translating into everyone falling in love with Republicans/Conservatives. People still remember how the brunt of this mess(Dems get some credit to) started and continued.

So basically in November it is between

The Party who can't fix the mess/fixing it too slowly vs. The Party who's economic ideas and principles over the last 30 years lead us into this mess.

Whoever wins, The people still lose!

[mardi gras skin]

I'll like something similar to a Newt Gingrich/Colin Powell (or David Petraeus) ticket. They can split domestic and foreign policy responsibilities right down the middle.

Of the options in that poll, Newt Gingrich is the only one I trust push hard to get the economy on track.

[CowboysSaintsFan]

Eh - who knows what the elite shadow government has planned by then. In 2004, they pinned Bush II's Yale's Skull and Bones secret society buddy John Kerry against him, to ensure Bush II would get re-elected and all of the elite draconian agendas continue. Ditto 1996 when they pinned Bob Dull against Clinton.

We shall see - but whoever gets the prize in 2012 will do even more damage than his(or her) predecessors.

[Teller]

If you read this board, you'd think Palin is quite simply the single dumbest human being on the planet. And yet she's tied with the savior of the world in head-to-head polling.

Put that in your perspective and smoke it.

[visionary]

Eh - who knows what the elite shadow government has planned by then. In 2004, they pinned Bush II's Yale's Skull and Bones secret society buddy John Kerry against him, to ensure Bush II would get re-elected and all of the elite draconian agendas continue. Ditto 1996 when they pinned Bob Dull against Clinton.

We shall see - but whoever gets the prize in 2012 will do even more damage than his(or her) predecessors.

Wow....

And I thought your post in the Mel thread was interesting.

And I'm no big Obama supporter (voted Mccain/Palin last time), but I hope the poll numbers are wrong.

[Baculus]

If you read this board, you'd think Palin is quite simply the single dumbest human being on the planet. And yet she's tied with the savior of the world in head-to-head polling.

Put that in your perspective and smoke it.

No one ever said that all voters cast their ballots for candidates based on intelligence, nor on the ability to complete an elected term in office. :-) Plus, the second poll I posted shows her far behind Obama in a head-to-head vote.

By the way, I just don't see her even the primaries within her own office. She generally doesn't poll well among moderates and independents.

I would like to hear someone explain to me why they would vote for Sarah Palin in a 2012 election. And please don't tell me because she's a "momma grizzly," which is one of the silliest political phrases I have heard in a long time. Also, considering she couldn't complete her last job in office, WHY would anyone lay the responsibility of the Presidency into her hands?

[GhostofSparta]

Also, considering he couldn't complete his last job in office, WHY would anyone lay the responsibility of the Presidency into Obama's hands?

Fixed it for ya. :pfft: Sure, Palin quit while Obama just moved into a new office after about 2 years (including 1 of almost full-time campaigning), but that seems like kind of a weak card of the Dems at the moment IMHO.

[Madison Redskin]

If you read this board, you'd think Palin is quite simply the single dumbest human being on the planet. And yet she's tied with the savior of the world in head-to-head polling.

Put that in your perspective and smoke it.

She's not the dumbest human being on the planet. She's one of the dumbest politicians on the planet; which says quite a lot.

[Baculus]

I'll like something similar to a Newt Gingrich/Colin Powell (or David Petraeus) ticket. They can split domestic and foreign policy responsibilities right down the middle.

Of the options in that poll, Newt Gingrich is the only one I trust push hard to get the economy on track.

I hate to take contrariwise position, but I disagree. As a warning, I have a lot of thoughts on this matter, so please bare with me.

When Newt was in office, his district in Georgia (including Cobb County) was one of the highest federally funded regions in the U.S. (partially due to the DOD and Lockheed Martin). As a result, I don't think he would cut military spending, which is a huge part of the federal budget. This article from back in '93 discusses this:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1554/is_n3_v19/ai_14685580/?tag=content;col1

Here's another sticking point for me: Remember the controversy surrounding the individual mandate coverage in the recent health care reform? He used to be for that, back when it was called a "responsibility mandate." As the below article states, "Gingrich called it 'fundamentally immoral' for a person who can afford insurance to save money by going without, then show up at an emergency room and demand free care. He said those who can afford insurance and choose not to buy it should be required to post bonds to pay for care they may someday need... Gingrich said everyone should have insurance, but not provided by the federal government."

This was as recent as 2008.

Back at that time, he also supported "a federal tax credit for the working poor to get insurance" and that "everyone should have insurance, but not provided by the federal government." Which, to me, sounds like a sort of universal health care, just without federal single-payer system, or some such. (As a note, the recent health care reform does not create such a system -- it is still greatly based on the private sector.)

http://www.healthinsuranceplansinfo.com/healthinsurance-health-news/pivot/entry.php?id=846&w=my_weblog

After it became politically expedient to attack health care reform, he's now saying that the individual mandate should be overturned on constitutional grounds. The reasoning for his change of heart? I don't think he's ever explained himself: it's as if his former position never existed. He now wants to overturn this mandate on constitutional grounds.

Gingrich is a very intelligent man and he says some thoughtful things, and I also was glad when he defended the need for moderation in the GOP.

But I have to ask, what sort of moderation? At this year's CPAC he said, "I believe we are now in a struggle over whether or not we are going to save America. I believe that the radical left is a secular socialist machine so dedicated to values destructive of America . . ." He then called President Obama the "most Radical President in American History," which is neither original nor wholly accurate. (I would contend that Tedd Roosevelt was a more radical President than Obama . . .)

This sort of neo-McMcarthyism -- accusations of " socialists" -- just doesn't help matters and doesn't lead to an honest discussion on fiscal responsibility. Unfortunately, he's been accusing others of being "socialists" since the 90s, so that is old hat for him. I just think these various issues undermines his attempts to appear moderate, rational, and fiscally prudent.

Sorry -- this post became much longer than I anticipated, especially as a response to your short post.

[Baculus]

Fixed it for ya. :pfft: Sure, Palin quit while Obama just moved into a new office after about 2 years (including 1 of almost full-time campaigning), but that seems like kind of a weak card of the Dems at the moment IMHO.

I disagree on this point.

You have to remember that Pres. Obama was a member of the state legislate for seven years before becoming a congressional senator. He never quit during that time. Once he was voted into Congress, he served as senator until resigning on November 16th, 2008, after being elected into the presidency. (He was legislatively involved as senator into 2008.)

He didn't outright quit. Palin did. She simply quit. She didn't transition into a new elected position; she just left office.

You can't even compare the two situations.

Palin's strongest political experience was her governorship, and she quit that, so if anyone has a "weak card," it's her. Counter to your claims, the Democrats would certainly be wise to highlight her inability to complete office if she was the GOP candidate in 2012.

After all, why should any American have confidence in her?

Only in Sarah Palin-supporter land, though, does her resignation become a strength. It's bizarre

[NoCalMike]

Good research, Baculus!

[Baculus]

What a lot of the media is failing to report is that dissatisfaction with Obama & Democrats isn't translating into everyone falling in love with Republicans/Conservatives. People still remember how the brunt of this mess(Dems get some credit to) started and continued.

Some observant thoughts in this post. 2012 could be reminiscent of 1992, when some conservatives and independents voted for Ross Perot, which translated into a Clinton win.

[Baculus]

Good research, Baculus!

Thank you! :-)