Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

PA, IL: 2012 Primary, Santorum (PPP 8/14-16)

Topics: Illinois , Pennsylvania , poll

Public Policy Polling (D)
8/14-16/10; 400 likely Republican primary voters/state, 4.9% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(PPP release)

Pennsylvania

2012 President: Republican Primary
With Santorum: 17% Huckabee, 17% Palin, 16% Romney, 15% Santorum, 14% Gingrich, 6% Paul
Without Santorum: 20% Romney, 19% Gingrich, 19% Huckabee, 19% Palin, 8% Paul

Illinois

2012 President
23% Gingrich, 21% Huckabee, 18% Palin, 16% Romney, 7% Paul

 

Comments
sjt22:

So he's the 4th choice in his own state? Ouch.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Why does PPP waste resources on this polling?

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Santorum is still very unpopular in PA. If he was running against Sestak, I am sure Sestak would have an 8 point lead.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

If that continues to be the selection of potential candidates, Obama should be pretty happy. I think the GOP establishment has moved so far right that they will not nominate anyone who could win a general election, because in this day and age they seem to reward the angrier more contreversial candidates and the more quiet and principled conservatives like Huchinson, Lugar, Bennett from Utah they rarely rave about. I thought Grassley was like that until last summer when he agreed on the death panels, and suddenly he got huge media attention. I thought Lindsay Graham was one of those reasonable conservatives until he decided to consider repealing the 14th ammendment.

____________________

melvin:

The 3 worst terror attacks in this Country history happened under a Republican President,and the American people gave them a pass...Pan am bombing in 1988,287 Marines killed in Beirut in 1983,and 911 in 2001...Do you think the media,and the American people would have forgiven the Democrats?...BushII got a pass on 911,and for starting a War against a nation who never did anything to the US,and for the stock market losing 4000pts in a few months...The gop is trying to make Bush out to be the greatest thing since slice bread,but USA-Today is still saying this guy was the 42nd ranked President of all time.

____________________

melvin:

The only Republican President to make the top 20 in the past 100 years,was Reagan,in he was 17th....Kennedy,Clinton, FDR,Truman,Obama,Wilson,all was in the top 20...Carter was 31st,and Johnson was 22nd,for the best Presidents of all time....Nixon was 40th,Hoover was 41st,Ike was 34,BushI was 37,Ford was 35th,Coolidge was 29th,and Harding was 36th...America needs to look at that chart which came out a few months ago before they even think about voting for another Republican President...USA-Today reported it was the worst group of Republican Presidents for a 100 year period..

____________________

melvin:

The reason Reagan made the top was because of Germany..None of those other Republican Presidents the past 100 years had any major accomplishments at all..Obama has been in office only 19 months,and he has 3 to take back to his library...HCB,Finance reform,and the Nobel Peace prize,regardless if he didn't deserve or not! He got it so deal with it wingnuts.

____________________

CompCon:

melvin - go get professional help.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Ignore Compcon Melvin. To a conservative we'll never win any arguments. I am sure they think any liberal with strong views needs professional help, just like we think Glen Beck and Sarah Palin need it. At least their lack of seeking professional help has earned them lots of money!!!!

____________________

Lttljohann:

Melvin, you are a complete idiot. Last 100 years? How about Eisenhower with the interstate highway system, creation of NASA, the national putting force behind the desegregation of schools, or the NDEA?

How about Nixon and medicare and medicaid? I would have thought you would have loved those!

And what about Reagan and Germany? Just the one speech? Even if a speech in Germany is the only accomplishment of Reagan, it should entitle him to a Nobel Prize, right?

____________________

AlanSnipes:

@Melvin:

Keep it up Melvin! We must Attack, Attack, Attack. That's the only thing that Rethugs understand. Keep hitting em with facts. Not that they understand facts, but keep hitting with them anyway.

____________________

AlanSnipes:

As a resident of Illinois, I am breathlessly awaiting the 2012 Republican Primary here. (NOT)

____________________

Farleftandproud:

It is interesting that when a progressive complains about contemporary GOP conservatives who we love to be critical about like Jim Demint, Palin, Dr Laura, Glen Beck, Rand Paul and Sharron Angle, I frequently find someone defending old time Republicans like Nixon, Eisenhower and Lincoln. Even I would say that Nixon or Eisenhower would probably never get elected as Republicans today. The GOP in the 1950s through the 70's it was the moderates who dominated the party.

____________________

nick283:

Sliced bread was a pretty good president. Who cares if Obama won the Nobel peace prize. Terrorists like Mr. Arafat have won it. Al Gore won it for making a slideshow. It isnt that impressive.
For some Republican administration's accomplishments: Desegregation of public schools, defeating the Soviet Union in the Cold War, the collapse of the Berlin Wall, getting us out of Vietnam.

Ah, and then the liberal icon FDR... I suppose by Melvin's logic Pearl Harbor was his fault, but I wouldnt necessarily agree. What was his fault, in addition to pretty economic policies which prolonged the depression, was rounding up Americans of Japanese ancestry and sending them to camps. Honestly, FDR is the only president I am aware who rounded a minority group and sent them to camps... Definitely not what I would call a great president.

____________________

nick283:

of course i meant pretty bad economic policies. sorry for the typo

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

Well, I like these 2012 horse-race polls just for the speculation value.

Although, as EVERY past election season has shown us, the only polls that matter prior to an election year are Iowa and New Hampshire.

What's clear is that there is no favorite. This is certainly different than the run up to 2000 when George W. Bush clearly led the pack. So the race is wide open. The only sure thing is that Romney and Pawlenty are running.

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/2012-republican-presidential-candidates-071310

Another indicator is money. Romney and Palin have raised a lot of money, followed by Pawlenty in distant 3rd, although he's mainly been saving his while Romney and Palin have been spending it. He's also been putting a lot of footsteps in IA and NH. I would watch out for him.

Next are Newt Gingrich and Mike Huckabee. Huckabee leads early IA polls again, but hasn't raised a whole lot of money. Newt Gingrich has lately raised a lot but not for himself. Plus I think he is just too old-news to be a contender. His time is past.

http://theiowarepublican.com/home/2010/08/16/huckabee-leads-2012-iowa-caucus-poll-%E2%80%93-palin-finishes-fourth-behind-newt/

Then there's governors Haley Barbour and Mitch Daniels. Neither of which are particularly inspiring, imo, and Daniels has raised $0 for himself as far as I know. Barbour has raised a little.

Going off of money Romney has the definite edge, but I just don't see him uniting the republicans. Sanctuary mansions and "I like mandates" Mitt has simply got too much explaining to do on the base's most important issues.

At this point you can't give the edge to any of these candidates, as all of them could change the dynamics based on what happens in IA and NH. Ie: if Huckabee decides to run would muck up IA for Romney. Romney is 2nd but there's a clear "anybody but Mitt" contingent.

I think the republican race will ultimately come down to a moderate vs. a conservative. Most likely Romney vs. someone else. My best guess would be Palin, but I have no doubt that the conservative establishment would prefer someone that has Palin's advantages but not her drawbacks - someone like Rick Perry, John Thune, etc...

What they really need to beat Obama is someone who combines Romney's business acumen, Palin's grassroots appeal and tough talk, Huckabee's simple, down-home likeability, Ron Paul's libertarian cred, and Gingrich's political instincts.

Individually they won't beat Obama. Maybe Romney could, but it's likely he would lose essential conservative support.

At this point these folks are like the five rings than combine to make Captain Planet. They need someone with all of their attributes.

____________________

Chris V.:

"Farleftandproud:

Ignore Compcon Melvin. To a conservative we'll never win any arguments."

And, as the two of you can attest, you'll also never win any arguments when you don't contribute anything to them.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

I think the PPP poll having PA as being 16 percent liberal and 44 percent conservative is not accurate. I know the interior part of the state is quite conservative, but the Philly area has a lot of Academics, colleges, and people in publishing. I would give PA more credit than that.

____________________

melvin:

Sarah Palin defended Dr Laura on Wednesday,so why is the media ignoring this? This is far worst then what Obama said concerning the Mosque,because Palin is defending someone who used racist words...Is Sarah Palin a racist?..Someone in the media needs to ask her that question,because what Dr Laura said was very racist,and Sarah Palin defended it.

____________________

nick283:

Melvin, you just extolled the virtues of a president who rounded up americans because of their ethinicity and sent them to camps. If Sarah Palin is a racist for defending Dr. Laura for saying something, you are far worse for defending FDR.

____________________

nick283:

Melvin, you just extolled the virtues of a president who rounded up americans because of their ethinicity and sent them to camps. If Sarah Palin is a racist for defending Dr. Laura for saying something, you are far worse for defending FDR.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

There would be no greater dog treat in the world than for Santorum to be the nominee against Barack Hussein Obama. It would be entertainment at it's best,

I would love to bring some Rottweillers to a demonstration. I would love to see the Santorum "man/dog relationship become the campaign slogan against Obama. I predict that even Snooki from Jersey Shore would change her vote to Obama in 2012. That is psychotalk.


All I can say to the say to the Santorum campaign is I hope you get the nomination. My dog and cat are both ready to bite your balls.

____________________

Chris V.:

melvin:

Sarah Palin defended Dr Laura on Wednesday,so why is the media ignoring this? This is far worst then what Obama said concerning the Mosque,because Palin is defending someone who used racist words...Is Sarah Palin a racist?..Someone in the media needs to ask her that question,because what Dr Laura said was very racist,and Sarah Palin defended it.

Posted on August 20, 2010 8:14 PM


Maybe the media is ignoring it because nobody cares and because there are countless more important things to talk about? Maybe?

____________________

tjampel:

Chris V

Many people in this country think that Sarah Palin's tweets and online declarations are valuable and important. To say that perhaps no one cares ignores the obvious; the media and America DOES care. Sarah's become part of the political landscape and gets massive coverage when she desires it. If she talks about "death panels" you can be sure it will be covered. When she talks about BP or the mosque controversy her statements receive close scrutiny. She's a public figure who's considered a spokesperson for many in the conservative base. Therefore it's entirely proper to examine what she says.

And...when one does that with regard to what she said about Dr. Laura one comes to the following conclusion:

Sarah Palin's brand of hypocrisy is a very powerful one indeed. When she says something diametrically opposed to something she said previously it's as if it never happened or that she's entitled to a mulligan (do-over). And she does sometimes get a free pass. Other times, in fairness to her, the media is all over her. On this occasion she got a freebie from the media. Let's examine the facts:

When Rahm Emmanuel said "retard" she freaked out and claimed that use of this or other bigoted words should get people in important positions canned.

Then along comes Dr Laura and her 11x "N" word extravaganza/meltdown.

Now when Dr Laura said the "N" word, to Sarah THAT was certainly NOT a bannable or fire-able offense; rather, it was a "powerful" expression of freedom and she should "reload"; moreover she agreed that Dr Laura's free speech rights were being subjugated by...who... the Government?....oh wait it was her own corporate sponsors...like they are the ones enjoined from withdrawing their support for someone who spews racial epithets by some actual provision of the US Constitution,rather than the imagined provision of an imagined US Constitution, since Sarah Palin has clearly either never read or never understood the real one.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Nick,

I would agree with you. I think FDR ranks up there among our worst presidents. If he did the EXACT same thing but had an R next to his name, i have no qualms saying that he would already BE the worst president in our history by most.

tjample,

Give it a rest. Sarah was not agreeing with what she said, she was simply agreeing with Laura's CONSTITUTIONAL right to say what she wants. You know the constitution? Its the document that liberals like to use as toilet paper!

____________________

Field Marshal:

Nick,

I would agree with you. I think FDR ranks up there among our worst presidents. If he did the EXACT same thing but had an R next to his name, i have no qualms saying that he would already BE the worst president in our history by most.

tjample,

Give it a rest. Sarah was not agreeing with what she said, she was simply agreeing with Laura's CONSTITUTIONAL right to say what she wants. You know the constitution? Its the document that liberals like to use as toilet paper!

____________________

melvin:

FM: Sarah Palin didn't clarify what she said for one thing,and this woman have Millions of follower's,so she just gave the go ahead for her follower's to use the N-word..Sarah Palin wants to run for President,but i feel this is going to come back in hunt her,and it wont be a Democrat who puts it out there,its going to be a Republican,because its obvious the GOP don't want her to run for President in 2012.... The GOP is going to push this story to the media,then make it look like a Democrat did it.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

It is interesting that Conservatives who attack Democrats of being racist have to go back to FDR's Japanese Internment camps or Senator Byrd's KKK involvement in the 1950's

____________________

ObamaisMarxistFilth:

Good Lord, can we please stop with this "N-Word" nonsense?

Yes, the word "nigger" is a vile epithet. But have we become so PC, so immature that even when quoting someone disapprovingly we must use this silly phrase. It sounds like something a mother woudl say to her 5-year-old child: "Now, Johnny...we don't use the 'N-Word!'"

It infantilizes discourse.

It's one thing to call someone a "nigger," which few would sanction. It's another entirely to QUOTE someone. Can't we all grow up just a bit?


OIMF

____________________

ObamaisMarxistFilth:

Good Lord, can we please stop with this "N-Word" nonsense?

Yes, the word "nigger" is a vile epithet. But have we become so PC, so immature that even when quoting someone disapprovingly we must use this silly phrase? It sounds like something a mother woudl say to her 5-year-old child: "Now, Johnny...we don't use the 'N-Word!'"

It infantilizes discourse.

It's one thing to call someone a "nigger," which few would sanction. It's another entirely to QUOTE someone. Can't we all grow up just a bit?


OIMF

____________________

Field Marshal:

It is interesting that Conservatives who attack Democrats of being racist have to go back to FDR's Japanese Internment camps or Senator Byrd's KKK involvement in the 1950's

Better to point out historical racism than phantom contemporary racism.

____________________



Post a comment




Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.

MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR