Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

US: 2010 Pres (Fox 1/12-13)

Topics: poll

Fox News/Opinion Dynamics
1/12-13/10; 900 registered voters, 3% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(Fox release)

National

2012 President
Obama 47%, Romney 35%
Obama 55%, Palin 31%
Obama 53%, Gingrich 29%
Obama 48%, Tea Party candidate 23%

Who do you want to win this year's congressional elections -- the
Democrats or the Republicans?

38% Democrats, 37% Republicans

Do you think it would be good or bad for the country if all the current members of Congress were voted out of office -- including your own
representative -- and all new people were elected this November to get a fresh start?

43% Good, 44% Bad

If the 2012 presidential election were held today, would you...
23% Definitely vote to re-elect Barack Obama
20% Probably vote to re-elect Obama
11% Probably vote for someone else
36% Definitely vote for someone else?

 

Comments
farleftandproud:

This is amusing! This should give Obama some confidence, now he has to help reverse that stupid campaign finance supreme court decision today. Roberts and Scalia are the biggest activist judges if I ever saw one, and today's decision gives corporate America everything they want. Show them whose boss Obama.

____________________

bigfoot9p6:

It is really odd that "Definitely vote for someone else" is higher than any GOP or Tea Party candidate.

____________________

JMSTiger:

The Republican bench for Presidential candidates is extremely poor and short. I used to believe that Mitt Romney would be the best choice for the GOP, but I don't see how he overcomes the "Romneycare" tag that will be placed on him in the primaries. Palin is clearly not up to the job. Gingrich is a smart man, but he still has the stain from the 90s and has too many issues involving his private life. Huckabee is done because of him paroling criminals that go out and murder cops. Believe it or not, but Drudge may be right in hyping Scott Brown. He may be the best the GOP has to offer.

____________________

ChicagoKid:

That was a not an activist decision, it was a simple freedom of speech case, I will agree that it may not be for the best but its the right move under the constitution and the right legal decision. Scalia upholds the law again. There are different ways to restrict money to campaigns and the congress will have to figure that out without free speech violation.

It won't be anyone on the list, maybe Brown, McDonnell, Daniels, Huntsman, there are good ones just not out there yet.

____________________

sjt22:

They missed out on the most obvious choice for polling: Scott Brown. Not saying he'll run or he'll win if he does, but if the election were held next week he'd probably do the best of any Republican.

And I don't ever want to hear conservatives complaining about "activist" judges again after today.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

I imagine Scott Brown will probably fade a little more into the background by 2012, but we'll see.

This is Romney's worst performance vs. Obama to date. Strange.

Palin is not running. She got what she wanted with the Fox News gig. It's a running theme through her book that she always wanted to be in journalism, although her original dream was sports journalism.

The GOP has no real leader and no bench on their team, even though Obama has numerous weaknesses. It's like playing the Spurs, a good team can beat them, but the Nets or T-Wolves don't stand a chance.

____________________

Stillow:

Its normal not to have a leader right now. A leader gives the opposition someone to target and destory. Muchlike the Dems were leaderless for past several years until obama won the primary....I don't think anyone would claim Kerry was the party leader? Anyone?

Only 43 woudl lean to a vote for Obama....that is great for a GOPer not yet named. An outsider GOP could come along and do well. Someone along the brand of a Brown, McDonnel, Jindal perhaps.

More an dmore I am convinced that the 2012 GOP nominee is going to be someone no one is talking about right...not anywhere o nthe radar. If I think about it someone like Romney owuld be a great VP pick with his business and economic expereince.

The big thing I take from this poll is Obama's voters stand at 43 percent. that is a full 10 points below his election results. After this fall's mid terms we will start seeing new names pop up as potential candidates and the primary race will begin.

____________________

Stillow:

...and I agree palin probably will not run. Her strength is in pumping up the base and fundraising. Love or hate her, she draws huge crowds wherever she goes.

So look for an outsider to burst onto the scene...a fresh face, someone with energy, more o nthe younger side, fiscally conservative with an emphasis on small g'ment and getting spending under control. The message is working so far...and with the Dems self destructing and having an internal war between liberals and moderates, I think the GOp will retake the WH in 2012.

Unless BO pulls a Clinton and centers himself, I don't see how he can recover.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

The democrats had Hillary in the 2000s. It was always clear she would be a strong candidate. I wish I had voted for her the more I think about it. After 2000 Gore could have been a leader but chose not to be, instead becoming obsessed with the environment and making money off of it.

The republicans in the 90s had Gingrich. He was never presidential material but he was a forceful congressional leader, the best since Tip O'Neill or LBJ.

After 1976, it was clear Reagan was going to make a run. He had very nearly bested a sitting president in the primary.

Republicans right now have no one with that kind of strength, which bodes well for Obama being re-elected despite the strong possibility of republicans gaining congress.

____________________

Xenobion:

Howard Dean was the party leader before Obama. Not that I could say the same for Michael Steele. The Clinton machine was still in control too. We had a plethora of good candidates that we've all heard before (Edwards [before he turned sour], Clinton, Obama, Dodd, Kerry, Kennedy, ect.)

____________________

Cyril Washbrook:

@Stillow, by putting the 43% number against Obama's share of the popular vote at the last election, you're comparing apples with oranges, as I explained on a previous survey here:

/blogs/us_national_survey_nationaljou.html#comment-113942

To be honest, I'm still not sure why pollsters run with those sorts of questions. They have little interpretative value apart from - as I mentioned in the linked comment - reminding us that people tend never to be particularly satisfied with their politicians, no matter which party they're from.

____________________

Field Marshal:

"And I don't ever want to hear conservatives complaining about "activist" judges again after today. "

Yesterdays supreme court decision was the exact opposite of activist judges. The court upheld first amendment rights so how is that an activist decision. As Scalia said, he may not like how outcome of the decision will change elections, but that's not his concern. His concern is the constitution. He is absolutely right. We need more judges like Scalia.

____________________

Field Marshal:

I agree that the GOP nominee will be none of these individuals. Gingrich would be an excellent president but carries too much baggage.

X, how can you call Dodd, Kerry and Edwards good candidates? That's like saying McCain, Palin and Dole were good GOP candidates.

I would love to see Jindal run.

____________________

Williame123:

Field Marshal

"I would love to see Jindal run."

Jindal is extremely bright but would make a terrible national candidate. He lacks physical presence and charisma. Superficial things matter.

____________________

Field Marshal:

"Superficial things matter. "

Not to me. But it seems they are 100% of what matters to democrats judging by 2008.

____________________

Williame123:

Field Marshal

"how can you call Dodd, Kerry and Edwards good candidates? That's like saying McCain, Palin and Dole were good GOP candidates."

With the exception of Dodd and maybe Palin(debatable), none of these guys were terrible candidates in the general election if you take a panoramic view of American political history. They were no worse than Nixon in '68 or Bush in '88.

Elections are complex and decent candidates lose for a variety of reasons. Sometimes the other guy is just better or unpredictable events occur or the political winds are against you or all of the above.

Nixon always wandered if he would have won in '68 had Bobby Kennedy not been assasinated. Yet, this same Nixon who was insecure against the Kennedys won by a bigger landslide in '72 than Reagan did in '84. How did the uncharismatic Nixon do better than the charismatic and telegenic Reagan?

____________________

Stillow:

Right now its best for the GOP not to have a singular leader. The Dem machine would just have that much longer to tear them down. The new class will emerge early next year....probably names no one is even talking about.

O swooped in and stole the nomination fro mthe establishment candidate, Hillary....I suspect the GOP will do something similar. The above list of GOPers will be stuck fighting for VP.

____________________

Williame123:

Field Marshal

"Not to me. But it seems they are 100% of what matters to democrats judging by 2008."

It also seems superficiality is 100% of what mattered to Republicans in 1980, 1988, 2000 or 2008.

After all, Reagan lost 26 seats in the House in 1982 even tough Repubs were in the minority and his approval rating was at 35% by mid '82. It was in the low to mid 40s for much of '83. If Americans are repubiating Obama now, they must have been thoroughly disgusted with Reagan in his early years.

Bush Sr was thrown out in '92. Bush jr had the Iraq, Afghanistan and Katrina mismanagement amidst other failures and left office so reviled by his countrymen that his own party disowned him. They didn't even want him at the convention. So detested was he in the end that a foreign journalist threw a shoe at him and his country and even his party didn't rise up in rage. That is staggerng for an American President.

____________________

Stillow:

Are you really taking seriously what some nutty journalist does? Really? Your definition of being superficial is a little out of wack.

Reagan said in early 81 its going to get worse before it gets better and that his policies needed time. He was rewarded in 1984. Obama on hte contrary told us if we passed his so called stimulus that unemployment would not go above 8 percent. He said jobs woudl be created...and of course it was all smoke and mirrors. He has not done ANYTHING except pass a failed stimulus. Its failed by hiw OWN definition since unemployment has gone above 8 percent.

He is facing the expiration of Bush tax cuts too...which will be devasating to the economy. Congressional Dems are already starting the early rumblings of extending those tax cuts cus the few Dems left with any common sense know you cannot raise taxes in the midst of a sluggish recovery.

You need to stop compring Reagan d Obama...Obama is NO Ronald Wilson Reagan. Obama looks like the local dog catcher when compared to Reagan.

____________________

Dave Freed:

My prediction: John Thune. And I think he'd be a strong candidate.

____________________

Williame123:

Stillow:

"O swooped in and stole the nomination fro mthe establishment candidate, Hillary....I suspect the GOP will do something similar. The above list of GOPers will be stuck fighting for VP."

Keep dreaming. Like the old saying goes, "liberals for in love and coservatives fall in line." Romney will be the nominee and he will lose.

If he cannot outperform Obama in national polls amidst the highest unemployment rate in a quarter century and at a time when Obama is under constant attack and while he[Romney] sits pretty and untouched, he has a steep hill to climb. What is he gonna do when unemployment decreases, the troops return home from Iraq, afghanistan stabilizes etc ?

____________________

Stillow:

Williame123

You will be unpleasantly surprised by what the GOP does. They have figured out how to win again....and do so even in deep blue states. VA, NJ and MA were just the start.

We all have our opinions, but if I wer Dems I'd be very very nervous.

____________________

Williame123:

Stillow

"Reagan said in early 81 its going to get worse before it gets better and that his policies needed time."

Obama said the same thing, so why did Americans so revile Reagan in his early years?

"Obama on hte contrary told us if we passed his so called stimulus that unemployment would not go above 8 percent."

Reagan had his share of false predictions. This is what Reagan said on March 6, 1981 when he was arguing for his economic poiicies:

"[A] drastic reduction in the deficit...will take place in the fiscal year '82."

1982 saw the highest deficit since WWII. HaHaHa
Reagan's rosy and comical budget predictions were the butt of jokes in the '80s.

Check out these amusing quotes about Reagan in the late '80s by some of his own people.

"The epitaph of the Reagan presidency will be: 'When Ronald Reagan became President, the United States was the largest creditor nation. When he left the presidency, we were the world's largest debtor nation.'"
--Lester Thurow, MIT professor of economics

"[A] lapse into fiscal indiscipline on a scale never before experienced in peacetime."
--David Stockman (Reagan's budget director)

"In the Reagan years, more federal debt was added than in the entire prior history of the United States."
--Richard Darman (Reagan adviser)

____________________

Williame123:

Stillow

"You will be unpleasantly surprised by what the GOP does. They have figured out how to win again....and do so even in deep blue states. VA, NJ and MA were just the start."

Dems won VA and NJ in November 2001 when Bush's approval rating was at 90%! How could Repubs lose DEEP RED(in 2001) Virgina 2 months after 9/11 when Bush was literally a god in approval rating???

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

William,

Trying to convince Stillow on something when he has already made up his mind is impossible.

____________________



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