Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

US: 2012 Pres (CNN 10/16-18)


CNN / Opinion Research Corporation
10/16-18/09; 1,038 adults, 3% margin of error
462 Republicans, 4.5% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(CNN release)

National

Favorable / Unfavorable
Sarah Palin: 42 / 51 (chart)
Mitt Romney: 36 / 26 (chart)
Mike Huckabee: 43 / 26 (chart)
Tim Pawlenty: 15 / 13

2012 President
32% Huckabee, 25% Palin, 21% Romney, 5% Pawlenty

Thinking about the following characteristics and qualities, please say whether you think each one applies or doesn't apply to Sarah Palin.

Not a typical politician: 65% Applies, 34% Does not apply
A good role model for women: 64 / 35
Care about the needs of people like you: 56 / 43
Is honest and trustworthy: 55 / 43
Shares your values: 49 / 49
Generally agrees with you on issues you care about: 48 / 50
Is a strong and decisive leader: 47 / 51
Qualified to be president: 29 / 71

 

Comments
openid.aol.com/Rahmsputin:

Clinton. Giuliani. Florida.

____________________

Stillow:

Those numbers are good for Palin until the last one. She does well o nthos eindividual questions, but has an overall negative, soemthing doesn't add up with that. Some of that negative could still be media effect fro mthe bombardment she took.

Huckabee, sheeeeeesh.

____________________

Xenobion:

I think its a fair assessment. Generally speaking most people respect her and her values but don't think she's qualified to be president.

____________________

Stillow:

I agree she needs some work to be qualified for president, but he roverall favorable doesn't add up with the results from her qualities in temrs of these questions. Do people view you favorable or unfaovrable only on your ability to be president? How can people think she is a good roll model and is honest and trustworthy, but have an unfavorable view of her?

Just doesn't make much sense.

____________________

openid.aol.com/Rahmsputin:

Huckabee is easily the most electable Republican aside from someone like Huntsman.

____________________

lat:

Attn. GOP,

Please run Sarah Palin against Obama in 2012! I will campaign for her in the primaries to help make it happen. Who wants to voulnteer with me?

____________________

Wong:

@lat

I'm with you, brother.

____________________

Xenobion:

Only a 15% disparity in unfavorables and role model question. Which I think most open minded people would recognize that conservative women may look up to her yet personally not like her themselves.

____________________

jamesia:

There's no way Sarah Palin will be nominated by the GOP. She might get a 3rd party bid... At any rate, she'd never be elected. McCain plucked her too early.

And out of the rest of the names, Huckabee is the most genuine, though is value system is too extreme like Palin's. He's not electable. Anyone who says gay marriage has lead to the downfall of civilizations is just too melodramatic... Where is the intellectual GOP candidate?

____________________

jamesia:

Xen:

It'd be interesting to know if more conservative men feel that she's a good woman role model than women.

____________________

Xenobion:

I thought of that Jamesia but didn't say it I guess :) There is still a demographic out there that would say no woman is qualified to be president but can probably recognize that she is a good rolemodel. The openminded-closeminded demographic I guess :p

____________________

Stillow:

jamesia

If a radical liberal like Obama can get elected, then anyone can, including Palin. At this rate, Kermit the Frog can get elected.

____________________

Stillow:

With 64 saying she is a good roll model...that # is to high just to be conservatives or republicans. That has to include indy's and some Dems....

____________________

jamesia:

I don't want to get into some kind of spat, but what has Obama done that has shown him to be "radically liberal"? I understand that your statement is at its heart a dig against Obama... but he hasn't done anything insanely leftist.

I just think for someone like yourself, who you've described as social libertarian, fiscal conservative, you'd like someone more like Jodi Rell. She has a strong chance of winning, if the GOP could quit the social liberal witch hunt (NY-23)

____________________

Stillow:

jamesia

Ok, I won't get into why he is liberal...but thsoe answers are clear....I still can find no difference between he and Bush on spending policy. They are both deeply in love with defiits and growing g'ment.

Anyone can get elected. It all depends on the circumstances surrounding an election.

____________________

Xenobion:

I always looked at Kucinich as your in deep left field type of person. Throw Kennedy, Rockafeller, and a couple others in there. Not that people really look at the barometer too much because "liberal" is typically preceeded with "radically" as if Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles were in style again. No middle of the road "liberal" seems to exist as its been propagated to be a bad word. We can have 5 different types of "conservative" though for some reason. :p

____________________

Stillow:

For what its worth I define liberal as someone irresponsible with tax payer money. Someone who favors the growth of g'ment via entitelemnt programs. Someone who does not spend tax payer money for a purpose, but rather finds a purpose to spend tax payer money. Someone who beleives in the right of g'ment to seize more and more income from those who make more. Someone who removes choices from the individual so that g'ment can make those choices on your behalf. Someone who beleives g'ment should provide for those who do not have at the expense of those who do have rather than helping those who do not have earn what they need. Someone who beleives in hand outs and not hand ups.

I never define liberal or con via social policy, because both you social libs and social conservatives are simply dead wrong in your views.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

Most of the questions deal with Palin's likeability and personality. I don't think she is a bad person, and generally she seems nice and friendly.

There is no question, however, regarding Palin's intelligence, thoughtfulness, of command of the issues. That's another area where people have big problems with her and probably why only 29% think she is prepared to be president.

Intelligence is usually a key component of people's calculus involving voting for president, although it's not always decisive.

____________________

Bigmike:

I have to agree with jamesia.

"There's no way Sarah Palin will be nominated by the GOP"
"Where is the intellectual GOP candidate?"

As a conservative I am hoping none of the above emerge as the head of the GOP ticket. There is no real leader in the bunch.

____________________

sjt22:

I never define liberal or con via social policy, because both you social libs and social conservatives are simply dead wrong in your views.

So... everyone's wrong about everything? Well I'm glad we have the wisdom of Stillow to straighten us all out. Though perhaps first he better look up the actual definition of what a "liberal" is instead of just making things up that suit him and expecting everyone to follow his definition.

____________________

Stillow:

Yes, you social libs and cons are wrong. You have no right to tell me whom I can marry, you have no right to take my gun away, you have no right to make my personal choices for me....so ya, your wrong.

____________________

Xenobion:

Well that would make you a social Libertarian. And yes, there is an app for that... er political position.

____________________

Stillow:

Just live and let live.....simple as that...get out of my business cus its none of yours.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Hard to believe that Guilliani is on the list of candidates. Perhaps he should run as an independent against Obama and the GOP candidate in 2012.

Our nation was at it's best before the Reagan Revolution and the forces like James Dobson, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell who used their power as preachers to influence policy implementation. With little respect to the constitution the south and Mid America began to elect these people. Throw equal rights for women out the door, and it started in the mid 80's with attacks on porno shops and Heavy Metal Music. When Pat Robertson and the Christian right failed on that, they found a perfect target in feminism. When fiscal conservativism and religious fundamentalism collided, many in the northeast eventually kissed the party goodbye. Obama's best hope for 2012 would be to nominate Mike Huckabee. Liberals will love it.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

I liked what user name Jamesia wrote above. What has Obama done that is radically leftist? This person is correct. He supported a public option to compete with private insurance instead of what people like myself, Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich would have wanted. He kept Secretary Gates as his adviser even though he was appointed by Bush. He picked a conservative Governor of Utah to be ambassador to China and the Governor accepted. (GOP governors from Utah wouldn't work under a whacko liberal president) Obama has not repealed "Don't ask don't tell". This is an issue that nearly 2/3 of Americans think should be lifted. Obama asked Judd Gregg to be in his cabinet which Gregg refused. Most recently Gregg accused Obama of creating a vengeful enemies list like Richard Nixon. Obama has been very cautious in approaching touchy subjects like gun control and abortion. If Obama was truly a radical liberal, he would insist that Joe Liebermann be kicked out of all the Democratic committees he serves on. Case Closed.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

I liked what user name Jamesia wrote above. What has Obama done that is radically leftist? This person is correct. He supported a public option to compete with private insurance instead of what people like myself, Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich would have wanted. He kept Secretary Gates as his adviser even though he was appointed by Bush. He picked a conservative Governor of Utah to be ambassador to China and the Governor accepted. (GOP governors from Utah wouldn't work under a whacko liberal president) Obama has not repealed "Don't ask don't tell". This is an issue that nearly 2/3 of Americans think should be lifted. Obama asked Judd Gregg to be in his cabinet which Gregg refused. Most recently Gregg accused Obama of creating a vengeful enemies list like Richard Nixon. Obama has been very cautious in approaching touchy subjects like gun control and abortion. If Obama was truly a radical liberal, he would insist that Joe Liebermann be kicked out of all the Democratic committees he serves on. Case Closed.

____________________

Bigmike:

Libs either failed Econ 101 or the are misleading people on purpose. You can't have a public option to compete with private insurance. Private companies have to make a profit to stay in business. A public option will not have to make a profit and will even run billions, if not trillions, in the whole. Companies that have to make a profit cannot compete with entities that can have loses, especially of that magnitude. If the public option becomes law it is just a matter of time before private insurers cease to exist. Then we will all be forced into the public option. We will have no choice in the matter. Even the term public option is an out and out lie. It won't be an option once they run the private insurers out of business.

And that is what BO wants. He just doesn't have the guts to say so. And by admitting it he wouldn't have the votes in Congress either. He wants the same thing the lunatic left fringe wants he just can't admit it.

You want more proof he is a lib? Where did the stimulus money go. Who got more, shovel ready projects or growing govt entities.

Settings salaries for Wall St execs is a pretty liberal idea in my book. They can't earn what other top execs earn but you still have to pay "prevailing" wages on govt projects. So those who work for the govt are free to earn all they can but those in the private sector can't. That is so far left it is unbelievable. If you want to call it fair you have to cut UAW members salaries too. And we know that won't happen.

I could go on and on but you get the picture. Obama is left of his hero Mao he just can't say it without losing a lot of support.

____________________

openid.aol.com/Rahmsputin:

Libs either failed Econ 101 or the are misleading people on purpose.

Actually, there's a third option: the public option is nothing like what you've described.

First of all, it's not funded out of the federal budget. Even the more liberal House bill clearly states that the public option is funded solely through premiums paid by participating policy holders. It also mandates by law that it has to raise premiums to ensure that it breaks even. That being the case, it's possible that the public option could "go out of business" in a way that Medicaid or Medicare cannot (since they're programs funded out of the federal budget).

Second, even in the liberal house bill, the public option is only available to the small segment of the population that will participate in the exchange. This is basically people who do receive coverage through Medicaid, Medicare, or an employer-based group health plan. This is, basically, the currently uninsured and the individual health market. Now, as anyone who gets insurance on the individual market can tell you, the policies are very expensive and the private insurers are very selective about who they'll sell a policy to. This is because this market is not very profitable. The real source of insurance profits is the employer-based group plans, and as I noted above, private insurers will have exclusive access to these customers. That being the case, while it's true that many currently uninsured people on the individual market represent a potential source of new revenue for insurance companies, the cash cow of the insurance industry (i.e., employers) are going to be untouched.

On top of that, it's also important to note that the public option will only offer basic plans. Only private companies will offer "deluxe" plans on the exchange, and so they will largely get most of the more affluent individual customers who will pay for as much coverage as you can get. And as you can see in countries like France and Germany, even if you did provide a basic single-payer plan to everyone, there is still a lucrative private market for supplementary insurance. But again, just to reiterate, private companies will be the only entities on the exchange offering deluxe plans.

And with that said, since insurers will have exclusive access to the more lucrative employer-provided insurance, they will actually have a competitive advantage over the public option since they can redirect profits from one market to subsidize plans in another. Basically, they could theoretically offer plans at a lower price than the public option and still make a profit overall, but they probably won't do this since they'll actually want the public option to take on many of the higher risk people on the individual market.

Anyway, I know this is a partisan mud fight and that the above will probably just get dismissed, but that's a rundown of how the public option is actually designed and why it would be pretty much impossible for it to drive private insurers out of business.

Needless to say, those liberals arguing for a public option didn't fail Econ 101. There's just a lot misconceptions about what's been proposed. And that's understandable. Health care is a complicated issue and, in my experience talking with people, most liberals don't really understand what they're defending.

____________________

openid.aol.com/Rahmsputin:

In regards to the first paragraph, just in case I wasn't 100% clear:

By "break even," I mean that the public option is not allowed to operate at a loss. It is required by law to increase premiums on policy holders until it is operating in the black.

____________________

openid.aol.com/Rahmsputin:

And in the second paragraph, of course I meant that the only people who will be allowed to participate in the public option are those who are NOT on Medicare, Medicaid, or an employer-provided group health plan.

____________________

openid.aol.com/Rahmsputin:

And now onto your other points:

Where did the stimulus money go. Who got more, shovel ready projects or growing govt entities.

In addition to the enormous chunk that went to tax cuts, a lot of it went to stabilizing state budgets to prevent teachers and policemen from being fired. I would have liked to seen more go into infrastructure, but the reality is that there simply weren't enough shovel-ready projects to actually close much of the GDP gap. It's not really stimulus if it's going to an infrastructure project that won't see the light of day until the middle of the next decade.

Anyway, the amount that went into "growing government entities" was pretty small compared to the total amount consisting of tax cuts, infrastructure, and state relief.

So those who work for the govt are free to earn all they can but those in the private sector can't.

Bailed out institutions aren't really the same thing as the "private sector."

____________________

havoc:

openid.aol.com/Rahmsputin:


By "break even," I mean that the public option is not allowed to operate at a loss. It is required by law to increase premiums on policy holders until it is operating in the black.


How is do you know this since the bill is not written?

And besides the post office is about to get bailed out by Fed even though they are supposed to run Break even. There is no way washington pols will allow an entitelment to raise rates to market value or to go bankrupt.

____________________

RAG2:

I find it extremely ironic that Republicans compare Obama to Nixon and his "enemies list" because he calls out Fox "News"--especially because many of the people who compiled Dick's lists now work for Fox. In fact, it was Fox's PRESIDENT, Roger Ailes, who pioneered the art of media intimidation at Nixon's critics! Tricky Dick must be looking up and enjoying a great laugh at their expense.

PS. Nixon and Aile's strategy of accusing the media of bias every time it reported an unflattering story about Dick's administration ultimately (even if not right away) paid huge dividends for Republicans; maybe going after Fox will ultimately (even if not right away) work for Democrats too!

____________________



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