Articles and Analysis


US: 2012 Pres (Gallup 2/1-3)

Topics: poll

2/1-3/10; 942 registered voters, 4% margin of error
490 Republicans, 5% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(Gallup release)


If Barack Obama runs for re-election in 2012, in general, are you more likelly to vote for Obama or for the Republican Party's candidate for president?
44% Obama, 42% Republican

2012 President: Republican Primary (open-ended
Mitt Romney 14%, Sarah Palin 11%, John McCain 7%, Scott Brown 4%, Mike Huckabee 3%,
Newt Gingrich 3%, Ron Paul 2%, Tim Pawlenty 1%, Bob McDonnell 1%, Fred Thompson 1%,
Bobby Jindal 1%,



I'd be interested to see a comparison to Clinton in early 1994. Bush in early 2002 would make no sense because of his insanely high approval for the months after 9/11.

This poll is interesting for sure and underscores Obama and the Ds precarious position right now, but has little predictive value. 2012 is an eternity away.



This poll is wierd. I often wonder if Obama only beats a Republican by 2 percentage points, I wonder which one they are talking about. None of the people mentioned on this list would have a chance, other than Romney. Huckabee is well liked in more conservative circles, but being associated with Fox news and some previous statements he made about "Obama care would have killed Kennedy" as well as his early release of a pyschopathci killer who murders two cops in Washington state, is going to cause problems for him in the primary. THe law and order GOP will have a fit over that.

I would love to see Bob Mcdonnell run. His ideas of a woman staying in the home and not working, and using the words fornication to condemn not just gay behaviour but hetrosexual pre-marital sex in his memoir. That might get him elected in VA but if he thinks it isn't going to cause an uproar throughout the nation, than I encourage him to "Bring it on".



These polls mean nothing! In 1970 a poll came out that showed Ed Muskie defeating President Nixon by 10 points if the election were held on that day. Ed Muskie wasn't even who the Democrats ran in 1972 they ran the dark horse who had no chance, George McGovern and he got beat in a landslide!

Also, in 1983 a poll came out that showed Walter Mondale beating President Reagan by 8 points if the election were held on that day. My point is these early polls like this don't mean anything. President Obama is just in a tough spot right now. This is probably the toughest spot he will be in while he is President. The first year is only the toughest. The fact that President Obama is still winning polls like this is a good sign. Like I said Nixon and Reagan was losing in their early polls and they both came back to carry 49 states!



That does look like a packed GOP field. It reminds me of the field of Democrats back in 2004! Most of them people won't even run. Scott Brown won't run, Jindal won't run in 2012. He is gearing up for 2016 I believe. I believe Romeny and Palin will run. As for the Governor of Virginia he will not run in 2012. Maybe in the future. The party will end up exciting the base with someone like Palin and end up going to 2012 and being smashed. Much like Goldwater, and McGovern, they excited the base but had little appeal to everyone else!



I remember polls coming out in 2003 saying Weseley Clark could defeat George W. Bush, and the same thing was said about Howard Dean.



A nameless republican with no baggage is what they poll against. Suddenly put in Romney/Palin/whomever then Obama's numbers rise. Maybe Gallup/Marist/Rasmussen should start polling against past presidents in lieu of possible time travel technologies.



What's with all the talk about Scott Brown running in 2012? If he were to choose that, he'd need to start his campaign, literally, today. He'd also have to essentially abandon his re-election campaign.

If he gets re-elected in 2012, he's got a great shot in 2016, but 2012 is insane thinking?

But, who knows nowadays... politics has become quite insane...



Why do you guys on the left care so much if Obama wins in 2012? Is it because he so darn sexy? Looks and sounds pretty? What is it specifically that such an outcome would change?

So far, other than spending a bunch of money, he's been completely ineffective in pushing your agenda. And that's with Congressional supermajorities of the magnitude he will never enjoy the rest of his time in office. Whether he goes in 2012 or stays til 2016.

Why do you care so much? It is completely nonsensical to me.

As a voter who strongly opposes to most of Obama's agenda items, I could care less if he is a one-termer or two, as long as those agenda items don't come to pass. I might even vote for him, just to ensure gridlock. Gridlock is what's been best for the country, historically.



Well, this poll is clearly misleading because the GOP is so divided regionally. Perhaps the independent voters in much of the country all have their perfect idea of the right candidate, and the tendency in this country is to give the president a year and than say the leader isn't doing enough. It isn't the independents who will nominate the GOP's next candidate. The party has been dominated by social conservatives who are also fiscal conservatives and are big time military hawks, that will likely be the kind of candidate they will nominate. If someone like Gingrich, Huckabee or Pence were not the nominee and the GOP went for Pawlenty, Romney or Charlie Crist, that would be a sign that Obama has been a superb president, and they would need to move to the ctr to be successful. I still think that a moderate candidate in the GOP would likely only win 12 states. Mccain was the guy independents loved in 2000, yet George Bush won the primary quite handily.



I would say Scott Brown's chances of being re-elected in 2012 in a presidential election year would be about 20 percent. Even if he ends up voting more like Olympia Snowe, that isn't good enough for Mass in the long run. If he had been governor, that would be a different story. Turnout was poor and about 30 percent of those who voted for Obama in 2008 didn't show up for Coakley. She was a fiasco of a candidate.




"So far, other than spending a bunch of money, he's been completely ineffective in pushing your agenda."

Thats what you think. Look inside the stimulus and his budgets again. He campaigned on far more than just HCR and closing Gitmo. He has probably done more on the domestic side for liberals than anyone since LBJ. Liberals are upset because their expectations were unrealistic.



I will honestly say that there are some things that are just too risky to do and that was closing Gitmo. I was all for it in 2008 and early 2009, but now I have my doubts. I think if Obama knew than what he knows now he wouldn't have done it. Mccain likewise wanted to close Gitmo, yet he took stands against torture, and than went back on it.

I am not saying that torture and misconduct by our troops was acceptable. It wasn't, and there should never be a repeat of the interrogation methods used after 9/11. I think there should be more cameras and recordings of interrogations of suspects, even if it is hidden. Perhaps they can wear a wire.

Obama sees that Gitmo can't be closed at this time, but obviously the steps taken to get valuable information from the suspects was a total failure. Middle Eastern radicals are a tough group of people to crack, and it is much tougher than trying to get the truth out of a serial killer, or someone like that.



Far left:

I agree thats exactly what we need. More protections for the terrorist from our troops.

Thinking like that will lead us directly to another 9-11.



Democrats need to decide if they want symbolic power or real power. Obama has pulled the democratic party down faster than any other president in history.

A massively corrupt congress has to share the blame, but Obama seems to be more concerned about symbolic victories more than real change. Closing Gitmo would be a symbolic gesture that most people now realize is a foolish move. Moving the trial of KSM to NYC was a symbolic gesture that infuriated most people because of its shear stupidity. He won the Nobel Peace Price - symbolism so empty that it invites mocking from even people who like him.

Signing the "stimulus" bill for him was symbolic. It was the biggest bill of its kind ever signed and he did it just 2 months in office. Just like those that voted on it, he didn't bother to read it and now his symbolic victory is an anchor around the democrats neck as people see what a waste of money and obvious payoff of hundreds of billions of dollars to labor unions that bill was.

The democrats are failing because he isn't leading - he is following. He is following congress and following some incredibly bad advice from his advisers.

At this point the democrats should already be looking at who to run in 2012. Most likely Hillary. Unless he changes drastically, she could easily beat him in the primaries.

All of that said, polls taken now about 2012 mean almost nothing. It has to be somewhat worrisome that 53% voted for Obama a year ago and only 44% would vote now but two years is a long time and he has a lot of power to sling a tremendous amount of money around to the states he needs to buy for 2012.


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.