Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

US: 2012 Pres (PPP 2/13-15)

Topics: poll

Public Policy Polling (D)
2/13-15/10; 743 registered voters, 3.5% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(PPP release)

National

2012 President
46% Obama, 43% Huckabee
50% Obama, 43% Palin
46% Obama, 28% Thune
45% Obama, 43% Romney

Job Approval / Disapproval
Pres. Obama: 48 / 47 (chart)

Favorable / Unfavorable
Mike Huckabee: 35 / 26 (chart)
Sarah Palin: 39 / 49 (chart)
John Thune: 5 / 11
Mitt Romney: 37 / 28 (chart)

Do you think ____ is too conservative, too liberal, or about right?
Huckabee: 24% Too conservative, 8% too liberal, 37% About right
Palin: 34% Too convervative, 10% Too liberal, 39% About right
Romney: 22% Too conservative, 8% Too liberal, 43% About right

Do you think Sarah Palin is or is not qualified to serve as President?
30% Qualified, 59% Not qualified

 

Comments
Xenobion:

Send in the clowns! Thune may be the only hope.

____________________

BH:

These silly hypothetical 2012 match up polls are worthless. Three months is an eternity in political terms, let alone three years. I guess if you're the NYT or WaPo trying to "gin up" your predominately liberal readers you would do a poll like this to generate a news article, but PPP? Why waste the resources, when the fall 2010 match ups are far more relevant.

____________________

Ryan:

Out of these 4, the only one I see with a real shot at the nomination is Romney. It would be nice to see how some different repubs line up like Daniels or Pawlenty.

____________________

WilliamGray:

Obama being under 50% makes him very vulnerable. Most voters have no idea of the opponents platform and thus are simply voting for or against Obama making the poll basically a job approval/disapproval.

Why poll a random SD senator?

Mitch Daniels will be prez in 2012, God willing.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Hey, Mitch Daniels is my candidate!!

____________________

djneedle83:

Four questions for Romney.


a) does he favor Social Security prvitization. This does cost over a trillion dollars to perform and wall street will love him for that grabage.

b) Does he favor eliminating Medicare for individuals under 55?

c) Will he pander to the religious right on marriage because he is a Mormon?

d) What is his view on the Public Option since Rommneycare is more liberal then Obamacare.

I'm a Connecticut resident in my mid 20's and I know what Mittens did as govenor--- slash and burn the state budget.

The 2012 election is only about -- Nevada, Colorado, Virgnia, Iowa, Florida, Ohio, and New Hampshire. These are the top 7 states in 2012.

The Republicans will win Indiana, and North Carolina in 2012 since the victories where slim for Obama.

____________________

Jason:

These polls are interesting! Nobody has yet to defeat the President in any polls I have seen! However, it is still very early. The only one out of any of these that might have a chance is Romney. However, I don't believe he will be the one the GOP runs. They currently don't have anyone that I see. Daniels, and Pawlenty might be a couple to consider. Who knows for sure? Still a long time off. It is interesting to see Palin pulling down 43 percent of the vote when in this poll 60 percent don't think she should be President. In many national polls that number is a lot higher. The GOP will never go with Palin, let's face it not even the Republicans are that crazy!

____________________

Field Marshal:

"It is interesting to see Palin pulling down 43 percent of the vote when in this poll 60 percent don't think she should be President."

Obviously, a lot of those respondents don't think the president doesn't have the experience to be president (and its clearly showing).

It would have been great to see that question on Obama come up BEFORE he was elected. I guess experience only counts when its a Rep.

____________________

Williame123:


This poll is a disgrace for the Repubs and shows how weak their field is. Nearly a FIFTH of the country is unemployed or underemployed and Obama is this competitive? What this and other polls show is that Obama's support is far deeper than pundits like to admit. In fact Rove and other GOP strategists continue to caution that Repubs should not underestimate Obama.

The latest economic forecast by the FED suggests that unemployment may be under 7% come the fall of 2012. This means that unemployment may be lower come re-election time for Obama than it was for Reagan. How would the Repubs justify Obama overperforming their hero under similar or worse economic conditions?

Also, NATO is beginning to have some real success in Afghanistan and Pakistan. What happens if Bin Laden or Mullah Omar is captured? Things are far more likely to get better for Obama than worse in the long run. The doom and gloom you here in the media is nothing more than adolescent histrionics rooted in short-term thinking. A year ago when the market was tanking people blamed Obama for not focusing on the financial crisis. When Geithner released his plan for the banks he was laughed at and the markets briefly panicked.

In hindsight, the Geithner-Summers plan has been so successful that people are now angry at Obama for the fact that "Wall Street is profiting while Main Street Burns." A year ago when Obama ordered a managed bankruptcy of the auto companies and extended them loans to save what was left of them, critics said the auto companies would not survive and that Obama was throwing money into a black hole. Today, GM is already beginning to pay back its loans and the future looks stable for them with hundreds of thousands of jobs saved. 2012 is going to be an uphill battle for Repubs.

____________________

Xenobion:

Too bad the question was both asked of Palin and Obama before he was elected. From what we know now Palin wasn't even qualified to be Governor.

____________________

StatyPolly:

Somebody needs to poll Barack's primary viability. Things change, but as of today, he won't survive a Hillary challenge.

Bill wants it BAD.


Thune's been keeping his vast political talents mostly to himself since beating Dashcle. He is at least as smooth and charismatic as Barack though.

____________________

Field Marshal:

William,

Rewriting history will not help the Dems prospects in Nov or 2012.

Saw an interesting stat the other day. In order for the unemployment rate to fall below 9%, we would need to create nearly 4 million jobs. Since we are still losing jobs, not to mention population growth, we are a LONG way away from anything like 7%.

Reagan helped businesses in order to grow the economy and employment. Obama seems to like to do the opposite. We'll see how that works out for him.

____________________

Williame123:

Field Marshal:

"It would have been great to see that question on Obama come up BEFORE he was elected. I guess experience only counts when its a Rep."

In the september 10, 2008 foxnews poll when McCain/Palin were enjoying their post-convention bounce and leading Obama/Biden 45% to 42%, they asked whether Obama and McCain were qualified to be president. 67% said yes for Obama and 87% said yes for McCain. Sorry amigo, most registered voters thought Obama was qualified before the election.

Remember that this poll was before the presidential debates, the financial crisis and Palin's disasterous interviews. Obama looked even more qualified after those McCain/Palin debacles.

____________________

Williame123:

This poll is even worse for the repubs than I thought. In the internals, 18 to 29 year olds make up 11% of the sample but made up 18% of the electorate in 2008.

____________________

Thaddeus:

I thought an election was normally a pretty good "poll" of who people thought was qualified to be president. I guess those are less trustworthy than Rasmussen. He probably does have better likely voter models than an election.

____________________

Field Marshal:

There is a difference between looking and being. Take that poll now and i bet its a different story given his failure as a leader.

Granted, i don't think Palin is qualified to be prez but i would look like a fool stating that Obama is qualified while Palin isn't when they both had similar number of years in higher office.


____________________

jamesia:

Romney's the best chance for the GOP, but the Tea Party will never let him win. I don't think the 2012 GOP candidate is in this list at all. I don't know who she/he is, but it's no one from this list.

Any and all of Obama's missteps will be immediately forgiven when he blows away any of these people in a debate. None of these people have his rhetoric skills.

I really wish there was a strong GOP candidate: it'd be better for democracy.

____________________

Williame123:

StatyPolly:

"Somebody needs to poll Barack's primary viability. Things change, but as of today, he won't survive a Hillary challenge."

Yeah, just as Ford didn't survive a Reagan challenge and Carter didn't survive a Kennedy challenge.

What is Hillary going to do, run to he left of Obama on domestic policy? What is she going to say on foreign policy? I have publicly supported and executed Obama's foreign policy but I didn't mean it?


____________________

Farleftandproud:

My God, the voters are stupid.

____________________

Timmeh:

So 59% think Palin isn't qualified to be President, yet 43% would still vote for her. That leaves at least 4% who don't think she's qualified and up to 9% who aren't sure if she is who would actually vote for her. That's at least 13% who would vote for Palin even though they don't think that or don't know if she's even qualified for the office. She has some wacko supporters out there...

____________________

Field Marshal:

jamesia-

I disagree. I think the GOPs best chance is someone not on the list. Given that PPP is a dem polster, i think its in their (and the dem party) interest to keep harping on those same three individuals- Romney, Palin, and Huckabee.

I think the real threat is from someone charismatic but ALSO qualified to be prez with fresh ideas like a Mitch Daniels, John Huntsman or even McDonnell or Pence.

This unknown could excite the anti-washington fervor that is happening all across the country. The people weren't happy when the Reps were in power and there are even less so now with the Dems. An unknown/outside like one of these guys could become the rallying cry for REAL change in DC.

My three cents....

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Once any of the above clowns, other than possibly Mitt Romney were to run against Obama, they would be ripped to shreads. Huckabee is way too contreversial, and being connected to Fox news making tons of money now, not to mention his extreme social views would lose badly to Obama, once everything is known.

____________________

Xenobion:

In Romney's defense, in that I feel sorry for him, he'll face harsh opposition for being a Mormon. He was sandbagged in West Virgina remember by the joint efforts of McCain and Huckabee. There will be a lot of people to stop him along the way. He makes a decent face man for the Republicans though. Rudy as well.

____________________

jamesia:

Farleftandproud:

The voters aren't stupid. This is all hypothetical. A real life match up between any of these would most certainly prove Obama victorious. Elections are about image and the ability to whip up emotions in a way that's not overtly emotional (i.e. with convincing rhetoric). These GOP suggestions just don't compare. If elections were about resume and/or applicable experience, thinks might be different. Bill Richardson would be president.

I personally think Gary Johnson should be polled as a GOP possible. He's more realistically libertarian: anti-drug war, pro-choice, and strongly for privacy rights. He's more of a "Lincoln-republican", what a republican was meant to be, than any of these Tea Party weirdos.

____________________

jamesia:

Field Marshall:

I said it was someone NOT on the list, so technically we agree :) The GOP presented here just will not hack it.

I believe Gary Johnson is the strongest so far.

1) Unknown enough to not have a bad rap.
2) liberal socially (not sure on gays though)
3) conservative economically - though not as nutty-paleoconservative as Ron Paul

I don't know what his speaking ability is like, but in all seriousness, that's the one thing necessary to beat Obama. The person must be a well-reasoned, elegant speaker. Not a crazy, screaming conservative nutcase. Obama ruthlessly uses conciliatory language as a weapon - the only way to beat that is to do the same thing better.

____________________

Williame123:

Field Marshal:

"There is a difference between looking and being. Take that poll now and i bet its a different story given his failure as a leader."

Haha. I find this amusing. You asked for polls BRFORE the election and I provided one and now you want polls a year in. I guess you didn't like the poll results.

You cannot look at a president's polls when conditions are tough and extrapolate automatically that he was not qualified in the first place. Was Reagan any less qualified in '83 when his approval was at 35% than he in '86 when it 60%? Was Clinton any less qualified in '94 when his approval was at 40% than in '98 when it was at 70%? How about Truman, Nixon, Carter and both Bushes? Were they more qualified when they were popular and less qualified when they were less popular?

"Granted, i don't think Palin is qualified to be prez but i would look like a fool stating that Obama is qualified while Palin isn't when they both had similar number of years in higher office."

Following this argument, we could conclude that Palin is more qualified to be president than Lincoln was. That is a preposterous argument. There is more to qualification for the presidency than mere political experience.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

PPP is not a Democratic pollster. If they are they are full of crap. I think even Rasmussen had Obama about 16 points above Palin. This is giving her too much credit. I waited 8 long stinkin years of George W. Bush to finally get a leader I can believe in, and for those who are fans of Obama, don't let people try to underestimate his leadership. He is not in an easy position. Congress and the senate are dysfunctinal; Obama replaced an administration that was 30 percent favorable in the last two years. Every one of these candidates from the GOP would follow the same policies of Bush. In fact, Obama is actually getting Al Quada people that Bush wasn't able to catch.

Bush, Mccain and Cheney would have had us in war in Iraq for many years. Obama has been tough on these issues. I am proud to have him as president.

____________________

Williame123:

jamesia:

"I believe Gary Johnson is the strongest so far.

1) Unknown enough to not have a bad rap.
2) liberal socially (not sure on gays though)
3) conservative economically - though not as nutty-paleoconservative as Ron Paul"

...and what makes you think the current GOP base would vote for a social liberal? Also, what makes you think Americans would vote for an economic libertarian en masse in the general election? Everybody is for small government until you tell them you want to cut their favorite entitlement program. Do you think Bush passed the medicare drug benefit because he was a marxist?

Do you think Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan funded the New Deal and Great Society programs because they were socialists?

____________________

farleftandcrying:

Get ready for President Palin

____________________

Field Marshal:

"PPP is not a Democratic pollster. If they are they are full of crap."

How can you practically live on this site and not know that PPP is a democratic pollster?

From wikipedia:

Public Policy Polling (PPP) is an American, Democratic Party-affiliated polling firm based in Raleigh, North Carolina.[1][2][3] PPP was founded in 2001 by businessman and Democratic pollster Dean Debnam, the firm's current president and chief executive officer.[1][4] The company's surveys use Interactive Voice Response (IVR), an automated questionnaire used by other polling firms such as SurveyUSA and Rasmussen Reports.[5] Following the 2008 U.S. presidential election, an analysis by The Wall Street Journal showed PPP's swing-state polling was the second most accurate projection.[5] The neutrality of PPP's surveys has been questioned since the firm's clients are exclusively Democratic-affiliated organizations, and because surveys on health care reform have included polarizing questions such as if respondents think President Barack Obama is the "Antichrist".[1][6]

____________________

Field Marshal:

Why would conservatives nominate a social liberal? That makes no sense.

William, that's the problem with entitlement programs. Eventually they implode (think Madoff) and people are left holding an empty bag.

We should have never implemented what are essentially ponzi schemes for entitlement programs. They are going to be what breaks the camels back for our budget.

"There is more to qualification for the presidency than mere political experience."

Obviously. I guess you have to be a community organizer. LOL.

____________________

Williame123:

Field Marshal:

"Obviously. I guess you have to be a community organizer. LOL. "

...Or, unlike Palin, have an IQ above the single digits! LOL

____________________

Bigmike:

A few thoughts

Gotta agree with any and all who say this poll doesn't mean a thing. We don't even know who is running.

Those freshman GOP Senators who get sworn in next January are gonna be on cloud 9. If they have a decent education and any real experience, come 2012 they will have qualifications as good or better than BO had in 2008. Mayor of a medium size town or any corporate exec has more executive experience than he had.

Speaking of those freshman Senators, I have the GOP picking up AR, CO, DE, IN, NV, ND, and PA. At least as it stands today. That 52-48 for the Dems next year. Best case for the GOP would be one more from WA or WI.

Since 1960 no off year election has had 10 Senate seats switch parties. I just don't see the GOP getting to 51 without some major event that hurts Dems bad. Pretty much the same story in the House, just different numbers.

I don't see any point in comparisons before 1960. Political or economic. The 50's are ancient history, at least in those areas.

If there are separate Tea Party candidates in any Nov races, it takes votes from the GOP and likely makes winners of the Dems. Face it, there aren't many Dems in the Tea Party movement. If TP'ers want to make it difference, it needs to be in GOP primaries.

Could be a strange election. Safe incumbents are getting to be an endangered species.

____________________

Williame123:

Bigmike:

"Those freshman GOP Senators who get sworn in next January are gonna be on cloud 9. If they have a decent education and any real experience, come 2012 they will have qualifications as good or better than BO had in 2008. Mayor of a medium size town or any corporate exec has more executive experience than he had."

Wishful thinking. The Republican Party is establishmentarian. Since 1964, no Republican has been nominated for the presidency without having ran before. One of the usual suspects will be the nominee.

As far as the freshmen Senators, bring them on! That would be an exciting campaign,

____________________

Andy (AKA: The Yangban):

Williame123:

"Since 1964, no Republican has been nominated for the presidency without having ran before."

Uh... W.

____________________

Williame123:

Andy (AKA: The Yangban):

"Uh... W."

True, but he is the exception that proves the rule. Also, he was the son of the last Repub president. Pretty much the establishment candidate.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Andy,

Williams likes to throw out his "facts" and then when they are proven false, he uses the "almost right" defense.


"...Or, unlike Palin, have an IQ above the single digits! LOL"

And do you think her IQ is much different than Obama's? I know your answer to that so i would just ask you, how you know that? What makes you think she is any less intelligent than he is. William, i think you are a great illustration of the gullibility and manipulative nature of most of the American people, especially those on the left.

____________________

Thaddeus:

Wow, FM: I know the reality field can be bent for ya, but come on, I'm not sure if you have that high of a view of Palin or low of an opinion on Obama. Just because you may disagree with how someone governs, doesn't mean they have a single digit IQ, when they get a JD magna cum laude from Harvard and are the president of the Harvard Law Review. That doesn't quite match up with: She attended Hawaii Pacific University (fall of 1982); North Idaho College (spring &fall of 1983); University of Idaho (fall 1984, spring 1985); Matanuska-Susitna College (fall 1985). University of Idaho spring 1986, receiving her BA in communications with an emphasis in journalism 1987. That's four different institutions and five years for a BA. You may not like what he does, but he's not stupid.

____________________

Field Marshal:

And just to get the record straight, i am not saying Palin is smarter or even as smart as Obama. What i am trying to portray are peoples own biases regarding intelligence. The leftist media has a BIG hand in that. Bush and Obama went to the same school, yet most on the left think Bush was dumb while Obama is a genius? Why?

No grades were ever released. No papers or anything to base those notions on. Simply what the media portrays in their stories. And given that most in the media support the dems, it is in their interest to support the dem by using fictitious stories.

____________________

Ryan:

"So 59% think Palin isn't qualified to be President, yet 43% would still vote for her. That leaves at least 4% who don't think she's qualified and up to 9% who aren't sure if she is who would actually vote for her. That's at least 13% who would vote for Palin even though they don't think that or don't know if she's even qualified for the office. She has some wacko supporters out there..."
I don't think she is qualified, but I'd take her (unhappily) over BO. It's a relative choice when it comes down to choosing between 2 people. this is very different from saying that 1 person is or is not qualified.

____________________

Ryan:

"Wow, FM: I know the reality field can be bent for ya, but come on, I'm not sure if you have that high of a view of Palin or low of an opinion on Obama. Just because you may disagree with how someone governs, doesn't mean they have a single digit IQ.... You may not like what he does, but he's not stupid."

And just because someone did well in school does not mean that they are qualified, or will be a good president/leader, and vice versa.

____________________

BH:

"[President Obama] is not in an easy position."

Maybe not now, but even with 60 votes in the senate and with a nearly 80 seat advantage in the House the President still couldn't ram through health care, card check and cap and trade...all with approval ratings in the 60-70% range. The "woe is me, we inherited a mess" exceuse just doesn't fly given that nothing prevented the Democrats from passing anything, except, of course, the public who spooked moderate Dems as they turned on the President once the moderate tone he campaigned with faded into the ideological realities of who this guy really is. The President had every opportunity to lead and failed. Why? Because he governed "far left and proud" and pandered to 20% of the electorate rather than in the center where he would have passed anything he wished.

____________________

Williame123:

Field Marshal:

"And do you think her IQ is much different than Obama's? I know your answer to that so i would just ask you, how you know that? What makes you think she is any less intelligent than he is."

I arrive at my opinion of her IQ through Bayesian reasoning. IQ is nothing more than an attempt to measure SOME aspects of cognitive ability, especially those aspects that are propitious to academic achievement, the learning of complex rules and assimilation of intricate information . Keeping this somewhat simplified definition of IQ in mind, it is easy to infer that Palin doesn't have much of it. I do not base this simply on her multiple transfers through mediocre schools for much of her collegiate years. I am sure there are bright kids who have suffered similar fates either because of poverty, poor character traits, bad luck, unfortunate life circumstances, illness etc. However, when you combine this with her lack of intellectual curiosity, her inability to learn complex information in a reasonable amount of time and her utter lack of intellectual confidence despite having a very strong sense of herself and superior emotional intelligence, you begin to wonder. When your ideological allies begin to insinuate publicly that you are stupid, you have problem. Conservatives and neoconservatives like George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Kathleen Parker, David Brooks, William Buckley jr , Peggy Noonan, Michael Gerson, David Frum , Henry Paulson etc have insinuated that she is not particularly bright. Are they all part of the liberal media?

As far as Obama is concerned, I do NOT think he is a genius and I never have. In fact far from it. He is certainly no Daniel Patrick Moynihan. However, looking at his biography and performance over the long presidential campaign, it is easy to surmise that he is significantly brighter than the average politician in Washington, even if he is not the brightest of them all. I cannot imagine Palin pulling of what he pulled off at the House Republican retreat in Baltimore. Conservatives and neoconservatives like George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Kathleen Parker, David Brooks ,Larry Kudlow, Paul Gigot, Bill Kristol, Peggy Noonan etc had dinner with Obama at George Will's house in January 2009. They all came out of the dinner praising his intellect. Since then, many of them have harshly criticized his policies on an almost daily basis and yet they still continue to praise his intellect. Are they all part of the liberal media?

Even members of the Bush administration like Paulson and Wilkinson were impressed by him during the White house meeting with McCain, Bush, Obama, Paulson and his aides and the Congressional leadership during the financial crisis. Obama's conservative classmates at Harvard Law, some of who worked in the Bush justice department, praise his intellect whenever interviewed and some even voted for him to be the Law Review president.

Justice Michael W. McConnell, a very conservative Federal judge on the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit and a Bush appointee, was so impressed by his interactions with Obama when he[Obama] was President of the Harvard Law Review that he lobbied the prestigious University of Chicago Law School to offer the young Obama a fellowship after he graduated. That is how Obama became a part of the University of Chicago Law School. When your ideological opponents become so impressed with you that they recruit you to prestigious institutions, you know you have arrived. Could you imagine brilliant and accomplished liberals recruiting Palin to a prestigious journalism school? Palin has a lot of gifts, but she is simply not in Obama's intellectual class.

" William, i think you are a great illustration of the gullibility and manipulative nature of most of the American people, especially those on the left."

...this coming from a person who has been force-fed the notion that Reagan is the reincarnation of an amalgam of Jefferson, Hamilton and Lincoln. You know what they say about those who live in glass houses. LOL .

____________________

Ken Sandale:

farleftandproud: >

How do you know that Lincoln held any of those views?

And since when was the Republican Party meant to be a bunch of stoned pot-heads? Is this something you heard in a Cheech and Chong movie?

Certainly Lincoln was not in favor of your "privacy rights" stuff--he suspended a lot of freedoms because realistically if you are fighting a war and do not do that, you might lose and have even less freedom.

____________________



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