Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

US: 2012 Primary (PPP 8/6-9)

Topics: National , poll

Public Policy Polling (D)
8/6-9/10; 400 likely Republican primary voters, 4.9% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(PPP release)

National

2012 President
23% Huckabee, 22% Romney, 21% Gingrich, 21% Palin, 4% Paul

 

Comments
iVote:

This is a pathetic list of candidates.

____________________

ndirish11:

Huckabee, Gingrich = Religious Crazies
Palin= Almost a Religious Crazy, Not qualified for President
Romney= Too liberal in the economic sense but may win
Ron Paul= True traditional conservative, yet ideas aren't mainstream enough to win.

Right there you got four losers and a long shot. None of those guys is better than Obama and I'm a registered Republican.

____________________

Dave:

I really really really hope the field doesn't look like this.

____________________

vincent106:

It's really too bad that the GOP doesn't have some stellar names like Endless campaigner Obama, Screamin Dean, Crying Hillary, or John "That ain't my baby" Edwards. Talk about some real winners!

____________________

melvin:

None of these Republicans have high approval numbers with Hispanics..Roomney approval with Hispanics is 26%,Huckabee 24%,Palin 16%,Gingrich 18%,and Paul 16%..The only way the GOP can beat Obama if they get over 40% of the Hispanic vote...Bush approval rating with Hispanics back in 2004 was 52%,and Mccains approval rating was 36% back in 2008...Democrats now have a 70% approval rating with Hispanics,and a 36% approval rating with Whites.

____________________

StatyPolly:

Good point, Vincent.

But you left out the dynamic duo of Kerry and Gore.

____________________

Dave:

Oh look, melvin is talking about race again.

____________________

Field Marshal:

I could live with Gingrich. I completely disagree with ndirish about him being a religious crazy. I can't fathom how one draws that conclusion.

I think he is as pragmatic and intelligent as they come in politics. I still think the GOP nominee will most likely be someone not on that list.

My vote is Paul Ryan, John Thune or Bobby Jindal.

____________________

Steve:

Paul Ryan. By the time 2012 gets here he'll the the only candidate left who won't alienate half the party.

____________________

melvin:

The media is telling one big lie,because a majority of liberals like myself is not in favor of the mosque being so close to the WTC site..Obama do not want to see the Democrats win back the House or Senate,because he wants to take the Bill Clinton route,that's why he did that...Obama has damaged the Democrats with White voters,but i believe the Democrats approval rating with Whites will go back up to 40% before November...I also believe Obama is vulnerable in the Democratic primary come 2012.

____________________

Dave:

I'd love Paul Ryan, he seems set against running though. And if even if he did run, could he beat Palin's machine, which like her or not, is considerable? Or could he beat Romney, who as the most liberal candidate, MSNBC and CNN will pretend to like?

____________________

melvin:

If Hillary Clinton runs against Obama in 2012,she would beat him very badly,the only support Obama would get would be from the Black community,and Hillary Clinton would kill any Republican in 2012,because she would get over 44% of the White vote in 84% of the Hispanic vote,which means Hillary would win over 400 Electoral vote...Obama is going to have a tough time come 2012,because his White support wont be there,he would be very lucky to get 37% of the White vote,which would only win him about 270 Electoral votes.

____________________

melvin:

The Republican party last shot at the White house is going to be in 2012,because i don't see the Democratic party nominating another African American to be the Democratic nominee after 2012,because now we know the GOP would use race ,and fear to scare White people if the Democrats nominate a African American..After 2012 the Democrats should win over 370 Electoral votes very easily for the next 100 years or more.

____________________

Stillow:

I recall very clearly in 1980, liberal democrats were literally on their knees "begging" God himself to have Reagan be the GOP nominee. They thought he was weak and Carter would dispatch him without problem. We all know how that runed out.

Typically when Dems laugh at a GOP nominee it means they are scared up the wazoo. Right now the ebola virus could beat Barry in a electoral matchup. Its simply the Dems way of trying to marginalize their opponent. they tried it with reagan, tried it with W....it usually doesn't work and just makes them feel even more silly in the end.

Gingrich, although absolutely brilliant is just to old....though Barry would have no idea what hit him if those two had a debate for two hours. Barry would set a new record with all his ahhh's and uhhhhh's.

Palin is not going to run...Romney will. But I still think some outsider comes in, like Jindal, Ryan, Daniels, there is a ton of prospects out there. With obama has unpopular as he is now and still falling, won't really matter who the nominee is, they will probably win.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Stillow,

As i've said before on the site, i made the same mistake in 2008 routing for Obama. I figured there was no way the electorate would vote for someone as sketchy, inexperienced, and far-left as he. I was proven wrong. As in most elections, its not the challenger but the way the voters feel about the incumbent or incumbents party.

____________________

melvin:

Dave: The Republican party is using race along with Fox,and the right-wing websites,all you have to do is turn on your TV,in radio or log on to any right-wing websites,because that's all they're talking about..You hypocrite Republicans on here always accuse me of using race,but you never accuse your Republican party or Fox,or right-wing radio or the tea party so why is that? 80% of the dialouge from Fox,and rightwing radio always have to be about race issues. When i talk about race i don't call people racist names,or i don't use hate,like the Republican party is doing.The only thing Melvin do is talk about the Demographics,which is not racist by the way.So please don't say i use race to get my point across..Melvin only uses numbers to get his point across.

____________________

Gtfan4ever:

Melvin you are so full of yourself and your "statistics" are way off. Also referring to yourself in the 3rd person?

____________________

iVote:

Yeah, that's why the last PPP poll had Obama beating every one of these losers.

But don't worry, you guys could still nominate Basil Marceaux. I hear he's popular on the internet.

____________________

iVote:

Melvin, serious question here: does your computer have a space bar?

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

None of these candidates are anywhere close to what Reagan was. It's ridiculous to compare them. Reagan's political career started in the early 1960s, elected gov of CA in 1966, came in 3rd on the balloting at the 1968 R convention, then came within a hair of beating President Ford for the 1976 R nomination. He was next in line, and many thought perhaps he could have beaten Carter in 76 if they had thrown out Ford. He probably would have, considering Carter barely won in 1976 and did so by cobbling together what was left of the democrats' southern coalition.

Given that history, do anyone think ANY of these candidates could have challenged President Bush for the R nomination in 2004? Ha. But Reagan did do that.

My dark horse picks are John Thune and Rick Perry. It'd be worth to have Perry win just to get him out of Texas.

____________________

StatyPolly:

The only ones we know for certain that are running are Romney and Gingrich. Guys like Ryan and Jindal may be great problem solvers, but I can't see them beating heavyweights like Romney, Gingrich, or Palin (should she run). And by heavyweight, I mean not only things like name recognition or money, but also that certain gravitas. Ryan, Jindal, Thume just don't have it yet. It's the same reason Pawlenty can't get any traction. He sounds good, but still appears like a lightweight somehow.

I think this next cycle, it will take a certain personality strength. I could see maybe a Mitch Daniels or even Chris Christie challenging the front runners, but the rest of current mentions are not up to the task of beating the heavyweights yet.

____________________

Stillow:

aaron - non one is comparing them to Reagan. What I said was true, I am much older than you and recall all the newspaper headlines, etc...the left was on their knees begging for Reagan to get the nod in 1980. they thought it was easy to brand him a right wing extremeist, blah blha...they were pleeding with the universe to get Reagan as their opponenent.

The point was the left is out of touch, they forget the countyr is center-right. They forget cons way outnumber li9berals. The point was the left makes plenty of errors in who they want to go up against.

romney will run and be copetitive i the primary because he is a kajillionaire...but the trend in the GOP right now is to support fresh faces...there is a hyuge surge this year in balck republican candidates....the GOp is getting past that "next in line" thing.

Look for a young fresh face in 2012 to take the wheel for the GOP. I still think Jindal will run...Thune is also a good one. Perry might.

There was only one Reagan, just keep in mind the point was what the left wanted and what happened as a result.

____________________

nick283:

If Obama keeps going down the road he is going, any one of these candidates will beat him and beat him badly. Obama is constantly finding himself at odds with the people and then he treats them as if there morons. People don't really like being talked down to. Obama is the most condescending president we have ever had. At least he has dropped the phrase "teachable moment" as if he is here to impart his wisdom upon we the moronic people. I cannot wait for this guy to go back to Chicago and become a punchline like Jimmy Carter is today.

____________________

melvin:

Stillow: Just to make a point,if the Minority vote was 26% in 1980,and 1984,Carter would have beaten Reagan by 3% in 1980 instead of losing by 9%,but Carter would have lost to Reagan in 1984 by 7% instead of losing by 19%..If you do it in reverse, Obama would have gotten killed by Mccain by 8%,if the Minority vote was only 11% like it was back in the early 80s,and Obama would have gotten wiped out by both Bush's if the Minority vote was 11%,and also if the Minority vote would have been 26% in 1988 Dukakis would have beaten Bush by 5% instead of losing by 8%,but the problem in 1988 was' the Minority vote was only 13%. So now can you right-wingers see the problem the GOP is facing in the future,because the Minority vote is only going to get bigger.

____________________

nick283:

melvin, I find demographics as interesting as the next guy, but you seem to just be making up statistics, and you also don't know how these different groups will vote as they get larger. Besides Melvin, don't forget that among the Evangelical Christian and Mormon populations are also growing rather rapidly. White liberals may just be becoming more and more irrelevant.

____________________

John Doe:

@Steve:

Paul Ryan?

The same Paul Ryan who voted FOR every bailout?

I don't usually call names but in this case I've given him an apt nickname:

Paul RINO

Seriously, this guy is a fraud. He holds up Atlas Shrugged and makes good speeches about economic conservatism that sound right but his votes make him into a joke in my eyes.

Just to re-iterate here...Paul Ryan voted for every bailout!!!!

____________________

ndirish11:

There may have only been one Regan. You want to know the only candidate out of those who is like Regan? Ron Paul.

____________________

AlanSnipes:

One thing you Republicans need to remember, Democrats have WON 4 of the last 5 Presidential Elections, 3 of them decisively.
The demographics of America are moving inexorably toward the Democrats, with minorities and the young rejecting the ignorance and bigotry of the Republican Party.
Yes we are in bad economic times, caused by the Republicans, but the wing nuts are playing themselves out. they hope to have one last harrah this year, before ignorance and bigotry can be buried for good.

____________________

Dave:

Well, no they haven't. They've won 3 out of the last 5 elections. They've won the most votes in 4 out of the last 5 elections.

____________________

seg:

Aaron_in_TX:
I think it is reassuring to dems to list straw men and find them beatable. However, if things do not get much better soon, even Palin would beat him. Seriously.

However, I think Romney will be a formidable challenger by then. I am not a fan, but I think he has learned a great deal from his defeats and he is well spoken and moderate. His biggest problem is that the MA health care reform. If he can find a way to finesse that, he is in. That will be difficult, however.

Mitch Daniels is the un-Obama, a characteristic that will be in great demand if things keep going like this. The shifty Nixon was followed by the sanctimonious Carter. The weak-kneed, pessimistic Carter was followed by steely-eye but smiling Reagan. I feel your pain Clinton followed reserved Bush I. Straight-arrow, pious Bush followed slippery Clinton. Stupid, embarrassingly country Bush was followed by smart, cool metrosexual Obama.

What's next: sincere, open-minded, problem-solving traditionalist. That is Mitch Daniels in a nutshell. His only problem is that his eyes will bore into Obama's sternum. A short pres candidate is like a flat-chested Miss America contestant.

Paul Ryan is inexperienced, but Obama let that genie out of the bottle. I like Steve Cantor but Ryan would probably have greater appeal. Ryan is dogged while appearing respectfully unawed and is extraordinarily competent at being the ernest, wide-eyed Mr. Smith confronting wily DC with facts and arguments in complete sentences and multi-part arguments (without a prompter!). He is very hard to put down without being a total ass.

Bobby Jindal needs to work on body language. However, he is a true leader of men who has been successful at everything he has done, a marked contrast to Obama sliding down a greased path without accomplishing anything worthwhile at any level. Obama has mastered appearing really smart (sorry, I don't think he is); Jindal really is extremely intelligent.

I think Obama is actually a poor debater if he gets off script, just as he is uninspiring without his props. He can no longer confuse the public about whether he is liberal, moderate, or sorta conservative. He is liberal. The last time he was on offensive because of the economy; the next time he is likely to be on defense because of the economy and many other failures. He gets rattled when on defense.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"However, if things do not get much better soon, even Palin would beat him. Seriously."

Suuure she will. That's what the democrats said in 1982 about Reagan, and what republicans said about Clinton in 1994. Yet Bush I was riding high in 1990 and went on to lose.

Romney is the one person out of this list that would be a serious challenger. 1) he has the ability to fund-raise enough, will have establishment backing and comes from a political dynasty that knows how to win 2) he's got actual real-world business experience 3) could cut into some blue strongholds, most likely MI, MA, and NH.

Jindal has already committed to running for LA gov re-election in 2011. Strike him off the list.

"smart, cool metrosexual Obama."

Obama is metrosexual? Are you sure you know what metro means? It's hard for a married person to be metro...they kinda need to be single or they lose their metro status.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"I think Obama is actually a poor debater if he gets off script, just as he is uninspiring without his props. He can no longer confuse the public about whether he is liberal, moderate, or sorta conservative. He is liberal."

He was never a great debater. Never. The one democratic debate he performed fairly well at was the one where he and Edwards tag teamed Hillary and it was Edwards landing most of the blows.

Liberal does not mean spending money willy-nilly. Corporate welfare =/= liberal. At least not to me.

"complete sentences and multi-part arguments (without a prompter!)"

I don't understand what the damn problem is with the teleprompter. I was watching video of LBJ the other day, he was using a teleprompter. Reagan used it a lot too. When Obama campaigned in Austin he used note cards, at least at the event I went to. The other day in the rose garden, he used written notes. Who really cares about that b.s. of whether he keeps his notes on paper or electronically brought up with the teleprompter. In 15 years the president will probably be texting and saying OMG.

____________________

JMSTiger:

@ Aaron_in_TX

I have to agree with you about the Republican field for 2012 and I am one that wants Obama to be defeated for reelection very badly. Romney does very little for me, but as of right now, he seems to be the only one of the bunch that would have a real chance in the general election. He is very quick on his feet, is a good debater, comes across pretty well on TV and he would not be scary to independent voters. His big problem is Romneycare and his reputation for flipflops (although I don't think that will be the problem for him that it was in 2008). I would like someone else to emerge, such as Christie or Thune, but right now, neither are making any kind of move to run. For Romney to win the GOP nomination in 2012, he has to hope that Palin, Huckabee and Gingrich all run, thus splitting the evangelical/Southern vote. Romney would have to finish no worse than second in Iowa, win New Hampshire, win Nevada and finish no worse than second in South Carolina. I don't see how he is stopped at that point.

____________________

Xenobion:

Obama beat all these people minus Gingrich once what would stop him from beating them again? As much as everyone exclaims Obama's a loser he's the least loser of the bunch out there.

____________________

JMSTiger:

@ AlanSnipes

Congrats. In 2008, for the first time since 1964, you had a Democratic candidate for President get over 50.1% of the popular vote.

In 1992, Bill Clinton won with 43.0% of the vote because George H. W. Bush was raked over the coals by the media because of an extremely shallow recession in 1990-91. Plus, there was a right of center billionare in the race who ended up getting the highest percentage of the popular vote in a Presidential election since T.R. in 1912. By November of 1992, the economy was in the midst of its fourth consecutive quarter of 4.0% GDP growth or better and unemployment was declining. Yet, the media (which were openly pulling for Clinton by this point) and the Democratic Party made it seem as though we were entering a new depression. Big surprise the way that one turned out.

In 1996, Clinton had moved to the middle after the 1994 midterms slaughter he and the Democrats had experienced. The economy, which had started recovering in 1991 and was doing quite well in 1992, was booming by 1996. Also, that same right of center billionare was again running and the media still loved ole Billy. Despite all that, Clinton still couldn't crack 50%, coming in at 49.2%, against a weak, elderly Republican opponent.

In 2000, Al Gore, despite the best economy in two generations, peace and a very popular two-term Democratic President in the White House could only manage to get 48.4% of the popular vote against George W. Bush. More than likely, had the last minute revelation about Bush driving coked up in Maine in 1970 not surfaced, Gore would have actually lost the popular vote as well as the Electoral College.

In 2004, despite huge Democratic turnout of minorities and young people, an unpopular war in Iraq and an incumbent Republican President with a job approval hovering right at 50%, John Kerry (a Vietnam War hero) could only manage 48.3% of the popular vote.

And finally, in 2008, with a financial collapse, an economy descending into the abyss, unpopular wars being fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, an incredibly unpopular Republican President in the White House and running against a GOP candidate who was elderly, ran a horrible campaign and fairly unpopular with the conservative base, Barack Obama was still held to only 52.9% of the popular vote, even with the mainstream media cheerleading for him from the sidelines and the largest turnout of new voters, minorities and young voters in U.S. history.

That's just my non-leftist fanatic views on the last five Presidential elections. Things may not be as rosy for the Democratic Party as you assume.

____________________

Stillow:

"Xenobion:
Obama beat all these people minus Gingrich once what would stop him from beating them again? As much as everyone exclaims Obama's a loser he's the least loser of the bunch out there."

X is perpetually stuck in february 2008....he still think Barry is popular....now that he has had a chance to govern the people do not like what they are getting. hardly any issue Barry supports has majoirty approval. Even his key signature issue HCr

Time machines are great X, but its almost 2 years later now...its time to catch up to the current game.

____________________



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