Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

US: 2012 Republican Primary (PPP 7/9-12)

Topics: National , poll

Public Policy Polling (D)
7/9-12/10; 400 Republicans, 4.9% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(PPP release)

National

2012 President: Republican Primary
23% Gingrich, 21% Huckabee, 19% Romney, 17% Palin, 7% Paul

 

Comments
Travis:

And PPP produces yet another poll with odd results...

Gingrich ahead of Palin, Romney and Huckabee? Really??

____________________

melvin:

OMG: This is a gift to the Democratic party,if Gingrich wins the nomination the Democrats are going to expose this hypocrite for what he really is (1) He is a racist (2) He is a lying cheating hypocrite.

____________________

Publius:

No Republican will beat Obama in 2012. Bank on that.

____________________

Field Marshal:

I would take that bet Publius. While i still think odds favor Obama slightly at this point, i'm still willing to wager that he will continue to disappoint on just about every aspect of his presidency and by 2012, people will be clamoring for REAL change.

____________________

Xenobion:

Same ol' clowncar Obama defeated in 2008. New blood people, how Gingrich would run a campaign in this sentiment of the Republican party as we're dismantling No Child Left Behind, I only wonder his viability as a competitive candidate.

____________________

Stillow:

Newt is best served as a conservative intelectual. Though Newt's age would hurt his chances, I would pay Don King pay per view money to watch a live debate between Obama and Newt. Gingrich is extrmeely bright and would run circles around barry in a debate. It would be border line brutal.

____________________

real_american:

melvin,

Since you are so quick with the racist label, what do you think about Obama exonerating the black panther pig who hates all white people and says that blacks need to be killing some white people and especially kill white babies?

Would you call that racist?

How many times have you heard Gingrich get up and tell white people they need to be killing some black babies?

Maybe you should shut your piehole about racism for a while. You ruin this site for reasonable people and you are playing with fire that will be directed against you and other racist blacks. I don't know if you are just ignorant or really that racist.

____________________

vincent106:

it aint just melvin. lat and obamablower are the same way.

____________________

Publius:

@Field Marshal

Yes, it all looks pretty grim now. I mean, Obama has achieved almost everything he ran on and by the time 2012 comes around these policies will show real dividends. This has been an excruciating year for almost all sectors of society and people are angry, frustrated and scared. When the economy improves, he will gain from that.

Also, let's assume that the Republicans take control of the House this year. Nothing helps a President more than stark contrasts with the legislature. Republicans can't just say no for two years or run on repealing every law that's been passed so far. If the radical right takes over, he will look brilliant. If the moderates take over, he can compromise with them. If it breaks down, he runs against them.

This narrative about a failed presidency is false as is his naivete. Presidents don't achieve what he's done and get voted out so easily.

____________________

StatyPolly:

Newt's definitely one of the best policy debaters I've ever heard. Absolutely a brilliant guy. And he's only bright-faced and bushy-tailed 67. Younger than Reagan and McCain when they ran.

Mitt is also a brilliant policy thinker. I heard him talk sometime in 07, during the early days of primary, and he had some very out-of-the-box ideas on economy, immigration, etc.. Very innovative stuff. I don't recall the details now, but I remember being very surprised and impressed. Still, there is something about Mitt that I just can't get passed over. Character issues. He has flip-flopped (of course which pol has not), and he just comes off sorta slippery and wishy-washy. Like he is not speaking from the heart and has something to hide.

Of course, we know Newt has proven character issues.

Huckabee I pretty much like, and he may have honed his skills since his last run. Not sure how much better he'd be able to appeal to the national (as opposed to regional) base, and so far, I haven't seen enough of an effort to show me that he is seriously considering a run.

Jindal I like a lot. Not a single sign that he is planning to run though. He is still under 40, I think, tho he looks and acts older. Don't think it's his time yet. And he has room for improvement in some of the needed skill sets. I could see him getting tagged for VP though, maybe if an older guy like Newt gets the nomination.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Its always hard to unseat an incumbent. Only one has lost in the last 30 years. I think you are overly optimistic about his policies showing real dividends. I think the ObamaCare will come back to hurt him in 2012.

The GOP taking back the house has its positives and negatives. The positives would be that congress would cease passing its far-left legislative agenda and we depose probably the most unintelligent speaker we've had in a LONG time, maybe ever. The negative would be that the GOP pres contender won't be able to use the bills passed by the congress over the next two years against Obama.

A failed presidency is in the eye of the beholder. One could say Bush had a failed presidency (which i would say is false naivete also) even though he had similarly strong legislative accomplishments with his tax cuts, medicare part D, education reform including No Child Left Behind and increases in the NIH and NSF busgets, Sarbanes Oxley, and environmental reforms such as leaving Kyoto and passing the Clean Skies Act.

____________________

tjampel:

Staty_Polly

"Mitt is also a brilliant policy thinker. I heard him talk sometime in 07, during the early days of primary, and he had some very out-of-the-box ideas on economy, immigration, etc.."

If he's so brilliant on policy why did he issue a policy statement on START that was absolutely eviscerated by Sen Lugar, who IS a policy expert on Nukes/START. See http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/07/lugar-vs-romney-on-start/59381/

Mitt's statement was a testament to his absolute ignorance regarding the mechanics of the prior and current Nuclear Treaties between the US and the Soviets/Russians.

OK...Mitt can hold his own in the area of economics; no doubt about that; as for being a beacon of brilliant illumination in all policy areas...not so much.

Newt's more well rounded, has worked as professor, etc. If he were 10 years younger and a less venal and nasty dude (remember how he walked into his wife's hospital room, where she was being treated for cancer to ask her to sign divorce papers; remember too how he was stripped of his chairmanship by Repubs and left the House in disgrace) he'd be the best bet to take down Obama, I think.

____________________

Mark in LA:

Stillow,
The last time "Barry" walked into the lions' den with 141 GOP congressmen in Baltimore - he handed your conservative lawmakers their asses.
Gingrich is considerably smarter than other leading GOP voices, but you've been main-lining to much Limbaugh and Beck if you don't think Obama would be a formidable opponent.
Mark

____________________

Stillow:

Mark in LA: - then disagree we shall. Newt is far brighter than Obama. Barry stumbles around without his TP or a script to go from. In an actual debate with someone who can actually debate like Newt, Barry would be laughed off the stage.

____________________

JMSTiger:

Newt would be a general election disaster, much like Palin. Although I don't care much for ole Flipflop, Romney is the best bet for the GOP in 2012. If he were to get the nomination and lose, the party would be forced to finally look to the younger generation for leadership. There are a number of quality Republicans out there under the age of 45, they just have to be given a chance.

____________________

JPB11011:

@JMSTiger

As a registered Democrat I would vote for Gingrich over Obama. I'm more moderate than most democrats and have been completely disenchanted by the direction of the party as it has been consumed by the far-left fringe in the last 10 years.

Romney is another Republican I would vote for in the general. I have also been impressed with John Thune.

Why would Gingrich be an electoral disaster? I think he would pare very well against him.

____________________

JMSTiger:

Gingrich is a very smart man, but he has some big flaws.

1) His personal life has been a mess.

2) He has a tendancy to get diarrhea of the mouth and sometimes make ridiculous statements.

3) He scares a lot of people in the middle. Like it or not, you have to win over a sizable portion of the middle to win a general election.

4) The word on Newt is that he is a tad lazy when it comes to campaigning. Combining that with the fact he needs to lose about 60lbs does not make think he would do well during a long campaign. When Newt gets tired, he starts to get irritated and shoot off at the mouth (see #2).

____________________

Publius:

@Field Marshal

Clearly we disagree on what makes a successful presidency. Those Bush "accomplishments" were not much to brag about and cost my family in medical and educational money. Leaving Kyoto was a disaster in both the foreign and domestic realms.

If you disagree with Obama's policies as much as I disagreed with Bush's, then, yes, it's hard to see how either man could get credit for obviously far right or far left policies.

Politically, though, it takes about two years for a president's policies to have a real impact. Obama will get the credit when things turn around.

____________________

Cody Jones:

I am really praying for Romney to come out on top. Or Mitch Daniels both are extremely admirable Republicans (And I am a liberal Democrat) but if for some sad reason the President is not re-elected I want it to be a good Republican who replaces him.

____________________

JMSTiger:

@ Publius

What if they don't turn around? Then Obama is screwed. Economic conditions during the summer of 2012 will determine whether or not Obama is reelected. That is all that matters. If we still have unemployment above 8% and weak economic growth, Obama will be in trouble. If unemployment is around 6% and we have strong GDP growth, he will have no problems. Most likely, the business cycle will be solidly on the upswing by the summer of 2012, but there is the chance that we may be struggling with all the increased taxes and regulation. The Democrats have benefitted from being on the right side of the business cycle for most of the last 80 years (the only exceptions I can think of are 1920, 1952 and 1980). Most likely, they will be on the right side of it in 2012 as well.

____________________

JMSTiger:

@ Publius

I agree that Obama would benefit politically if the GOP took over the House this fall. That is the only reason why I personally hope the Republicans gain 35-38 seats, not 39+. I would rather they not take official control so that Obama can't use the "do-nothing Republican House" to run against in 2012. If the GOP "only" gain 35 or so House seats, that chamber remains Democratic, but with just a handful of Blue Dogs, the Republicans would have effective control without having official control. That is the best of both worlds for them. As much as I would like to see a Republican Congress, I have zero faith in politically inept morons like John Boehner and Mitch McConnell to go toe to toe with Obama. Most likely, they would be made fools of and help to ensure an easy Obama reelection (1996 all over again). Plus, the GOP has shown that they can cause all kinds of problems for the Obama agenda with 180 House members and 41 Senators. Imagine how little gets through the Congress with 215 House and 48 Senate Republicans.

____________________

Poll Troll:

RON PAUL RYAN

I can dream can't I? Don't get too excited melvin, Newt is an intellectual who can toe it with Obama. Three wives and other smears (even justified ones) will be spoon fed by the Olbermanns, Mathews and Maddows to the FLAPs and melvins but the average voter won't care...

____________________

ndirish11:

We don't need a neo-conservative. Are the Republicans here really hoping Gingrich, Huckabee or Palin wins? Palin is getting better, but we don't need a controlling Jesus freak, expand the empire GOP nominee.

We need someone who is truly for free markets, who wants to cut taxes AND spending, who wants to end the war in Iraq and put an end to our empire building which we can't afford, and someone who isn't going to go out of their way to ban abortions and gay marriage.

A neo-conservative is despicable and in many ways worse than Obama and the Democrats.

____________________

Cbob:

Field Marshall and StatyPolly: Most people who look at these numbers would gladly take Obama in a 2012 bet. Gingrich isn't Reagan and Obama isn't Carter and this isn't 1978. Gingrich is a blast from the past who reminds the GOP of the good ole days of the Republican Revolution where they got the keys to the candy store and then took out all the locks. Now that the store has been raided and everyone is wondering if the good times are really over for good, nostalgia will not be a favorable thought.

Voters want solutions that aren't eliminating Medicare and Social Security and believing that tax cuts for the richest Americans and deregulation actually helps them. They want forward looking progressive (not necessarily liberal but critically advancing) solutions that will pay down the debt while expanding certain public priorities. Railing on "big government" won't get the job done.

As for those on this list and why they are screwed...

Gingrich tries but just can't help himself from thinking aloud and scaring the hell out of sane, rational people. Orphanages anyone?

Huckabee is weak on the death penalty and on tax policy. He also has years of statements about how cutting government assistance programs can be cruel. See Diane Rheam in 2002 regarding senior citizens and eyeglasses.

Romney signed the current Federal health care plan into law in Massachusetts. Socialist and done for...

Palin, really? She is the Justin Bieber of American politics. A viral hit who won't be around in five years.

Paul is your future if the Tea Party gets its way. He will scare the hell out of the American people as he talks about slashing entitlements that we all love while discussing the merits of cutting the defense budget while suggesting that we resume the gold standard which would dangerously deflate the US economy and probably destroy everyone's concept of wealth. Good luck paying off your mortgage making 1/10th of what you currently make.

I challenge all of you who agree that Obama is in trouble and the American people to give an ounce of data that suggests the American people agree with the GOP current (whatever it is) agenda. I will not accept current "generic ballots".

____________________

JMSTiger:

@ Cbob

Right now, there is not a majority of the voting public that is happy about either political party or their agendas. You seem to feel that a majority of the American people are on Obama's side and the issues that the Democratic Party advocates straight down the line. This is not the case as of today. Right now, the American people are very divided. The Democrats have their supporters, the Republicans have theirs, but neither party is held in any kind of favor by a majority or anything approaching a majority.

My personal opinion on Obama and 2012 is that if the economy is struggling and we have continued high unemployment in late 2011 and early 2012, he will have a difficult time winning reelection, even against a mediocre opponent and with 2008-level turnout among minorities, liberal elite whites and 18-29 year olds. If, on the other hand, even after and despite all of this expansion of government, increased regulation, higher taxes and massive spending, the economy is doing well in late 2011/early 2012 and unemployment is below 7%, he will win reelection easily. This isn't rocket science.

____________________

Cbob:

@ JMSTiger

You are offering a straw man scenario based on indicators that do not factor Americans coming to equilibrium regarding the current and future economy while not considering that Obama's opponent may be at an Alf Landon/Barry Goldwater/George McGovern/Walter Mondale quality. The problem with electoral politics is an incumbent has to have an opponent, not just run against numbers like 9.7% unemployment. If unemployment was at 15%, then the conversation might be a bit different. If Obama was firing cabinet members left and right and having open fights inside the Democratic party with Schumer and Schuler regarding priorities, then there could be concern. If the GOP had a series of new ideas and concepts to attempt along with a message of shared sacrifice that included tax increases and defense cuts along with reigning in entitlement and discretionary spending, then maybe the conversation would be different. None of this is happening...

In the end, you're right, it isn't rocket science. If your side is the one with tin foil hats, dancing in the streets, and screaming about losing something then chances are you are losing something. Believe what you want, but seriously, look at what the GOP is selling and wonder if your only reason to buy is it isn't Barrack Obama then he has to be much worse than 45% on the approval rating.

BTW-Dems thought the same thing about Reagan and Nixon both and in the re-elections, it didn't turn out so well.

____________________



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