Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

US: 2012 Republicans (Gallup 7/8-11)

Topics: National , poll

Gallup
7/8-11/10; 1,020 adults, 4% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews

National

Favorable / Unfavorable (among all adults)
Sarah Palin: 44 / 47 (chart)
Mike Huckabee: 40 / 23 (chart)
Mitt Romney: 36 / 28 (chart)
Newt Gingrich: 36 / 38
Bobby Jindal: 34 / 16

Favorable / Unfavorable (among Republicans)
Sarah Palin: 76 / 20
Mike Huckabee: 65 /10
Mitt Romney: 54 / 19
Newt Gingrich: 64 / 17
Bobby Jindal: 45 / 9

 

Comments
obamalover:

Go Sarah! LOL!

____________________

melvin:

Cnn ticker is reporting Sarah Palin will trounce any Republican in the primaries, in wrap up the nomination and a matter of weeks,but Palin will get killed by Obama in the General.The GOP is now going to have to offer this woman the moon to get her to drop out.The Republican party is going to freak out when they see this,if Sarah Palin was smart she should watch her back,because the GOP don't want her to win the nomination,because what they really want is for Sarah Palin to just go away.

____________________

real_american:

Thanks, melvin. The republicans are sure to take advice from you.

____________________

Stillow:

Watch for Jindal to make a move. the postive gap between hsi faves and unfaves is very strong. He could be a serious surprise contender.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Stillow,

I think next summer, Jindal will announce his candidacy. If he is the nominee, he will probably win. The others, without some outside catalyst, will have a less than 50/50 chance. Gingrich would only win if he can get many debates with Obama in which case he will wipe the floor with him since Obama will have no teleprompter.

____________________

Xenobion:

Just don't put Jindal in front of a camera and he'll probably win the presidential election on his accolades and not his inability to sound like a carnival cruise captain.

____________________

Stillow:

FM - Ya I just said that in the toher thread. A Gingrich / Obama debate would not even be fair....Barry would look like a deer i nthe headlight....because love or hate him, Newt is one of the smartest guys in the business.

It would be fun to watch the MSM try and cover for barry though after a debate with Newt. I'd pay to see that debate.

____________________

seg:

Palin:
I am a supporter of Daniels and Jindal, but if I were you libs, I would quit cheering for Palin to win the Republican nomination.

I remember demos licking their lips at the prospect of Reagan being the Republican nominee. See how that worked out?

Palin is not another Reagan any more than Obama has turned out to be another FDR or Clinton.

However, don't assume that Palin will not perform much better if she makes it to presidential debates. Even a person of modest abilities can learn the sound bite game, which is all debates really are. She was thrust suddenly into the limelight with an actively hostile press and an incredibly incompetent set of strangers as handlers. She may well have learned all she needs since then, and she will have an entourage that is on her side.

Palin also has assets that should not be discounted: (1) like Reagan, she is extremely likeable (other than to opposite partisans), (2) like Reagan, at her best her timing and presentation skills are superb, (3) like Reagan, she has been ridiculed by opponents and the press to a ridiculous extreme, so the public WILL find her much, much better than advertised, (4) the camera loves her, (5) she rivets attention; even liberals are fascinated by her, and (6) if Obama is unpopular in 2012, the public will be looking for his polar opposite in personality.

Palin's ernestness (lack of guile), simple message, and emotional involvement may look very appealing after 4 years of a facile, emotional detached, and closeted Obama who more and more says things the public simply does not believe.

Hoot and sneer all you want, but Obama, himself, is proof that a clearly unqualified person can become president.

My suggestion is that we hope that each party nominates their best. After all, either one could win, no matter what you might think 2 years in advance.

I just hope whoever wins has the wisdom and trustworthiness to lead us out of the coming fiscal crisis. I think Obama and Palin are equally incapable of doing that.

____________________

Field Marshal:

I remember demos licking their lips at the prospect of Reagan being the Republican nominee. See how that worked out?

Yup, and i remember the GOP licking their lips at the chance that Obama would be the nominee over Hillary, i being one of them. I was right about him but wrong about the electorate being dumb enough to elect him.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"Palin is not another Reagan any more than Obama has turned out to be another FDR or Clinton."

Clinton was also not Clinton at this point in his presidency. The media was saying very familiar things - "in over his head" etc...

Neither was Reagan. He was considered very weak in 1982 and democrats were partying like it was 1964.

Reagan had been 2 term governor of CA and nearly beat a SITTING PRESIDENT in the last primary. Palin quit being gov of AK 2 years into her term. Reagan handled the press like a pro. Palin, no matter which way you cut it, gets deer in the headlights when faced with any interviewer who is not favorable towards her.

Even Glenn Beck tripped her up. She couldn't even name her favorite founding father. She said "all of them." I guess that made the Rutledges and Pinckneys a little happy. Beck replied "bulls***" and finally she said "Washington," who had absolutely no intellectual contribution to the constitution and whose federalist views and elitism would be anathema to her. Genius.

The idea that Reagan was considered an "amiable dunce" is a myth. Some prominent commentators said that but it was not prevailing sentiment. It was very clear to anyone watching politics at the time that he had potential.

What was jarring to political observers at the time were his views. No one that hostile to new deal principles had ever been elected. Of course, much of his success as president was that he didn't implement many of those beliefs except for cutting taxes and eliminating some programs most middle class people didn't miss. Otherwise gov't grew under Reagan.

____________________

StatyPolly:

"I think Obama and Palin are equally incapable of doing that."

I'll assume that you just threw that in to score some cred points with the opposition, and would argue that his approach of expanding government is necessarily wrong, while hers, should she actually stick with what she preaches, is right.

That is, if I were inclined to nitpick something in that post:-)

____________________

JMSTiger:

If my fellow conservatives want a 1964 style slaughter, go with Palin. If you want a competative race, go with Flipflop Romney. Yeah, he ain't my first choice either, but he is the best we have this go around.

Jindal will run, but not until 2016.

____________________

StatyPolly:

"The idea that Reagan was considered an "amiable dunce" is a myth. Some prominent commentators said that but it was not prevailing sentiment."

Sorry, Aaron, but that is exactly how MSM portrayed him. I vividly recall laughing at dumb things he was credited with saying.

____________________

obamalover:

Jindal believes in excorcism. That kid is bat sh*t crazy.

____________________

StatyPolly:

JMST,

I think Romney wins only if BOBO is doing very poorly in 2012. About where he is now or worse. And if that's the case, just about anyone will beat him.

Palin, on the other hand, can create a wave. No one on the GOP bench has her abilities to generate.. err.. whatever it is she generates.

____________________

seg:

Aaron_in_TX:
Usually I grant you a great deal of creedance on facts even when I disagree with you on opinions. In this case, I have a great deal of direct experience, and I think you are absolutely incorrect.

I supported Carter against Reagan and McGovern against Nixon. I remember when Reagan was governor seeing the Stanford (UCLA?) card section at a football game making a raygun (get it?) while the band played "stop your evil ways."

I remember that there were countless snide remarks and arched eyebrows on the news. I remember that there were countless televised and written comments about him that included the words "cowboy," not to mention "dunce," "warmonger," "Grade-B movie actor,: and on and on and on and on.

I thought they were apt at the time because I had heard it so often that it seemed like a part of the scenery. I was chagrined when Reagan debated Carter the first time because he somehow covered over his innate shallowness and vapidness.

I do not remember which debate it was, but at some point I realized that Reagan was going to win because he made Carter look constipated, over-wound, and small. By some amazing trick, Carter seemed to shrink every minute. Somehow Reagan seemed more and more like the president and Carter more and more like a nebbish.

To my present embarrassment, I still voted for Carter and I almost voted for Mondale. I was saved from the latter by my European girlfriend, a flaming liberal who nevertheless said during their first debate: "You know, this Reagan not stupid at all. Now I undertand why he is president."

That broke a dam in me, and I began reading everything I could about him the next day. I also read about Thatcher and what she was doing. I redeemed myself from my liberal past and sinned no more (or not so much, anyway).

I am hoping for a similar moment of clarity for you.

____________________

JMSTiger:

@ obamalover

Jindal is a devout Catholic and exorcism is part of the Catholic faith. It may sound bat crazy in Manhattan or San Francisco, but there are massive numbers of religious people in this country who would not be offended by Jindal's beliefs. It is not my cup of tea, but that doesn't mean Jindal is some sort of loon.

____________________

JMSTiger:

@ StatyPolly

She can create a wave alright. A Democratic wave that Obama would ride right into the White House for another four years.

The only thing Palin seems to care about generating is money in her pocket and attention for herself. She is not a serious person. Not because she did not go to an Ivy League school or because she is very religious or because she comes from Alaska or because she like guns and going on hunting and fishing trips. The reason she is not serious is because she is just not that smart. It has been proven too many times. I think she is a very attractive woman and she seems to have a nice family, but I don't want her in the White House. I am a libertarian conservative and if she is the Republican nominee in 2012, I will be voting for some third party kook instead of casting a ballot for her.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

Another thing with Palin is that she's not popular among the establishment - she has the highest unfavs of any republican on this list. To paraphrase Bill Clinton the establishment is still relevant here.

Rumor vine has it that the Bush clan can't stand Palin and would start pushing Jeb Bush if she does indeed make a run at the nomination.

Palin has an absolute ceiling of 305 EVs, but I find that highly unlikely. The demographics in the states won each time by Gore, Kerry, and Obama are simply unfavorable to her, so her ceiling is more realistically around 280, and again that assumes perfect conditions for her. Palin's only path would be the Bush 2000/4 path - except she would have a harder time than he did holding the coalition together since Bush had full backing of the establishment. A Palin candidacy would invite a 3rd party/independent challenge which would result in an avalanche EV win for Obama, even though he could easily fall under 50% in the pop vote.

____________________

JMSTiger:

@ Aaron_in_TX

The ONLY way we are realistically talking about Palin getting to 280 electoral votes against Obama in 2012 is if the economy has not only double dipped, but double dipped quite dramatically (unemployment over 10.5%, GDP going negative for 2-3 consecutive quarters in late 2011 and early 2012). That is it. If something bad like that has not happened, it is 1964 all over again. Obama not only wins every state he won in 2008, he adds states like Georgia, Missouri, Montana, Arizona and so on.

____________________

seg:

Aaron:
I think Reagan's potential has become grudgingly clear to liberals in hindsight.

I note here that Truman's grit and clarity has grown in hindsight until he has been adopted as an icon by both parties.

Note, also, that I agree that Palin handled herself poorly with the press and still does to a degree. I am saying the bar is truly not that high, and I think it very possible she will have a confident sound bite for everything in two years.

Then again, she may not. In any case, I think Daniels and Jindal are superior to both her and Obama. Jindal is not a good speaker, but my God we have been shown how over-rated that can be.

____________________

StatyPolly:

Aaron, I agree that she could not win anything (beyond the primary perhaps) TODAY, due to her high unfavs. Her unfavs will decrease by 10-15 by Nov 2012. It's up to her to sink or swim on that task.

As far as EV's go, I don't really buy that anything is cast in stone. Demographics and opinions can change rather quickly, as we have already seen in the past year in MA, VA and NJ. Heck, Gallup claims that Dem/GOP split went from 53/39 in 08 to 46/45 now. Anything is possible. Almost.

____________________

seg:

StatyPolly:
Sorry. I think Palin is a natural force who would be great in the right position, I just do not think she can lead us out of the ever deeper ditch we are in.

She should be leading a movement, but not a country in real trouble.

____________________

StatyPolly:

Whoops, I meant "her unfavs will HAVE to decrease"..

I am not predicting whether they will or not..

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"I am hoping for a similar moment of clarity for you."

I voted for Bush in 2000 and had my moment of clarity between 2003 and 2006.

"I remember that there were countless televised and written comments about him that included the words "cowboy," not to mention "dunce," "warmonger," "Grade-B movie actor,: and on and on and on and on."

I'll grant you that some commentators, hell, maybe a lot of them, were saying those things. The same stuff was said by Pat Brown and Reagan's oppenents in CA.

But the fact remains that he was on the ballot in the republican primary in 1968 and did decently, and then came within a hair of beating Ford in the 1976 republican primary. There was clearly momentum behind him and those commentators were wrong.

Carter was weak in many ways. If he wasn't Ted Kennedy would not have challenged him. He should have been beaten by Ford in 1976. Even with the watergate stink behind him, Ford almost won. Carter was the last gasp of the democratic coalition that included the south.

____________________

seg:

JMSTiger:
I do not think diaster would favor Obama. He is too self-absorbed to inspire others. I don't recall FDR using the first person singular twice in every sentence when he was president.

He also is showing that he has a tin ear for common people.

I truly think he does not like his own country. His book and his attendance with the the Rev Wright certainly makes it clear that he has deep issues with white people. I sometimes get the feeling that if he said exactly what he believes, his support would drop to 5%.

____________________

obamalover:

@JMSTiger

The vast majority of Catholics DONT believe in exorcism. The only ones who do are the Mel Gibson types... Like Jindal! LOL!

____________________

StatyPolly:

JMST,

If you look at her political career prior to Sep 08, you have to be impressed. She had the highest job approval of all governors. She beat out a heavily favored establishment Repub in the primary, and then a heavily favored establishment Dem in the general. She's been investigated probably more than any pol in I don't know how long, and nothing real ever turned up. She was regarded as a moderate, and not as extremist. In the end, should she be able to rehabilitate her image to some degree, she has the best chance to win of all Repubs currently in the field.

____________________

JMSTiger:

@ obamalover

Probably a majority of Catholics have no problem with abortion. Big deal. All I am saying is that exorcism is a rite of the Catholic faith, whether you like it or not. Just because Jindal may believe in such things does not disqualify him from the White House and would not make him unelectable. If Barack Obama can be elected President despite being a proud member of Rev. Jeremiah "God Damn America!" Wright's church, I doubt Jindal will have any problems because he is a devout Catholic. Most people don't care about a person's religious beliefs unless they are handling snakes or some such. What most people care about are a candidate's views on the major issues of the day. I know you anti-religious left-wing types think everyone west of the Hudson and east of Los Angeles County is a stupid hayseed hick with silly superstitions and backward ways, but there are tens of millions of those hayseeds around and they have no problem with someone like Jindal.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"The reason she is not serious is because she is just not that smart."

There's a difference between intelligence and having a knowledge base.

I think she is clever. She's definitely not a stupid woman. She just doesn't care to know about what she doesn't already know. A lot of Americans are like that, which is part of her appeal.

I think she has the clearest path to the nomination as it stands right now and is the only one who could compete with Romney money-wise. Or maybe I've got that backwards. He's the only one who could compete with her.

Huckabee is not running. I'm tired of seeing his name on these things.

I also don't think Jindal is, maaayybe as VP. He's got to run for re-election as LA gov in 2011, it would be hard to transition from that to a presidential run, especially when it comes to financing. Unless he decides not to run for re-election, it's almost impossible for him to run for president. He has to start raising money now.

____________________

JMSTiger:

@ StatyPolly

Anybody would be impressed with Palin until she sits down for an interview and can't name a Founding Father, can't name a paper she reads, can't discuss basic issues that have gone in front of the Supreme Court, etc. The one issue she seems to have some knowledge about and is comfortable with is energy, but how many Americans want to hear "drill baby, drill!" after the nightmare we have witnessed in the Gulf over the last several months? Again, if my fellow conservatives want to drive over a cliff, go with Palin. If you want a fighting chance and want to try to be the grown up party again, go with Romney. Him, with all his flaws, is far superior to Palin.

____________________

JMSTiger:

@ Aaron_in_TX

The lack of knowledge on many basic issues involving government, public policy, history, etc is what I am referring to when I attack Palin for not being "smart". I agree that she is clever. She is a very good politician and seems to understand a sizable portion of the electorate. But, she does not need to be anywhere near the White House. If she wants more money and attention, fine. Keep giving speeches and appearing on FoxNews, but leave the Presidential politics to others.

As for Jindal, I agree with you. He is definitely not going to run in 2012, but would certainly accept the VP slot. That way, if the GOP ticket loses, he can finish out his second term as governor of the state of Louisiana and would be the frontrunner for 2016.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"She had the highest job approval of all governors."

It was dropping remarkably quickly throughout 2009.

I watched the video of her 2006 debates with Tony Knowles. She was very good at playing the victim card when she didn't know something.

At one point, Knowles acted like a jerk, turned to her and said "let me put this in a way you'll understand...."

Palin disregarded the subject matter and instead pounced on his condescension. It was great.

____________________

obamalover:

@JMT

Difference is Obama doesn't hate America; it is someone he is associated with. And Wright's hate for America has nothing to do with religious beliefs, it has to do with the fact that the American government discriminated against him when he was younger after he served his country in the Korean War.

Not saying what he said was right, it wasn't, but you are trying to ascribe Wright's non-religious beliefs to Obama. Whereas, Jindal himself, not someone he is "associated with", believes in exorcism. Two completely different things.

The bible also says you can sell your daughters into slavery and stone disobedient children to death. But most people would rightly believe those beliefs are crazy for obvious reasons. Just like most people think exorcism is crazy.

It doesn't disqualify him from running for president. He is allowed to believe in what he wants. But it still makes him a nut.

____________________

StatyPolly:

I don't dispute that Palin has some glaring weaknesses such as lack of intellectual curiosity. Sure, she does not understand economics to even a fraction of say Romney's level. But I see lots of parallels with Reagan. In my eyes, his strengths were leadership, ability to inspire the nation, sound big picture philosophy, and ability to surround himself with good people. He didn't strike me as a hands on policy expert, be it economy or otherwise. He was the Great Communicator and a great delegator.

No way Palin can be called a great communicator in Reagan's terms, but she can definitely inspire and move the public into action. No question about that. And if that is combined with the proper big picture prescription and aided with good policy experts, that can be much more powerful than Romney's personal expertise in economics. That knowledge is moot is he can't sway public opinion. Reagan's biggest achievement may not have been the proper set of economic policies, but digging the nation out of Carter's malaise.

____________________

StatyPolly:

Well, now that the site is up and running again.. why not belabor the point.

I agree that Palin is the least experienced and knowledgeable of the bunch. And as far as Reagan comparison goes, surely he could have named many Founding Fathers and knew history way better than her. He was a magnificent off-the-cuff speaker and writer. She is not. But she is stronger in other areas. If nothing else, she is simply stronger, period. Personality wise. How many people can you think of who would not have picked up their toys and gone away, and still be rolled up in a fetal position after what she's been thru? And she is still going at it. That girl has a huge pair.

And last but not least (well, I doubt it'll really be last), she is still very young, politically speaking. Still in the midst of her formative years. When he was her age, Reagan was a freaking Democrat.

____________________

Mike Russell:

Once Gingrich debates the other repub pretenders the base will see that he is our best chance to not only beat barry but save what's left of our country. He will win the nomination. The only discussion is who will be his running mate. The RNC will push Palin but I don't think Newt will have anything to do with it.
Oh, and by the way, Newt will wipe the floor with barry during the debates. It will draw more viewers than the Super Bowl!

____________________



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