Pollster.com

Again about right. Palin is still still toast and Rasmussen is full of BS on Sotomayor.

Is that the same toast you cooked with Bush in 2000 and 2004? You would do good not to underestimate someone who enrgizes...just ask Hillary...........

Those GOP approval numbers should bleed downward...with things like cap and trade, etc, it will be intresting to see if and when the bluedogs in the Dem party jump ship...right now they are still approving of Obama, if he stays below 50 with the Indy's he needs the blue dogs come election time.

Bush did not have terrible favorables. He appealed to Hispanics and indies with "compassionate conservatism". He lead Gore by huge margins out the gate. Dems thought he was a joke but few didn't think he had a chance to actually win. The comparison is ridiculous.

I was speaking more to the Dems natural respone to almost any republican, that they don't have a chance. If I were wanted to run for president and it was 3 and a half years away and I saw early polls that showed me with support in the low 40's, I would take that all day long....Over 3 years to provide contrast and shave away just a few points....not a bad position to be in.

Many hispanics are socially conservative as they have strong Catholic roots. Palins big obstacle is uniting all 3 heads of the conservative snake, foreign policy, fiscal and social. W kind of did that, but it really hasn't been done since 1988. Lot of blue dogs out there....

Remembe the base of hte country is conservative, more of them than liberals or moderates....you'd only need to shave a few off of the moderates. Over 3 years out and you get low 40's for probablyvoters for you....that a very verygood spot to be in if your thinking of running.

I think Obama is moving to far left to quickly for the country and the blue dogs will jump ship and he cannot win without them.

Going from memory, I bleive Gallup had a poll showing 43 would definately or were likely to vote for Palin and 15 said they would likely not vote for her...the rest definately not...she has 3 years to work on the 15....that is a strong position to be in this far out....my guy Romney will have a very hard time defating her i nthe primary sinc ehe lacks the energy she has, plus he is not very popular with the social conservatives...

More conservatives than moderates? 44-34-22 moderate-conservative-liberal last year and very similar going back decades.

Sorry Stillow, I misread your comment. Disregard the above.

According to Gallup 40 consider themsleves conservative...not sure where you get your numbers....21 liberal and the rest moderate....so ya conservatives are the single biggest ideaological group in the ountry by a helahty margin.

Actually, no. You are saying the base of the country is conservative and there are fewer moderates and liberals than conservatives correct?

Thought so. My numbers are from the 2008 exit poll. It is pretty much the same ballpark spread going back even to both of Reagan's victories.

Check it.

http://winstongroup.net/uploads/2008/11/partyidideology1984_2008.pdf

I'm just saying, your dismissing Palin and she has very good numbers for being so far out. Conservatives make up about 40 percent of the country....about half the moderate if pushes would probably lean conservative, the other half liberal....Reagan won all conservatives plus probably right leaning moderates to get his victory number to 60 in 1984....

If Obama keeps moving left, he will risk alienating the blue dogs, the conservative Democrats....and that opens the door wide open for a conservative to come in and provide contrast. Moderates if pushed will lean right or left and my guess is they split 50/50 on which way they'd lean....thats why most still cosnider us to be a center-right country.

If I were running personally, I would kill to be in her positionthis early with that level of popularity and a good percentage of people I a chance to sway to my side....so I am not sure why you dismiss her so readily when she is in prime position....

1984 - actually Mondale did ok with conservatives. The margin was because Reagan won moderates and many more liberals.

Palin - read what the experts have to say at this very site and beyond. She is not in "prime position" by any stretch of the imagination.

What is an expert? Remember the ole'saying "if a political analyst is speaking, he is probably wrong" Experts told me the Patriots woudl beat the Giants a cople years ago....and when I took them to cover, the bumbs cost me $50!

Experts are no more qualified than you or I....I hope you don't mean the experts you see on the network news, or CNN, msnbc or fox do you? Because they won't like you, right or left, if your not a regular atthe weekend cocktail parties. Don't let yourself get fooled by what othe rpeople think.

She is in a position many owuld die for...

Well my "expert" personal opinion is you are best sticking with your man Romney.

Well ya, he has my vote and financial support during the primary....but as a conservative leaning Indy, Palin could sway me...I am swayable so to say. But as it is now, I think 2012 will be all about fiscal issues and Romney to me is best to contrast with Obama...who can't seem to stop spending money we don't have.

Do you think I can get a g'ment bailout for the $50 I lost o nthe Patriots game? I'd also like to send the IRS an IOU for my taxes due for 2008.

Conspiracy,

How is Palin's 43/46 favorable/unfavorable in this poll different from where HIllary stood three-four years ago?

We talked about this the other day and I didn't think any Republican had any chance to come within 9 percentage points of Clinton in 2008.

It isn't just the favorables. Her numbers for being a potential president are terrible. I don't think Hillary's numbers were ever that bad on that.

There are other reasons I don't think Palin cuts the mustard. If Obama is beatable in 2012 the meme will be that he wasn't experienced enough. Her resume is therefore an even bigger liability. No matter what people thought about HRC "lack of experience" was never an issue.

But who am I to advise conservatives on their nominee anyway! :)

if i recall howard dean had more energy than john kerry and who won that primary.

with all due respect the entire 2004 democratic feild was a joke. Bush was beatable in 2004, but not by Kerry...and Dean lives with his foot in his mouth just like Biden. Edwards was busy knocking up women, etc...that field was weak.

@conspiracy
\
I'm just surprised at how you dismiss her. She draws just as big if not bigger crowds than Obama...and I alays say you kno when a candidate is a danger to the establishment and the liberal power structure when they have the media attack dogs so viciously attack.

Again, going back to gallup which you lefties claim to love shows 43 percent would definately or are somehwat likely to vote for her...that is her base...and that is a pretty big base to start with.

And lets not forget, in many many cases, as was part of 2008, the vote is not for someone, its against someone. Reagan won in part in 1980 because people voted against Carter, ala the famous question of are you better off than you were four years ago.

Palin starting with such a huge base of support, combined with her ability to enrgize the base which will equate to the ability to raise a lot of money fro mthe grass roots makes her a very serious threat to Obama.

Its a liberal gimmik to say what you are saying, oh she doesn't cut the mustard, she is not smart enough, she's a flake, that is all left wing kool aid stuff. She gave a slam dunk speech at the RNC so she can deliver big prime time addresses.

In a sane and infomred world Obama would never have defeated Hillary or McCain....but we live in an insane world and his ability to raise money and mobilize at the grass roots level made him victorious.

Anohter example is 1992, many conservatives jumped ship and voted against Bush for his broken pledge of no new taxes. Obama won't lose the liberal vote, but he is playing a dangerous game with moderate and conservative democrats. If cap and trade fails which I think it will, it will be because of blue dogs in the senate who represent very conservative states, MT, IN, SD, AK just to name a few.

As has been noted on this site, if the economy is strong in 2012 an incumbant president cannot be beaten...if its bad they are always beaten. Social issues and foreign policy take a back steat to people's finances.

If I were Palin I would not run in 2012 if the econmy is strong, I would wait til 2016....because only one time since 1952 has the country allowed a party to control the WH for longer than 8 years, 1988, and that was almost certianly due to Reagan's above average populairty with the people.

The Dems are making the same mistakes the GOP did when they controlled both branches...they are overreaching and are getting drunk with power. many of you Dems are way to cocky considering Obama couldn't even reach 53 percent of the vote in what was the most favorable election for you guys in decades.

Palin is well positioned with a large base of support. Obama is overreaching...look at support for his policies and they do not poll well. His approval rating has been slowly trickling downward since election day.

Bush sr. did not take some obscure small southern state governor named Bill Clinton seriously either...and while Clinton had help from a strong third party candidate, he won.

Palin starting with her large base need only shave a few points from Obama and she is your next president. She has a long time to refine her positions, get out and make speeches, hit the stump, provide contrast, etc....if she runs it will be one heck of a race....Obama still woudl ahve the edgue because he has most of the media in his tank, but it will be a very good race.

As a fiscal conservative, social moderate, and foreign policy neanderthal, Palin does not excite me. Three years is a long time, but overcoming the issues of the last campaign will be tough.

I am ready for some new blood. Not Palin, Romney, Huckabee, Gingrich. I don't know who yet. But there is lots of time.

I gotta disagree with conpiracy.

"If Obama is beatable in 2012 the meme will be that he wasn't experienced enough."

If BO goes down in 2012 it won't be his experience. No one is ever completely ready for that job. And he will have 4 years more experience than anyone else running. If he gets beat, it will be because he failed. Could be that he failed to deliver what he promised. Could be he did deliver what he promised but the results are not what people expected.

It is the economy to a point. If everything else is just ok, it is the economy. Not just GDP and the markets, but unemployment and inflation. There are lots of ways to get hurt from the economic news.

Other things can do him in as well. Think LBJ and Vietnam. Think Carter and the Iranian hostages. Sure, Carter had the Misery Index too. Double whammy, he never had a chance.

My guess is BO's one chance is if the blue dogs reel him in. Think Clinton and the 94 Republican congressional wins. The way he is going, the economy won't get better. His stimulus is designed to grow govt, which helps practically no one. If unemployment gets better, coupled with those deficits inflation is going to run wild.

If we only had a conservative candidate up to the challenge!

I dismiss her as you dismiss the entire 2004 field as a "joke".

"Doesn't cut the mustard" is not a "liberal gimmick" it is a way of saying "not up to it".

Again, if the United States is a "center right nation" then 53% is impressive. Largest share of the vote for any Democrat since 1964 is a failure? Give me a frickin' break!

Nobody with a resume of tiny town mayor, a supposed policy strong suit stemming from an appointed position where they lasted less than a year before quitting and half a term as governor of a sparsely populated state before quitting again will never be president. Not "lefty kool-aid" just the way it is.

The number to look at isn't favorable or unfavorable (half of those who favor her are guys who have the hots for her) - the number to look at is whether people think she is presidential material and two thirds say hell no. You don't turn around perceptions like that in three years after a car crash rollout. It took Hillary Clinton nearly a decade to change hearts and minds.

Nobody underestimates Sarah Palin. Reagan was a two-term governor of the most populous state, George W. Bush was re-elected governor of Texas. Any comparison is a slight on them quite frankly. The ads write themselves. Romney is licking his chops as we speak. All of this isn't arrogance. It isn't the media. It is a turkey of a potential candidate.

Did anyone else notice that party ID is a statistical 3 way tie?

A 6 point lead? Seems about right to me. And almost idential to their last sample.

I say this with a lot of fear in my heart because we do have lightning in the area, but I agree with conspiracy.

Palin will do lots of TV, write a book, maybe a column, give lots of speeches, and rake in the cash. She won't be Pres. Not in 2012 or any other year.

The resignation was bone-headed.

6 seems a lot lower than any average or consensus among other polls out there. Not that it really matters today. Elections are too far away to get excited, unless you live in a state where state and local elections are in play. National numbers, while fun to toss around and debate/argue about, don't mean a hill of beans right now.

@conspiracy

Ok my freind, I'll call this one a draw. Sometimes your able to inch me towards your position, but not this one. She will be a heafty task for obama to handle if she runs. personally at this time I would note vote fo her, i would probably vote libertarian again...I'm with Romney....looking out ahead, Jindal is there, but I don't think he will be viable until 2016...and I don't think he's in any hurry. Gingrich is to establishment...if palin does not run, Romney should get the nod barring some unforseen entry into the race.

Can I get you to agree with me that if the economy is still in trouble in 2012 Romney would be a serious obstacle for Obama? Since I am socially libertarian, both libs and conservatives tick me off on social issues, so I always vote based on fiscal issues. i could not bring myself to support Bush in 2004 ans as with Obama, there was no way I could vote for Kerry.

I'm not defending palin, while I do like her, at this time I would not vote for her, but like I said, I would be swayable depnding on her performance.

I like what I am starting to see fro mthe GOP again in Congress...they seem to be getting abck to basics a bit, if they stay on this path towards fiscal restraint and conservatism, I might rejoin the party. And I do not like at all what I am seeing from the Dems...I didn't know wheather to cry or laugh when I saw Franken questioning sotamayor...Al Franken now represents a democratic statesman in the 21st century...so Palin with all her faults, you should examine some of these characters coming to prominance on the left.

If palin runs, my money says she wins the nomination, if not it will be omney and to court the social conservatives and make them happy, he would probably pick Huckabee as his running mate.

And I didn't say Obama failed, I simply pointed out he could not even reach 53 in what was the most favorable cycles in decades for your side. That is now a very large margin for error...it doesn't take much to knock him below the 50 mark. That should be an area of concern for you if you like Obama...the anti Bush mood will have faded by 2012 and he won't get that anti Bush vote again...and withthe right candidate, the 20 percent of conservatives hwo didn't vote will probably show up and vote in 2012.

I wish people would realize the country works best when there is seperation of power...whichever party conrols the WH shoud not control the congress...both the 80's and 90's went well because that was the case, things didn't get screwy til one party took over. To prevent radical change either way, seperation is reuired.

romney could be a problem for obam if the economy is still bad . palin no way. romney has the experience of being a businessman and has economic experience. palin no. and that not soemthing u just learn in three years.i would be more concerned about romney than palin.