Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

US: Republicans (Post 11/19-23)


Washington Post
11/19-23/09; 485 Republicans, 4% margin of error*
319 Republican-leaning independents, 5% margin of error*
*Results reported for Reps and lean Reps combined
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(Post: story, results)

National

If the 2012 Republican presidential primary or caucus in your state were being held today, for whom would you vote?
17% Sarah Palin, 10% Mike Huckabee, 9% Mitt Romney, 7% John McCain, 2% Newt Gingrich, 2% Bobby Jindal, 1% Ron Paul, 1% Rudy Giuliani, 1% Tim Pawlenty

How do you personally feel about the Obama administration's policies
1% Enthusiastic, 9% Satisfied, 43% Dissatisfied, 46% Angry

How do you personally feel about the policies offered by the Republicans in Congress
7% Enthusiastic, 50% Satisfied, 35% Dissatisfied, 6% Angry

In your view, is the leadership of the Republican Party currently taking the party in the right direction or in the wrong direction?
49% Right Direction, 42% Wrong Direction

With Democrats in control of Congress and the presidency: in general, do you think the Republicans should mainly work with the Democrats to try to get some Republican ideas into legislation or should mainly work to stop the Democratic agenda?
56% Work with Democrats, 41% Work to stop Democratic agenda
On the health care system: 23% Work with Dems, 77% Try to stop changes
On energy policy: 49% Work with Dems, 46% Try to stop changes

Do you think Republican candidates for office should take only conservative positions on issues or do you think it is OK to have Republican candidates take moderate positions on some issues?
27% Only conservative, 69% Moderate OK

Thinking about the Republican Party in general and not just the people in Congress, for each issue area I name, please tell me if you think the party in general puts too much emphasis on the issue, too little emphasis on the issue, or about the right amount?
Second amendment gun rights: 16% Too much, 33% Too little, 50% Right amount
Same-sex marriage: 27% Too much, 32% Too little, 38% Right amount
Abortion: 23% Too much, 34% Too little, 42% Right amount
Federal spending: 11% Too much, 60% Too little, 28% Right mount
Taxes: 11% Too much, 44% Too little, 44% right amount
The environment: 14% Too much, 38% too little, 47% Right amount
Illegal immigration: 9% Too much, 61% Too little, 29% Right amount
The economy and jobs: 3% Too much, 60% Too little, 36% Right amount

Thinking about Republican leaders today - which one person best reflects the core values of the Republican Party?
18% Sarah Palin, 13% John McCain, 7% Mike Huckabee, 6% Mitt Romney, 4% Newt Gingrich
2% Rush Limbaugh
(others got 1% or less)

For each group I name, please tell me whether you think television news tends to be biased in favor of that group, biased against that group, or is even-handed in its reporting on that group.
The Republican Party: 6% In favor, 73% Against, 18% Even-handed
The Democratic Party: 74% In favor, 6% Against, 17% Even-handed
The Obama administration: 74% In favor, 7% Against, 16% Even-handed

Thinking now about Sarah Palin, do you think she has a good effect on the Republican Party, a bad effect on the party or hasn't made a difference either way?
46% Good effect, 20% Bad effect

 

Comments
taurus pt145:

Wow! nuff said.

I would like to be the first to congratulate you Ms. President Palin.

____________________

obamalover:

Now that it seems Huckabee is exiting the race, you can expect all the religious nuts to move over to Palin's side and increase her margin over Romney. Go Sarah! BWHAHAHAHA.

____________________

starbase135:

The WaPo poll shows that at the moment Palin is the frontrunner for the 2012 GOP nomination.

Huckabee probably won't run because without the vast majority of social conservatives (and Palin would absorb a good chunk of those) he can't win. Additionaly, it remains to be seen how hard he will be hit by the current parole debate.

As for Romney: Imagine him touring Iowa and NH and now do the same with Palin...he has no chance. Let alone the debates...

If no surprise candidate shows up, it's gonna be her.

Can she beat Obama? We'll see...

____________________

Xenobion:

I'll be so happy if its Sarah Palin. I'll have to start watching SNL again.

____________________

charles:

The republican party needs to clean out the foney members with their mindset on getting along with democrats and not repasenting conservative values which would keep the democrats in their place and that is out of office which all true americans would vote for..Stop trying to be like Bill Clinton [ politically correct ]and just be correct.If not not we the AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL DROP THE REPUBLICAN PARTY AND SUPPORT ONLY THE CONSERVATIVE. 01BOND@BELLSOUTH.NET

____________________

taurus pt145:

x
You should start watching snl now, they have started making an ass clown out of obama, very funny stuff.

____________________

Xenobion:

You're posts seem to be funnier for the time being. I'm curious how long you'll be under that forum handle.

____________________

taurus pt145:

X
Since you are so interested in my unrelated post you should tune into Rush right now as he blows up Climategate. More funny stuff.

____________________

Xenobion:

Climategate is such a snore. And even a false lecture from Professor Limbaugh won't make it interesting.

____________________

Wong:

I notice a distinctive malodor coming from taurus posts. Ah yes, the seasonal favorite, fruitcake.
Birthers, baggers, and deathers will be the gifts that keep on giving for Obama and the Democrats. We can only hope they continue to taint the entire GOP with their nuttiness.

____________________

Field Marshal:

What's a deather?

Yeah, those crazy tea partie participants want to be taxed less and have less government intrusion into their lives. THOSE CRAZY NUTS! LOL!

____________________

Stillow:

Birthers, deathers and baggers...hmmmm

Maybe its just me, but I am having a blast watching the warmers walk around like they just took a right hook from Mike Tyson.....its kind of sad watching the hoax fall apart for the warmers....I admit, I will miss them and all the humor they provided over the years. But like the left wing truthers, all hoaxes eventually come to and end....

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

This poll is simply well-timed for Palin. She shouldn't get too excited over a 17% showing while 50% remain undecided. She's in the wake of her book release and in full swing of her national tour. She's never going to have more publicity than right now.

The republicans don't have anyone else currently very popular, so of course many of them will identify with her right now. I think cooler heads in the republican party will prevail when it comes to the 2012 nomination. Even in a best-case scenario, I don't see how she does better than 150 electoral votes. I'd like to see some state-by-state data on her though.

____________________

Xenobion:

So far no anti-climate change advocate can tell me why they believe what they believe. Somehow they're able to embrace every other facet of science except this. I think conservatives are taking a big step declaring war on science. We all know who wins in the end just like every single time before.

____________________

IdahoMulato:

Where's Tina Fey at? I need her quick, quick... LOL!
Junk poll.

____________________

Stillow:

Cus its a scam X...a total scam. Man made climate change does not exist, never has. Climate gate is revealin tons and tons of info.....the lamestream media hasn't picked up on it yet full steam, but over tim ei twill have to.....there's more info about it being a hoax coming out every day.....heheheeh.....sorry warmers! Its probably time to start picking your next hoax to push....

____________________

Field Marshal:

War on science? LOL! More like a war on lies and wealth distribution. That is all the global warming scam is about.

What i don't understand is why the warmers hate the truth?

The Earth has warmed and cooled many times over just the last 3000 years. But this time its because of man. That takes some arrogance to assume. But, given whom we have in the WH, that isnt a large step.

Climate change is real. Man-made climate change is the biggest farce since a man named Madoff.

____________________

sjt22:

This poll tells us very little about any potential Republican party nomination race. According to this, only 50% of respondents are even willing to make a hypothetical choice. Throw in the fact that not all of these potential candidates are likely to even run in the first place, and you've basically learned nothing.

____________________

sjt22:

@ X

You really think these people accept every other part of science? Try asking them what they think of evolution.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Who are 'these people'? Man, if you were a Rep, you would have been called racist a dozen times over and had Al Sharpton banging at your door. LOL.

So, if you don't believe in something science puts out, you are anti-science? Sounds about right given the way 'these people' treat others who have an opposing view.

____________________

obamalover:

@Field Marshal

"So, if you don't believe in something science puts out, you are anti-science?"

I think that is kind of the definition...

____________________

Stillow:

heheheh, they resort to evolution now to defend the warmers who have been caught red handed. Its a hoax, the warmers running the movement know it and climategate is getting bigge rand bigger.

It will be fun to watch the warmers and some of these other libs scmper around like this.....it wil lbe a very very entertaining few months as there whole world unravels................my favorite line of the day was from everyones favorite intern molestor....global warming actually can cause global cooling...........hheeheh

Yep, its gonna be a fun ride down the hill watching these guys.

____________________

sjt22:

@ FM

Are you disputing that there is a huge overlap between conservatives and people who deny evolution? You don't have to be one to be the other, but damned if there isn't a pretty strong correlation.

And yes, if you don't believe in something that science puts out, you are anti science. The very way you stated that shows that something is wrong here. "Science" is not an organization. Its not a party, a school, a business or any such thing. Science is a PROCESS. In science, you ask questions, look at the evidence, and draw conclusions based on the results of observation and experimentation. You can then refute the findings by bringing in new evidence and arguing why it is more valid. But to simply dismiss scientific findings as part of some vast evil conspiracy is, indeed, anti-science.

Those who reject evolution in favor of creationism are anti science. They think that "Science" is some big bad liberal conspiracy instead of a process by which we can actually learn things.

And I love the fake pity party you are throwing yourself with the "these people" remark. Grow up.

____________________

Field Marshal:

So, science in the 1850's stated that blacks were inferiors to Whites in terms of mental capacity. That is the science you want to adhere to?

Personally, i prefer drawing my own conclusions and waiting for a number of outside experts to confirm the science. We haven't had that for Global Warming (not in the least) and still haven't had it for evolution. (At least not in the evolution from a single cell).

I believe in evolution. But evolution as in adaptation. If humans evolved from Apes, and there were many variations in between, why doesnt any of those variations still exist today? Also, why is the ape still around if millions of years ago, people evolved from them?

____________________

sjt22:

@ Stillow

I wasn't "resorting" to anything. I was merely talking to X, who seemed to think (incorrectly) that all climate change deniers are somehow open to every other field of science. Its been my experience that denial of evolution is alive and well, and is probably the biggest example of anti-science beliefs in our culture.

____________________

sjt22:

@ FM

If that's your conception of science, then you clearly have no idea what actual science is.

Even if we accepted the fact that the so called "science" of the 1850s was based on good practices, their "findings" of black inferiority have clearly been disproven. No actual scientist today would endorse such a view because the evidence doesn't support it. This is the beauty of science: if something is wrong we can prove it with new evidence.

Also, you believe in evolution... yet you don't believe in evolution?

____________________

IdahoMulato:

@Stillow
Where do you stand in terms of the "Purity Test." How do you score? Scozza scored 7 out of 10 for your info.

____________________

Stillow:

NEWSFLASH....even the scientists who claim man made global warmin is real know its fake.....have you not read the emails? They know its a total fraud...and they have been actively covering it up.....even programming computer models to support there claims. Its not science, its politics that claims man made global warming is real......you libs are about 50 cards short of a full deck on this issue.

The top "scientists" making these claims have been busted for making the science up. More info is leaking every day. Man made global warming is not science, its a scientific theory....from photoshopped ploar bears sitting on floating glaciers to emails expalining how the whole thing is a hoax....its a fraud from top to bottom.

Libs, like everything else....can never ever EVER accept reality.

____________________

obamalover:

@ Field Marshal
Three things:

1. There is something called the scientific method. The idea that blacks were inferior was not proven using the scientific method. Hence you can't attribute that to genuine scientific thought.

2. There are many transitional specie fossils, so I'm not sure what you are referring to.

3. You seem very confused. Man didn't evolve from apes. Apes and Man have a common ancestor, from which the two lineages diverged. Learning is fundamental.

____________________

Field Marshal:

LOL! So, if science is indeed a process upon which you draw conclusions, apparently you HAVE to accept the conclusions? Otherwise you are anti-science.

How about the former head of NASA? Is he anti-science? The founder of the weather channel? He's anti-science?

Give me a break. It seems that liberalism invokes the notion that if you are against a specific conclusion, then you are virulently oppose to the foundation.

So, drawing on your asinine post, if you are disagree with the health care bill, are you anti-health care? If you are against private school vouchers, are you anti-education?

I am not against science and questioning a specific conclusion from science does not mean you are against it to the core. From my personal research, i have not found conclusive evidence that man is making the Earth warmer, nor have i seen any evidence that we have come from a single cell.

The global warming fraud has so far been unable to manipulate the data to confirm their preconceived conclusions. Until there is firm data, similar to the eclipses in May 1919 confirming Einstein's theories, I will wait.

____________________

Xenobion:

I don't expect Stillow or Field Marshall to create a good argument of something they read about Global Climate Change being bunk. If they can somehow point me in the direction of how the level of sulfates, CO2, and emperical evidence of the over-rapidization of desertification and melting of the Polar Ice Caps beyond "normal warming" is false I'll gladly read it.

As it stands now they are clinging on to nothing and I wouldn't expect to get into a scientific debate with them about something they have no personal experience in or knowledge other than what someone told them on TV.

People forget about the Manmade disaster CFCs created for the Ozone Layer in the 1990's and now are touting that Co2 particulate matter in the atmosphere is the natural way the Earth has always "warmed and cooled." What junk science. THE WORLD IS FLAT! BLASHPHEMY! You know its bad when even the Catholic Church is on board with global warming, yet somehow we are still debating the ABCs of environmentalism with idiots.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Same goes for you X. I don't expect someone to give a cogent argument for global warming given the level of false data and collusion among the experts.

I would love to see how something that constitutes 0.02% of the atmosphere can control the planets temp. Why not helium or nitorgen? Its because humans produce CO2 and its the only way the socialists and commies can achieve wealth redistribution- by duping the anti-capitalists and easily manipulated individuals into believing that notion on false data and false conclusions.

____________________

obamalover:

@Field Marshal

So the founder of the weather channel is what passes as a scientist for you? (snickers)

And what "research" have you done if I may ask? (and no reading the bible doesn't count)

____________________

Stillow:

it keeps getting better....X, even your dopy kooky scientific proponnets know its faked....I read some of the emails, and they flat out admit its a scam and they were figuring out ways to make up data to continue supporting there claims even though all the evidence is to the contrary....2009 will be oen of the coolest years in decades....and 2010 is expected to be cool also....Also other planets are showing signs of moderate cooling also afte ra cycle of warming....

Heheheh, even your own scientists know its bunk....go read the emails man.....they are hilarious as they go back and forth trying to come up with new lies that do not look to "fishy".

Now there has been a hack of the source code used in one of the computer models which shows it was deliberately programmed to produce certain results......

Keep digging though you libs, the deeper you dig, the funnier it becomes.

____________________

obamalover:

@ Stillow

"Libs, like everything else....can never ever EVER accept reality."

I think our conception of reality is different. Yours is whatever the bible says. Ours is whatever the scientific process yields.

____________________

Xenobion:

So here's the deal about academia, Stillow. Anyone can say anything and typically its debated with that field's peers. You're gonna get people saying the world is flat, we are in the 7th dimension ect. and you're going to get a bunch of academics that outright attack those people. The same is said for this so-called "climate-gate." What am I going to believe more? A peer-reviewed journal on the subject, or someone's random emails? You people act as if this was like the 1 study of all studies.

And I'll give you this. Many studies do end up being inconclusive (See Snowmelt in Sierra Nevadas study, which has found no loss of snow accumulation since these debates have been going on.) But because something is inconclusive does not mean it does not exist.

FM: "Why not helium or nitorgen?"

Helium is naturally lost in the atmosphere. Any contribution to it goes through a natural process of entering and exiting our atmosphere as its not bound gravatationally.

Nitrogen is party of the GHG watch list as well as Co2 (see Nitrogen Oxide and Acid Rain).

You do believe in Acid Rain right?

____________________

Field Marshal:

Obamalover,

Yes, he is one of the top meteorologists in the field when he founded the channel. I guess only VPs will hundreds of millions of dollars vested in a fraudulent outcome are the only "scientists" that mean anything to you.

____________________

Field Marshal:

"I think our conception of reality is different. Yours is whatever the bible says. Ours is whatever the scientific process yields."

Never read the bible. But i have taken many a science classes. Seems that libs just jump on the bandwagon with whatever their crazy leaders (mainstream media)tell them to say.

____________________

Stillow:

X...uhhh, these weren't some peoples' emails...these were leading scientists out there claiming man made global warming is real....go read some of them, they don't hide it, they flat out went back and forth trying to figure out ways to lie about the trust. They went back and forth trying to come up with lies to keep hte hoax going. Because we now entering a cooling cycle.

When leading scientists out there ar emaking claims...and then there private emails get leaked out showing they don't beleive it themselves that is pretty darn bad news for the warmers. I actually laughed out loud reading many of the emails.....now you have corrupted computer models coming out.....you guys are clining to a lie and its killing you.

Right now you libs created atheory of man made global warming, no real wya to prove it, but its basically your religion. Even the leaders of the bogus movement know its a fraud. Your on pace to have has much credit as the left wing deathers do who still think Bush blew up the WTC....creating the theory doesn't make it fact....climategate is killing the warmer movement.

____________________

Field Marshal:

It is pretty funny that the week after Green Week on NBC/Obama Propaganda Network, these emails come out from one of the premier centers for climate change. Not one mention of it on ABC, NBC and CBS. What frauds.

So X, why is something that represents less than 400 parts per million of the atmosphere making us warmer?

Also, reducing CO2 for pollution purposes- eliminating acid rain, soil degradation, polluted waterways, etc. is something we should focus on, not on reducing CO2 levels to civil war levels decimating the standard of living around the world all in the name of a scam of science.

____________________

Xenobion:

These were emails from a no-name University in England. I don't defend what the scientists did but they are non-factors in the science of the issue. This issue is bigger than a couple of people passing emails. If you think there are 3 people controling this debate then I fear for your sanity. I just love how people are clinging to this issue as if the entire world has been flipped upsidedown. Can I write a couple emails about how cell phones give you cancer despite 5 million studies saying otherwise? Grasping straws is all this issue is. lolz.

____________________

Field Marshal:

X,

This isnt a no-name University in terms of CLimate Change. Just read the Wiki link for a minimum of information regarding the subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit

____________________

Xenobion:

FM: So X, why is something that represents less than 400 parts per million of the atmosphere making us warmer?

Well the process is that C02 is a heat absorbant molocule. The more you have the more or a problem it becomes. I don't exactly know what part of this cycle you have an issue with. But I could handily go into the health effects on top of the environmental effects of C02 to justify why it should be regulated.

Frankly, my position is that whether its manmade or not we should regulate whats put in the air for a myriad of reasons. If you believed that global warming didn't exist that we should be free to put C02 in the air? Justify that for me.

____________________

Xenobion:

FM I've been to the schools website. Its party of the University's Environmental Science program. How many of those do we have in this country from schools we've actually heard of? This school isn't even ranked in the world for science, but apparently 302nd for Humanities.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Okay.

We had a class for my Masters degree that was taught by the former 3 time governor of this state. He is a far left liberal. He invited two well known global warmers and two people on the other side of the issue.

In the end, even the warmers in the class began to question the global warming scare. The evidence and models being used simply were to manipulative to be able to predict the correlation between CO2 and temperature.

In addition, my father in law is a rocket scientist and chemist and he along with his colleagues all say the same thing. Something about the water content affecting the temp and that CO2 is a third variable unrelated. Correlation does not imply causation.

But i agree. I would like to regulate the amount of CO2 into the air not because of global warming, but the large number of other reasons more related and conclusive to our environment, namely clean water, air, and protection of our soils.

____________________

Xenobion:

I'm a reasonable person and thus I don't think global warming is a perfect science for sure. I would characterize it as incomplete. It definitely has its flaws but I feel that many people write it off as illigitimate for reasons that are not justified. Its very hard to account for global warming when effects need to be measured so globally, but there is one thing that is always important in environmental dealings. Its called the precautionary principle. Meaning if there is research trending to say that something is devestating the environment, it is better to error on the side of caution or face never having it again. Essentially a ceace and dissist on the environment till things are wrapped up.

But really this isn't about the science of the matter its about the policy. People use this "Climate-gate" like a win that now we don't have to regulate C02 because everything was false or something. Everything we ever learned before is now turned upsidedown. Sigh, its sad really. I don't necessarily want a Cap & Trade system, but what else do we have regulation wise? Businesses don't regulate their own waste emperically, why would they now? Is business more important than the environment and the resources we use? These are all big policy questions that come out of this and stuff like this stalls the real debates out there.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

What I was most impressed with, if this poll is true was that 56 percent of Republicans thought working with Democrats is better than working to stop the Democratic agenda. I don't exactly know what planet these Republicans who were polled are from, but I think they are making the wise decision. When Democrats were in the minority for 6 years under Bush, Democrats after 9/11 gave the president the benefit of the doubt and we were lied to.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

I think Obama is getting an extra long honeymoon, as long as Palin is the top GOP candidate. It would be a dream come true for us progressives, but I don't believe the GOP insiders would let it happen. I predict the GOP will nominate none of the above on this list in 2012. I bet it will be a governor from a small state like North Dakota. They will want to run as far away from the past and the present GOP leaders in the Senate and Congress as they can get in 2012.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

The exchange between X, FM, and Stillow is simply hilarious to read.

X, trying to convince those guys is a futile exercise.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"he class began to question the global warming scare"

Duh! Anyone familiar with the scholarly debate questions the "scare." But politicians don't tend to address issues until they reach crisis level. Hence Al Gore's need to sensationalize the phenomenon. The extent of global warming and the extent to which industrial activity is responsible is unclear. But there sure as hell seems to be a relationship.

"I would like to regulate the amount of CO2 into the air not because of global warming, but the large number of other reasons more related and conclusive to our environment, namely clean water, air, and protection of our soils."

Well, I agree completely with this. I basically said the same thing a few threads below in a discussion with taurus. But this argument hasn't been particularly effective over the last few decades. People don't care about the environment until it's THEIR environment that suffers. And even then it's hard to get people or businesses to change their behavior without financial incentives.

San Antonio had a big water crisis in the 90's. They addressed it in various ways, but basically the city made it very expensive to use a lot of water. Usage is WAY down as a result of the aggressive billing methods. Cap and trade gives financial incentives to companies to reduce emissions. I don't know how else it could be done without draconian measures.

____________________



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