I haven’t seen this latest poll from Zogby posted yet, so here it is. I think this gives Sarah Palin the lead among the number of post election polls that puts her ahead, if anyone is actually keeping track.
The results of this poll are slightly confusing because Zogby did not give a clear explanation of the questions he asked those who responded, which somewhat contradicts the posted headline. When asked, who is the best candidate to be the 2012 nominee, Governor Palin leads all republicans polled, but is in a “3-way tie” among all voters polled, yet the three way tie falls behind “someone else.”
Zogby Interactive: Palin Leads the Pack Of Possible 2012 GOP Candidates
-Support of Religious Conservatives & Gun Owners Give Her An Edge Over Romney & Jindal
Among Republicans:
- Sarah Palin 24.4%
- Mitt Romney 18.1%
- Undecided/Not Sure 16.2%
- Bobby Jindal 15.6%
- Mike Huckabee 9.7%
- None of the Above/Someone else 8.2%
- Rudy Giuliani 5.6%
- Ron Paul 2.9%
Among All Voters:
- None of the Above/Someone Else 20.3%
- Undecided/Not Sure 19.7%
- Mitt Romney 13.7%
- Sarah Palin 13.4%
- Bobby Jindal 12.5%
- Mike Huckabee 8.0%
- Ron Paul 7.4%
- Rudy Giuliani 5.0%
Survey Methodology [Zogby Interactive] 11/7/08 thru 11/18/08.
Zogby International conducted an online survey of [24964 voters].
A sampling of Zogby International’s online panel, which is representative of the adult population of the US, was invited to participate. Slight weights were added to region, party, age, race, religion, gender, education to more accurately reflect the population. The margin of error is +/- 0.6 percentage points. Margins of error are higher in sub-groups.
Here are some of the findings:
Palin’s strength is with all conservatives, conservative religious voters and gun owners. Among Republicans, she gets the support of 30% of Born-Again Christians, 32% of weekly churchgoers, 34% of National Rifle Association members, 28% of current gun owners and 29% of self-identified conservatives. More GOP support comes from 32% of blue collar workers, 30% who shop weekly at Wal-Mart, 28% of NASCAR fans and 25% of both those with children under 17 and those with family members in the military. She scores lower among GOP voters ages 18-29, with 15%.
Romney’s Republican support level is very consistent across demographic groups. Among his party members, Romney’s numbers fall off by a few points from his overall 18.1% with religious conservatives and gun owners. Surprisingly, Palin leads Romney among Republican investors, 24%-20%.
There are no highs or lows among subgroups for Jindal among Republicans. He is a newcomer to national politics, and already has a reasonable base of GOP support.
Palin looks to be stealing Huckabee’s thunder among Republican religious conservatives and working class voters. Huckabee is an ordained Southern Baptist minister, and his highest GOP totals still come from Born-Again Christians (15%) and weekly churchgoers (18%), but those numbers are about half of those drawn by Palin. Despite his populist economic message, he wins only 10% of blue collar Republicans.
The interesting finding about Paul is that he is more popular among all voters than he is among Republicans, reinforcing his appeal as a potential third party candidate.
Pollster John Zogby: “While someone other than those we listed could still emerge as Republican contender, GOP voters seem satisfied with this group. Only 8.2% would choose someone else. Despite all of the bad press and late night TV parody of Palin, she still leads the pack. So it is hard to see what could shake the faith of her supporters going forward. If she chooses to run, that solid base would likely keep her in the race through the early primaries. Both Romney and Jindal have appeal to Republicans, with Jindal having the advantage of being the new guy who could bring change to the party.”
November 28th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
November 28th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
I didn’t think Palin’s Republican support would fade that fast.
Bobby Jindal isn’t even running and they polled him. (Didn’t poll Pawlenty for some reason).
I’d not be surprised if a large number of voters in the coming years want a fresh face without national baggage.
That could be a big obstacle for Palin, Romney and Huckabee.
November 28th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Somehow I doubt that 16% even know who Jindal is, let alone would be inclined to vote for him over all the others.
November 28th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
This is a stupid on line survey!! Why are we posting this? Another on line had Mitt getting over 60% just a few days ago…they mean nothing.
November 28th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
#4, putting aside the Newsweek poll taken around November 4th, Palin is consistently leading in all polls (Gallup, Ras, Zogby, etc…)
Although I agree with #3, no more than 5% of registered Republicans even know who Jindal is.
November 28th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Palin and Huckabee will bring each other down.
November 28th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
The biggest thing I see with this poll is that people are wanting to take a break from the political world. When you have someone else and undecided at 24% with the GOP and 40% among all voters then its time to let time play its part.
All you can take from this are really three things 1)I look at this and see Palins popularity fading a bit nationally and within the party a little bit. 2)Huckabee isnt going to be a factor in 2012 and Jindal is 3) if Palin and Romney run it is one of them that will be the nominee
November 28th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Well, there is a good news: Huckabee is fading away.
November 28th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Palin goes the way of Geraldine Ferraro and John Edwards into political irrelevance – she appeals to the base, but you need more than the republican base to win back the whitehouse. She’s an intellectual lightweight – we’ll need someone with more than a bachelor’s degree and a winning smile to beat Barack Obama in a debate. She’s become a cartoon character for late night paradies and she’ll have a hard time earning the respect of independent and democrat voters.
November 28th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
#9, you sound like a Democrat. “we need to win over Hollywood”.
November 28th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
5. Putting aside any poll that doesn’t have Palin leading…
I think we have four actual “Who would you vote for” polls (not counting Gallup- it wasn’t really a poll)
Palin leads in two, Romney leads in two.
But this is a huge drop off from the Rasmussen poll. What happened to Palin?
November 28th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
#10 – Calling me a name (democrat) for making a rational argument? (Now that sounds like a democrat). Palin just doesn’t appeal outside the republican base – http://www.gallup.com/poll/111883/no-clamoring-palin-become-national-political-figure.aspx Next time, bring something, like i.e. logic, polling data if you want to make a counterpoint.
November 28th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
#11, what 2 polls had Romney leading? Newsweek and MymanMitt?
Gallup, ‘really’ was a poll, do not dismiss it because Romney was behind. Rasmussen and Zobgy entered different candidates and questions….
What I want to know, is what happened to Romney? The runner-up always is the fav., but actual conservatives just do not seem sold on him.
November 28th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
#12, if I called you a name I would have said you are a “moron”, “stupid”, “idiotic”.
November 28th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Rasmussen;
Palin:
Very Favorable: 65 percent
Somewhat Favorable: 26 percent
Somewhat Unfavorable: 5 percent
Very Unfavorable: 3 percent
Not Sure: 1 percent
—–
Romney:
Very Favorable: 45 percent
Somewhat Favorable: 36 percent
Somewhat Unfavorable: 11 percent
Very Unfavorable: 4 percent
Not Sure: 5 percent
There was a 3 percentage point margin of error in the poll.
November 28th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Poll #1: NBC/WSJ: Romney 33% Huckabee 20% Palin 18%
Poll #2 Newsweek: Romney 35% Huckabee 26% Palin 20%
Poll #3 Rassmusen: Palin 64% Huckabee 12% Romney 11%
Poll 4 (This one): Palin 24% Undecided 18% Romney 16%
The last thing I want to be is tied to polling this early, it’s a ame game, but Kris, you won’t be a good advocate for Sarah if you just ignore polls and included polls that aren’t really asking who people will vote for.
November 28th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Kristopher
If you can’t see the difference in a poll that asks you who you will vote for only allowing you to choose a candidate once and a poll that says who would you like to see run and you can choose as many candidates as you like, than you really don’t belong posting on the front page.
November 28th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Jason,
Polling for the first poll was conducted before Obama was President-elect?
If you would like to go back before the election, then….
November 28th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
This poll confirms my opinion at this time that although we have many strong and able potential candidates for 2012 (many of whom I could enthusiastically support), that Gov. Palin is the strongest candidate who could unify all constituencies of the Republican Party. I believe that Gov. Palin represents a new generation of leadership and her appeal among women is especially significant – Republicans win when they close the gender gap. I believe that Palin is a “4-legged stool” Republican (a term that I will define later).
November 28th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
18. Whatever helps you feel better.
November 28th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Jason,
Then start a petition and throw me off the FP. DO IT, as that is all the contributions we seem to be receiving from the Mitt supporters,
blah, blah, blah…
November 28th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
20. you seem ornery today?
http://gosarahpalin.ning.com/
November 28th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
21. No, it’s not a petition, just amazement that you can’t see the difference and you manage to have a login name.
November 28th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
#23,
I see differences in all of the polls. Some online, others not, some allow you to vote for all candidtaes, others not, some allow you to select multiple candidates or a select group, etc.
November 28th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
23. con’t
and I’m not ornery today, I just am overall tired of how poorly you represent your candidate.
There is plenty of good to Sarah, but you seem to come on here to egg people on and play a game of gotcha with lower level ideas. You tend to do more repelling than anything. It’s getting tiresome to a lot of people here, both rombots and non-rombots alike. I hope you will read just, I am sure you can learn to do a good job.
November 28th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
#25,
I appreciate the feedback. I am clearly not worthy to be on this site.
I look forward to seeing an idea or two from you in 2009 (?), although I do enjoy your ’strictly’ video’s and newswire re-posts.
November 28th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
It’s not a matter of quality or worthiness, it’s a matter of tactics. If this was a week before the primaries I would understand.
November 28th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
27. do not presume my purpose is to represent my “candidate”. With all due respect, near 100% of your ‘message board’ posts, promote Mitt or your social conservative agenda.
and……
The name of the site is http://www.race42012.com. We can all use this as a message board (Free Republic) and get 3,000 hits per month, but that is not my choice, unless it is taken away from me.
November 28th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
These sorts of polls are starting to annoy me.
It’s not as if these polls predict our nominee 3 1/2 years from now.
November 28th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
kris it’s not message or idea it’s tactics.
Like I said before.
November 28th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
#29,
Not sure…
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/06/24/politics/main703992.shtml
November 28th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
#29,
or this, http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE0D61F3CF935A15754C0A961948260
November 28th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Jason,
You are confusing me, because (not idea or message), then why would you say this to me?
November 28th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Kristofer, let me ask you something, because it is puzzling. You are obviously not a social conservative. Yet, you have as your favorite candidate the one who is known for that and nothing else, one who is loved by social conservatives, and no one else, EXCEPT YOU! How do you explain that Kris? And do you maintain that if she said and acted exactly the same, and exhibited the same speech patterns, showed the same knowledge, but one thing was different, She was UGLY, would she still be your gal. Don’t embarrass yourself by saying yes, because we all know better.
November 28th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
I like Sarah Palin a lot but nobody in his right mind would choose Palin in 2012 at least that person want the GOP to lose by 40 points.
November 28th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
34 – That’s why I’m utterly baffled by his support for her, too. Palin is a pro-life extremist, in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment, is a deeply, deeply religious woman, is presumably against stem-cell research and euthanasia, supports teaching Intelligent Design in schools…
She’s only been governor for a little under two years, she’s a blank slate on foreign policy, and she has a mixed record on economic issues (except energy and budgeting).
Even if you think that she’s fine on foreign policy and economics, there are other candidates out there that aren’t as socially conservative that are equally good on foreign policy and economics. Wouldn’t you prefer, say, Rudy if he ran again, Kristofer? What about Sanford? Jindal? Why Palin?
November 28th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
In an interview, Palin called homosexuality a choice and said in a debate that she’d not opt for an abortion even if her daughter were raped. If an old white guy said something like that, I think that Kristofer would be calling for his head.
November 28th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
#34, I am laughing so hard I am going to wet myself. You said;
Did you not read this post? Palin leads all candidates with the investment class. Other polls have shown that a segment of libertarians support Palin, as well as older pro-choice women.
Now I was answer your question…
November 28th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Wow…clearly palin and huckabee both can’t run in 2012 or in any cycle for that matter…personally, i think palin would be much much much better off not running and instead build up goodwill and focus on having a great 8 year run as governor, ie she should run for re-election in 2010, than run for US senate in 2014…from the senate she could run for the white house in any cycle between 2016-2028 with more of a background to highlight…yet, my guess is she doesn’t run for re-election in 2010 and will run for the white house in 2012, the bug has bite…if so huckabee can’t run in 2012 or i wouldn’t think so considering palin takes his chunk of voters, think he should focus on running for senate in 2010.
November 28th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Kristofer,
Be honest with yourself and all of the other folks here at Race42012, you are infatuated with Sarah Palin – she’s the girlfriend you’ve always wanted – you day dream about walking on the beach with her, holding hands, talking politics. Kris – she’s MARRIED! You’ve let your emotional involvement with Sarah Palin cloud your judgement and diminish you capacity for rational thought.
November 28th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
It’s not going to be Palin. She doesn’t have the capacity to survive a primary contest. Winking and great legs will only get you so far.
November 28th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
#34,
I have never asked an LDS member this question before, because I find it reprehensible, but since you a throwing this sexist crap at me, I will ask you and you tell me how you feel?
Why are so many Romney supporters on this site, members of the LDS faith?
November 28th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Kristofer you should read the title on this threat is a Zogby Interactive poll.
November 28th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Kris,
In all seriousness is this some sort of fetish? You seem to have some sort of strange desire to see a woman in a position of power, qualifications be-damned, and breadth and depth of info on national issues be damned. You CONSTANTLY throw the sexism card around. I’ve seen you do it. If someone makes noise about not wanting Palin you’re awfully quick to jump on them and accuse them of sexism.
November 28th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Kristofer, you didn’t answer my question on the UGLY thing. Even though we already know the answer, I’ll give you a chance to just tell us yes or no on that one.
November 28th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
but since you a throwing this sexist crap at me,
Kristofer, you’re like a caricature of yourself!
Why are so many Romney supporters on this site, members of the LDS faith?
Duh. Mormons support Mitt…because he’s a Mormon. 95% of Mormons voted for Mitt in the Nevada caucuses, which is about the proportion of blacks that voted for Obama. Everyone called me an anti-Mormon bigot at the time for pointing it out, and then when it time to select a VP, the Mormons on this site kept bragging about how Mitt could bring out Mormons in Nevada.
November 28th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
You CONSTANTLY throw the sexism card around. I’ve seen you do it. If someone makes noise about not wanting Palin you’re awfully quick to jump on them and accuse them of sexism.
It’s easier than replying to someone on the merits of their arguments. (See: 36 and 37)
November 28th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
28. Try reading the whole message and not one or two nouns.
40. I can’t find another reasoning. It’s probably semi-related to the same reasoning I used to like Madonna, it sure wasn’t her politics or musical talent.
November 28th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Alex/Adam/Illinoisguy,
None of you are Reagan Republicans. NONE! You see, people like myself, and a couple of other FPP’s, who all have different views on social issues, agree on one thing, that our party must be a big tent party and our party must be a pro-life party, (for now) support civil unions, but not gay marriage. Most importantly, we believe States must decide these issues.
McCain is pro-life, supported prop-8, Bush is pro-life, Reagan was 100% pro-life, no exceptions (NONE!) and Palin is pro-life.
November 28th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
95% of Mormons voted for Mitt in the Nevada caucuses,
Not true. Actually about 20% or so of voting mormons voted Dem.
November 28th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
I feel really bad for the young heterosexuals on this site.
Do you really find Sarah Palin attractive, as you must because you constantly accuse me of being sexually obsessed with her?
I do not get it? A middle aged woman with 5 CHILDREN! Blah!
November 28th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
#48, low blow, not expecting that from you.
November 28th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
51. Being married to a near-middle age woman of 3 children, they can be pretty hot.
But the fact that you constantly posted beauty shots of Palin speaks for itself.
November 28th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Not true. Actually about 20% or so of voting mormons voted Dem.
Fair enough. But basically if you were Mormon and Republican you voted for Romney.
Alex/Adam/Illinoisguy, None of you are Reagan Republicans. NONE! You see, people like myself, and a couple of other FPP’s, who all have different views on social issues, agree on one thing, that our party must be a big tent party and our party must be a pro-life party, (for now) support civil unions, but not gay marriage. Most importantly, we believe States must decide these issues. McCain is pro-life, supported prop-8, Bush is pro-life, Reagan was 100% pro-life, no exceptions (NONE!) and Palin is pro-life.
How does Sarah Palin represent a Big Tent party? She’s utter anathema to Democrats and Independents — especially women. Have you actually bothered to look at the polling data, rather than your own (dare I say it?) sexist stereotypes that women will fall in love with any politician with a vagina?
November 28th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
When have I ever disagreed with any of that?
The “Reagan Republican”, as far as I am concerned, is a Republican that can effectively make a case to the public and bring popular opinion to the right. Palin is utterly incapable of doing that. She is a hick and has no indepedent appeal. She repels women and only further caricatures the GOP as out-of-touch, too lazy to do its homework, lacking intellectual curiosity, and relying on gimmicks and divisive rhetoric to carry the day.
If she wins, this is where I get off. And not the way others might. When they think about Palin.
November 28th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
But basically if you were Mormon and Republican you voted for Romney.
…in Nevada.
I can only speak anecdotaly, but that certainly wasn’t the case in Chicago with the Mormons I knew.
November 28th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Anyway, Kristofer –
Palin doesn’t believe states should decide the issues.
She supports the FMA!
She’s no federalist.
November 28th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Answer to #36,
- I will never support a pro-choice candidate. A pro-choice candidate can never win.
- Unlike you, I do not hate conservative Christians, I just disagree with their views.
- You support Bush, who pushed the federal marriage amendment.
- I support Palin because she is anti-Washington, a real conservative, tough enough for the job of POTUS, she believes in reducing the size of government, yet working in a bipartisan fashion.
- I support Palin, because she came from the same place I came from. Middle-class society.
November 28th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
I can only speak anecdotaly, but that certainly wasn’t the case in Chicago with the Mormons I knew.
C’mon! All Mormons in Illinois supported Mitt! Every last Illinois Mormon! Meaning: IllinoisGuy.
November 28th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
58.
All good points. Post like that and I won’t have any quibbles with you. And I suspect no one else will either.
November 28th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
#53, Palin is a decade older than your wife. Get real!
#54, you know nothing about a
, so stay out of the conversation.
You are another DC egg-head who stays up all night looking at polling and over-analyzing, asking candidates to take IQ tests, while entire movements pass you by….I’ll wake you up in 4 years.
November 28th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
59. He’s down state…
November 28th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
61. Umm, we’ll just end that conversation here.
November 28th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
#60, btw, just to clarify, I have nothing again stretch-marks, they are normal, I was just saying that a young man like myself, who only dates blondes, really has no attraction to a mother of 5 who is approaching 50.
I wanted to make sure I was not insulting your wife or any mothers.
November 28th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
- I will never support a pro-choice candidate. A pro-choice candidate can never win.
You mean on a national level? Plenty of pro-choice Republicans have won at the state level.
- Unlike you, I do not hate conservative Christians, I just disagree with their views.
Well, you also seem to think that they’re all closet cases and sexists.
- You support Bush, who pushed the federal marriage amendment.
We’re not talking about me. I could support Palin if I thought that she was understood foreign policy, which is my only real litmus test, besides being honest.
- I support Palin because she is anti-Washington, a real conservative, tough enough for the job of POTUS, she believes in reducing the size of government, yet working in a bipartisan fashion.
Define “a real conservative.” You keep speaking in these vague niceties without expounding upon them.
- I support Palin, because she came from the same place I came from. Middle-class society.
Woop-de-doo.
November 28th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
60. Stretch marks,
my wife has none. A lot of women don’t.
November 28th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
#54, you know nothing about a vagina , so stay out of the conversation.
Ah-ah-ah. Using your usual trick of making a joke to avoid the fact that you’re wrong. Palin hurt us among independent women. That’s a fact, not an opinion.
You are another DC egg-head who stays up all night looking at polling and over-analyzing, asking candidates to take IQ tests, while entire movements pass you by….I’ll wake you up in 4 years.
Given that the polling was pretty damn accurate this time around, I’d say that I’m doing the right thing here.
And yes, I would really like to have a candidate that doesn’t make me nervous every time they’re asked a question, making me wonder “Uh-oh! Will they be able to answer that competently?”
November 28th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Oh, please. Of course Palin’s only where she is today because she’s hot. Her favorability rating among men is like, 20 points higher than it is among women. It’s not because she loves guns and men are more likely to support gun rights, buddy. It’s because she’s a (Soon-to-be-G)MILF.
November 28th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
#65,
<blockquoteYou mean on a national level? Plenty of pro-choice Republicans have won at the state level.
- No, a national / POTUS
- Yes, many of the bigoted ones are closet cases…I wrote a post about it. I find gay Republicans to be very sexist.
- Balanaced budets, lower taxes, smaller government, morally conservative, neoconservative beliefs, etc….
- This is actually important, to many people. It is not class warfare, is is about ending the Bush/DC elite hold on the GOP.
November 28th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
#68, that is for all republicans. Reagan had the same numbers, but back then, women made up less than 45% of the electorate. Do your research.
November 28th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
#66, I know….well, you know what I mean, I was making a point.
btw, how do you know this “many women have none”?
November 28th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
I find gay Republicans to be very sexist.
Am I a sexist, Kristofer?
- Balanaced budets, lower taxes, smaller government, morally conservative, neoconservative beliefs, etc….
Where’s the evidence that Palin subscribes to neoconservative foreign policy beliefs? Last I heard, she was talking about waiting until a threat is imminent, not knowing what the Bush Doctrine was, wondering whether the Iraq War was for oil, and carping about exit strategies.
And that’s to say nothing of the fact that there’s no evidence that she can articulate such beliefs like Gingrich can.
Also, do you not care at all that everyone outside the Republican Party thinks she’s an idiot? Her numbers among Independents are awful and her numbers among Democrats are nearly zero.
November 28th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
#67 said;
Fine, support Romney, he gives confident answers, just no one believes him.
November 28th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Fine, support Romney, he gives confident answers, just no one believes him.
False dichotomy…
I like Gingrich and Sanford.
November 28th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
#72,
That is why you always fail! You look at Democrats to decide on your Republican candidate.
Only Dc and NY media and Democrats try to portray her as an idiot. You are too young to remember, but they did the same with reagan and “W”, but ‘they’, ‘you’ failed.
November 28th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
#68, that is for all republicans. Reagan had the same numbers, but back then, women made up less than 45% of the electorate. Do your research.
Um, women made up 53% of the electorate in 1984, and voted for Reagan by a double-digit margin. http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_84.html
November 28th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
#76, look at 1980.
November 28th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
1980: Ronald Reagan, 46% women / 54% men
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/gendergap.html
November 28th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
That is why you always fail! You look at Democrats to decide on your Republican candidate. Only Dc and NY media and Democrats try to portray her as an idiot. You are too young to remember, but they did the same with reagan and “W”, but ‘they’, ‘you’ failed.
Yes, I look at Democrats to decide upon my candidate, Kristofer, which is why I like Mark Sanford and Newt Gingrich.
I actually do look at independents, who despise Palin.
I guess I’m part of some apocryphal elite now or something, since I think Palin’s dumb.
November 28th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
#59: whatever that was supposed to mean.
November 28th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
If women voted in the same numbers in 1980, as they do today, Carter would have been re-elected.
November 28th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
78 – Ah, we’re looking at two different things. I’m looking at women as a share of the electorate.
November 28th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
#79,
That was one of the most insane comments I have ever read.
You support Gingrich because of his popularity with indy’s? LOL! Hahahaha!
November 28th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
I phrased it rather poorly.
I was being sarcastic about the Democrats, serious about Independents.
I think that Gingrich can have Independent appeal, once he gets out there campaigning and the public gets a good look at Newt 2.0: Ideas Man.
November 28th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
When Gingrich meets an opponent, he explains his ideas, hoping to convert them.
Palin calls them Elitists and Fake Americans.
I’m sick of the Karl Rove 50.1% strategy that Palin likes.
November 28th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
It’s a shame you guys are getting so worked up over Sarah Palin, when Tim Pawlenty will be our nominee.
November 28th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
What makes Gov. Palin such a strong candidate electorally, both in the primary and the general is that A) she attracts women voters across a wide ideological spectrum B) She can simultaneously make two very compelling arguments: She can legitimately lay claim to the mantle of ‘next in line’ (by virtue of being VP nominee) and she can lay claim to the title of ‘future of the party and future of American leadership.’ These are two claims that none of the other potential 2012 candidates can make simultaneously.
November 28th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
#86, LOL! Nice interjection.
Alex Knepper,
In terms of intelligence, experience, practicality, ideology, etc.. Gingrich is our most qualified candidate for POTUS.
But the USA does not elect candidates based on those qualities alone.
Sorry dude, I’ll send Newt $, but he will not have my vote.
November 28th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
#86 –
I can see his campaign slogan now: PAWLENTY – FEEL THE EXCITEMENT!
Just kidding, Doug. I like Pawlenty just fine (although lately he seems to be going all David Brooks on us) but he has more of the vibe of an able technocrat – doesn’t generate very much enthusiasm. We need a leader with star power in 2012 or we will get buried.
November 28th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
#87 – oh my goodness!! That had to be one of the most asinine statements I’ve ever seen on here…..that Palin attracted women voters…..what barn have you been in the last few months?
November 28th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Sorry, that may have been a little harsh….I see stupider statements that that on here everyday……but she certainly does not do well with women, much better with men.
November 28th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Hi, I’ve been lurking for awhile, but couldn’t resist butting in.
(1) Palin might not be popular with independents right now, but a lot can happen in four years. For example, in 2004 no one would have thought it likely that a certain Senator-elect from Illinois would be the President-elect in four years. The American voters watched Obama campaign over the last two years, and a majority made their judgment that he was qualified to be President. The same thing could possibly happen to Palin. Why dismiss a candidate already this early? There’s nothing wrong with keeping an open mind and waiting to see what happens.
(2) Palin obviously is inexperienced. But the nature of experience is that you gain it over time, and so she could, over the next couple of years, gain more experience and understanding of national issues. She’s a hard worker. Combine that with her fundraising ability and her reformist narrative of getting elected on an ethics reform plank and kicking out the corrupt incumbent governor, and you could have a strong candidate. But, like I said, we’ll see.
(3) Where is the logic in basing your opinion of her on a two-month campaign in which she was supposed to stick to the message (meaning that the way she was used was not necessarily her style)? I’d say her record as governor, in which she has had a bipartisan approach, is a better indication of what she’s like. Sure she’s conservative, and a social conservative; but that doesn’t mean she’s Rove-style. Karl Rove, after all, is more of an establishment, country-club political conservative.
This doesn’t necessarily mean that I think Palin will be the best candidate. Romney, Sanford, Pawlenty, and Thune are some other candidates that interest me. But these polls are kind of silly and premature. I think we’ll have to wait at least two years before we start deciding.
November 28th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Good points, Matt Y. and welcome to our community.
To answer IllinoisGuy and others – we can’t judge Governor Palin as a candidate based on her VP role in 2012 because she was at the bottom of the ticket working with someone else’s message. To truly judge her you have to evaluate her campaigns in Alaska where she won overwhelming support across a wide spectrum of demographics including the overwhelming support of women.
November 28th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
94. Palin’s view on abortion would be less an issue with pro-choice women if she is also seen as being very pro-contraception and very pro-let’s-help-struggling-families.
The entire Republican party, if it insists on remaining pro-life, could improve their “mean spirited” image if they embraced those two concepts.
November 28th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
#94,
Great point (as usually). Once people learn she is pro-contraception, pro-womens health, pro-sex education, etc….moderates will go to her.
November 28th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
95. Kristofer, it won’t be enough for Palin to just be for contraception, sex education, etc. She needs to take the lead and shake things up on those issues — like getting insurance companies to cover the cost of birth control pills just like they cover Viagra.
November 28th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
#96, I actually believe she will campaign on a conservative approach to proving more affordable child care.
I do still find it odd that Cialis is covered but not BC.
November 28th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
95 – Phew! For a moment there, I thought she was anti-women’s health!
November 28th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
#98, people who are against giving the HPV vaccine are anti-womens health.
November 28th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Kind of irrelevant. Two words:
1) Zogby
2) Online
’nuff said.
November 28th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
57. Alex, I sort of agree with Palin about the FMA, although I fall on the other side of the fence. If couples never left the state where they were married, then there would be nothing wrong in letting each state decide for themselves. But people move all the time. Would Utah be forced to recognize the marriage of a gay couple who wed in a state where it was legal?
Gay marriage should either be legal in all 50 states or not. I don’t see why so many in here get their panties in a wad over this issue. If a gay couple wants to marry — let em. Live and let live.
97. To be fair, some insurance companies DO cover birth control pills.
November 28th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
#101, of course, but the double standard…
November 28th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Obama’s approval rating will have more to do with who wins the GOP nomination in 2012 than anything else. That’s because it will determine the shape of the field, and the shape of the field is everything.
If Obama has a 65 percent job approval, Bobby Jindal will almost certainly not run. If he has a 35 percent job approval, Jindal almost certainly will. That’s because Jindal knows that challengers don’t beat popular incumbents, and Jindal also knows that he can’t run for reelection in LA in 2011 and president in 2012 simultaneously, with the Iowa caucus just two months after the LA gubernatorial election. So Jindal won’t make a practice run in 2012. He’ll only run if it looks like the Republican nominee will have a better than even shot of being the next president.
Whether or not Jindal is in the race will have major implications. Nobody even knows who he is and he’s already beating Huckabee, almost tied with Romney, and less than ten points behind Palin. Everybody knows who those three are. Jindal will be a powerful force if he runs.
Speaking of which, will Mitt run again if Obama is really popular? Romney spent a lot of his own money on his last presidential run. People tend to be thrifty with their own money. They tend not to throw it away for the sake of being a sacrificial lamb. So if Obama is really popular, Romney might not run either.
Palin will probably run either way. Newt too, because Newt is running to make a point. Pawlenty will probably run either way as well, if only to be the guy who comes in second in 2012 (if Obama is popular) and thus to set himself up for 2016.
November 28th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Who in the hell cares about birth control? My gosh, do you hear yourselves? Somehow Palin has to come out in favor of (the burning issue of) contraception and that will make her palatable to women.
You betcha.
November 28th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Kris – the HPV vaccine’s effectiveness is unproven and potentially dangerous. I would NEVER let my daughters be vaccinated. It’s a bunch of hooey.
November 28th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
DaveG,
That sounds almost right. I’m still not totally sold, though, on the idea that Jindal couldn’t run for re-election and Pres simultaneously. Louisiana has moved substantially to the right in the last two years and figures to move even farther right if Jindal has a successful term. If his approval rating is in the 60’s or better at the end of 2010, I think Mitch Landrieu is really the only potential contender who could take advantage of a Jindal Presidential run. But, you’re right about Romney, Palin, and Pawlenty. I’m not convinced Pawlenty SHOULD run; a third term as Gov guarantees him another spot on the Veep shortlist, no matter the nominee. But, I’m increasingly convinced that Pawlenty WANTS to run, and probably will run, though I’m not totally sold on his chances. If Obama scares everyone away, Pawlenty could steal the thing ala Clinton in 92′, and hope for an 11th hour collapse of Obama’s popularity. Regardless, he’s probably not a strong enough figure to pass up the chance to become the nominee, even if he looks like a sacrificial lamb. Pawlenty, unlike Jindal, isn’t a near-sure bet to become the nominee at SOME point.
November 28th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
What does it mean to be anti-women’s health, anyway? Are you talking about people who want women to be punished with a baby?
Just askin. Seems like a lot of folks are anti-babies health — and life.
November 28th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Oh and am I the only one who’s a little worried by the complete disappearance of military figures from political ranks? Other then perhaps Petraeus, I can’t even think of a potential 2012 contender who’s served in the military. The “hero” narrative might be losing its luster in modern America, but I still believe that former uniformed officers make fine leaders, especially at a national level.
November 28th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
I agree with you DaveG.
Palin will run no matter what. She’s just too into the attention, and can’t be bothered with qualifications. It’s almost like she’s not aware of the implications of her lousy performance in the campaign or the ethical issues swirling around her. Statements like not blinking and plowing through doors are all too revealing. This is not a careful woman.
On the other hand, Romney is a very careful man, and will not run unless Obama looks substantially weak. He’s taking the wait and see route, as well he should. Jindal is much more of a threat to him than Palin.
November 28th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Matthew, so right. I was just thinking that the other day. Obama makes me very uncomfortable for that reason, among others. I don’t have any reason to believe he understands or appreciates our military, unfortunately.
November 28th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
While I would support Romney again, if he runs, it’s clear that Sarah has earned the right to run and be taken seriously in 2012. Pawlenty and Jindal have to be considered as well. Everyone else lacks the intrinsic gravitas to be ranked in the same class as these four. While I rank Palin fourth in this group, a lot of people are selling her learning curve short. Remember how well she did in the VP debate? Consider that she only had a week to prepare for that, and she had to do it on the side. With years to prepare, I predict she will astound a number of people when she actually does run.
November 28th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
kris – you said you only date blondes. and everyone else here is sexist?
November 28th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Keep believing this Palin fairy-tale Kris.
I pray every day that both do run as Romney will squash her like a fly – a really really small fly.
It’s all downhill from here for Palin.
For her to have had any chance she would have had to be twice as popular as Mitt.
In any event these poll are meaningless so far out. I remember last cycle people saying that polls were meaningly until 2 MONTHS BEFORE IOWA. Now you are putting your faith in polls more than THREE YEARS OUT lol.
November 28th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
105. I would rather have hooey than be infected with HPV. My condolences to your daughters.
November 28th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
Dave, Palin had plenty of time to prepare for the campaign, but chose not to. We learned that she wanted VP for about a year. She didn’t do any homework whatsoever! The really amazing thing is that she obviously didn’t think she needed to!
BTW – She DIDN’T do well in the debate! She was ridiculously unprepared and relied entirely on winks, you betchas, say it ain’t so, and announcing that she wasn’t going to even try to answer the questions if she didn’t feel like it. How many times did she repeat the same 5 soundbites? How many times did she say maverick?
It won’t fly next time, hopefully. I hope by the the Kristofer Lorelli’s with stars in their eyes have had time to come to their senses.
November 28th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Martha,
I don’t expect Sarah to be able to compete with someone as sophisticated and suave as Mitt, but on substance she DID do well in that debate, and that was pretty much the consensus of opinion at the time. I suspect your critique of her is based more on style than substance…..particularly since I generally agree with you on issues.
November 28th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
#108, the gap between the American public and the military has been widening.
Perhaps the values and ethics of the military are a bit old fashioned for mainstream America.
November 29th, 2008 at 12:09 am
Dave, I think it only seemed she did well because the expectations were so very, very low. She skimmed the surface on every issue and was barely able to do that.
November 29th, 2008 at 1:00 am
119. It was like Fred’s first debate where he “won” because he didn’t fall asleep at the microphone. Who knows though, soon she could do really well with debates after a few years of intense prep. Fred came out pretty nicely the last couple debates.
November 29th, 2008 at 1:27 am
I can’t believe we are trashing all of the possible republican candidates (except our own) already. It is a long time until the primaries. Let’s discuss the positive each of the potential candidates bring. Although I hope Romney runs (and I will support him), we have several likely candidates that we can enthusiastically support. Palin is one of them.
November 29th, 2008 at 7:23 am
I think Sarah’s main failing in the VP debate was not being knowledgeable enough to call out Biden the times he flat out lied, leaving most voters to assume he knew what he was talking about. She “won” by being more likable, but basically stuck to her talking points. Palin’s on my short list for 2012, but she needs work and I’m still leaning Mitt overall. He’ll be 7 years removed from his pro-life conversion, and the talking point will seem a little silly.
November 29th, 2008 at 8:28 am
Let’s remember that Palin was in a great rol for being a Republican as VEEP candidate. She was able to play the “bad cop” against Obama and got to be a Republican that Republicans want. That is why her number among Republicans for the 2012 nomination are higher than Romney.
In contrast, Romney had to run against other Republicans, in the primaries, almost a year again. Meaning, there is still animosity towards him by supporters of other candidates in the primaries. Palin does not have any of that animosity by other candidates supporters.
As we slowly enter the primaries…two years from now…and Plain has to start to run against other Republicans, her numbers will fall.
November 29th, 2008 at 10:52 am
Palin is a pro-life extremist, in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment, is a deeply, deeply religious woman, is presumably against stem-cell research and euthanasia, supports teaching Intelligent Design in schools… — Alex Knepper
I am hardcore Pro-Choice, and I’m about as enthusiastic Palin backer as you could find anywheres! To say Sarah is “a religious pro-life extremist” is just plain nuts!!
Listen buddy, I was in Alaska in 2006. I was a volunteer on her campaign for Governor. I remember the accusations from the Religious Right and the Frank Murkowski-ites back then that Sarah “was not really a Republican, but rather a Libertarian,” cause she had attended a few Libertarian Party meetings. I remember social conservatives whispering that “Sarah was really Pro-Choice,” and GASP! “She even supports marijuana legalization.”
And now some people have the audacity to bash her for being exactly the opposite??? Now it’s “Sarah Palin is really a Religious Conservative…”
My gosh. How absurd. Those who talk like this are obviously talking out of their asses, and don’t know a damned thing about Sarah Heath Palin. They should do themselves a favor, and spend some time in Alaska and learn the truth about her before they start spouting off nonsense on national political websites.
Eric Dondero, Publisher
Libertarian Republivcan blog
Founder, Republican Liberty Caucus
Fmr. Senior Aide, US Cong. Ron Paul, 1997-2003
Fmr. Libertarian National Committeeman
P.S. The Libertarian Party endorsed Sarah Palin for Governor in 2006 in case you didn’t know that. And they’re not the type to endorse “social conservatives,” believe me.
November 29th, 2008 at 10:56 am
As for Mitt Romney, I liked the guy. I supported him enthusiastically in the primary after Giuliani dropped out. Jason Bonham here can attest to that.
However, Romney royally screwed up during the election as far as us libertarian Republicans are concerned. He donated $300,000 to the anti-Marijuana legalization proposition in Michigan. Fortunately, it passed, despite Romney’s opposition.
Mitt has some seriously explaining to do to the libertarian wing of the GOP on that. Serious explaining. You want to guarantee libertarians will be pissed off at you? Go out of your way to oppose marijuana legalization.
That stance will come back to haunt Romney. If he’s our GOP nominee in 2012, he won’t get any libertarian support. He just about killed it all. Unless he SERIOUSLY gives some sort of explanation to us libertarian Republicans as to why he took this absolutely horrendous stance.
Jason?
November 29th, 2008 at 11:34 am
You want to guarantee libertarians will be pissed off at you? Go out of your way to oppose marijuana legalization.
That stance will come back to haunt Romney. If he’s our GOP nominee in 2012, he won’t get any libertarian support. He just about killed it all. Unless he SERIOUSLY gives some sort of explanation to us libertarian Republicans as to why he took this absolutely horrendous stance.
What the hell, man? Toking up is that important? THIS is the issue you choose as a litmus test as to whether or not libertarians will support a Republican candidate? Who cares? Explain to me the virtues of legalized marijuana. You’re out of your gourd.
November 29th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
I suppose he could have gone in favor of marijuana legalization, but he would be trading support from other voting blocks for that of people who may space out about which day to vote.
Kidding…maybe.
November 30th, 2008 at 8:51 am
When will some of you folks get over the LDS bigotry? Would not evangelicals not support their own, catholics not support their own, blacks not support their own??? So what, that lots of Romney supporters are LDS?????? In Maine, we are catholics, evangelicals, jewish, LDS and so on. Mitt won with a landslide in our Republican primary. We are do not have a majority of LDS people here, very diversified. People did not care about looks and hair, they heard Mitt’s message, they saw him win the primary debates with class and honor. It was the lies and bigotry by fellow primary candidates that most hurt Mitt. I don’t appreciate folks saying Romney supporters Hate others. What they feel is the bigotry against their religion. I wish those misinformed would do what Al Sharpton did and go visit the Mormon Church in Utah. He said I find, ” No problem with the LDS religion.” Yes, I said Al Sharpton…………..went to Utah………… Mitt was most qualified…….Believe it or not, He has been successful and was the first to tell the USA, “Washington is Broken” only for us to find out as of late how very broken we are and taking the global economy down with us. Yes, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was our downfall. The domino effect now in progress!!!!!! it’s time to look at issues, qualifications, and who is most suited for the White House in 2012????? Not who might grow into the huge responsibility, but ready on day one!!!!!As we enter into the Obama Presidency let’s hope we still know America and what our Founding Fathers intended for America the Beautiful……………….
November 30th, 2008 at 9:02 am
P.S. I am not a Mormon, but I am on a Romney site, they are wonderful, kind, respectful, very into the Lord, and love their freedom and America.