Rasmussen Minnesota Survey on Tim Pawlenty
Suppose Governor Tim Pawlenty runs for President in 2012 and wins the Republican nomination. If Pawlenty was the Republican Presidential candidate, would you vote for him?
- Yes 42%
- No 46%
How would you rate the job Tim Pawlenty has been doing as Governor… do you strongly approve, somewhat approve, somewhat disapprove, or strongly disapprove of the job he’s been doing?
- Strongly approve 28% (26%)
- Somewhat approve 24% (30%)
- Somewhat disapprove 22% (13%)
- Strongly disapprove 25% (30%)
Survey of 1,000 likely voters was conducted November 10. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted September 15 are in parentheses.
Inside the numbers:
Eighty-two percent (82%) of GOP voters in Minnesota say they would vote for Pawlenty in 2012 if he is the party’s presidential nominee. Eighty-eight percent (88%) of Minnesota Democrats sat they would not support Pawlenty.
Among voters in the state not affiliated with either major party, 35% say they would vote for Pawlenty in 2012, while 45% would not and 20% are undecided.
Married voters and those with children in the home are almost evenly divided over a Pawlenty candidacy in 2012. Unmarrieds and those who don’t have children living with them are more likely not to vote for Pawlenty.
November 16th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
I really don’t know why Bachmann isn’t pimping this poll to everyone she knows. She’s more popular statewide than either Obama or Pawlenty according to Rasmussen.
November 16th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
“I really don’t know why Bachmann isn’t pimping this poll to everyone she knows. She’s more popular statewide than either Obama or Pawlenty according to Rasmussen.”
Haha, she does not need to pimp anything, Tommy Boy; both the political class and the political junkies can see this poll with their own eyes.
November 16th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Pawlenty’s approval among his constituents is much better than Obama’s.
Considering MN is purplish blue, and the country is purplish red, that bodes well for Pawlenty.
November 16th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
NEWS ALERT I JUST HEARD!!! Obama just announced He’s hosting the APEC metting in hawaii in 2011 just passing the news. Question isn’t 2011 fall the real start of campaign kick off for him and gop
November 16th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Pawlenty supporting Huckabee is in the cards eventually, imo.
But if Tim chooses to run and test the waters, well good for him. He should.
November 16th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
greg,
The real kick-off for the GOP will be likely between November 2010, and April 1, 2011. The first debates are usually held by May or June.
November 16th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
mark when does our great ( JOKE OF COURSE!) president start his 2012 bid? some say he already in 2012 mode
November 16th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
5. What makes you think Pawlenty would support the Huckster? I don’t see it.
November 16th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Shared views.
November 16th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Huckster? You have a problem with Mike?
November 16th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
oh, boy. Here we go again……………..
November 16th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
9. Pawlenty isn’t a perfect conservative, but he is basically a 3-legger. Huck isn’t anything but a social con.
November 16th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
“9. Pawlenty isn’t a perfect conservative, but he is basically a 3-legger.” He is a 3-legger until he becomes a threat. As soon as some people turn on Mr. Pawlenty, that will be the sign that Mr. Pawlenty has truly made the big 4. It has already started in some quarters.
November 16th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
“He is a 3-legger until he becomes a threat. As soon as some people turn on Mr. Pawlenty, that will be the sign that Mr. Pawlenty has truly made the big 4. It has already started in some quarters.”
That doesn’t make any sense. Are you confusing 3-legger with “top 3″?
November 16th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
For what it is worth, Tim Pawlenty is currently penciled in as my #2 choice. That may change as he becomes better known, and I have had the chance to watch him for a while, but for now he is definitely my “Plan B”. And in case anyone should ask, Rudy Giuliani is my #3.
Rudy was my #2 last year, but he got demoted. Why? One word comes to mind, “Yagoddawanna”. Mitt and Tim have it. Rudy doesn’t seem to.
November 16th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
12. But the thing is, Martha, my friend – Governors tend to lack national defense credentials. A “leg” as you put it.
Are you personally eliminating them as candidates because of that? Who is then left for our Party in 2012?
Why is it that Governors tend to be elected President while missing this “leg”?
Or is it more about who you trust? Who is most like you… shares your views and values. Thank you.
November 16th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
16. I think Huck has enough questionable comments on defense from the last campaign to determine he’s not solid on FP/Defense. He seems to want to play it both ways.
I mean really, ‘wingtips in Iran’ is all you need to know. He sounded more like a Democrat, than a Republican.
Huck’s not like me, and I don’t trust him at all. Based on his record, and his actions, he hasn’t earned it. I’m definitely not in the “one of us gotta have a POTUS who shares my faith no matter how horrible his record is” categories.
November 16th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
#17:
“I’m definitely not in the “one of us gotta have a POTUS who shares my faith no matter how horrible his record is” categories.”
Ah, so if Mitt Romney converts to Southern Baptist next year and attends Church with Huckabee that would be perfectly fine with you?
November 16th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Martha,
“I mean really, ‘wingtips in Iran’ is all you need to know. He sounded more like a Democrat, than a Republican.”
So diplomacy has no place in foreign policy? You know, even Reagan used diplomacy….. in Iran.
Even got a few people in trouble, as I recall……
November 16th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
19. At that point in time, saying ours was an arrogant, bunker mentality, and that we needed wingtips in Iran was flat out dovish, and using Democrat talking points.
I just don’t think Huck cares much about NS/Defense. He’s just not that into it. He does like to sleep at a Holiday Inn Express, though!
November 16th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
So Pawlenty/Jindal vs Obama/Biden, who wins MN in 2012?
November 16th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
Here’s what the editors art NR thought back in 08:
“On Iran, Huckabee is at his most troubling. He accuses the administration of “proceeding down only one track with Iran: armed confrontation.” This is false, and the kind of rhetoric you’d expect from DailyKos bloggers, not a Republican presidential candidate. Huckabee thinks it has been a lack of diplomatic engagement that has soured our relations with Iran: “We haven’t had diplomatic relations with Iran in almost 30 years, my whole adult life and a lot of good it’s done. Putting this in human terms, all of us know that when we stop talking to a parent or a sibling or a friend, it’s impossible to accomplish anything, impossible to resolve differences and move the relationship forward. The same is true for countries.”
This is the kernel of Huckabee’s foreign policy. He wants to anthropomorphize international relations and bring a Christian commitment to the Golden Rule to our affairs with other nations. As he told the Des Moines Register the other day, “You treat others the way you’d like to be treated. That’s to me the fundamental issue that has to be re-established in our dealings with other countries.”
This is deeply naïve. Countries aren’t people, and the world is more dangerous than a Sunday church social. Threats, deception, and – as a last resort – violence must play a role in international relations. Differences cannot always be worked out through sweet persuasion. A U.S. president who doesn’t realize this will repeat the experience of President Jimmy Carter at his most ineffectual.
Other than the general impulse to be nicer, Huckabee’s views are the uneven grab bag to be expected from someone who hasn’t thought much about foreign policy.
November 16th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Doug.#18:“Ah, so if Mitt Romney converts to Southern Baptist next year and attends Church with Huckabee that would be perfectly fine with you?”
I’ll answer that. My reasons for supporting Mitt Romney as President has nothing to do with his religion. So he could become a flaming atheist for all I care. He is still the best man for the job.
November 16th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
#23 I don’t expect to see many others willing to answer that.
November 16th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
“Countries aren’t people,”
Countries are run by people.
“….and the world is more dangerous than a Sunday church social.”
Somehow, I think Huckabee already knows that. Dumb straw man.
“Threats, deception, and – as a last resort – violence must play a role in international relations.”
How do you threaten or deceive someone without talking to them? Without talking to them, it seems to me you’d have to skip right to the violence part, which is kind of what Huck was saying.
November 16th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
MWS,
I remember well during the 2008 how concerned I was with Huckabee’s lack of depth when it came to foreign policy. A year ago, I actually felt Sarah Palin had more FP chops than Huckabee.
That was a year ago. Since that time, I get the definite impression that Huckabee has been boning up on the subject, far more than Palin has. At this moment, I would place him well ahead of Sarah in that department.
November 16th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
marK,
In truth, almost the whole field was pretty thin on the FP front other than McCain, largely as a function of their jobs. But we could talk about Huck, Romney, Guiliani, or Thompson, and they all at times looked like they were making it up as they went, or relying on pat answers and platitudes, or simply saying, “whatever McCain just said.”
Of all the candidates, I think Paul actually gave the most thought to FP (with the possible exception of McCain). I wish he hadn’t been so rudely dismissed out of hand by many Republicans as a RINO, appeaser, traitor, or nutjub. He wasn’t always right for sure, but the famous exchange between him and Guiliani where Rudy scored points for scoffing at the notion that our FP affects others’ attitudes showed me how much the GOP had replaced honest thought with bumber sticker sloganeering.
November 16th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
#1,#2,
Bachmann will support ROMNEY if he runs. Don’t they look good together?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bachmannforcongress/2869547533/
GOOD & PAWLENTY in 2020!
ROMNEY / DeMINT in 2012!
November 16th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
27. Not really true. Rudy and Romney both did their homework on FP and were credible. I mean really, there is no comparing them to Huck in that category, MWS.
November 16th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
18. Well, that’s a silly premise, but yes.
I keep saying it, (apparently no one believes me) but I do not support Romney based on his faith. I’ve never used that as a factor in voting, and I’m not going to start. I’ve said many times that politically, it would be better for Romney to NOT be LDS. We all know that if he had been a regular-old Joe evangelical, Huck would have had ZERO shot last time.
November 16th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
#30 I’d like to see that happen just for the satisfaction of seeing the LDS angle go away when conservatives oppose Willard.
November 16th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
These numbers don’t look good for Tim, but given the anti-incumbent mood of the country, and Minnesota’s blueness, they’re not bad. My guess is that if he gets the presidential nod from the party, he will carry Minnesota.
November 16th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
MWS.#27,
Now here is where you are wrong — flat-out wrong, my friend. Mitt stood head and shoulders above all the rest when it came to FP. He studied it, thought about it, hashed out ideas with experts, and wrote reams of policy papers on it. He gave many far-ranging interviews on the subject without notes, impressing every single reporter who asked him about it. They were all very impressed with his grasp of the subject.
No, the knock against Mitt back then was that he didn’t have all the FP “experience” that McCain and Giuliani had.
But as I said, that was then, this is now. Huck seems to be progressing. Palin…well let’s just say I haven’t noticed any great improvement in her FP chops.
November 16th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
Doug,
I would support Mitt either way, but it’s never going to happen. Mitt has what we Mormons refer to as ’spiritual witness.’
November 16th, 2009 at 6:33 pm
Martha,
#29. The truth is that of all the candidates, almost everyone relied on platitudes and boilerplate other than Paul, who was excoriated for it. Huck made a few gaffes for sure (Holiday Inn Express of course), but actually said a few original things. Mitt was mostly boilerplate and platitudes.
November 16th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
#34 I’m not a member of the Mormon religion.
November 16th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
Sorry, MWS. Mark is right in #33. Way back when, I remember reading somewhere that Romney impressed the heck out of many FP guys because he made such an obvious effort to understand the issues beyond a superficial level.
The truth is that Huck never thought he was going to get the traction he found in Iowa, and he was simply not prepared to speak on FP or defense. It should have been no surprise to anyone that the NIE report caught him off guard. Huck was running solely on his social conservatism.
November 16th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
MWS,
Mitt has gone WAY beyond boilerplate and platitudes when it comes to foreign policy and military issues. As a guy who once voted for Paul for President (in 1988, of course), I consider his foreign policy views to be naive and unsophisticated. His understanding of economics, however, is superb.
November 16th, 2009 at 7:00 pm
Doug,
#34 was based on the premise that you wanted to see Mitt switch religions to make the Mormon issue moot. I was saying that I would support him for Pres regardless of whether he was a co-religionist or not, but that there is simply no way he would leave the church, rendering the entire point moot.
November 16th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
#39 I wasn’t aware you were so close to Mitt that you could fully predict his religious situation.
I’d not be willing to make that sort of statement about any politician.
November 16th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
My favorite outcome as to the next election is going to be watching Romney’s folks go from “Romney is the best conservative! McCain and Rudy are not conservative! They will not get the nominee!”
to “The GOP is a big tent of conservatives and moderates. We should be a party of conservative optimism and leadership, not conservative ideological purity”
and MWS,
I too am sort of skeptical of Huck’s FP after that whole “arrogant bunker mentality” paper he put in and after looking at his letting criminals go in Arkansas (though he was very right to actually think that the prison system doesn’t do any prisoner a lick of good as citizens, which most politicians don’t care about). If he can show me that he’d be willing to use the guns if and when the time came it would improve my views on him fourfold.
As to Ron Paul, he raised serious questions no one wanted to politically tackle, nor was he able to himself. I hope Johnson can fill his role come ‘12 with a bit more political pragmatism that he seems to have acquired as governor.
November 16th, 2009 at 8:44 pm
40. It’s not that hard when you know the history of Romney’s service to his church.
November 16th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
41. I’m not doing that, and don’t plan to.
Romney was the most conservative choice in ‘08. He is no less conservative than Huck, Palin or Palwenty. But he probably will appeal to the McCain moderates better than Palin or Huck.
November 16th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
Actually, MPC, I would never say “Romney is the best conservative!” Only fools that toss around terms like RINO and “Real Conservative” would say something like that.
Now I will say he is the best conservative candidate. That is safe to say. Others will disagree, but what else is a site like Race4 for if not for genuine political disagreement and discussion? If I wanted everyone to agree with me, I would go to countless other Romney sites.
Boring!
November 16th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
Martha,
Look up the name of Thomas B. Marsh, George P. Lee, and Richard R. Lyman.
Never say “never”.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
marK, you are the well-reasoned minority and I’m sure your position isn’t going to change much.
Everyone else is already switching over to the new bandwagon, so at least let me get a kick out of them
(while in general liking Romney much more than last year)
Martha,
“Romney was the most conservative choice in ‘08. He is no less conservative than Huck, Palin or Palwenty. But he probably will appeal to the McCain moderates better than Palin or Huck.”
I think if he runs his old campaign he’ll end up splitting them with Huckabee, honestly. That’s what the current polls would seem to suggest. Moderates are a pretty big group and barring one of their own in the running they’ll divide to those they find most personally appealing. To say nothing of Pawlenty or others coming in, at that.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
45. I didn’t say never.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:19 pm
“Romney was the most conservative choice in ‘08″
This actually reminds me of a huge flaw I noticed then and I hope Romney rectifies. While he said this nonstop and talk radio rolled with it full steam, McCain said “Romney’s the preppy guy that will run away from a fight!” and Huckabee said “Romney’s like that guy that laid you off! And he pulls the skin off of his fried chicken!”
Almost everyone else found one of those two approaches far more persuasive than Romney’s jockeying as “most pure conservative” – they are attached to real issues.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
marK.
“Actually, MPC, I would never say “Romney is the best conservative!” Only fools that toss around terms like RINO and “Real Conservative” would say something like that.”
In the post immediately above yours, Martha said Romney was the “most conservative.” Does your statement apply to her as well?
November 16th, 2009 at 9:50 pm
She meant it in the same sense I meant it. But you knew that already, right?
November 16th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
47,
No, you didn’t. Just making sure.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
marK,
In what sense did you mean that Mitt was the most conservative? And how does such a statement differ from proclaiming one as the “true conservative?”
November 16th, 2009 at 10:50 pm
I am afraid Martha will have to answer that for herself. Me, I ain’t goin’ there.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
I do stand by my #44. Let’s just put it that way and leave at that.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:58 pm
marK.
Fair enough.