Thursday, July 15, 2010

Pretty Bad 2012 numbers for Obama

With his approval numbers hitting new lows it's no surprise that Barack Obama's numbers in our monthly look ahead to the 2012 Presidential race are their worst ever this month. He trails Mitt Romney 46-43, Mike Huckabee 47-45, Newt Gingrich 46-45, and is even tied with Sarah Palin at 46. The only person tested he leads is Jan Brewer, who doesn't have particularly high name recognition on the national level at this point.

It's not that any of the Republican candidates are particularly well liked. Only Huckabee has positive favorability numbers at 37/28. Romney's at 32/33, Gingrich at 32/42, Palin at 37/52, and Brewer at 17/20. But with a majority of Americans now disapproving of Obama it's no surprise that a large chunk of them would replace him as President if they had that choice today.

There are two things driving these strong poll numbers for the Republican candidates. The first is a lead with independents in every match up. Romney leads 48-35 with them, Gingrich is up 50-39, Huckabee has a 46-40 advantage, Palin's up 47-42, and even Brewer has a 38-37 edge.

The other thing causing the Republicans to do so well is that their party is unified around them to an equal or even greater extent than Democrats are around Obama. Huckabee's getting 85% of the Republican vote to Obama's 82% of the Democrats, Romney's at 82% in his party to Obama's 80%, Gingrich and Obama are each getting 83% of their party vote, and Palin and Obama are each getting 81% of theirs.

Obviously 2012 is a long ways off and the immediate relevance of these numbers is limited. It's possible we'll look back on polls like this 28 months from now after Obama's been reelected and laugh. But it's also possible that we'll look back on the summer of 2010 after he's been defeated and see it as the time when his prospects for reelection really took a turn for the worse. For now there's really no way to tell.

Full results here

65 comments:

JCordes said...

Weren't there polls in 1982 showing that Reagan was certain to go down to defeat?

Anonymous said...

Hey Tom - Amazing what 2 years of the mainstream press spiting out GOP talking points can do. Seems like the Dems are lacking a strong political voice right now - e.g. party chair. On the bright side - didn't Obama come from behind against John and Sarah?

Anonymous said...

Is this poll of registered voters or likely voters?

Anonymous said...

What a joke. Obama will wax any of those idiots. It won't even be close.

Anonymous said...

Obama is the biggest joke!

Turetel said...

Even though these numbers are looking bad now, I simply cannot imagine any of those candidates actually beating Obama. We are unfortunately, it seems, at a point where Obama just has really poor ratings and the Republicans have really good ones that probably slant the opinion too strongly towards the Republican end. I would think post-Midterms that if the numbers don't approve (and indeed, a year before the election) that...there might be problems, but once this election cycle goes through and less attention is paid for a year, the economy approves, certain portions of major laws get enacted (etc. etc.) we will see Obama reclaim better values.

broc said...

Anybody would be better.

DCCyclone said...

JCordes, Gallup in January 1983, after the 1982 midterms, had Mondale beating Reagan 52-40, and John Glenn beating Reagan by even more.

Anonymous said...

"Lacking a strong political voice right now..."
Righhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhht.
Because the President, VicePresident,Speaker and Senate Majority leader just don't get the attention they used to.... Sorry, that's dumb. As is the idea that the "mainstream press" is a tool of the GOP.
Obama's in a public opinion trough right now. That's undeniable, but irrellevent for 2012.
A lot can happen in two years, and a helluva lot depends on the mid-terms. Far too early to even BEGIN thinking about 2012, let alone making predictions.

Anonymous said...

Of course.

Obama is a pretty bad president.

Anonymous said...

"lacking strong political voice right now"
Yeah - to my point - these political points are best made by a clear/strong political voice - not an elected. Chairman Dean comes to mind. FACTS BE DAMMED - The press continues to spread the vapid notion that Dems are for deficits, weak on defense, and now they fall all over themselves to speak the word "socialist". Of course they are trying to keep it stirred up so they make money.

Anonymous said...

As an independent voter, I know that I want the opportunity to vote for Sarah Palin simply out of spite for the unchecked misogyny women have endured for the last 2 1/2 years.

Michael Koplow said...

Well, what's the margin of error here? "He trails Mitt Romney 46-43, Mike Huckabee 47-45, Newt Gingrich 46-45." Trails? These are all pretty short trails. Smaller than most margins of error. If these trailings are less than the margin of error, then these are all ties.

Sean said...

It looks like the Public Relations arm for the Democrat Party is not doing their job very well. Of course, we all know who is the PR Agency that drives the Democrat Party: The Mainstream Media. The MSM is simply not doing their job. Time to find another PR agency. Maybe, government funding of the MSM and/or the "fairness doctrine" should do the trick. Or just keeping screaming, "GOP is the party of racists". Yeah, pull the race card. Oh I forgot, the NAACP is pulling that old boring trick again.

Anonymous said...

One word, one number Mike Huckabee 2012

Christian Liberty said...

J, the economy improved under Reagan (and would have improved even more if the tax cuts would have gone into effect right away, rather than been delayed so long) while the economy got worse under Obama.

Every decision Obama has made has made the economy worse. Americans are intelligent enough to notice that Obama is ruining this great nation.

The Interesting Times said...

As I noted previously, no sitting President with approval below 51% has been reelected since 1948. Moreover, since 1948, no nominee from the sitting President's party has been reelected when the sitting President had approval below 51%.

Still, much depends on the outcome of this November's elections. Clinton's approval rating starting to increase consistently only after the Republican opposition gained control of Congress in the 1994 election.

Anonymous said...

Without Ron Paul, this is a meaningless poll.

Anonymous said...

Just curiously, if we were to re-weight the Obama/Romney numbers to the actual '08 Obama/McCain vote, you'd still get an exceedingly close race: Obama 46, Romney 45.

Gerald said...

Where is Ron Paul?

SteveMT said...

They forgot Ron Paul. You know, the candidate that can raise $6M in a day and who really will end to the wars.

Anonymous said...

Anon, Ron Paul? Why bother polling him every month? They polled him a couple months ago and he was unknown by most of the county and thus lost.

Anonymous said...

What? I don't even know who Jan Brewer is. Why isn't Ron Paul included in this?

Anonymous said...

Mitt Romney, just another Massachusetts RINO. In his own words -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9IJUkYUbvI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Jzno_apP1Q

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pVqZzHm3Z4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kk1bJOpYUqE

And then there’s RomneyCare, which isn’t much different than ObamaCare.

Anonymous said...

Seriously a poll without Ron Paul, is completely worthless. He is far better organized for 2012 and has a bigger following then in 2008.

Anonymous said...

You omitted the gorilla in the corner, Dr. Ron Paul. Worthless poll.

Anonymous said...

The only possible candidate who offers an alternative platform is Ron Paul. Otherwise who cares? The incumbent and challengers all have the same policies; it's just a personality contest unless we are offered an actual choice to roll back federal power over us, end war, and salvage what remains of the economy.

Anonymous said...

Ahem, I think that you left out our next President, Dr. Ron Paul.

The Interesting Times said...

Ron Paul is a fourth-tier candidate. He's never gotten over 10% in a primary poll. He won't be the Republican nominee.

That's probably why they didn't bother including him in this poll.

Anonymous said...

Ron Paul won't be getting more than 10% if he even runs.

Anonymous said...

"He's never gotten over 10% in a primary poll."

Except, you know, when PPP found that he had 11% support in a GOP primary just several months ago.

PPP also had said that Ron Paul would be permanently in these polls.

Hopefully, when they do a GOP primary poll next, he will be in it.

Anonymous said...

Where's Ron Paul in the poll. You seriously can't leave him out. He won the Republican straw poll, remember/

Charles said...

Uhh Ron Paul please. It's not a real poll if you don't include all the participants.

He won that straw poll, that should count. I'm voting for him if I get a chance to and the media doesn't completely ignore him.

Anonymous said...

Shows to go you: crafting good policies is a thankless job.

Anonymous said...

Obama will win the Democratic nomination because nobody likes any of the Democrats right now, but he has name recognition and can turn out the minority vote. Plus all those who voted for him in 2008 don't want to admit what a horrible POTUS he is and have to experience the cognitive dissonance associated with it. Ron Paul is the only Republican, let alone the only candidate at all, who can beat Obama. He understands economics, monetary policy, foreign policy, and he's the only honest man or woman in Washington. The world will be a much better place with Dr. Paul in the white house. To the guy who said Paul shouldn't have been included in the poll b/c he has no name recognition, the last poll (Rasmussen BTW) that matched him with Obama had him only one point below.

Anonymous said...

This polling was obviously a bad job. Where is Ron Paul who Rasmussen had as the highest rate against Obama for 2012. Who won the CPAC OR SLC (polling was shut off prematurely, dr. paul would've won it)? I think this polling was a crap job and from now on should have Dr. Paul be a top tiered candidate, especially since he outraised candidates in 2008.
If he isn't covered, only PPP has itself to blame when nobody cares what it posts due to the slant of reporting.

Anonymous said...

Ron Paul has a much greater chance than Newt Gingrich of winning a general election. Mitt Romney has little chance as well -- so to not include Ron Paul but Jan whatever is wrong.

Anonymous said...

Ron Paul 2012.
Nuff said.

Anonymous said...

RON PAUL 2012!

Anonymous said...

What is the point in doing a poll without Ron Paul on it? pretty much the only politician left worth voting for...

Will said...

Where the hell is Ron Paul?!

Anonymous said...

Ron Paul conspicuously absent from the polls again, although without him this movement wouldn't have gotten started.

Amazing.

Anonymous said...

Romney doesn't surprise me. With the economy getting worse, not better, and the gulf oil debacle, the country is hungry for someone with any executive experience at all to run it.

Anonymous said...

I can't call up the complete study doc - says file is broken.
Something must be broken if the poll puts Palin at a tie with Obama! Take your partisan blinders off kids, Obama is doing a great job under the circumstances.

Anonymous said...

Is anyone REALLY surprised that Obama is just as bad as Bush, except for the areas in which he's worse?

I notice one of the most popular potential presidential candidates, Dr. Ron Paul, was left off the poll.

I wonder if they're just scared he'd do too well, or if they're still ignoring the fact that Ron Paul has millions (and millions) of Americans supporting his ideas of liberty and sound money?

Anonymous said...

This poll is stupid...Time Poll has him way up with higher approval numbers...while this one released on the same day has even Newt beating Obama...lol

It seems someone is screwing with the polls to fit their narrative.

Non Paul said...

I thought all you Ron Paul cultists went back underground after the GOP primary in 2008. Aren't you too busy refusing to use dollars (not backed by gold, after all) to comment here?

H. Cheadle said...

Jesus, the Paul People come out in force when they feel a slight. He really has basically zero chance to win a national election. He might be a great guy (I like him better than any of the other GOPers), but he's not going to get a hint of the oval office ever.

The Interesting Times said...

Anonymous:
"Except, you know, when PPP found that he had 11% support in a GOP primary just several months ago."

OK, correct my original post to say Ron Paul has never gotten over 11% in a primary poll. It's still a pretty good reason not to bother including him every time. I'm sure there are other questions that would be less of a waste of pollsters' time.

"PPP also had said that Ron Paul would be permanently in these polls."

I recall them saying Paul would be permanently included in the 2012 Republican Presidential Primary polls. I don't think they ever said anything about including him in all Presidential polls, especially not in light of the fact that he consistently registers like a fourth-tier candidate in primary polls.

Abuelita said...

Glad to see Mike Huckabee gaining recognition. PLEASE take some time to read his books and look at his record--this guy is the real deal, and if anyone can fix the mess we's in, it's Huckabee. I hope he runs in 2012.

The Interesting Times said...

Look, here's the reality of Ron Paul's situation...

I've been keeping a rough estimate of the number of delegates each Republican Presidential primary candidate would win for the 2012 Republican National Convention, based on PPP's state-by-state primary polls. I have not taken into account district-level delegate allocation, but based on a few assumptions I've made some reasonable guesses; modeling winner-take-all states, on the other hand, is straightforward. I would be surprised if my delegate estimates were off by more than ten or twenty percent.

Based on the 21 states I have data for so far, here are the statuses of the five potential candidates PPP has consistently polled:

Romney is the frontrunner with an estimated 489 delegates, 171 more than the next strongest competitor. This is with most of Romney's strongest states (in the Northeast) still unpolled.

The second tier of candidates consists of Huckabee with 318 delegates and Gingrich with 263 delegates--a margin of 55 between them. Any large winner-take-all state could put Gingrich out in front, or alternately widen Huckabee's lead; likewise with a series of smaller winner-take-all states or a series of states with proportional allocation. A healthy winning streak could conceivably put either of these candidates ahead of Romney.

Palin is basically the lone inhabitant of the third tier, with 163 delegates--100 behind the weakest of the second-tier candidates. She could end up as a spoiler or even a kingmaker, but it's unlikely that she would win the nomination.

Which brings us to Ron Paul coming in dead last with a mere 17 delegates. Paul more or less constitutes a fourth tier, along with the no-name candidates with little to no name recognition that PPP tends to include as "wild cards." As such, he has practically no chance of winning the nomination, or even playing the spoiler for that matter.

The Interesting Times said...

One more observation about Ron Paul's primary chances:

With 21 states polled already, Paul has thus far failed to win outright in a single state primary--not even his home state of Texas, nor Kentucky where his son crushed Grayson in the Republican Senate Primary. Even Palin managed to win two states outright.

Anonymous said...

Oh yeah. And you believe Rasmussen's numbers. They don't produce accurate results. Paul is down by more than what Rasmussen said.

Anonymous said...

Where did you guys get your diplomas, NRO?

Tribefull said...

Uh, include Jan Brewer but exclude Ron Paul? Worthless poll.

Dr Paul would have done at LEAST 17% in the primary if the media hadn't blackballed him.

Anonymous said...

Obama has Corruptly got into Office, has Cowardly Intimidated the People of the USA. He has done more harm in 18 Months than any other President in over 230 YEARS. I'm not a Racist or a Radical. I'm an American!

Anonymous said...

Is it possible that Pres. Obama's seemingly high poll numbers (higher than the Ds or Rs or Congress) are nothing more than a Bradley Effect, where people are not willing to tell a stranger that they don't support an African American president?

Anonymous said...

I would think that educated Americans would realize that poll numbers only count on election day. Also, all this criticism of Obama is running in three veins. 1) most Americans are not educated enough about how the political process and legislative process works behind closed doors, 2) Americans are video game programmed for instant results regardless of the depth and severity of the challenge at hand, and 3) many Americans who are Independent or Republican and even now some Dems are taking their positions based on racial dislike of an African American being their President. Sad, but awfully true.

The other troubling thing is that when you have the smartest kid in the room as President, the not so smart try to bring him down at all costs.....troubling and regretful. We should all be ashamed of how we shape our perceptions about when ANY president is or is not doing a good job.

Anonymous said...

"It's possible we'll look back on polls like this..."

I'm pretty sure that no matter what happens, nobody's going to remember this silly little poll. Polls like this aren't just "limited." They're useless. They're distractions for slow news days, and with all the REAL problems our nation's facing, slow news days oughtta be few and far between.

Anonymous said...

WOW dont you think this was worth mentioning in the post? Or were you trying to get on Fox?

Q12 Who did you vote for President last year?
John McCain.........................45%
Barack Obama........................46%
Someone else/don't remember ....................... 9%

zororiver | strategy games said...

everybody put too much hope on Obama

Anonymous said...

My aunt Daisy could beat Oblahblah !

Anonymous said...

The important point of this poll is the favorabilities.. Not only that Huckabee is the only one with positive favorability but the level of the his positive numbers in comparison to the others. +9 for him when the next nearest is Romney at -1. Palin at -15 is very telling. The fact that Huckabee is now setting up for weekly shows on top of his hit weekend show is evidence of how well he is being recieved by the American people and will also increase his name recognition even more. Think about how well he did in 2008 with no recognition and no money.

Anonymous said...

If Obama goes down in flames, America will be the better for it.

Pat said...

Tea Party elections of 2010 show that America is hungry for mainstream voting, something it hasn't had in several years, more as a retreat to sanity rather than search for false hope.

 
Web Statistics