Thursday, July 15, 2010

Amazing Fact

When we first started polling a Barack Obama/Sarah Palin Presidential contest in March of 2009 her favorability was 39/50 and she trailed Obama 55-35.

Now her favorability is actually even worse at 37/52, but she's knotted with Obama at 46%.

Makes you wonder how much the Republicans would be beating Obama by right now if they actually had any candidates people liked. And it certainly confirms that the shifts we've seen over the last year are all about Obama and not a sign of faith in the GOP hopefuls.


Anonymous said...

Its ridiculous to suggest that the GOP doesn't have people that are liked. How many people in 2006 thought a man with no national political experience, no personal accomplishments, questionable associates, would become president 3 years later?

Its all about the political environment in 2012 and the success/failure of the president that will drive people towards or away from the GOP candidate regardless of who it is.

Christian Liberty said...

Republicans won the House and Senate in 1994 with unknown candidates, based on Americans' discontent with the Democrats and Clinton. Few who voted had even heard of the Contract with America. This is certainly no different. Democrats are destroying their party as they destroy the economy and healthcare system.

Christian Liberty said...

No amount of attacking Republicans can save Democrats from the consequences of their own miserable failure and corrupt reign of terror.

Anonymous said...

It's very likely that the 2012 nominee for the Republicans won't be one of these "re-treads" ... maybe not a complete unknown, but certainly a fresher face on the national scene than the ones you are currently polling. I'm thinking of people like Mitch Daniels, John Thune, Bobby Jindal, Tim Pawlenty ...

Anonymous said...

Look at the pattern of Senate primaries this year. You have establishment backed candidates polling weel at first (i.e Sue Lowden, charlie Crist). Then the Tea Parties back some unknown person who ends up winning the primary (i.e Rubio, Angle, and Rand Paul). I think the 2012 Presidential primaries will be the same way. Someone with less national profile (i.e Thune, Barbour, or Pawlenty) will rise up and push aside Mtt, Sarah, and Huck.

Dustin Ingalls said...

"Few who voted had even heard of the Contract with America."

Funny to hear you admit that, since you'd probably then have claimed ALL AMERICANS SUPPORT THE CONTRACT WITH AMERICA! ALL GOOD COMES FROM THE RIGHT! ALL EVIL COMES FROM THE LEFT! as you do now regarding your fantasies about the Tea Party and Americans' ideologies and voting habits.

Anonymous said...

Anon and Christian Liberty- that would be true if you had any facts to back up your assertions. I think a lot of people in 2006 thought that he could become President (the proof I have is that he did in fact become President). I don't think he went from absolutely 0 people who thought he could win to receiving 66 million votes. Additionally, no political experience? He gave the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in 2006--I think that counts for national political experience. The GOP can't hide behind the fact that right now their crop of candidates looks very weak, especially compared to the Democratic candidates that ran for the 2008 nomination.

Christian Liberty said...

Anonymous, the proof is that Obama LOST the nomination to Hillary (Obama lost the primaries and only became nominated by rampant voting fraud in the caucuses and DNC rules committee.) Obama is so completely unqualified even a majority of Democrats recognized this in 2008.

Dustin, the overwhelming majority of Americans agree with the Contract with America and the Tea Party. They just were not familiar enough with the document to know that Republicans stand for everything the majority of Americans (and all informed, moral Americans) already stand for. In a similar way, the overwhelming majority of Americans support the Tea Party principles; they just have been lied to by the leftist lamestream media and do not have an adequate understanding that Republicans stand for everything they as honest Americans already believe.

Christian Liberty said...

The short answer is that the majority of Americans already believe in what the Tea Party believes in. They just need to learn that the Tea Party supports everything they as honest Americans already believe in.

The left and the media and the political class do their best to misrepresent the views of the Tea Party, but the more people learn about the Tea Party the more they learn that the Tea Party represents them well.

Christian Liberty said...

Obama stole the election against Hillary. Even Democrats knew Obama was not capable of leading America.

Christian Liberty said...

The vast majority of Americans support Tea Party principles, whether they have actually attended a Tea Party or not. They don't have to have actually attended a Tea Party to know that Democrats' ideas are wrong and their values are abhorrent. Independents know that Democrats do NOT represent them. But they may not have yet learned that (for the most part) Republicans and Tea Parties DO.

Christian Liberty said...

Dustin, despite everything I've tried to teach you, you still are very confused on "Americans' ideologies and voting habits". Allow me to help you understand American political thought.

In the center, the overwhelming majority of Americans support and practice the principles of the Tea Party (whether they can properly identify them as Tea Party principles or not).

On the left are the delusional nutjobs and corrupt political hacks who do not yet admit that the federal government needs to be reduced in size, scope, power, and spending.

On the right are the principled conservatives who are frustrated with the Tea Party and the Republican Party because the Tea Party and the Republican Party compromise too much and do not go far enough in demanding liberty under a Constitutionally limited government.

That is the political spectrum for the foreseeable future. That is the political spectrum that America was founded upon.

The founding debates were between those who would agree with the Tea Party (federalists) and those who would be on the right (anti-federalists). There is simply no place in America's founding for the extreme left-wing that populates today's Democratic party. Today's Democratic party is completely unAmerican in their political aims. All patriotic moral Americans would be either federalists or anti-federalists (supporting the Tea Party or frustrated that the Tea Party is too far to the left.)

Until you acknowledge that the overwhelming majority of Americans agree with Tea Party principles, rather than progressive delusions, none of your professional advice will be worthwhile.

Anonymous said...

Christian Liberty, do you get your numbers from Rasmussen?

And also Republicans/Tea Party aren't winning on their strength alone this year. Let's get that straight. If Democrats hadn't nominated Harry Reid, Alexi Giannoulias, and Blanche Lincoln they would be in a much better position. I'm sure you are no fan of Mark Kirk or John Boozman so whatever, but Sharron Angle would be miles behind someone else at this point in the campaign. And what if Democrats had nominated Biden in Delaware, a reasonable candidate in Colorado, and North Carolina, and gotten Bayh to not retire?

Do you have facts to backup caucus fraud?

Anonymous said...

I forgot to add that Grayson in Kentucky would have won easily.

Anonymous said...

Well, according to the Bloomberg poll, Jindal and Petraeus are popular nationwide. Ya'll should try one of them on the next national poll.

Anonymous said...

Christian Liberty- Obama lost the nomination? Even Fox News won't say that. Just how far out of the mainstream are you? As a proud and ardent Hillary supporter, I understand that Sen. Obama defeated Sen. Clinton. There was no fraud or breaking of rules.

And what does it say about your party that you think the Democratic nominee wasn't even supported by a majority of Democrats but then managed to beat your candidate by 8 million votes?

Unknown said...

In Nevada, polls showed that aside from Oscar Goodman, the other top Democrats in Nevada would still have trailed the Republican. In Illinois, Kirk led Hoffman and Jackson by ever greater leads than Giannoulias. In Arkansas, polls showed than Boozeman would still beat Halter, although by a slimmer margin. In Delaware, Mike Castle had a decent lead over Beau Biden, which is why he ultimately didn't run. Colorado looks competitive regardless of whether Bennet or Romanoff wins the primary. In North Carolina, Burr had an even larger lead over Cunningham than over Marshall. In Indiana, polls showed that Bayh would have been vulnerable even if he had run for reelection.

Anonymous said...

Phillip ... really?

A) Nevada. Anybody other than Reid: That poll is way out of date and taken before the chicken nonsense and Sharron Angle came around. Obviously, someone without the unpopularity of Reid would be leading Angle by a lot now.

B) Illinois. Madigan?

C) Indiana. What polls are you talking about? Bayh's approval was +20 (and in this climate yes...), Coats is a horrible candidate etc. etc.

D) Arkansas. This is true. Boozman probably would have beaten Halter. It is not a complete writeoff though.

E) Colorado. What if the governor had appointed someone like Hickenlooper, the popular Mayor of Denver? Bennet is a complete nobody. It is Ritter's fault that the seat is contested.

Christian Liberty:
Do you think the Bush era was a good time for the Tea Party? (i.e. reduced government, spending, conservative values etc.)

Anonymous said...

"Makes you wonder how much the Republicans would be beating Obama by right now if they actually had any candidates people liked."

Too bad you didn't poll Ron Paul this time. Your last poll showed him up amongst independents and less down overall in favorability ratings than all the other candidates.

You probably should include Paul continually to see just how the most widely know libertarian figure and possible independent candidate would do vs Obama. I suspect this time around he would have bested Romney.

Anonymous said...

I am inclined to agree with this post. As a Republican I fear that in 2012 Obama will be VERY vulnerable, yet he will cruise to re-election (i.e. 52%+) because the Republicans will nominate the leftovers from 2008. If Republicans are left with the retreads from 2008 they don't have a chance in 2012. The GOP's best up and coming stars will be ready to take the next step in 2016, not 2012.

Unknown said...

Nevada: You could use that same argument to explain why Harry Reid is competitive right now. But, given that the poll showed that other Democrats performed only marginally better, I couldn't see them being safe.
Illinois: Giannoulias, Hoffman, and Jackson were the only candidates who actually ran. Given their obvious flaws, if Madigan were so much more electable, why didn't she enter the race and wipe the floor with the other candidates?
Colorado: Hickenlopper is currently in a dead heat with Scott McInnis, which would seem to indicate that he wouldn't be that much better than Bennet or Romanoff in terms of electability.

Anonymous said...

Welcome Back, Dad

I've been trying to convince my fellow conservatives that they have been wasting their time in a fruitless quest for a new Ronald Reagan to emerge and lead our party and our nation. I insisted that we'd never see his like again because he was one of a kind. I was wrong! Wednesday night I watched the Republican National Convention on television and there, before my very eyes, I saw my Dad reborn; only this time he's a she. And what a she! This was Ronald Reagan at his best -- the same Ronald Reagan who made the address known now solely as "The Speech," which during the Goldwater campaign set the tone and the agenda for the rebirth of the traditional conservative movement that later sent him to the White House for eight years and revived the moribund GOP. Welcome back, Dad, even if you're wearing a dress and bearing children this time around.

~Michael Reagan, radio talk show host and son of President Ronald Reagan

Mark said...

People like Ron Paul.
GOP Republicans don't.

He's the proof.

The GOP ran a poll.

The results clearly show Ron Paul as the members of the GOP (the people that donate money) choice "for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012."

The TOP 3 ISSUES were:
1) Economy/Employment
2) Federal Spending
3) National Deficit

These are three things Ron has been talking about for years now, long before people knew who Obama was.

The GOP is committing political suicide by not embracing Ron's message. Obama will win again if this does not change.

Anonymous said...

The short answer is that the majority of Americans already believe in what the Tea Party believes in.

I notice Christian Liberty, like most right wing radicals, likes to speak in absolutes. And how convenient! All your self generated absolutes prove that you are 100% right about everything. I think the arrogance and narcissism of the radical right is among its most fascinating attributes.

Do you think the majority of Americans want Social Security to be privatized or eliminated? Do you think they want their government run health care - i.e. Medicare - taken away? How about Unemployment Insurance and the minimum wage? Do they support corporate welfare such as tax breaks for oil companies and companies that outsource jobs overseas? Do they believe in more and more tax cuts for millionaires?

No they don't. The tea party is a minority view that even its own members are mostly confused about. A great many of them are themselves the beneficiaries of government payouts. They are being used by corporate interests, through the propaganda efforts of Fox News. Their lack of education and their cultural bigotries make them easy prey for the propagandists.

It has always been thus with right wing movements - they prey on ignorance and hatreds. The current American public is overweight, undereducated and defiantly selfish. That isn't patriotism. It's a pathology.

Anonymous said...

Fun fact: Obama's approval ratings are actually slightly BETTER than Ronald Reagan's at this point in his presidency. Don't expect the "liberal media" to explain that truth to their audience. Doesn't fit the narrative.

It's like how Tea Partiers screeching about high taxes don't pause to learn that their taxes are the LOWEST in a generation. They're too busy carrying water for their millionaire overlords, protecting the fortunes of the ultra rich from contributing anything to the society that nurtured them.

Please find me a Tea Partier who isn't on Social Security or Medicare or Unemployment Insurance or living in Section 8 subsidized housing or benefiting from government education grants ... Find me that Tea Partier and let him explain to his buddies how and why their lives will be better in the dog eat dog world that the Libertarians want to bring to America.

The one thing the Tea Party won't be able to deal with is the truth - if anyone involved in their organization ever speaks it.

Anonymous said...

Christian Liberty, you've outdone yourself. A nonsense conspiracy that Obama stole the primaries? Really? And your utter fantasy about what Americans believe is just getting nuttier and nuttier every day. Pretty soon your head is going to explode trying to convince yourself of your lies. You're not convincing anyone else.

Anonymous said...

Phillip, PPP conducted the Nevada poll in January, before we had chicken lady Lowden and I'm not in the business of creating jobs and i want to privatize social security Angle.

Now that that is out about the Republican candidates, imagine someone without Reid's unpopularity. That poll is decades ago in political life.

Web Statistics