Gallup: Palin top choice of Republicans to run in 2012

posted at 2:06 pm on November 22, 2008 by Allahpundit

They’re asking whether various candidates should run, not who the nominee should be, but it’s a fair proxy for enthusiasm. 67 percent say yes to the ‘Cuda, 62 to Romney, 61 to Huck. No one else cracks 50. Among conservative Republicans, it’s Palin 73, Huck 65, Mitt 64; among moderates and liberals, Mitt 59, Palin 48, Huck 46. Based on those numbers, it’s actually Romney who’s best positioned to unite the party.

The more I think about it, the more skeptical I am that all three will run. Even I’m not pessimistic enough to believe the recession will last until 2012, which means The One will inevitably be credited with having succeeded in his chief task by the time his term ends. Huckabee will run anyway because he’s hot to remake the party in his image, but Romney doesn’t strike me as eager for another expensive primary war just to be a sacrificial lamb in the general. My hunch is he’ll run only if Obama looks vulnerable and, even then, only if there are enough social cons running to split the base among them so that his strength with moderates is magnified. (It worked for McCain this year, didn’t it?) If he doesn’t run, I assume Pawlenty will throw in and try to capture those moderates with his “Sam’s Club” rhetoric. He won’t win, but he desperately needs a higher profile if he’s going to make a serious run in the future. (It worked for Huckabee this year, didn’t it?)

But never mind that. Check out the numbers for Newt, Jindal, and poor, poor Jeb, alone among all candidates with 60+ percent urging him not to run because of the scarlet “B” he bears upon his chest. I’m surprised to see Gingrich at -1 overall and shocked to find Jindal at -2, although he’ll improve of course as his fame grows. What has he done to warrant more people opposed to him running than in favor? Maybe that exorcism thing made a wider impression than we realize. Or maybe this is a case where the answer isn’t a fair proxy for party enthusiasm: People may have concluded that he’s simply too young and needs to wait until 2016. For the record, he insisted just yesterday that he’s not running. Of course, he was in Iowa at the time.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5

You saying Palin’s dad has a fossil doesn’t mean she didn’t say that.
I would love for Palin to take questions on ToE and YEC.
it would be uber.
I can see the resultant SNL skit from here.

matoko_chan on November 25, 2008 at 7:58 PM

You get your news from SNL, don’t you?

Look, I’m only going to say this one more time. She is on the record as saying that only science should be taught in science class. She said that she has great respect for science because her father is a science teacher. Her off handed comment about “teaching both” was a way to alleviate the social tension over this issue. She was not pontificating about Supreme Court decisions, she was trying to find a middle ground. See, finding a middle ground is what people who are tolerant do. People who are open to other people’s beliefs want to find a middle ground. Her teach both comment was spoken in the same vein as the famous quip that the answer to free speech that offends you is more free speech. Don’t like what’s being said, then say something in response. However, as stated, she believes that science (i.e., evolution) should be taught in science class. No amount of your snickering and lies will change this fact.

ramrocks on November 25, 2008 at 8:11 PM

ramrocks on November 25, 2008 at 8:11 PM

http://palintorianguard.blogspot.com/

joey24007 on November 25, 2008 at 8:24 PM

“Teaching both” is illegal, and she should be well-informed enough to know that.
We just had the 8 year reign of a well-intentioned evangelical bumbler who simply wasn’t up to the job.
I doubt very much that we will ever elect another one.

matoko_chan on November 25, 2008 at 8:25 PM

“Teaching both” is illegal, and she should be well-informed enough to know that.
We just had the 8 year reign of a well-intentioned evangelical bumbler who simply wasn’t up to the job.
I doubt very much that we will ever elect another one.

matoko_chan on November 25, 2008 at 8:25 PM

Seriously … are you on dope right now?

joey24007 on November 25, 2008 at 8:30 PM

Nope, we just elected a guy that sat in a pew listening to BLT for 20+ years. He liked it so much that not only was he married in that church, he also had both of his daughters baptized by the hate spewing BLT preacher…

Gohawgs on November 25, 2008 at 8:30 PM

matoko_chan on November 25, 2008 at 8:25 PM

There are just as many holes in evolution as there are in creationism. Most of both is based purely in speculation with bits and pieces of proof here and there. I think they should both be taught as theories, not as scientific fact. Better yet, until you have conclusive evidence not marred with gaping holes don’t teach either.

We’re having this debate in Texas right now. The creepies are coming out of the woodwork to worship science. Hey, if you want to believe you came from monkeys go for it. But don’t force it down my kids’ throats. Seems there are better things to teach in school.

Doppleganker on November 26, 2008 at 7:36 AM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5