Gallup: Palin top choice of Republicans to run in 2012
posted at 2:06 pm on November 22, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
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.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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 2 3 ... 5 Next »
I am.
Spirit of 1776 on November 22, 2008 at 2:11 PM
Uh if Obama doesnt get the economic thing fixed within his first 2 years he will ONLY be a 1 term president.
ousoonerfan15 on November 22, 2008 at 2:13 PM
Its way to early to endorse a candidate right now, but I do think that Romney should be heavily considered. That said, I am giving Obama a chance. And if by some miracle he isnt an insane socialist and if by some chance he actually is a good president, then the GOP should just nominate McCain again.
muyoso on November 22, 2008 at 2:14 PM
Also Palin’s 48 percent for moderates isnt bad at all. Considering all the unfair attacks she has endured.
ousoonerfan15 on November 22, 2008 at 2:16 PM
they picked our candidate this time around and have been running the country for the last 8 years
time for the Ford-Dole-Bush-McCain wing to take a seat on the bench
joey24007 on November 22, 2008 at 2:17 PM
I don`t know, wasn`t the Great Depression still in full swing by the end of FDRs first term? He had a few more years in the White House. It was all that “he makes us feel good” crap that Obama won on.
ThePrez on November 22, 2008 at 2:18 PM
People were excited about Jindal because he’s not an old white dude.
They he actually started governing in LA and became enough of a disappointment that people were considering a recall election. The only good thing he did was veto the pay raise, but even that came after a lot of waffling, and encouragement to make what should have been an easy call.
Plus there’s that exorcism business.
The only real positive I can see is that he was smart enough to stay out of the way of the Obama juggernaut this year.
e-pirate on November 22, 2008 at 2:20 PM
This made my day.
crr6 on November 22, 2008 at 2:20 PM
I will be saying a a little prayer for the ‘Cuda to not shrink from the challenge, get herself more seasoning and give it a go. None of the other front runners excite me in the least but who knows what may happen?
Dritanian on November 22, 2008 at 2:21 PM
Jindal shouldn’t run. He’s way too young. He should hope that maybe he gets tapped for VP, but otherwise he should wait until 2016 and hope that another hurricane hits so that he can boost his “leadership in crisis” cred.
jimmy the notable on November 22, 2008 at 2:22 PM
Why? If it goes that long it would be a depression. The conventional wisdom among the financial experts is that we start to come out of it in 2010.
For the GOP that is good news in that the numbers don’t usually catch up for six months and give an idea of how good or bad it is/was.
Obama may get credit in 2012 for it being on the rebound but the real question is how many of the “youth voters’ will be parents and in the working world struggling to make ends meet. The enthusiasm may have waned considerably.
Bradky on November 22, 2008 at 2:22 PM
Believe me, it will be.
lodge on November 22, 2008 at 2:22 PM
Can we govern for at least a day, befere we “run” again? This should be forbidden, crr6’s tingling, aside.
Entelechy on November 22, 2008 at 2:23 PM
Palin is scoring high in part due to name recognition. We have become a society addicted to polls almost as badly as we are addicted to easy credit.
Bradky on November 22, 2008 at 2:24 PM
No, people were excited about Jindal because he won as a reformist Republican in a horribly corrupt system. Louisiana was sick of the kind of crappy leadership that led to the Katrina disaster (Yes, it was local officials fault, and not Bush’s fault). The fact that he’s not an old white dude certainly helps, but that’s because its the old white dudes who have the highest probability of being shamelessly corrupt.
jimmy the notable on November 22, 2008 at 2:24 PM
I don’t think anything should be “forbidden”. Dems started running right after Bush was re-elected. Now they have to deal with it. No moratorium to suit their revised preferences for “unity”
clnurnberg on November 22, 2008 at 2:25 PM
I wish Jeb didn’t have the last name, Bush. While my wife and I were moving to HOuston from Cape Coral, we drove down I-10, and happened to catch his final State of the State address. He listed several of his administration’s achievements, and one of the ones he was most proud of was reducing the state’s employment roll by several thousand. That means he fired people. Cut their jobs. Made people unemployed. And he was proud of it. It was music to my ears. He was a great Gov.
Weight of Glory on November 22, 2008 at 2:26 PM
Jindal shouldn’t even think of running until 2016 due to his age. If Steele manages to help attract Hispanics and Blacks to the party over the next several years Jindal would be in good position if we are at the end of 8 years of Obama. party fatigue works both ways.
Bradky on November 22, 2008 at 2:26 PM
I would volunteer to help her campaign.
Palin Rocks!
Firebird on November 22, 2008 at 2:27 PM
go ahead. run palin.
ernesto on November 22, 2008 at 2:27 PM
Yeah. Just look at the results of this election.
kingsjester on November 22, 2008 at 2:27 PM
Obama will have so many scandals by 2012, people will be sick of him.
Firebird on November 22, 2008 at 2:28 PM
It is hard to say what will happen in the future. However, it is hard to believe that once Obama and the Democrats have a record to run against that they will not become at least somewhat vulnerable in 2012. But like I said, things are unpredictable, we don’t know.
terryannonline on November 22, 2008 at 2:28 PM
Jeb also worked very had to move Florida’s economy away from being solely tourism and retail.
Weight of Glory on November 22, 2008 at 2:29 PM
I read something this morning saying the this was the first time in over a hundred years where the presidents had back to back 8 year administrations.
Bradky on November 22, 2008 at 2:29 PM
Recession won’t last, but the pain from Obama’s actions will…
right2bright on November 22, 2008 at 2:29 PM
Well, I don’t think the recession will last until 2012 either, but will we the unemployment rate be less than 6.5%?
Will fuel cost $5 a gallon again?
Will Americans keep more of their money, or will they pay more to Uncle Sam?
Will Americans have better health care?
Will Iran have acquired nukes?
Will Democracy be on the march, or on the retreat?
Obama promised us the world, and then some, if he doesn’t deliver he doesn’t deserve re-election.
El_Terrible on November 22, 2008 at 2:29 PM
+1
Firebird on November 22, 2008 at 2:31 PM
Yep, the media will not be abke to run him as the Immaculate Conception in 12
clnurnberg on November 22, 2008 at 2:31 PM
So what’s the capital of Assyria?
(Warning — obscure Palin reference. Not that Palin.)
Tennman on November 22, 2008 at 2:31 PM
Good point. Today he promised 2.5 million jobs. That is one huge promise!
terryannonline on November 22, 2008 at 2:33 PM
we are in the middle of THE Obama Recession. Its his problem now.
ousoonerfan15 on November 22, 2008 at 2:33 PM
If Obama stays more to the center as Clinton did he will have a good chance of being reelected.
As to your questions
Yes
No
pay more
yes
depends on Israel
no way to tell but if that were the criteria important to voters Obama wouldn’t have been elected.
Bradky on November 22, 2008 at 2:33 PM
In this case, I don’t subscribe to the conventional wisdom. As of yet, I don’t see movement to resolve the core issues and there doesn’t seem to be the opportunity for the market to work itself out (as we are seeing again this week with the big 3).
Spirit of 1776 on November 22, 2008 at 2:33 PM
Yeah, unless he’s really messed up in the interim, I doubt Obama would have much trouble with her.
Allahpundit on November 22, 2008 at 2:34 PM
thats very likely to happen allah.
ousoonerfan15 on November 22, 2008 at 2:35 PM
Obama will be re-elected unless he somehow pisses on the MSM’s cornflakes.
Silly conservatives keep thinking that truth and honor will matter more in four years, that charges of hypocrisy will stick, that Bush won’t be hounded by Holder, that the MSM will discover a conscience, that Jesus people will stop offering stupid sound-bites thinking they’re speaking for God, that women voters will suddenly become smarter…
On and on and on it goes.
Joan of Argghh on November 22, 2008 at 2:35 PM
It doesn’t require a high level of pessimism to believe that we haven’t yet experienced the full extent of the financial collapse and it may take a decade or more to dig ourselves out.
The Nikkei is at less than 25% of what it was 17 years ago. In the U.S. it took 25 years to get back to the 1929 peak. Of course things are some flavor of different with this market–hopefully better, not worse.
dedalus on November 22, 2008 at 2:36 PM
Yeah, it would be racist to limit Obama to a single 4 year term. What would that say about America?
/Matthews
Spirit of 1776 on November 22, 2008 at 2:36 PM
Saw an interesting article about what a depression might look like. In some ways people would be oblivious to it. scary.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/11/16/depression_2009_what_would_it_look_like/?page=full
Bradky on November 22, 2008 at 2:37 PM
The title is ‘Articulate Deception’
thomasaur on November 22, 2008 at 2:37 PM
I would be one of the conservatives opposed to Jindal running on the mere fact that I don’t want him to have to go against the Obama machine and damage his chances in the future.
TheNolan on November 22, 2008 at 2:37 PM
OT: Will Barry have to step out of the oval office and go outside when he starts to smoke again?
Firebird on November 22, 2008 at 2:37 PM
I like Palin, but who knows? Four years ago everyone thought it would be Rudy and Hillary.
As for the scarlet B, we don’t know what that will be like in the future either. I think Bush has been unfairly treated by a lot of people, including those in his own party so his brother might not want it anyway whatever the future holds.
Terrye on November 22, 2008 at 2:37 PM
My top choices for 2012 are Romney, then Newt.
Palin – I like her, but don’t think she can win.
Huck – No way.
Petraeus – Good if national security is the top issue (same with McCain) otherwise no.
Rudy – Personally wouldn’t mind, but he won’t make it.
Jindal – 2016, unless Obama really screws up.
Jeb – Ruined by last name
Crist and Graham – NO
The Dean on November 22, 2008 at 2:39 PM
What does Mark Sanford have to do to just get included on one of these lists? Seriously, Graham? There are probably a dozen better conservatives in SC alone.
LastRick on November 22, 2008 at 2:40 PM
Yeah, I certainly agree we’ve not had the full extent yet.
I read that the other day as well. We live in interesting times.
Spirit of 1776 on November 22, 2008 at 2:41 PM
How are you so certain?
terryannonline on November 22, 2008 at 2:41 PM
I think you are more likely to see a Senator Preston Bush rather than Jeb getting back into it.
Bradky on November 22, 2008 at 2:41 PM
As for a ton of names not mentioned: Yes. There are a ton of prospects in Congress or as governors that would be better than Lindsey Graham and co.
The Dean on November 22, 2008 at 2:41 PM
This rotisserie league stuff is a fun way to fill the days until the next POTUS election cycle starts, but polls are this point are just name recognition–I’m still waiting for the Rudy/Hillary faceoff that looked inevitable for years.
No point picking a horse to back until the GOP discovers the themes it wants to run on in 2012 and that means waiting to see how Obama defines his presidency and what works in the 2010 mid-terms.
dedalus on November 22, 2008 at 2:42 PM
Let’s not forget that something no one is even thinking about now could happen to derail Obama. That is politics.
Terrye on November 22, 2008 at 2:42 PM
Just imagine a significant number of people either moving back in with parents or parents moving in with kids. the sarcastic phrase would be “Well thank Obama” or something along those lines. the kids who move back in would be hating life. Parents would be depressed.
Bradky on November 22, 2008 at 2:44 PM
Probably because the world is in love with the US now. Oceans will recede, terrorism will cease. America will be secure and prosperous (depends on your definition of “is”, of course).
Spirit of 1776 on November 22, 2008 at 2:44 PM
Please Huck, run.
Once bitten. Twice will be a rejection.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on November 22, 2008 at 2:45 PM
BTW, since when were the primaries extended to four years?
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on November 22, 2008 at 2:46 PM
She’s not stupid or naive. If she doesn’t have a good shot at winning the election, she is going to volunteer to fall on her sword a second time. In the interim, hopefully we can rid our party of rinos, democrats, and libertarians who are obsessed with atheism.
Blake on November 22, 2008 at 2:46 PM
Politics being what it is one has to keep in mind that even with Palin being the well known name, not every GOP pol is going to be satisfied to sit on the sidelines. much of the negative stuff about her will come from within the ranks.
Bradky on November 22, 2008 at 2:46 PM
So, from conservative Repub. to liberal Repub, it’s either Romney or Palin coming out on top, with Huck a close third.
There’s something very, very disturbing about that.
JetBoy on November 22, 2008 at 2:47 PM
Luckily, the MSM can’t cover for a President the way they did for a senator with a razor thin resume. Prior to this Barry’s friends and decisions were easy to hide. Presidential decisions have consequences for millions and cannot be so easily buried even by a devoted and fawning press corps.
And why assume he will not screw up? Governing from the center, and I’m not convinced this will happen no matter who he appoints will be seen as a screw up by his most ardent leftist devotees. And tinkering with the economy will surely lead to blunders, not just well-intentioned errors, but substantive choices based on his crazy philosophies.
Hopefully the Clintons will prevent too much damage in the international arena.
clnurnberg on November 22, 2008 at 2:47 PM
I’m not certain, although many conservatives seem certain that she’d be a great pick despite all the polls showing that her appeal bled away among independents as the campaign progressed. A lot of America simply doesn’t think much of her, even if our readers do.
Allahpundit on November 22, 2008 at 2:48 PM
Please please please pick this vacuous incurious ditz for 2012.
It will be awesome seeing her destroy the party once and for all.
Dave Rywall on November 22, 2008 at 2:48 PM
Come on people … we know that John McCain is the only Republican to run in 2012!
joey24007 on November 22, 2008 at 2:48 PM
Let’s hope before 2012!
The dem’s are more corrupt then we will ever know, if you think they don’t know about hussein,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sFuzrEDwCc
christene on November 22, 2008 at 2:48 PM
eh, they have a while now to rip Palin to shreds more. She’ll be worthless by 2012 once they are done with her. She could find the cure for cancer and the Dems would still find something wrong with it.
johnnyU on November 22, 2008 at 2:48 PM
I believe this tradition began in November of 2004 after the Kerry candidacy post-mortem
clnurnberg on November 22, 2008 at 2:49 PM
I worry more about Bill dying in a turkish brothel while Hillary is in the midst of a sensitive negotiation in the region…
Bradky on November 22, 2008 at 2:49 PM
a lot of Americans voted for a community organizer who once claimed that the Constitution was the fundamental flaw of the United States
joey24007 on November 22, 2008 at 2:49 PM
5 invalid criticisms of why candidates should or should not run for President: 1) that somebody is too young-why then did the Founding Fathers agree to the age of 35; anybody 35 or older is not too young or by projection inexperienced 2)that one should be disqualified for running because of who his brother was -should Edwin Booth have given up acting because his brother JW Booth killed Lincoln?3)the state of the economy-one should run out of principle and belief and not to ’save the world or America jobs’ 4)that a candidate is not white-has nothing to do with his or her ability to perform as President 5)that a candidate can’t win-did anybody really think McCain had a chance to get his party’s nomination in Sept. 2007 when he was picking up his own bags at the airport carousel
technopeasant on November 22, 2008 at 2:50 PM
If Palin was such a non threat to the Messiah … why do these stories bring all of the trolls?
joey24007 on November 22, 2008 at 2:51 PM
I still think a lot of this “crisis” is media driven. Pretty soon after The One is installed into office, the media will start playing up every sign of improvement as the greatest thing since sliced bread. That will in turn get people motivated to spend which of course encourages manufacturing and so on and so on. And He will be the cause of it all! The Republicans will find the candidate they would most like to throw under the bus and we will have eight years of Obama. Or he will be like Jimmy Carter and just can’t help himself by “fixing” everything. So our governors have to be ready by making sure that their states are improving.
Cindy Munford on November 22, 2008 at 2:51 PM
The key is a better media. I doubt that old Ms Howell is serious about being fair, but the problem has been identified by even the MSM
clnurnberg on November 22, 2008 at 2:52 PM
To be fair, this is unquestionably a statement that could have been made on a left-leaning blog about Hillary last year.
The tides in the country are more important then a slice-in-time poll reading. If the left, having all aspects of government in their power, does poorly then the above will be irrelevant.
Spirit of 1776 on November 22, 2008 at 2:52 PM
I’m just hoping that our party does in fact nominate a Republican this time…
The Dean on November 22, 2008 at 2:53 PM
Do you have any reason to believe they won’t do it again?
RightOFLeft on November 22, 2008 at 2:53 PM
The average life expectancy was about 40 when the founders set up that rule. Big difference between acting and being president.
Bradky on November 22, 2008 at 2:53 PM
Why are you interested in there only being one party? Do you really embrace that? Or is it just the conservatives of the Republican party, so we will have Democrats and Democrat-light?
Cindy Munford on November 22, 2008 at 2:53 PM
Gas prices rising, housing market falling and banks drowning are not media inventions, and too bad. But this does leave Obama with plenty of room to fail.
clnurnberg on November 22, 2008 at 2:54 PM
Americans don’t know much about her, she was only on the campaign trail for a few months. So it is premature to say one way or another if she would make an good candidate four years from now.
terryannonline on November 22, 2008 at 2:55 PM
LOL,…No that’s hussein who will destroy the dem’s. Governor Palin will unite this country just as she did any sane person. Republicans can’t be responsible for the weak minded or those determined to destroy our country.
Ditz? As compared to what? Hussein’s G.P.A? What is it? Oh, my bad, I forgot he wont release ANY of his past records.
christene on November 22, 2008 at 2:55 PM
He’ll have 4 years to blame it on Bush and the Republicans. We’ll have a lot of convincing to do even if O’s first term is a bust.
The Dean on November 22, 2008 at 2:55 PM
Until that kind of characterization is dropped “dem lite” or to be fair from the other view “neocon” the party is not unified and will not win elections.
Bradky on November 22, 2008 at 2:56 PM
No … I have reason to believe that this part of the electorate is easily swayed
I mean … why is somebody an independent? or a “moderate?”
There was no way Reagan could appeal to these people after his 76′ defeat … right?
LMAO … this continued reliance on the opinions on the independents and “moderates” is almost comical
joey24007 on November 22, 2008 at 2:56 PM
In 2012 he will have an actual record to defend and all this “light-worker” BS will be outed as stupidity in the face of the cold light of policy decisions. Americans will have to choose petween two flesh and blood candidates in 12
clnurnberg on November 22, 2008 at 2:56 PM
Prime example of why McCain lost to Obama.
JetBoy on November 22, 2008 at 2:56 PM
and don’t worry because AP will do his best to make sure that even the average reader here won’t find out more about her … with such important stories as this turkey nonsense
joey24007 on November 22, 2008 at 2:58 PM
Bradky: but 35 is 35 whichever way you want to slice it. Was a 35 year old a lot smarter 215 years ago?
technopeasant on November 22, 2008 at 2:58 PM
One might consider whether any candidate ever challenged again after similar opinions had been initially established in voters’ minds–perhaps Hillary, Reagan, Nixon are examples of candidates who recovered to varying extents from high national negatives.
dedalus on November 22, 2008 at 2:59 PM
Regardless of how people feel about Palin right now, by the time 2012 gets here, America will be craving a kick-ass corruption buster. That is Palin. I definitely see her on the ticket somehow, and think that she and Romney would complement each other well for the GOP.
This gives her four years to continue building herself up and proving to American dopes that she is no dope herself.
ErinF on November 22, 2008 at 2:59 PM
He can’t blame the consequences of his decisions on Bush for four years. Even if he can blame Bush for the problems now, and that is a stretch given Dem involvement, if the problems persist his actions will be seen as inept (especially given the phenomenal build up) and we will be ready for “Hope and Change” with someone else
clnurnberg on November 22, 2008 at 2:59 PM
Cindy Munford on November 22, 2008 at 2:53 PM
Dave, being Canadian, seems to have an affinity for Liberalism and Socialism. He views Conservatism as archaic and views Conservatives as intellectually inferior.
kingsjester on November 22, 2008 at 3:00 PM
I think most people believe that 35 or 40 is too young and inexperienced to deal with the problems of today.
Bradky on November 22, 2008 at 3:01 PM
Michael Steele/Sarah Palin 2012………..
……………. just the thought of it brings fear to the left, and a very cold shiver down their spines!
Just think, no “oreo” comments because of Mr. Obama, President Elect, the Office of, and Sarah will have four years to bitch slap the MSM…………
Seven Percent Solution on November 22, 2008 at 3:01 PM
so why are people as young as 18 allowed to vote?
35 is 35 … end of story
joey24007 on November 22, 2008 at 3:02 PM
I will never believe hussein won this election. Acorn working the votes for the last 2 years, MSM working for him, voter fraud documented, not one district recounted. McLame conceding before the nights over and then kissing up to him? Something stinks about this whole election. The Liberals/Democraps have a surprise waiting for them come 2010/2012.
christene on November 22, 2008 at 3:02 PM
35 was a lot smarter even 20 years ago. The education system has done a lot of damage by eliminating the canon of DWEMs and replacing it with multicultural and gender driven bullshit
clnurnberg on November 22, 2008 at 3:02 PM
Dontcha see? That’s the beauty of it! He doesn’t have to! The media and hollyweird will do that for him. He just has to spend the next four years trying not to make any wild gaffes in between going to the gym and the basketball court.
ErinF on November 22, 2008 at 3:02 PM
13 more years and you can run – don’t worry it won’t change.
Bradky on November 22, 2008 at 3:04 PM
My point was that the same people who AP thinks “don’t have a high opinion of Palin” voted for the Messiah … who is about as much as an empty suit as you can get
these people are easily swayed … you are talking about a country in which nearly half of the people don’t know that there are 3 branches to the federal government
joey24007 on November 22, 2008 at 3:05 PM
Absolutely. I’d be interested in a study of famous pols’ approval ratings over time, to see who recovered from early bad impressions and who didn’t. I wonder if there are certain types of impressions that are possible to repair and certain other types that aren’t. Hillary was always seen as ruthless and ambitious, but never stupid. She recovered. Quayle was seen as dumb. He didn’t. Then again, so was Reagan, and he did. Although I never understood that impression about him; if you watch him talking about communism and economic policy in old videos from the 50s, he’s perfectly fluid and eloquent.
Allahpundit on November 22, 2008 at 3:05 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 ... 5 Next »