Rasmussen: Huckabee 29, Romney 24, Palin 18
posted at 4:29 pm on October 16, 2009 by Allahpundit
In July it was Romney 25, Palin 24, Huck 22.
Then again, Rudy Giuliani once pulled something like 45 percent before last year’s primaries. Perspective.
These numbers reflect an improvement for Huckabee since July when the three candidates were virtually even. Huckabee’s gain appears to be Palin’s loss as Romney’s support has barely changed.
The numbers for Huckabee and Romney look even stronger when GOP voters were asked which candidate they would least like to see get the nomination. Pawlenty came on top in that category with 28%. Palin was second at 21% while 20% named Gingrich. Romney and Huckabee were in the single digits with 9% and 8% respectively…
Romney leads all prospects among voters who attend church once a month or less. Huckabee leads among more frequent churchgoers. Huckabee holds a huge lead among Evangelical Christians with Palin in second and Romney a distant third.
The person Republicans would least like to see win the nomination is … Tim Pawlenty? I thought the rap on T-Paw, at least for the moment, is that he didn’t inspire strong feelings one way or another. As for Sarahcuda, on the same day that he took the July poll, Rasmussen ran another one asking if her decision to resign would help or hurt her presidential ambitions. The split was 24/40 — and yet she was still ahead of Huckabee at the time. If it’s not her resignation that’s hurting her now, as I speculated this morning, what is? Too much Levi Johnston freak show collateral damage, maybe? I don’t think most people even know who he is.
Not to worry, says Matt Latimer. Authenticity shall triumph in the end:
Palin isn’t going away (at least not yet) because in her own way she represents what Barack Obama represented for many Democrats: someone who stands apart from the corrupt and cynical Washington system that has let true believers down. Republicans remember that Palin stood up against the crooked Republican establishment in Alaska—while out-of touch GOP senators in Washington actually applauded Alaska’s crony-in-chief, Ted “Bridge to Nowhere” Stevens, after he was booted out of office amid scandal. (The charges against Stevens were eventually dropped.)
The rank-and-file are tired of the bland phonies running the GOP. They are tired of Republican compromises that bloated spending and expanded the federal government. And they feel helpless against a team of buddies running each campaign more cynically than the last. GOP voters just might be ready to burn their village down in order to save it. You can almost hear the line now. What’s the difference between a hockey mom and Robespierre? Lipstick.
If the grand pooh-bahs of the GOP think they can find someone to push her aside, their pickings seem drearily slim. Version 2.0 of the governor affectionately known in some circles as “Mitt Rom-bot” is currently under construction. It will probably function just as lamely as the last. Poor Governor Romney. Every move the Mittster makes looks like it has first been diagrammed in a PowerPoint presentation. When commentators noted that even his hair looked too perfect, his aides mussed it up. It ended up looking perfectly disheveled. We’ve had enough inauthenticity for a while.
We’ve had enough ideological inauthenticity, but using the degree of dishevelment of Mitt Romney’s hair to measure that isn’t really a game I want to play. Palin and Huckabee might be the most personally authentic, salt-of-the-earth candidates of the bunch, but does that necessarily mean they’re less likely to get rolled by Democrats if elected? Because that’s all I care about. If Mitt can get jobs growing again between trips to the country club, good enough. Personal authenticity can be useful as a proxy for ideological authenticity, but ultimately it’s only the latter that’s important. Sometimes it feels like that’s a minority position these days.
Let’s poll this one. I’m curious to see, just for a goof, how La Liz does in the mix.










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 … 6 Next »
The Huckster, good lord.
rob verdi on October 16, 2009 at 4:31 PM
Unelectable. Move along.
Blacklake on October 16, 2009 at 4:32 PM
Liz may win the nomination by default, at this rate.
AUINSC on October 16, 2009 at 4:33 PM
Good grief. We are doomed unless we can find a more viable candidate. As always, none of the above unless Liz is thrown in the mix.
txag92 on October 16, 2009 at 4:33 PM
I had a bet with someone that this wouldn’t become a main page post.
You’re killing me, AP.
BadgerHawk on October 16, 2009 at 4:33 PM
Update: 0 votes out of 18 so far for PHuckabee.
And that makes me happy.
Abby Adams on October 16, 2009 at 4:34 PM
I’m not dead-set on Palin being president. I would be happy if a chihuahua replaced Obama. But polls like this are meaningless so early.
Daggett on October 16, 2009 at 4:34 PM
He can be the “fat” czar under another Republican.
Oil Can on October 16, 2009 at 4:34 PM
Mmmmeh.
It’s too early to care.
TheUnrepentantGeek on October 16, 2009 at 4:36 PM
For 2012 in this order: Palin, Liz Cheney, and General David Petraeus.
cubachi on October 16, 2009 at 4:38 PM
Once AGAIN,
everyone overlooks the fact that PALINS NUMBERS CAN ONLY GO UP. Her favorability has hit a FLOOR
disagree?
so tell me, describe to me the person in america that DOESNT hate sarah palin now, but will in the future?
the people that are going to hate her ALREADY hate her
palin can only go up: mitt, huck, timp can only go DOWN
GET A CLUE!!!!!!!!!!!!
battleoflepanto1571 on October 16, 2009 at 4:38 PM
Oprah Huck-frey wouldn’t have a chance in hell of winning a general election for the presidency.
EasyEight on October 16, 2009 at 4:38 PM
Just for what it is worth, while I will NEVER vote for the wingnut we have now under any circumstances, I also will never vote for Huckabee.
I see him as part of the reason we ended up with McCain last time, though I doubt any other candidate would have brought Sarah south, so I guess we should thank him for that.
It’s also that I just have a gut dislike of Huckabee. Or, more precisely, of him as a political figure. As a person, particularly as a TV dude, he seems like a decent enough guy. Just don’t want him in office.
JamesLee on October 16, 2009 at 4:39 PM
OT – The Oprah store is advertising on Hot Air?
Really? That sounds like a crazy decision for that company.
I’m thinking we all need to click that link just in case it gets Hot Air some more ad revenue…
SnowSun on October 16, 2009 at 4:39 PM
Ugh, seriously? These are our choices?
Fail.
Midas on October 16, 2009 at 4:39 PM
Huckabee will not win the Presidency. Ever. Just won’t happen.
spmat on October 16, 2009 at 4:39 PM
Allah, you need to change the caption underneath the picture on the main page from ‘Surge’ to ‘Dude…’
classicaliberal on October 16, 2009 at 4:39 PM
I pray we can find somebody other than those Three Stooges. Nevertheless, ANYBODY would be an improvement over our current hell.
MaiDee on October 16, 2009 at 4:40 PM
Tim Yawn-plenty …. zzzzzzzzz
thirteen28 on October 16, 2009 at 4:40 PM
There is just something about Huckabee that makes my spider senses go up. He’s got a Jimmy Swaggart or Jim Baker vibe about him. No thanks. I’ll sit 2012 out if he’s the nominee.
Redneck Woman on October 16, 2009 at 4:40 PM
These poll numbers demonstrate yet again that conservatives are the heart and soul of the GOP, but they are by no means the brains thereof–that position has gone unfilled for some decades now.
hicsuget on October 16, 2009 at 4:41 PM
Can’t help but pour it on, huh, Tollbooth Boy? Isn’t this the third post about this poll on Hot Air? Pathetic. Keep blowing on that red kazoo, boy.
Percy_Peabody on October 16, 2009 at 4:41 PM
Wow. The GOP sure is lookin’….
great? Ugh.
The Calibur on October 16, 2009 at 4:41 PM
Christ.
rollthedice on October 16, 2009 at 4:41 PM
Update:
Shouldn’t there have been an “Other” choice?
Abby Adams on October 16, 2009 at 4:42 PM
The problem with someone going from the pulpit to politics is you don’t know when they started lying. Was it when they were in the pulpit or when they started in politics.
If Hucky is the republican candidate, I’ll stay home.
belad on October 16, 2009 at 4:42 PM
Good thing it’s early.
rjoco1 on October 16, 2009 at 4:42 PM
Too early, though if more people are already looking ahead to 2012 when Ogabe has been in office less than a year, that might be a good thing.
Bishop on October 16, 2009 at 4:42 PM
Ewwww… although I don’t think Charlie has an “h” in his surname. :-)
Abby Adams on October 16, 2009 at 4:42 PM
Abby you got a link for the update?
upinak on October 16, 2009 at 4:43 PM
I would vote Liz, but she needs to win some other office first.
WashJeff on October 16, 2009 at 4:43 PM
liz ROCKS, but:
- she’s too much of a neophyte to electoral politics, IMO, and…
- her last name will, i fear, prove to be some heavy baggage.
homesickamerican on October 16, 2009 at 4:43 PM
Looks like it follows TV exposure.
the_nile on October 16, 2009 at 4:44 PM
I picked Cheney even though I don’t know much about her. What I know is good. Second choice for me would be Romney.
jaime on October 16, 2009 at 4:44 PM
Aren’t there any Conservative community organizers out there?
rjoco1 on October 16, 2009 at 4:44 PM
Can we get a poll on who will win the Super Bowl in 2012? It would be about as meaningful as this one.
Hollowpoint on October 16, 2009 at 4:44 PM
Thanks AP, for at least bring some sanity to the post by mentioning Rudy was way up at this point in 2005. A lot can change b/w now and 2012.
BTW, for all of the “none of the abovers” and “ANYBODY but thesers”, can we PLEASE have some new names then? Liz is a good start, but I’m not sold on her executive experience.
davek70 on October 16, 2009 at 4:45 PM
It amuses me that people here freak out about this, as if Palin would do better in a general election than Huckabee.
crr6 on October 16, 2009 at 4:45 PM
No, it’s just cribbed from above. But I think it’s sometimes useful to get snapshots online polls. You know, to see if there are certain groups that try and “sway” the poll.
Abby Adams on October 16, 2009 at 4:45 PM
I agree. I wish I would be called on some of these polls.
upinak on October 16, 2009 at 4:47 PM
75% for Palin and Cheney so far. That’s the problem with today’s Republicans. They hate men.
calbear on October 16, 2009 at 4:47 PM
Liz rules but not going to get the top spot.
No Huck (nice guy but please)
Love Palin but damage has been done.
I like Pawlenty but don’t get why people hate him.
Mitt has got the look but Romney Care is going to bite him.
These are not good choices… If two of them can be paired early on P/VP then you might have something. (also: Jindal, Bauchman, few others)
How come no one mentions Boehner (OH) guy seems like a good leader – I know little about him other than he does not seem to scare easy and he is very direct.
Jussi on October 16, 2009 at 4:47 PM
As far as Liz Cheney goes, I agree she’d probably be great in any office she could win.
However, I think she might be more valuable to Conservatism as a columnist, writer, pundit, perpetual-guest-commentator, etc. She can say things that (unfortunately) a candidate or elected official have a hard time getting away with.
JamesLee on October 16, 2009 at 4:47 PM
What’s wrong with two private citizen activists with bull horns becoming pres & veep?
That’s change in the RIGHT DIRECTION!
Sarah-Liz 2012
SnowSun on October 16, 2009 at 4:47 PM
Don’t look now but guess whose back in town. “It’s time!” Apacalyps says, stretching his arms above him and getting rid of a few kinks in his back. He swings the doors to Hot Air open, and narrows his eyes. Apacalyps is here on business. Reprobates have been tormenting him for ages. And he is ready to get them help. He walks slowly beyond the door and enters the message board. Mumbles start to spread throughout the forum.
“It’s him”
“Apacalyps”
The figure stepped forward. Then it was silent except for the haunting sound of anti-theists retreating into the night, some quiet sobbing, and a voice emanating from somewhere in the crowd, “It’s show time!”
apacalyps on October 16, 2009 at 4:48 PM
Oh, SNAP!
alliebobbitt on October 16, 2009 at 4:48 PM
I see Ron Paul gets the shaft yet again… ;P
Orange Doorhinge on October 16, 2009 at 4:48 PM
Actually that would be v3.0 for the Romneybot.
Hollowpoint on October 16, 2009 at 4:49 PM
For the love of Godiva, is this the best we can do. The clusterfest that is the Obooboo administration has provided ample opportunity for the cream to rise to the top, and this is what we get????
I love Palin and would join ACORN just to be able to vote for her twice, but we need someone who can win!
Laura in Maryland on October 16, 2009 at 4:49 PM
Who do you think will be president when 2012 rolls around?
There’s an interesting poll.
fogw on October 16, 2009 at 4:50 PM
Sorry, pal. We’re doomed with voters like you. Thanks.
apacalyps on October 16, 2009 at 4:50 PM
I’m not going to vote for any candidate who lost to McCain or couldn’t put their own state in the red column… Minnesota? Florida? Please.
alliebobbitt on October 16, 2009 at 4:50 PM
Please tell me that it is too early to have accuracy. The Huckster is just about as exciting as watching paint dry. No, no, no, a thousand times no. I would rather worry about the possibility of a military industrial coup with Patraeus on the ticket. Although, Patraeus/Palin might be a winner.
highninside on October 16, 2009 at 4:50 PM
I love it. Palin has twice as many votes as Mitt the Flipper, Tollbooth’s sweetheart, and Paw Paw Patch combined. If you include Liz Cheney’s totals it’s a massacre.
Percy_Peabody on October 16, 2009 at 4:50 PM
Palin picking up steam:
Abby Adams on October 16, 2009 at 4:50 PM
Palin/Cheney 2012 I’m there
The rest: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
well you get the point
Jeff from WI on October 16, 2009 at 4:51 PM
Oh, and what I said about never voting for Huck? That goes double for the Ronulan.
JamesLee on October 16, 2009 at 4:51 PM
I’ve been saying that for months. The crosstabs for this poll show Palin doing well w/ younger voters (i.e. the ones who have been following her wilderness activities on FB), while Huck is fairing better w/ the old folks who watch FOX. EXPOSURE. Things will change when the 2 million plus Palin books get released and the book tour gets going and she gets EXPOSURE.
Still would never vote for Huck BTW.
davek70 on October 16, 2009 at 4:51 PM
I think having a “None of the above.” would have been instructive…but if I had to choose, I’d go with Liz right now. She hasn’t said anything I disagree with yet…maybe in time, she might. Of course, I admit it’s a long shot that she would even run.
AUINSC on October 16, 2009 at 4:52 PM
Allah, when are you going to make THIS a thread….
….oh, and yes, I know it’s a “headline” but so is this Rasmussen poll!
Drill
Petroleum is a major part of America’s energy picture. Shall we get it here or abroad?
By Sarah Palin
Given that we’re spending billions of stimulus dollars to rebuild our highways, it makes sense to think about what we’ll be driving on them. For years to come, most of what we drive will be powered, at least in part, by diesel fuel or gasoline. To fuel that driving, we need access to oil. The less use we make of our own reserves, the more we will have to import, which leads to a number of harmful consequences. That means we need to drill here and drill now.
We rely on petroleum for much more than just powering our vehicles: It is essential in everything from jet fuel to petrochemicals, plastics to fertilizers, pesticides to pharmaceuticals. According to the Energy Information Administration, our total domestic petroleum consumption last year was 19.5 million barrels per day (bpd). Motor gasoline and diesel fuel accounted for less than 13 million bpd of that. Meanwhile, we produced only 4.95 million bpd of domestic crude. In other words, even if we ran all our vehicles on something else (which won’t happen anytime soon), we would still have to depend on imported oil. And we’ll continue that dependence until we develop our own oil resources to their fullest extent.
Those who oppose domestic drilling are motivated primarily by environmental considerations, but many of the countries we’re forced to import from have few if any environmental-protection laws, and those that do exist often go unenforced. In effect, American environmentalists are preventing responsible development here at home while supporting irresponsible development overseas.
My home state of Alaska shows how it’s possible to be both pro-environment and pro-resource-development. Alaskans would never support anything that endangered our pristine air, clean water, and abundant wildlife (which, among other things, provides many of us with our livelihood). The state’s government has made safeguarding resources a priority; when I was governor, for instance, we created a petroleum-systems-integrity office to monitor our oil and gas infrastructure for any potential environmental risks.
Alaska also shows how oil drilling is thoroughly compatible with energy conservation and renewable-energy development. Over 20 percent of Alaska’s electricity currently comes from renewable sources, and as governor I put forward a long-term plan to increase that figure to 50 percent by 2025. Alaska’s comprehensive plan identifies renewable options across the state that can help rural villages transition away from expensive diesel-generated electricity — allowing each community to choose the solution that best fits its needs. That’s important in any energy plan: Tempting as they may be to central planners, top-down, one-size-fits-all solutions are recipes for failure.
For the same reason, the federal government shouldn’t push a single, universal approach to alternative-powered vehicles. Electric cars might work in Los Angeles, but they don’t work in Alaska, where you can drive hundreds of miles without seeing many people, let alone many electrical sockets. And while electric and hybrid cars have their advantages, producing the electricity to power them still requires an energy source. For the sake of the environment, that energy should be generated from the cleanest source available.
Natural gas is one promising clean alternative. It contains fewer pollutants than other fossil fuels, it’s easier to collect and process, and it is found throughout our country. In Alaska, we’re developing the largest private-sector energy project in history — a 3,000-mile, $40 billion pipeline to transport hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of natural gas to markets across the United States. Onshore and offshore natural gas from Alaska and the Lower 48 can satisfy a large part of our energy needs for decades, bringing us closer to energy independence. Whether we use it to power natural-gas cars or to run natural-gas power plants that charge electric cars — or ideally for both — natural gas can act as a clean “bridge fuel” to a future when more renewable sources are available.
In addition to drilling, we need to build new refineries. America currently has roughly 150 refineries, down from over 300 in the 1970s. Due mainly to environmental regulations, we haven’t built a major new refinery since 1976, though our oil consumption has increased significantly since then. That’s no way to secure our energy supply. The post-Katrina jump in gas prices proved that we can’t leave ourselves at the mercy of a hurricane that knocks a few refineries out of commission.
Building an energy-independent America will mean a real economic stimulus. It will mean American jobs that can never be shipped overseas. Think about how much of our trade deficit is fueled by the oil we import — sometimes as much as half of the total. Through this massive transfer of wealth, we lose hundreds of billions of dollars a year that could be invested in our economy. Instead it goes to foreign countries, including some repressive regimes that use it to fund activities that threaten our security.
Reliance on foreign sources of energy weakens America. When a riot breaks out in an OPEC nation, or a developing country talks about nationalizing its oil industry, or a petro-dictator threatens to cut off exports, the probability is great that the price of oil will shoot up. Even in friendly nations, business and financial decisions made for local reasons can destabilize America’s energy market, since the price we pay for foreign oil is subject to rising and falling exchange rates. Decreasing our dependence on foreign sources of energy will reduce the impact of world events on our economy.
In the end, energy independence is not just about the environment or the economy. It’s about freedom and confidence. It’s about building a more secure and peaceful America, an America in which our energy needs will not be subject to the whims of nature, currency speculators, or madmen in possession of vast oil reserves.
Alternative sources of energy are part of the answer, but only part. There’s no getting around the fact that we still need to “drill, baby, drill!” And if those in D.C. say otherwise, we need to tell them: “Yes, we can!”
gary4205 on October 16, 2009 at 4:52 PM
I’ll have to inspect the crease in Huck’s bib overalls before I commit.
innominatus on October 16, 2009 at 4:52 PM
We still don’t know who’ll even be running yet. Last primary we had what- 8 people on the debate stage? It’s far from certain that Palin is even going to run.
Right now I vote for the non-existant “none of the above”. The alternative is going to be determined by who decides to run.
Hollowpoint on October 16, 2009 at 4:53 PM
Is that within the limits of fair use?
Abby Adams on October 16, 2009 at 4:54 PM
Huck is a shoo-in.
He so many things going for him. I mean… He’s handsome, great hair, great shape, good looking family, common sense conservative values – just a man who would appeal to a cross section of America.
Sure beats a goofy looking, out of shape preacher man named “Huckabee” who is adored by home schoolers in Alabama.
kevinkristy on October 16, 2009 at 4:54 PM
I don’t think it illustrates that anyone has strong feelings against him. He’s just the least favorite because people don’t really know that much about him.
red26 on October 16, 2009 at 4:55 PM
AP: I love you to death, but your analysis is missing a key element in Palin Support!
As a Democrat, I am probably in the minority of commentors on this site. However, I would crawl over flaming-hot-lava-covered-glass-shards to vote for either Romney or Palin over Obama in 2012. So, those who want to diminish a GOP candidate as not being “appealing to independents” have utterly no idea WHAT appeals to blue dogs such as myself.
If the GOP gives us Huckabee as a candidate in 2012, I WILL be voting third party. My opinion of Huckabee will not change, ever.
Mutnodjmet on October 16, 2009 at 4:57 PM
I think you would have done better just to reprint Matt Lattimore’s piece. He’s dead-on, and renders the rest mostly nugatory.
The premise that Huckabee is “authentic” or can be grouped along with Palin in that regard is ridiculous, and understanding this should be a primary requirement of a pundit.
The hunger among conservatives for authenticity and unflinching toughness in a candidate cannot be overestimated, and is only growing. Trying to watch Romney and Huckabee, or Pawlenty, fill that persona will be funny. Like that episode of “Seinfeld” when Jerry got in touch with his angry inner child. Palin’s gift is that her fight and toughness is real so she doesn’t have to affect it and over-compensate, and is naturally modulated by her charm and grace, as was Reagan’s. That she’s a woman is perfect, and will be more perfect in 2012.
These “polls” mean less than nothing. They are ways for people to spend their time, that’s all.
rrpjr on October 16, 2009 at 4:57 PM
+1000
Palin has bigger Cahones than the lot of ‘em save for Liz, she has a track record of corruption busting no matter the party affiliation, I embrace her common-sense conservatism, her writings have been intelligent, politcally savvy on a global scale, and spot-on on a range of topics. If I were to design my own “dream candidate” a la Wierd Science, I could hardly do better thatn Sarah Palin.
I keep hearing she’s a wingnut, a whack job, etc, but I’ve yet to see a convincing argument that rises above childish name-calling and ridicule a la Alinsky’s Rules.
I believe she will be the first candidate that I will actively campaign for in my life. My wife, a (formerly) lifelong NY Democrat, is right there with me as well.
ornery_independent on October 16, 2009 at 4:57 PM
I don’t understand what Liz Cheney has even done? She’s far less qualified than even Obama was. Is it because she’s a Cheney or something?
HeroesforGhosts on October 16, 2009 at 4:58 PM
Looks like Palin has no chance.
True_King on October 16, 2009 at 4:58 PM
Wouldn’t vote for Hickabee.
Palin doesnt have a chance in hell of winning.
Romney and Pawlenty are boring, but I’d vote for them.
therightwinger on October 16, 2009 at 4:58 PM
Romney
Cheney
Pawlenty
Palin
Hickabee.
therightwinger on October 16, 2009 at 5:00 PM
Huckabee will revive the Republican party and traditional conservative principles. You don’t like it. Join the Democratic Party.
apacalyps on October 16, 2009 at 5:01 PM
Why are we bothering with this. The ONLY candidate that can fire up the base is Palin. The Dems are scared to death of her. Palin/Cheney looks real good.
Jeff from WI on October 16, 2009 at 5:01 PM
Allah’s trying to keep his mind off of Meg McCain…who better, what better, than Oprah.
HornetSting on October 16, 2009 at 5:01 PM
Is Rasmussen just polling the cable TV heads? That’s about the only explanation I can think of that Huck wouldn’t be at the bottom of this list.
AUINSC on October 16, 2009 at 5:03 PM
No option for Ron Paul?
iamse7en on October 16, 2009 at 5:04 PM
Didnt read, dont care. Almost anyone is better than what we have now.
Greed on October 16, 2009 at 5:05 PM
So, who do gives you a tingle down your leg, PAL?
HornetSting on October 16, 2009 at 5:06 PM
Romney is our only shot at winning next time!
nazo311 on October 16, 2009 at 5:06 PM
Famous last words:
Fixed it for you.
gary4205 on October 16, 2009 at 5:06 PM
Ron Paul
<—-snickering under my tin foil hat
Jeff from WI on October 16, 2009 at 5:06 PM
I’ll let Darth speak for me.
clearbluesky on October 16, 2009 at 5:06 PM
gary4205 on October 16, 2009 at 5:06 PM
eggszactly
Jeff from WI on October 16, 2009 at 5:07 PM
Palin, if you want to, you know, actually win.
But those who say, “It could never be Huckabee” are still selling him short. I’m hoping he can’t win a Republican primary, but give the
devilman his due, he’s a good politician.In fact, Huckabee and Palin would probably be the two best campaigners in the field. Most of the others just don’t generate much excitement.
tom on October 16, 2009 at 5:07 PM
Bumper Sticker:
Mitt ain’t S t
Jeff from WI on October 16, 2009 at 5:07 PM
Yep thats why we have obama. The TV is the king maker.
Greed on October 16, 2009 at 5:11 PM
I am a Mike Huckabee fan. He may not have the charisma to win POTUS but he is a very good man. No one can deny that.
Mittens is an opportunist. Pawlenty is too limp wristed. Liz Cheney is too much like her father and only focused on one issue. Palin is a talk radio wingnut.
Decider on October 16, 2009 at 5:14 PM
HUCK SUCKS!
HornetSting on October 16, 2009 at 5:14 PM
You forgot the /sarc tag.
How many people did Huck get to his last rally? Few hundred maybe?
Update:
Looks like Ras forgot to poll HA.
davek70 on October 16, 2009 at 5:14 PM
Remember the 11th commandment!
We can’t just go attacking everyone who isn’t a Palinista. I’m a huge fan of ‘Cuda, but there is a good chance that we can’t get her elected. The damage has been done, and we need to have other choices to consider.
Laura in Maryland on October 16, 2009 at 5:15 PM
Exactly.
Whenever I’ve discussed Obama’s inexperience with liberals, they always say… “Do you really think McCain could’ve done better”… with my response being… “Actually no…I supported Romney”
After their initial shock, every single person I’ve said that to always comes back with something along the lines of…“yeah…he was much more likable…or…why didn’t you guys nominate him?…or…he seemed more presidential…or…probably would’ve done a decent job”
I like Palin (Huckabee…not so much) but she’s just too polarizing a figure now to ever win the presidency. I see her future as either a senator or in a major cabinet position.
If Romney runs again, he’ll be my candidate.
The Ugly American on October 16, 2009 at 5:16 PM
I’ll second the Huck Sucks bit.
But the poll itself isn’t very inspiring. I’d vote Liz Cheney, but I don’t think a foreign policy hawk is necessarily the way to go in 2012 barring something super-nutty from Iran. Why does the field suck so much?
Lehosh on October 16, 2009 at 5:16 PM
We are truly doomed if it’s Huckabee. Palin has huge negatives but at least people will fight like hell to elect her. Are any of these people who people who are choosing Huckabee actually excited about him?
BuzzCrutcher on October 16, 2009 at 5:16 PM
Wait a minute–I thought all HotAir-viewing conservatives were misogynistic yet the online poll has the women folk way ahead. What’s up with that?
ncborn on October 16, 2009 at 5:17 PM
Is that really any surprise? Huckabee is a real Christian. That’s why normal every day Americans like him. Unfortunately, a real Christian President is a little too much for the Republican Party’s taste and why those phony conservatives running the GOP attack him. Don’t forget, the Republican elite and “so-called” conservative talk radio were Romney’s stronghold last election. OK.
apacalyps on October 16, 2009 at 5:17 PM
Huckabee, if the nominee, would be the man the raised taxes more in Ak than Bill CLinton the Democrat. I heard that early and knew the MSM and the democrats want him as the “man” so especially after Obama taxing us to death they can beat this one to death. Do I think he would be as bad as obama, probaly not, but I bet he would be a loser to Obama.
Romney is the flip flopper but has experience and has done things. Negative if we are stuck with obama care and have Rommney care as a comparsion. Yikes. I think he might win but close against Obama.
Pawlenty seems like he has some consertatives value but the ethanol crowd thing is just as dangerous. We are causing our food to be higher to put in our gat tank to pollute the world more. Depending on the state of the ecomony could be a huge negative. not sure if he could beat obama.
Palin has the albilty to reinvent herself and is the leader if she does. Trust me that she can make a difference with her words is huge. It will depend on how things go but she may the canditite we have been waiting for to clean up Washington. I pray she can and Please Sarah get term limits in congress too.
Liz Cheney needs excutive before America will try for a novice again.
Gracelynn on October 16, 2009 at 5:18 PM
Hahahahahahahahahaha!
One word RomneyCare.
NEXT!
gary4205 on October 16, 2009 at 5:18 PM
I can deny that. He’s a petty, venomous idiot and shouldn’t be anywhere near any lever of power.
Lehosh on October 16, 2009 at 5:18 PM
Looks like the real race is between Huck and TPaw.
Abby Adams on October 16, 2009 at 5:19 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 … 6 Next »