WaPo poll: Huckabee 21, Palin 19, Romney 17

posted at 7:10 pm on January 20, 2011 by Allahpundit

Granted, McCain’s candidacy looked D.O.A. too at this point four years ago. But conservative primary voters circa 2007 were a different entity than they are today. Romney, as the alleged next-in-line “frontrunner,” has got to be at least a little nervous that he’s not actually, you know, frontrunning, right?

Huckabee and Palin, in particular, seem to share a common base — both running more strongly among those with family incomes of $50,000 or less (Huckabee 26 percent, Palin 25 percent) and whites without college degrees (Palin 26 percent, Huckabee 25 percent).

Romney, on the other hand, runs best among the college educated (30 percent), whites making over $50,000 a year (29 percent) and whites with college degrees (32 percent).

Among self-identified conservatives, the top tier expands slightly to include Christie and Gingrich. Nineteen percent of conservatives favor Huckabee as compared to 16 percent for Romney, 14 percent for Palin and 11 percent each for Gingrich and Christie.

Not only does Huck lead among self-described conservatives, he leads by seven among people who describe themselves as “very conservative” and among white evangelical Protestants by the same margin. That jibes with PPP’s surprising poll yesterday showing that he also leads in Texas — which I would have guessed is Palin country — with 25 percent versus 21 percent for Palin, 17 percent for Gingrich, and 10 percent(!) for Romney. The logical assumption is that Mitt’s path to victory will require a big scrum of socially conservative candidates splitting the “true conservative” vote several ways, but here he is stuck at 10 percent in fourth place in Texas even if Rick Perry jumps in and siphons off votes from Palin. No wonder he’s taking a “cautious approach” in Iowa: If this is what he’s in for in states with lots of evangelicals in the primaries, why even bother?

As for Huck, lately Palin supporters have been tweeting at me with new bits of evidence that he’s not running. His 2008 campaign manager just left to go work for a congressman. And what’s with that cruise to Alaska in early June? The race will have begun by then, so doesn’t booking that mean he has other plans for this year? Maybe — but Huck’s said repeatedly that if he does run, he won’t get in until late. He’s already well known to Iowans per his victory there last time, and it turns out his book tour itinerary calls for no fewer than six events in that state and five in South Carolina. As poll after poll shows him either in the thick of the race or leading outright, and with Palin’s favorables down after the media bombardment she took last week, how could he not run? The Christian base is potentially his for the taking.

Actually, there’s one thing that might keep him out: The prospect of Obama looking unbeatable as the economy improves. Huckabee’s cautioned before that it’ll be tougher to beat him than many conservatives think, a point he reiterated on Fox this afternoon in light of PPP’s poll showing The One now up five on him and Mitt. That’s why he’s intent on getting in as late as possible, I assume — to see if challenging Obama next year will be a fool’s errand. Exit question: With populism ascendant among the Republican base and grassroots conservatives already bristling at Romney as a phony with money, should his advisors really be describing his upcoming campaign as less like IBM and more like JetBlue?


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 2

Been to many TEA party rallies, have you? Or are you merely engaging in rectal speak?

As usual…

JohnGalt23 on May 24, 2013 at 1:46 PM

As I just posted HotairLib has their whole head up their six o clock.

hamradio on May 24, 2013 at 2:43 PM

Who wrote the speech? Or are you just praising the messenger?

mixplix on May 24, 2013 at 2:57 PM

MSNBC consensus: Obama’s speech was historic, amazing, “one of the best of his presidency”

Connect the dots: journolist meeting by invitation only at the White House on, what Tuesday?, “big”speech by Obama on Thursday, lame stream media fawning over speech on Friday. Who would have seen that coming, huh?

parke on May 24, 2013 at 2:58 PM

They need the “war on terror” in order to further erode our Constitutional freedoms and to deflect criticism from the administration’s and Federal government’s ongoing corruption.

They are just trying to massage it so that they don’t offend the Muslims, international Libtards and their own sensibilities anymore than necessary.

A few Muslim terrorists here and there are quite expendable to this Administration despite their sympathies for them. These drone attacks also do much deflect any potential criticism that the Administration is weak in dealing with such matters.

Dr. ZhivBlago on May 24, 2013 at 2:59 PM

MSNBC is nothing but a left wing propaganda machine serving their master, Obama.

rplat on May 24, 2013 at 3:07 PM

Nobel Peace Prize that he totally earned a mere nine months into his presidency? Yeah, that one.

I believe that he was officially nominated 10 days after he was sworn in. Wow! The WON really worked long hours that week and a half to earn that POS medal. During those ten days he ordered NO DRONE STRIKES to keep his peaceful record clean.

fred5678 on May 24, 2013 at 3:22 PM

Obama: Don’t worry about that Ben Ghazi guy. I killed Bin Laden, and Bush didn’t!

And Obummer still wants to close Gitmo? Good luck with that–not even Upchuck Schumer was willing to hold trials in New York!

Steve Z on May 24, 2013 at 3:24 PM

They need the “war on terror” in order to further erode our Constitutional freedoms and to deflect criticism from the administration’s and Federal government’s ongoing corruption.

They just changed the definition of terrorist. They used to be jihadis from the Middle East–now they’re Minutemen in Arizona and Tea Partiers in Ohio.

Steve Z on May 24, 2013 at 3:29 PM

…bromides about what we’re told are President Foreign Policy’s miraculous yet still oddly unmaterialized abilities to move us drastically closer to world peace.

Erika, sometimes your writing shows signs of rivaling even the Master of Snark himself, Allahpundit. Good work!

KS Rex on May 24, 2013 at 3:45 PM

I love how crazy Al invoked the Nobel Peace Prize in praise of a speech that spoke about dropping bombs on people’s head. Maybe it was the “fewer” bombs than before that raised this to historic levels.

Do they even know or care that they are morons.

marnes on May 24, 2013 at 3:46 PM

His speech made less sense than Bluto’s Animal House Speech and was far less entertaining. Nothing less than base rallying time. Never thought I would say this, but Code Pink was the best part.

DDay on May 24, 2013 at 4:01 PM

Sperling posted this at the Examiner on May 23 about this “historic speech of Obysmal’s:

During his foreign policy speech Thursday afternoon, President Obama warned that domestic terrorism would increase in the modern age of the Internet.

“[T]his threat is not new,” Obama said. “But technology and the Internet increase its frequency and lethality.”

Obama warned Americans that materials on the Internet could influence people to commit terrorist acts.

“Today, a person can consume hateful propaganda, commit themselves to a violent agenda and learn how to kill without leaving their home,” he said.

To combat domestic terrorism, Obama reminded Americans that it was important to reach out to Muslim communities.

“The best way to prevent violent extremism is to work with the Muslim American community — which has consistently rejected terrorism — to identify signs of radicalization and partner with law enforcement when an individual is drifting towards violence,” he said. “And these partnerships can only work when we recognize that Muslims are a fundamental part of the American family.”

You see, we are just not working hard enough to “work with the Muslim American community” who are a “fundamental part of the American family.” Watch out, too, because Obysmal is again trying to limit the impact of the Internet.

onlineanalyst on May 24, 2013 at 4:22 PM

That Chris Hayes is a bit of a twink, isn’t he?

onlineanalyst on May 24, 2013 at 4:25 PM

Obama apparently gave two speeches yesterday and I watched the other one.

myiq2xu on May 24, 2013 at 5:03 PM

Comment pages: 1 2