PPP: Obama leads Palin by eight … in South Dakota?

posted at 10:00 pm on February 1, 2011 by Allahpundit

I’m highly skeptical — this is a state the GOP’s won in every election since 1964 — but their sample doesn’t seem obviously skewed to me. The partisan breakdown is 48R/38D/14I; the sample in the state’s 2008 exit poll on election day was 42R/36D/22I. If anything, PPP skewed too heavily towards Republicans. The ideological sample is similarly in line. For PPP, it’s 43 percent conservative, 44 percent moderate, and 13 percent liberal. In 2008 on election day, the exit poll had it 35 percent conservative, 50 percent moderate, and 15 percent liberal. Again, PPP’s numbers tilt against Obama. And their polling of hypothetical Romney/Obama and Huckabee/Obama races seems credible. Mitt leads 46/40 and Huck leads 47/41 in a state McCain won by eight points.

If the GOP went with Newt Gingrich or Sarah Palin as its nominee Obama’s prospects for picking up the state would improve dramatically. Against Gingrich he holds a slight lead at 44-42 and pitted against Palin that increases to a somewhat remarkable 48-40…

Obama’s slightly unpopular in the state with 42% of voters approving of him and 49% disapproving. He’s ahead of both Gingrich and Palin though because they’re more unpopular than that. Gingrich’s favorability is a 31/43 spread and Palin’s is even worse at 37/55. Voters there are positive toward Huckabee, with 40% rating him favorably to 30% with a negative opinion, and a small plurality like Romney as well- 35% favorable, 34% unfavorable.

In the last two weeks we’ve found Palin up 1 point in Texas, up 1 point in Nebraska, and down 8 points in South Dakota. What those numbers indicate is that she would only really be safe in states that Republicans won by at least 20 points in 2008. And there weren’t very many of those. It’s becoming clearer and clearer that a Palin nomination would be Goldwater redux for the GOP.

PPP is Kos’s pollster, but remember that the Kos crowd rightly or wrongly wants to face Palin in 2012. If PPP is cooking its data to do the left’s bidding (which I have no reason to believe), it would theoretically be showing strong numbers for her in order to convince Republicans that she can win and they should therefore nominate her, no?

Meanwhile, in South Carolina, assuming DeMint doesn’t run, Huckabee’s the leader by six points over Romney(!). I’m actually surprised to see both of them in those positions: Huck’s appeal to a southern Christian electorate is obvious, but my sense has always been that SC is ground zero for “true conservatism” and Huck’s credentials on that point are, er, suspect. (Then again, SC elected Lindsey Graham, didn’t it?) And how did Mitt pull off second place? Isn’t he allegedly thinking of skipping the state altogether because it seems like a lost cause with such a crowded social-con field? Maybe Ben Smith is right: By the time 2012 rolls around, the courts may have solved his RomneyCare problems for him.


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 4 5 6

Why all the “I hope she doesn’t run” crap?

ddrintn

because it wouldn’t serve the nation to have her run in the stead of a qualified candidate. it would harm the party that nominated her and allow the other party to move further to the left, which also is of little benefit.

audiculous on February 2, 2011 at 6:51 PM

because it wouldn’t serve the nation to have her run in the stead of a qualified candidate. it would harm the party that nominated her and allow the other party to move further to the left, which also is of little benefit.

audiculous on February 2, 2011 at 6:51 PM

So whaddya gonna do when she wins? Move to Canada? Hey … how about Egypt? I hear the housing market is in for a big boom there.

darwin on February 2, 2011 at 6:54 PM

It is quite amusing and ironic that the two groups most desperately hoping that Sarah Palin runs for President are the far left and the far right.

pm123 on February 2, 2011 at 7:00 PM

It is quite amusing and ironic that the two groups most desperately hoping that Sarah Palin runs for President are the far left and the far right.

pm123 on February 2, 2011 at 7:00 PM

Dumb ^^^

darwin on February 2, 2011 at 7:04 PM

It is quite amusing and ironic that the two groups most desperately hoping that Sarah Palin runs for President are the far left and the far right dumb and stupid.

pm123 on February 2, 2011 at 7:00 PM

Fixed.

Hollowpoint on February 2, 2011 at 7:12 PM

So whaddya gonna do when she wins? Move to Canada? Hey … how about Egypt? I hear the housing market is in for a big boom there.

darwin

I do believe that I’ll be dead and in hell before that happens, but moving out might not be a bad idea when she moves in.

audiculous on February 2, 2011 at 7:13 PM

Fixed.

Hollowpoint on February 2, 2011 at 7:12 PM

Even dumber ^^^

darwin on February 2, 2011 at 7:15 PM

I do believe that I’ll be dead and in hell before that happens, but moving out might not be a bad idea when she moves in.

audiculous on February 2, 2011 at 7:13 PM

You’re going to hell? Don’t you think you should do something about that while you have the chance?

darwin on February 2, 2011 at 7:16 PM

The only way Sarah should ever let herself be interviewed by those editing-machine-happy jackals Katie Couric and Charles Gibson is if she brings her own camera crew to the interview.

Aitch748 on February 2, 2011 at 7:18 PM

You’re going to hell? Don’t you think you should do something about that while you have the chance?

darwin

might not be as bad as Canada.

audiculous on February 2, 2011 at 7:19 PM

because it wouldn’t serve the nation to have her run in the stead of a qualified candidate. it would harm the party that nominated her and allow the other party to move further to the left, which also is of little benefit.
audiculous on February 2, 2011 at 6:51 PM

Since it’s obvious you are a obama lover I will disregard your evaluation of a person who rose to run a state without the pampering your clown prince received

Sonosam on February 2, 2011 at 7:21 PM

because it wouldn’t serve the nation to have her run in the stead of a qualified candidate. it would harm the party that nominated her and allow the other party to move further to the left, which also is of little benefit.

audiculous on February 2, 2011 at 6:51 PM

Wait a second. On the one hand, not even Republicans would vote for her, and on the other you have her already winning the nomination. And the “let’s not not nominate a conservative because the Dems will really go hard left!” is ridiculous on its face.

ddrintn on February 2, 2011 at 7:21 PM

Since it’s obvious you are a obama lover I will disregard your evaluation of a person who rose to run a state without the pampering your clown prince received

Sonosam

that’s far from obvious to me, Sono.
haven’t voted for him yet. like what he’s doing in Afghanistan and Pakistan. not sold on anything else.

audiculous on February 2, 2011 at 7:24 PM

audiculous on February 2, 2011 at 6:51 PM

You know, if Palin is as widely loathed as you make her out to be, maybe it would do wonders for your blood pressure to stop worrying about her. If she’s plutonium as you keep implying, then the primaries will be the end of her, and you could relax instead of going on and on and on about her.

Sheesh.

Aitch748 on February 2, 2011 at 7:30 PM

Aitch748

I need the typing practice.

I’m pretty relaxed though, thanks. Blood pressure has never been a problem.

audiculous on February 2, 2011 at 7:37 PM

audiculous on February 2, 2011 at 7:24 PM

I really don’t believe you are in the US.

alwaysfiredup on February 2, 2011 at 8:24 PM

Isn’t it heart-warming to see that even far-left trolls want the Republican party to put forward the very best candidate that we can to run against the Bamster?

slickwillie2001 on February 2, 2011 at 8:28 PM

I really don’t believe you are in the US.

alwaysfiredup

Uncle Sam believes and has called upon my services as well as taxed my ass off. That’s all that counts.

audiculous on February 2, 2011 at 8:31 PM

If she’s plutonium as you keep implying, then the primaries will be the end of her, and you could relax instead of going on and on and on about her.

Sheesh.

Aitch748 on February 2, 2011 at 7:30 PM

Exactly right. I thought some idiot blogging at Reason said that by now everyone would be singing Palin’s praises in order to pave the way for her sure-to-lose candidacy. It doesn’t seem to be working that way, does it?

ddrintn on February 2, 2011 at 9:16 PM

Let’s get one small fact that you, and all the other Palin haters, like to conveniently fall to mention or remember. Reagan wasn’t embroiled in a series of frivolous lawsuits that the state does not shield public officials from. Had Reagan been in the same situation, that is spending more time with defending himself in litigation, he would probably recognize that he couldn’t be an effective Governor for the largest state economy either. So, how about getting past this fallacious argument and get to some other topic that you can use to beat on Palin with.

belad on February 2, 2011 at 11:58 AM

Uh sorry, Reagan wasn’t a quitter:

Ronald Reagan participated in several organizations in the immediate post-World War II period that he soon discovered were communist fronts. They had innocent sounding names like the Hollywood Independent Citizens Committee of the Arts, Sciences, and Professions or the Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee or the Los Angeles Committee for a Democratic Far-Eastern Policy or the American Veteran’s Committee or the Hollywood Writers Mobilization. In each of these instances, he soon found that they were part of a coordinated effort to take over the movie industry and turn it into a medium of propaganda for communist and Marxist ideas.

Ronald Reagan personally experienced the dangers of communism during this period as his life was threatened, and at various points he was put under 24-hour guard to protect him from possible assassination. He worked closely with the FBI to provide information to them about these communist-front organizations.

And the Communist Party in California meant business-if you doubt it read the book Out of the Night by Jan Valtin, or the Anti-Communist Manifesto by John V. Fleming.

Reagan had guts…he didn’t quit.

And I suppose the fact that Palin’s approval ratings in Alaska were starting to tank had nothing to do with her decision.

Dreadnought on February 2, 2011 at 10:11 PM

Uh sorry, Reagan wasn’t a quitter:

Uh, sorry, it’s impossible to say given that Reagan as governor wasn’t subjected to quite the same sliming from BOTH sides as Palin was.

And I suppose the fact that Palin’s approval ratings in Alaska were starting to tank had nothing to do with her decision.

Dreadnought on February 2, 2011 at 10:11 PM

What would that matter? She had two years to straighten it out. And what had she done or mismanaged to make the approval ratings slide?

ddrintn on February 2, 2011 at 10:58 PM

^ By the way, did Romney forgo a run at a second term because he thought he might be defeated?

ddrintn on February 2, 2011 at 10:59 PM

Uh sorry, Reagan wasn’t a quitter:
Uh, sorry, it’s impossible to say given that Reagan as governor wasn’t subjected to quite the same sliming from BOTH sides as Palin was.

ddrintn on February 2, 2011 at 10:58 PM

Again:

Ronald Reagan personally experienced the dangers of communism during this period as his life was threatened, and at various points he was put under 24-hour guard to protect him from possible assassination. He worked closely with the FBI to provide information to them about these communist-front organizations

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.reagansheritage.org%2Fhtml%2Freagan_panel_meese.shtml&ei=wyxKTaOrCIv3gAfJyIwi&usg=AFQjCNEraQok3ZeQnrdB1M2vRheWbBnT4w

I think death threats from violence-prone California-based Communists in the 1940′s is at least at bad as the threat of lawsuits in Alaska. But Reagan wasn’t intimidated and didn’t quit exposing communist infiltration and criminal activities in California unions. That’s the difference.

And I suppose the fact that Palin’s approval ratings in Alaska were starting to tank had nothing to do with her decision.

Dreadnought on February 2, 2011 at 10:11 PM
What would that matter? She had two years to straighten it out. And what had she done or mismanaged to make the approval ratings slide?

ddrintn on February 2, 2011 at 10:58 PM

Well, the trend was steadily downward, wasn’t it? From a very high 90+% at the start of her term to a respectable, but much lower 50% two years later.

I don’t think it’s much of a stretch to posit that it would have continued to slide, at least somewhat. And once it keeps getting lower Palin becomes just another mediocre governor. Maybe she figured it was a smart political move to get while the getting was good.

Dreadnought on February 2, 2011 at 11:42 PM

By the way, did Romney forgo a run at a second term because he thought he might be defeated?

ddrintn on February 2, 2011 at 10:59 PM

I’m not particularly a Romney fan, but not running for re-election is quite different from not finishing a full term.

Considering it was Massachussets, yes he might not have won another term, so maybe that influenced his decision greatly, but also considering it was Massachussets, it was a miracle a Republican got elected to begin with.

Dreadnought on February 2, 2011 at 11:46 PM

I don’t think it’s much of a stretch to posit that it would have continued to slide, at least somewhat. And once it keeps getting lower Palin becomes just another mediocre governor. Maybe she figured it was a smart political move to get while the getting was good.
Numb nut on February 2, 2011 at 11:42 PM

what/ a keen/ intellect/ you have/

Sonosam on February 3, 2011 at 12:06 AM

don’t think it’s much of a stretch to posit that it would have continued to slide, at least somewhat. And once it

keeps getting lower Palin becomes just another mediocre governor. Maybe she figured it was a smart political move to get while the getting was good.
Numb nut on February 2, 2011 at 11:42 PM

what/ a keen/ intellect/ you have/

Sonosam on February 3, 2011 at 12:06 AM

And once again, another sycophant resorts to the ad hominem because he can’t think of anything else to say.

What a cogent argument you present!

Dreadnought on February 3, 2011 at 12:28 AM

WHATEVER GUYS!!!!!!!!!!!!

SARAH PALIN 2012!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BWAHAHAHAHAH!

Meet you in the primaries!

TheAlamos on February 3, 2011 at 4:57 AM

So you didn’t want a non-answer in the first place. You wanted an honest answer to a trap question. That doesn’t jive with your advice earlier that “any skillful pol” would know to give a non-answer to a trap question.

alwaysfiredup on February 2, 2011 at 3:48 PM

When I say “non-answer” I don’t mean saying NOTHING in response to the question “What newspapers do you read?”. I mean responding in such a way that one is able to change the subject without looking like you are avoiding the question. It’s not easy to do that. It’s a skill and it takes time to develop. Palin is doing better with it now. But in order to make up for her past missteps, she has to do more than simply be adequate during interviews, she needs to blow people away so that it’s obvious to all she’s come a LONG way since the Couric interviews. I don’t see that. I see someone who is able to do a barely adequate job now during an interview. She’s no longer bungling them but she’s not impressing anyone with her knowledge of policy. She repeats the same talking points over and over.

frank63 on February 3, 2011 at 9:42 AM

Again:

Ronald Reagan personally experienced the dangers of communism during this period as his life was threatened, and at various points he was put under 24-hour guard to protect him from possible assassination. He worked closely with the FBI to provide information to them about these communist-front organizations

Oh, get real. Not even remotely the same, and you know it.

Well, the trend was steadily downward, wasn’t it? From a very high 90+% at the start of her term to a respectable, but much lower 50% two years later.

I don’t think it’s much of a stretch to posit that it would have continued to slide, at least somewhat. And once it keeps getting lower Palin becomes just another mediocre governor. Maybe she figured it was a smart political move to get while the getting was good.

Dreadnought on February 2, 2011 at 11:42 PM

So why didn’t she get out even earlier? You’re grasping at any little anti-Palin straws you can. That sort of thing isn’t pretty.

I’m not particularly a Romney fan, but not running for re-election is quite different from not finishing a full term.

Considering it was Massachussets, yes he might not have won another term, so maybe that influenced his decision greatly, but also considering it was Massachussets, it was a miracle a Republican got elected to begin with.

Dreadnought on February 2, 2011 at 11:46 PM

So he chickened out instead of seeing through a huge initiative he signed into law. Great.

ddrintn on February 3, 2011 at 5:01 PM

Oh, get real. Not even remotely the same, and you know it.

ddrintn on February 3, 2011 at 5:01 PM

So having your life threatened by people who meant business, (again, read about the history of the Communist Party in California in the 1930′s and 1940′s) isn’t as serious as being sued. LOL.

Reagan: credible death threats requiring 24 hour FBI guard > lawsuits against Palin in the 2000′s.

Reagan: didn’t quit > Palin: quitter.

Sorry, but I think most people would agree that having your life threatened by a criminal organization is scarier and more serious than the threat of lawsuits.

So he chickened out instead of seeing through a huge initiative he signed into law. Great.

ddrintn on February 3, 2011 at 5:01 PM

That’s pretty funny. Palin, who quit a little more than halfway through her only term, is, by your definition, not a quitter. Meanwhile Romney, who served a FULL term as governor, in your words, “chickened out”.

That makes absolutely no sense. You do realize that, right?

Romney: served full term as Governor > Palin: quit a little over half-way through her only term as Governor.

Let’s let logic and common sense do some of the work here.

So why didn’t she get out even earlier? You’re grasping at any little anti-Palin straws you can. That sort of thing isn’t pretty.

Because her approval ratings were on a steady downward trend from September 2008 on. Pretty typical for any Governor, especially during an economic downturn. I think she decided that continuing to serve would not have been politically advantageous for her.

Dreadnought on February 3, 2011 at 10:36 PM

Oh, get real. Not even remotely the same, and you know it.

ddrintn on February 3, 2011 at 5:01 PM

So having your life threatened by people who meant business, (again, read about the history of the Communist Party in California in the 1930′s and 1940′s) isn’t as serious as being sued. LOL.

Hmmm. Who do you think was more of a target in that era, Reagan or Nixon? Now you’re seriously going to tell me that the concentrated hatred against Palin since August ’08 is comparable? Nice try, but no. The CPUSA wasn’t exactly the Mafia, dude. I’m sure you’re aware of that.

Reagan: credible death threats requiring 24 hour FBI guard > lawsuits against Palin in the 2000′s.

How many death threats do you think Palin gets? Hmmm?

Reagan: didn’t quit > Palin: quitter.

Reagan wasn’t facing the same sort of harassment. Simple as that.

Sorry, but I think most people would agree that having your life threatened by a criminal organization is scarier and more serious than the threat of lawsuits.

Again, quit trying to make the CPUSA sound like La Cosa Nostra.

That’s pretty funny. Palin, who quit a little more than halfway through her only term, is, by your definition, not a quitter. Meanwhile Romney, who served a FULL term as governor, in your words, “chickened out”.

That makes absolutely no sense. You do realize that, right?

Why don’t you anti-Palin obsessives ever focus on the fact that Gingrich is a similar “quitter”? I don’t ever see that tag applied to him. And yeah, Romney followed his own ambition to be president rather than a) risk defeat in anothert gubernatorial run which wouldn’t look good and/or b) REALLY be responsible for the outcome of RomneyCare. Which was it?

Because her approval ratings were on a steady downward trend from September 2008 on. Pretty typical for any Governor, especially during an economic downturn. I think she decided that continuing to serve would not have been politically advantageous for her.

Dreadnought on February 3, 2011 at 10:36 PM

Asinine. Try some other anti-Palin angle.

ddrintn on February 3, 2011 at 11:00 PM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6