Hey, who’s up for another poll showing Trump leading the GOP field?

posted at 4:57 pm on April 12, 2011 by Allahpundit

Yeah, listen: These polls are wonderfully fun, but if he had even a ghost of a chance at the nomination, last night’s threat to singlehandedly reelect Barack Obama surely exorcised it. (Why on earth would he admit that publicly, anyway?) So by all means, let’s continue to ooh and ahh at the Giuliani Effect while it lasts — the man gives good soundbite, and if nothing else, his surging polls are a nifty way to express dissatisfaction with the state of the GOP field — but I think we can stop planning the Trump inauguration now.

Nineteen percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents questioned in the poll say that as of now, they’d be most likely to support Trump for next year’s GOP presidential nomination. Trump says he’ll decide by June whether he runs for the White House. An equal amount say they’d back Huckabee. The former Arkansas governor and 2008 Republican presidential candidate says he’ll decide by later this year if he’ll make another bid for the White House.

Twelve percent say they’d support former Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, who was the party’s 2008 vice presidential nominee, with 11 percent backing former Massachusetts Gov. and 2008 White House hopeful Mitt Romney and the same amount supporting former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. Seven percent say they are backing Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, another 2008 presidential candidate, with five percent supporting Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, who enjoys strong backing from many in the Tea Party movement. Everyone else registers in the low single digits.

Trump jumped from 10 percent in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll conducted last month, with Romney dropping from 18 percent to 11 percent.

The poll’s real significance is in that last bit. I don’t know what’s scarier for Mitt — the idea that his support is so soft that it’ll melt from two weeks of the guy from “The Apprentice” talking about Obama’s birth certificate, or the possibility that his decline isn’t Trump-related at all and is apt to persist even when Donaldmania cools. CNN’s pollster notes that Romney’s support actually drops without Trump in the race, which points directly at the second theory, but I dunno. They are an awful lot alike in some ways

Haley Barbour thinks this is mostly higher name recognition at work, which is true but tactful in how it omits the significance of Trump’s media Birther binge. The Donald is signaling as loudly as he can to the base that as nominee he’d attack Obama without fear of media disapproval, which earns him a “strong conservative” merit badge even though he’s, er, never really been a strong conservative. For a fascinating gloss on how the Birther stuff might be backfiring on him, though, read this post by Ben Smith on the damage done to Trump’s standing lately among black voters, who previously viewed him favorably. His cross-racial appeal would have been a political asset on the trail and catnip for a media starved for juicy horserace angles during the primary. So much for that.


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

The SS number thing seems to be a WND obsession. Again, there is absolutely nothing to back up any birther claims. Burden of proof is on them, not me.

JetBoy on April 12, 2011 at 6:19 PM

Not even going to touch the passport? They stated in an article that they have a copy of his selective service form and it has a fake SS#, and list the number. That’s concrete. Can’t the government find what SS# Obama registered for selective service under? Neither the passport or SS# is difficult to refute, if it can be refuted, and that’s why I focus on those.

DFCtomm on April 12, 2011 at 6:24 PM

I agree Truthers are much more offensive than Birthers, for obvious reasons. But I think they’re comparable in terms of their sheer illogicality, and their inability to accept objective facts which are placed in front of them.

crr6 on April 12, 2011 at 5:39 PM

This, from the person who keeps ignoring the proof about the long form birth certificate that has been presented here several times.

JannyMae on April 12, 2011 at 6:26 PM

The SS number thing seems to be a WND obsession. Again, there is absolutely nothing to back up any birther claims. Burden of proof is on them, not me.

JetBoy on April 12, 2011 at 6:19 PM

We all know he went to Pakistan. It’s in one of his books, so how did he get there without a U.S. passport. Surely, the government can state whether or not he had a passport at that time, and explain why initially records indicated that he had not applied for one.

DFCtomm on April 12, 2011 at 6:28 PM

nothing to back up any birther claims. Burden of proof is on them, not me.

The burden of proof is on Obama.

Emperor Norton on April 12, 2011 at 6:28 PM

Troofers and Birfers are equally nutty…lots of conspiracies and nothing to back ‘em up.

JetBoy on April 12, 2011 at 6:05 PM

By this standard, so are the anti-birthers who claim Obama is only keeping this issue alive to make conservatives look crazy. They have no evidence but assumption to support their claim.

You obviously don’t have much knowledge about the “birthers.”

JannyMae on April 12, 2011 at 6:30 PM

He’s like an All-Pro offensive lineman; he’s mashing the field. Will the any of the GOP’s quick backs (oxymoron?) run for daylight while there is a hole in the MSM line?

Bruno Strozek on April 12, 2011 at 6:16 PM

..excellent metaphor.

The War Planner on April 12, 2011 at 6:30 PM

windansea on April 12, 2011 at 5:09 PM

Useless leper, flotsam and jetsom

Sonosam on April 12, 2011 at 6:31 PM

I agree Truthers are much more offensive than Birthers, for obvious reasons. But I think they’re comparable in terms of their sheer illogicality, and their inability to accept objective facts which are placed in front of them.
crr6 on April 12, 2011 at 5:39 PM

You can sense the bitterness form Wisconsin all over her posts

HaHa commie!

Sonosam on April 12, 2011 at 6:35 PM

They stated in an article that they have a copy of his selective service form and it has a fake SS#, and list the number.

Dude…that selective service form was long ago proven a fake.

JetBoy on April 12, 2011 at 6:35 PM

By this standard, so are the anti-birthers who claim Obama is only keeping this issue alive to make conservatives look crazy. They have no evidence but assumption to support their claim.

JannyMae on April 12, 2011 at 6:30 PM

Except, of course, the MSM using this as a talking point to de-legitimize conservatives.

MadisonConservative on April 12, 2011 at 6:36 PM

JetBoy on April 12, 2011 at 5:47 PM

You got any hat left? I promised to eat what you didn’t.

Lanceman on April 12, 2011 at 6:40 PM

You got any hat left? I promised to eat what you didn’t.

Lanceman on April 12, 2011 at 6:40 PM

I do. And it’s already pre-salted.

JetBoy on April 12, 2011 at 6:44 PM

Is it just me or does Trump’s potential candidacy for 2012 have the smell of a false flag oporation? I mean given the guys recent political history in regard to who he has dontated money to and supported and which issues he has championed, it appears that he behaves more like a progressive democrat rather than a conservative Republican. Is it just possible that the Democrats have got themselves a ringer for 2012? There very own Ross Perot to split the conservative vote and ensure an Obama victory? Think about it, what would be the perfect dog wistle issue that said candidate could use establish his bonifides with the conservative base? Perhaps something like the Obama birth certificate contraversy? Seriously Im begining to get the feeling that we are being played for chumps by Trump. In fact that would be a perfect campaign slogan “Dont get played for a Chump by Trump”.

Hellrider on April 12, 2011 at 6:44 PM

Are there any polls yet showing Trump vs Obama? I’m just curious.
I’m also looking forward to a new poll asking people if they have questions about Obama’s eligibility (nationally, not just NH GOP).

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on April 12, 2011 at 6:47 PM

Dude…that selective service form was long ago proven a fake.

JetBoy on April 12, 2011 at 6:35 PM

It’s only been somewhat debunked in that it could have been a clerical error. Could be fraud as well, but could be a clerical error.

DFCtomm on April 12, 2011 at 6:47 PM

he’d attack Obama without fear of media disapproval

Yep, and since no one else will do it, why not.

tarpon on April 12, 2011 at 6:50 PM

Question: If he wasn’t proving to be the worst, the most incompetent President ever, would all these threads turn into this birther stuff?

Lanceman on April 12, 2011 at 6:51 PM

I`ve compared Trump to Perot on many threads here but there is one very distinct difference between the two…Perot had at least a smidgen of a chance , Trump on the other hand is a non-starter…enough with the Donald already.

NY Conservative on April 12, 2011 at 6:52 PM

It’s only been somewhat debunked in that it could have been a clerical error. Could be fraud as well, but could be a clerical error.

DFCtomm on April 12, 2011 at 6:47 PM

Then either way, it’s hardly admissible as evidence. Clerical error? Oy.

JetBoy on April 12, 2011 at 6:53 PM

The Limerick Poll results are in and Paul, Huck, or Donald are at the top of stay home and eat popcorn and watch the GOP Dukakis themselves into the geological record.

Limerick on April 12, 2011 at 6:59 PM

Then either way, it’s hardly admissible as evidence. Clerical error? Oy.

JetBoy on April 12, 2011 at 6:53 PM

It’s abnormal. We as private citizens don’t have access to go snooping around someone’s SS# information, so I don’t have the ability to either deny or affirm it.

DFCtomm on April 12, 2011 at 7:00 PM

Well, if it was between the Huckster and the Trumpster, I’ll go with Trump.

Huck will get us 4 more years of Obama. At least Trump will put up a fight for godsakes.

RedbonePro on April 12, 2011 at 7:00 PM

The Limerick Poll results are in and Paul, Huck, or Donald are at the top of stay home and eat popcorn and watch the GOP Dukakis themselves into the geological record.

Limerick on April 12, 2011 at 6:59 PM

Come back exactly one year from now and tell me about obama’s chances.

Lanceman on April 12, 2011 at 7:01 PM

At least Trump will put up a fight for godsakes.

RedbonePro on April 12, 2011 at 7:00 PM

For what?

Limerick on April 12, 2011 at 7:01 PM

I usually enjoy Hot Air’s analysis, but really, suggesting that it’s the birther stuff that is prompting a “black backlash” against Trump is just silly. Anyone who challenges Obama on any issue whatsoever and begins to gain traction is going to suffer a “black backlash.” Putting Obama on defense and black backlash go hand-in-hand — always have, always will — no matter what the issue being discussed is. Imagine what the black backlash will be if he loses re-election? It’ll be “America: Still a Racist Nation” for years and years and years. There will be no explanation for his re-election loss except racism. Tell me, what kind of criticism of Obama that gains public attention would not bring a black backlash?

Rational Thought on April 12, 2011 at 7:06 PM

This, from the person who keeps ignoring the proof about the long form birth certificate that has been presented here several times.

JannyMae on April 12, 2011 at 6:26 PM

Keep fighting the good fight, Janny.

crr6 on April 12, 2011 at 7:11 PM

Sorry, “genius”, but a canvass of the polling in MA shows that most polls had Brown leading decisively; out of 9 polls showing him leading, 4 showed him ahead by 9 to 15 points.

Only 2 polls had him and Coakley in a tie.

Meanwhile, the Boston Globe had Coakley winning by 17. And Suffolk University had her leading by 31%.

Thanks for playing!

Del Dolemonte on April 12, 2011 at 6:17 PM

at what date? all the polls tightened in the last 2 weeks

the earliest poll giving Brown a +1 edge in this list was on Jan 8, when were you sure Brown would win? When he was down by 10 or more in all the polls, or after his last minute money bomb? You coulda been a playah genius.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/538-model-posits-brown-as-31-favorite.html

On intrade, it’s all about timing, and you can make money as candidates go up or down. And if Intrade had it as a dead heat right before the election you could have doubled your money because the trades were 50%/50%. Too bad you didn’t make the call playah…:)

Actually Intrade has a better record than any one pollster, but thats not the point. You gotta pay to play genius.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/business/13leonhardt.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin

http://bpp.wharton.upenn.edu/jwolfers/research.shtml#PredictionMarkets

windansea on April 12, 2011 at 7:17 PM

The horror!

scalleywag on April 12, 2011 at 7:26 PM

The polls invalidate themselves. How nice. Can’t wait for the silly season to end.

alwaysfiredup on April 12, 2011 at 7:52 PM

Keep fighting the good fight, Janny.

crr6 on April 12, 2011 at 7:11 PM

Relevant Hawai’i Statute:

§338-18 Disclosure of records. (a) To protect the integrity of vital statistics records, to ensure their proper use, and to ensure the efficient and proper administration of the vital statistics system, it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part of any such record, except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health.
(b) The department shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record. The following persons shall be considered to have a direct and tangible interest in a public health statistics record:
(1) The registrant;

(2) The spouse of the registrant;

(3) A parent of the registrant;

(4) A descendant of the registrant;

(5) A person having a common ancestor with the registrant;

O’bama shares a common ancestor with such people as Chimpy Bush and Sarah Palin. Can they get a copy?

Del Dolemonte on April 12, 2011 at 8:03 PM

Fox News Chief Detective O’Reilly just pronounced all the birther stuff to be ‘nonsense’, and he’s ready to move on.

Well, that’s that.

slickwillie2001 on April 12, 2011 at 8:17 PM

Meow!! – Who lit the fuse on allahpundit’s tampon!?!?

abobo on April 12, 2011 at 8:27 PM

(5) A person having a common ancestor with the registrant;

O’bama shares a common ancestor with such people as Chimpy Bush and Sarah Palin. Can they get a copy?

Del Dolemonte on April 12, 2011 at 8:03 PM

Heck, he is my 10th cousin once removed (twice over, for that matter). Can I get a copy?

steebo77 on April 12, 2011 at 8:52 PM

Del Dolemonte on April 12, 2011 at 8:03 PM

Heck, he is my 10th cousin once removed (twice over, for that matter). Can I get a copy?

steebo77 on April 12, 2011 at 8:52 PM

Probably he is.

Forgot to mention, O’bama also shares a common ancestor with Rush Limbaugh. What say you, crr6? Does Limbaugh get a copy too?

Del Dolemonte on April 12, 2011 at 10:34 PM

Is it just me or does Trump’s potential candidacy for 2012 have the smell of a false flag oporation? I mean given the guys recent political history in regard to who he has dontated money to and supported and which issues he has championed, it appears that he behaves more like a progressive democrat rather than a conservative Republican. Is it just possible that the Democrats have got themselves a ringer for 2012? ….

Hellrider on April 12, 2011 at 6:44 PM

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner! I’ve been thinking for the past several days that this has Ross Perot, the comb-over version written all over it.

AZfederalist on April 12, 2011 at 10:48 PM

An actual lawyer, Mario Apuzzo, has this to say. He’s talking about this past weekend’s MSDNC Isikoff piece:

This is a SHORT excerpt of Apuzzo’s thoughts. No legal analysis intended here on my part, and our Leftist friends will be quick to point out that this guy is a “Birther”, but he does raise some salient points, legal and otherwise, about Isikoff’s attempted puff piece. Would our HA Leftist legal “experts” care to answer his simple questions? Remember, Isikoff also lied in print about Korans being desecrated at GITMO, and worked for an organization that spiked his story of a lifetime in order to protect a Democrat President who later committed Felony Perjury while in office, and was treated as a rock star for doing so.

“Contacted by NBC, Fukino expanded on previous public statements and made two key points when asked about Trump’s recent comments.”

Fukino no longer works for the Hawaii Department of Health. Why did Mr. Isikoff not contact the current health department director who overseas the birth certificates in Hawaii? Why do we have to hear from someone who no longer works for Hawaii and no longer has any control over or access to its vital records files? Why can we not hear from the current official who could tell us what is in the file today? …

“She found the original birth record, properly numbered, half typed and half handwritten, and signed by the doctor who delivered Obama, located in the files.”

Why does Fukino tell us that the real birth certificate showed the doctor on it but she fails to tell us that Obama’s birth occurred in a hospital which is what Obama told the public occurred? After all, she knows how much “birthers” have been demanding to see conclusive proof that Obama was born in Kapi’olani Hospital, the hospital in which Obama says he was born. There would be no violation of any privacy laws for her to simply say that he was born in a hospital, without giving the name of the hospital, just like she said that a doctor delivered Obama and signed the birth certificate. What is suspect is that there were numerous doctors at that time who could have delivered Obama but only two hospitals in which he could have been born, Kapi’olani Hospital or Queens Hospital. In other words, the doctors get lost in the shuffle but the hospitals do not. Just saying that a doctor signed the birth certificate does not open up channels of information that can be independently verified. On the other hand, knowing the birth hospital pins down the place of birth to only two specific locations in which there would be contained medical evidence of the alleged birth there. …

“’It is real, and no amount of saying it is not, is going to change that,’ Fukino said. Moreover, she added, her boss at the time, Lingle — who was backing John McCain for president — would presumably have to be in on any cover up since Fukino made her public comment at the governor’s office’s request. ‘Why would a Republican governor — who was stumping for the other guy — hold out on a big secret?’ she asked.”

Why is Fukino theorizing about what a Republican Governor would or would not do? Either Hawaii has or does not have the real birth certificate. If they have the document, there is no need to theorize that the Republican Governor would not go along with any conspiracy. Additionally, Fukino does not say that Lingle ever saw the real birth certificate. So how could Lingle be involved in any alleged “cover up” if she was never privy to any information on the issue? By dragging Lingle into the alleged conspiracy makes it look like Lingle had access to some inside information which she would not fabricate because of her opposition position with the Republican Party.

“Her second point — one she made repeatedly in the interview — is that the shorter, computer generated ‘certification of live birth’ that was obtained by the Obama campaign in 2007 and has since been publicly released is the standard document that anybody requesting their birth certificate from the state of Hawaii would receive from the health department.

The document was distributed to the Obama campaign in 2007 after Obama, at the request of a campaign official, personally signed a Hawaii birth certificate request form downloaded on the Internet, according to a former campaign official who asked for anonymity. (Obama was ‘testy’ when asked to sign the form but did so anyway to put the issue to rest, the former campaign official said.”

Why should a former campaign official who was involved in a presidential election and who can shed light on this national crisis issue want to maintain anonymity? Should concerned Americans not be able to learn who was intimately involved in handling Obama’s birth certificate? After all, what is the harm to anyone in knowing that information?

In 2007, there was no issue regarding Obama’s place of birth. The issue of his place of birth came up in 2008. So how could Obama have been “testy” in having to obtain his birth certificate and for reasons of putting “the issue to rest?” If there was no place of birth issue in 2007 why did Obama allegedly request his Certification of Live Birth (COLB) in 2007 which he did receive and which is dated June 6, 2007 to put to rest a nonexistent issue? Why have we not heard that Obama used that 2007 COLB by sending a copy of it to someone who he thought needed it? We have not heard that he sent a copy of that document to any state election officials to show that he was a “natural born Citizen.” Why did Obama wait a whole year before using the 2007 COLB? …

“The certification that the campaign received back —which shows that Obama was born in Honolulu at 7:24 p.m. on Aug. 4, 1961 — was based on the content of the original document in state files, Fukino said.

‘What he got, everybody got,’ said Fukino. ‘He put out exactly what everybody gets when they ask for a birth certificate.’”

But Fukino fails to tell us who in the Hawaii Department of Health processed in 2007 Obama’s alleged request for a copy of his birth certificate. She does not tell us that she personally looked at the real birth certificate and used it to prepare the COLB. She is only speculating that someone did that. But she does not tell us who would have done that at that time. As the director of that department, she would have known who her employees were at that time. She could have easily identified the employee who prepared the document so that Mr. Isikoff could have done further “investigative” follow up with that person.

“In addition, as Factcheck.org and other media organizations have repeatedly pointed out, both of Honolulu’s newspapers, the Honolulu Advertiser on Aug. 13, 1961, and the Honolulu Star Bulletin, on Aug. 14, 1961, both ran birth announcements listing Obama’s birth on Aug. 4 of that year.”

The newspaper birth announcements are not evidence of a birth in Hawaii. At best they are evidence that the Hawaii Department of Health put those ads in the newspapers based on a birth being registered as having occurred in Hawaii. The announcements are not the product of a medically verified birth in Hawaii. They do not have a direct link to the birth hospital.

“Even Fukino accepts that her comments are not likely to end the matter for the die-hard birthers. Trump and other skeptics have questioned why the original birth certificate has not been released.

But Wisch, the spokesman for the attorney general’s office, said state law does not in fact permit the release of “vital records,” including an original “record of live birth” — even to the individual whose birth it records.

‘It’s a Department of Health record and it can’t be released to anybody,’ he said. Nor do state laws have any provision that authorizes such records to be photocopied, Wisch said. If Obama wanted to personally visit the state health department, he would be permitted to inspect his birth record, Wisch said.

But if he or anybody else wanted a copy of their birth records, they would be told to fill out the appropriate state form and receive back the same computer generated ‘certification of live birth’ form that everybody else gets — which is exactly what Obama did four years ago.”

Fukino attacks anyone who will not be convinced by her story, marginalizing them and casting aspersions toward them. It is rather absurd for Mr. Wisch to contend that someone could not get a certified copy of their own birth certificate, especially the President of the United States. There is no law in Hawaii that so provides. On the contrary, the Hawaii Revised Statutes, Section 338-13(a) states that the department “shall, upon request, furnish an applicant a certified copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof.” Paragraph (c) also provides that copies of birth certificates “may be made by photograph, dry copy reproduction, typing, computer printout or other process approved by the director of health.” Hence, Hawaii’s statutes directly contradict what Mr. Wisch is telling the public.

Attorney Apuzzo’s complete analysis here: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2011/04/analysis-of-current-revelations-of.html

Del Dolemonte on April 12, 2011 at 11:06 PM

Seriously? How is being a serious contender at all comparable to being a spoiler? If Trump were to get as little as 15% of the vote, with most coming from the right, it would easily put Obama into office. He could easily do that even having no chance of winning a two-man race outright.

RINO in Name Only on April 12, 2011 at 6:21 PM

So you just wanted to make my point by showing everyone the example of a progressive insisting on having it both ways. Nice Job B+.

Dr Evil on April 12, 2011 at 11:10 PM

Hey, who’s up for another poll showing Trump leading the GOP field?

Anyone else notice that the Republican and Conservative base voters very much like candidates such as Palin, West, Rand and Trump that are unafraid to fight the Democrats and progressives?

No doubt the establishment Republicans will ignore this and do their best to fix the primaries for another go along and get along “moderate.”

RJL on April 13, 2011 at 12:36 AM

For a fascinating gloss on how the Birther stuff might be backfiring on him, though, read this post by Ben Smith on the damage done to Trump’s standing lately among black voters, who previously viewed him favorably. His cross-racial appeal would have been a political asset on the trail and catnip for a media starved for juicy horserace angles during the primary. So much for that.

Seriously Allah?? That is your best attempt at trying to prove that Trump’s is hurt by his attack on Obama?

A Politico spin on a questionable poll taken of a voting bloc that will always vote 95%+ for Obama anyway?

LOL
LOL.

Norwegian on April 13, 2011 at 12:43 AM

Norwegian on April 13, 2011 at 12:43 AM

Yes, both Ed and AllahP have been furiously spinning things lately, even going so far as to purposely misunderstand Trump’s “third party” quote (he said he’d only do it if he felt he could win because otherwise he’d be hurting the GOP and he doesn’t want that). Trump must be threatening their “chosen one” and they are afraid.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on April 13, 2011 at 12:47 AM

For a fascinating gloss on how the Birther stuff might be backfiring on him, though, read this post by Ben Smith on the damage done to Trump’s standing lately among black voters, who previously viewed him favorably.

Wait, what? No, not buying it. The very act of running against King Obama would ruin Trump’s standing with black voters… which is disappointing in the extreme. I wish I could we live in an age where people are judged by their character and not their skin color, but clearly that’s not true.

R. Waher on April 13, 2011 at 5:29 AM

Like everyone else, I do not know where Obama was born. The eligibility of someone to run for election to the Presidency should be a matter of conclusive fact not assumption or supposition. Hawaii law clearly states that a registrant can obtain a copy of any certificate and yet, as of this week, it seems they are no longer issuing certified LFBCs. It seems they are going to great lengths to cover for Obama and yet we are supposed to accept the word of Fukino that they have a certificate signed by a doctor- the one Ambercrombie couldn’t find. I’ll believe it when I see it.

This may be a an epic fraud.

Basilsbest on April 13, 2011 at 7:52 AM

Comment pages: 1 2