WSJ poll: Romney 30, Palin 14, Cain 12, Perry 8

posted at 8:25 pm on June 15, 2011 by Allahpundit

A bad poll for everyone involved, including Mitt. Granted, he’s gained nine points since the last time the Journal surveyed the race (Huckabee was still in play at the time), but only 45 percent of Republicans say they’re happy with the field as is. Four years ago at this time, that number was 73 percent. Just 24 percent say they’re confident in Romney’s ability to be president; in 2007, even John Edwards hit 31 percent. Clearly the base wants more options and the Palin/Cain/Perry constituencies aren’t natural defectors to Romney, so one of those three is bound to start consolidating the anti-Mitt faction as we get closer to the primaries. Bachmann, meanwhile, finishes with just three percent if Palin/Cain/Perry are in the race and at 11 percent if they aren’t. Disappointing, but since the polling ended on Monday, her star turn at the debate hasn’t been priced in yet. The big loser is Pawlenty at just six percent, two points behind Gingrich(!) and tied for seventh with … Rick Santorum. And if you pull Palin, Perry, and Cain out of the field, T-Paw finishes dead last. I know, I know — “it’s still early” — but read Mike Murphy’s post from yesterday. It’s not as early as you think, especially with Perry poised to jump in and become the “not Romney” in the race. Pawlenty needs to show donors that he’s worth investing in, but polling behind Ron Paul and Newt shows them the opposite.

It’s not all sunshine and candy canes for Perry either. Behold:

We like to goof on The One for blaming Bush for his problems, but the reason he does that is because it works. People remember who was president when the financial crisis struck, they remember having utterly lost confidence in that guy for various reasons during his second term, and they’re prepared to cut O a wide, wide berth on the economy because of it. That’s Perry’s misfortune, of course, because not only does he hold Bush’s old job, but superficially he sounds a bit like him when he talks and even has some biographical overlap (they were both military pilots). We’d all like to think his record of job creation in Texas will immunize him from Bush comparisons, but don’t underestimate the ability of the low-information voter to draw the wrong conclusion from a simple, endlessly repeated set of facts. More:

Those numbers will move as we get closer to the election — note how the number who say he inherited the economy plunged as the midterms approached — but after two and a half years of dreariness, they’re remarkably resilient in his favor.

But wait, it gets worse:

Turning to Republicans’ proposal to overhaul Medicare — transforming the government-run health program into a system where future seniors receive a subsidy or voucher to help them purchase private insurance — 31 percent say it’s a bad idea, which is up nine points since April.

Just 22 percent say it’s a good idea, which is virtually unchanged from last month. And 45 percent say they have no opinion.

That number’s not quite kosher insofar as the poll question describes Ryan’s plan as a voucher system even though it isn’t exactly. The sample favors Democrats by eight points too so the hard numbers here aren’t quite as bad as they look, but the trend is worrisome if nothing else. The Journal described Ryan’s plan as a voucher system last time too and opposition was nine points lower, which suggests the GOP really is losing the messaging war. Also this:

In other words, not only does O have a viable back-up campaign narrative with “blame Bush for the economy,” he may have a very viable lead narrative in Mediscaring. See what I mean about it being a bad poll? Exit question: How can Tim Pawlenty still be trailing a guy whose favorable rating dropped 18 points in two months?

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 6 7 8

I’ve since followed your lead and have mostly knocked off retaliation.
MJBrutus on June 16, 2011 at 1:53 PM

Fu-Q
MJBrutus on June 16, 2011 at 2:02 PM

Interesting…

steebo77 on June 16, 2011 at 2:35 PM

steebo77 on June 16, 2011 at 2:35 PM

Yeah, now you have something to talk about for the next 3 months.

MJBrutus on June 16, 2011 at 2:37 PM

No. First, I would like an apology from you for saying that I am “the most vile spewing acrimonious hate monger [you] have ever read.”

steebo77 on June 16, 2011 at 12:05 PM

Okay. I apologize for accusing you of being “the most vile spewing acrimonious hate monger I have ever read.”.

csdeven on June 16, 2011 at 2:50 PM

Okay. I apologize for accusing you of being “the most vile spewing acrimonious hate monger I have ever read.”.

csdeven on June 16, 2011 at 2:50 PM

Thank you.

steebo77 on June 16, 2011 at 2:52 PM

Thank you.

steebo77 on June 16, 2011 at 2:52 PM

This is what happens when I violate my own standards.

csdeven on June 16, 2011 at 2:54 PM

csdeven on June 16, 2011 at 2:54 PM

You do know that that was only a ploy and he’ll be pasting that tidbit over the next year, right?

MJBrutus on June 16, 2011 at 2:56 PM

BTW, the term “Manifest Destiny” was coined by John L. O’Sullivan. John Louis O’Sullivan.

I made the reference in light of Palins proposed trip out west. Because Palin has botched the Paul Revere story, I wondered what stories concerning westward expansion she would butcher.

Hence, “LOUIS” and Clark. The Santa Clause Trail. And the planes Indians.

csdeven on June 16, 2011 at 3:01 PM

You do know that that was only a ploy and he’ll be pasting that tidbit over the next year, right?

MJBrutus on June 16, 2011 at 2:56 PM

Sure. There are lots of folks here who like to collect data on others to throw back in their face later. I don’t know if Steebo does it, but there are lots who do. I figure as long as I am committed to doing my best and apologize when I mess up, I’ll survive the attacks. I can (and do) skip what certain people write.

csdeven on June 16, 2011 at 3:04 PM

csdeven on June 16, 2011 at 3:04 PM

I hear ya. I mentioned only because in this thread, this particular troll did just that, cried over milk spilled 3 months ago. Why yesterday I was honored to have troll go back almost a full year to post something that he imagined (quite wrongly) was a contradiction in what I said than and now. These stalker types are really obsessive.

MJBrutus on June 16, 2011 at 3:08 PM

MJBrutus on June 16, 2011 at 3:08 PM

There was a guy last week that had dragged out some comments I made in 2007! Amazing! Who hangs on to comments that are 4 years old? Creepy!

csdeven on June 16, 2011 at 3:21 PM

csdeven on June 16, 2011 at 3:21 PM

Wow! I think they look them up in Google or some archive. Nutty just the same.

MJBrutus on June 16, 2011 at 6:48 PM

darwin on June 16, 2011 at 9:16 AM

PALIN: You deport them.

Yeah, lots of room for interpretation there.

MJBrutus on June 16, 2011 at 9:18 AM

She does not address the issue of “those already here” or, existing illegal aliens in the nation (before there’s this “deport them” thing asked, ordered or legislated for those then continuing to try to arrive and remain here illegally).

The weasel-logic in the McCain/Palin ticket in 2008 was that there was IMPLIED this plan or intention by McCain of amnesty for “those already here” and then some sort of “increased border security” and enforcement of our laws (includes deportation of illegal aliens, but only what he/they/amnesty-intents call “CRIMINAL illegal aliens” — meaning, not all illegal aliens, for them, there’s this implied plan called “amnesty”) … and I do believe that’s Palin’s intent.

Yes, we can at some “future” time, “deport them” but there are, what, 20+ million illegal aliens here already? Including children, many of whom are being educated at the expense of taxpayers, and fed, and treated for medical issues, and housed, and given spending money, and, and…

These are the “folks” McCain and by association with him Palin referred to in 2008 “we’re ALL God’s children…”

While I agree that all human life IS “God’s children,” though they/we may all be so, not everyone is a U.S. citizen and behaving non-criminally. So though one may be God’s child, it is not reason to violate our laws nor the U.S. to toss enforcement aside of our laws to indulge criminal behavior, frauds, thefts, violent crimes, smuggling, forgery, etc., all of which are key liabilities as to EXISTING AND FUTURE illegal alien populations in the U.S.

We really must start demanding politicians be specific. Ask Palin just WHEN she plans to “deport them” and who “them” are: existing illegal alien populations, all of them, or perhaps “just” the ones who attempt to arrive and remain here illegally “later”…

Specifically, what about the existing illegal alien population in the U.S.? And why do the taxpayers have to continually pay for these liabilities?

Enforce our EXISTING laws and deport EXISTING illegal aliens, ALL of them, starting now, continued and implement increased border security now, not later, not in the future based upon an “if” and a “soon” or other conditions.

I’m not confident that Palin does not support amnesty by various manipulations such as also McCain does.

Lourdes on June 23, 2011 at 3:09 AM

Lourdes on June 23, 2011 at 3:09 AM

Nice necro.

fossten on June 23, 2011 at 12:51 PM

Comment pages: 1 6 7 8