Rasmussen: Plurality of GOP primary voters prefer Palin to stay out in 2012

Hotair ^ | 06/16/2011 | Ed Morrissey

[SeekAndFind]

Rasmussen released the second part of its GOP primary polling this morning, this time concerning those potential candidates not in the race. The survey of likely Republican primary voters does not indicate a massive desire for more candidates to jump into the race, but support for bids by Rick Perry and Rudy Giuliani exceeds opposition. That isn’t true for Sarah Palin:

A plurality of Republican primary voters think it would be good for Texas Governor Rick Perry to jump into the party’s presidential race and bad for the party if former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin joined the field. They are evenly divided about former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 36% of Likely GOP Primary Voters think it would be good for Republicans if Palin enters the race, but 45% believe it would be bad for the party. Just 11% say it would have no impact. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Thirty-six percent (36%) also feel it would be good for the GOP if Perry enters the race. Only 21% say it would be bad for the party, while 26% think it would have no impact. Sixteen percent (16%) are not sure.

As for Giuliani, best known for his leadership in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, 38% of likely primary voters believe it would be good for their party if he joins the presidential race. Nearly as many (35%), however, see his candidacy as bad for the GOP. Nineteen percent (19%) say it would have no impact.

Earlier, commenters on the first Rasmussen release wondered why the pollster didn’t include potential candidates in the survey, and this answers the question. None of the three got above 36% in demand for a run. Given the lack of any other potential candidates, this appears to bolster the argument that likely primary voters see the current field as sufficient.

The internals don’t look good for Palin in this instance. In almost all demographics, opposition to a primary bid outstrips support. Among men, it’s a 42/42 tie, but among women, it’s a double-digit deficit at 28/49. Palin trails in every age demographic and loses a majority among 40-49YOs, 34/51; she also loses a majority among independents planning to vote in the GOP primaries, 34/53. Black voters (53/26), those unsure of their ideology (70/27), and Tea Party members (49/33) support the idea of a Palin candidacy. Evangelicals are the only religious denomination to support a Palin run, but at a surprisingly low 44/38 mark. Palin also picks up support from lower-income levels below $40K and the $60-75K demo, but loses the other income demos.

The numbers for Perry and Giuliani aren’t bad, but they’re not “draft”-level figures, either. A Perry run would be seen positively across the board, but not terribly enthusiastically. He actually gets a majority of Tea Party voters (53/17), scoring better among them than Palin, and a majority among black voters, as does Giuliani, who also gets a majority of 30-39YOs. Otherwise, support for any of the three is rather tepid, at least at this point.

One interesting point: Black voters are enthusiastic about all three potential bids, by a majority in each case. They don’t appear to be satisfied with the current field.

[Polybius]

I would just love to hear the SPECIFIC rationale on how, in any way, shape or form, a Sarah Palin candidacy is “bad for the party”.

It's not only "bad for the Party". It is extremely risky for America.

Here are the reasons why:

1.) Among Republican Conservatives, Sarah Palin is very popular. Among ALL Republicans, Sarah Palin is moderately popular. With a 37% Favorable rating among all Republicans, her popularity is among the highest in a very weak Republican field where NOBODY hits a 40% Favorable rating. Sarah Palin could actually WIN the GOP nomination.

2.) Unfortunately, Republicans only make up 29% of all voters.

3.) Therefore, 100% of the Republican vote and $1.29 gets you absolutely nothing except a cup of coffee at McDonalds. Period.

4.) Among the rest of American voters, Sarah Palin's poll numbers are downright toxic. SIXTY FIVE PERCENT OF ALL VOTERS STATE THAT THEY WILL DEFINITELY NOT --- REPEAT --- DEFINITELY NOT VOTE FOR SARAH PALIN IN THE GENERAL ELECTION.

5.) A Sarah Palin nomination will therefore absolutely GUARANTEE the reelection of Barack Hussein Obama.

6.) The Palin Fan Club seems to be totally oblivious to the calamity that would come about if they are irrational enough to actually nominate Sarah Palin.

7.) For the rest of us (45% of the GOP), the mere possibility of a Sarah Palin nomination and the guaranteed reelection of Barack Hussein Obama scares the bejesus out of us.

Of all the debaters in the recent Republican debate, most American voters would choose "None of the Above".

Bill Clinton did not announce his first winning candidacy until October of the year before the election. The GOP has until around October of 2011 to attract a strong conservative candidate whose poll numbers are not lower than whale scat at the bottom of the ocean and who can actually defeat Obama and not merely make members of an adoring Sarah Palin Fan Club (8% of all voters) act like 13 year old girls at a Justin Bieber concert.

If not, we will have either RINO Romney or Marxist Obama as the President for the next four years.

[Piers-the-Ploughman]

so Sarah Palin listens to Scott Rasmussen and folds?
The more the merrier as she would say. I’d love to see her be a candidate and debate the rest. If Newt, MB, Huntsman etc can get in and get respect why cant SP? Why didnt Scott do a poll and Newt and tell him via headline “it’s over, don’t bother”

This is just another bully tactic. I despise this. I dont want “independent” pollsters telling us who our candidate should be. SP will make that decision and she isnt smart enough to not lesson to advice from political adversaries.

[Windflier]

What is it about women that Gov. Palin hasn’t yet been able to convince that she’d make a good U.S. president?

Here's your answer...

[JaguarXKE]

Stool Mitt!

[Windflier]

What, no response?

I think he's busy ducking all the other arrows ;-)

[LibLieSlayer]

Polls taken at this point in an election are taken to shape public opinion and not report on public opinion. LLS says that and Rush Limbaugh says that... you can call Rush tomorrow and ask him. Do some research on scotty rasmussen... look up when david axlerod threatened him... check out the transcript of Sean Hannity’s show the day before the 2010 midterms and read zogby and scotty get it all wrong.

scotty is the first pollster to ask about “somewhat approve” of obama... because he is able to keep obama in the mid 40’s to low 50’s approval that way... and he keeps the IRS off of his back at the same time. This particular poll has obama at 45% somewhat approve.

The only time to truly trust polls is right before an election... and even then they can be way off... or if you get to look at internal polling of a campaign... they either get it right for campaigns or never work again.

LLS

[LibLieSlayer]

Just read my posts on this thread and learn about what I say.

LLS

[babygene]

I did the math... It’s 290,000.

[nascarnation]

True.
Remember though that BJ Clinton snuck in with a plurality win.
57% of American voters DIDN’T vote for him.

[RitaOK]

” This “woman thing” is serious. Rush has talked about it many, many times on his show. He can’t explain it, but he doesn’t deny that it’s real.” ==========

I am guilty. It would take Thatcher stature in a woman to get my vote, that is, short of the next general election against a marxist. In that case, I would vote Britney Spears over Obama. In general, I am about up to here with women-think throughout out culture, of the touchy feely, warm and fuzzy.

[LibLieSlayer]

Pollsters lie for money... check out this thread on abc/washington post poll released today.

LLS

[editor-surveyor]

So the slimeballs are pushing Perry, what a surprise that they would push an illegal immigration whore off on us.

[LibLieSlayer]

Pollsters lie for money... check out this thread on abc/washington post poll released today.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2735807/posts

LLS

[editor-surveyor]

Scott Rassmussen has always been a sleeze.

[Windflier]

I think an awful lot of women simply have no idea what is going on in the political arena and could care less. Somebody (maybe a friend) that Sarah Palin was stupid and that’s good enough for them.

I have much the same impression of (an awful lot of) women as you do. Per my observations, many just don't tune in to big political races until just before the big vote, and that is when they pay just enough attention to make a choice.

Regrettably, many women make their choices based upon some opinion leader's advice (husband, pastor, talking head, girlfriend, mom, sister, etc.). Some may also be impressed by a single televised appearance of a particular candidate to make their choice.

But, that's what campaigns are for. The winning candidate will have the greatest reach and ability to connect with the greatest number of voters. Unfortunately for the rest of the current line-up, Palin is far and away, the best at that.

[LibLieSlayer]

Nothing but lies and propaganda.

LLS

[Polybius]

I dont want “independent” pollsters telling us who our candidate should be.

Polls, like a biopsy, do not tell you what to do. They only provide data.

If you want to ignore the biopsy data that says that you have breast cancer, that is totally up to you. It is your choice to take the option that gives you a 10% or 30% or 50% chance of avoiding death or choosing the option that guarantees a 100% chance of death.

See Post 121.

You don't like those results in Post 121?

Here is another result from FOX News:

FOX News Poll (February 7-9, 2011)

Question 3: I am going to read you a list of names. Tell me if you think that person would make a good President or not.

Sarah Palin:

.................YES.........NO.......DK.....Never heard of

ALL...........23%.......72%.........4%.......1%

Dem ...........7%........87%........5%.......1%

Rep ...........40%.......56%.......3%.......1%

Ind ...........25%........69%.......3%.......1%

Why am I so opposed to the Republican nomination of Sarah Palin?

Because I would bet my life that any Republican nominee with such toxic poll numbers absolutely GUARANTEES the reelection of Barack Hussein Obama and America simply cannot afford such a disaster.

[editor-surveyor]

>> “But what cutoff should be reached before we conclude she isn’t running?” <<

.
Who cares what you or anybody else “concludes?”

It means nothing.

Anyone that cannot see that she has been running for 2 1/2 years must have had their eyes plucked out.

No conclusion necessary. Just look at what she is doing day by day.

[deport]

Everybody’s got opinions. Nothing knew there. A grain or two of salt is usually worth taking when looking at polls.

I agree polls get more accurate as to the final outcome the closer they are to the actual election. But polls can and do reflect a moment in time. That result will change with the next moment in time that is measured. I don’t buy into the crap that all polls are wrong just because some result that one wants doesn’t emerge. If they were crap then companies wouldn’t pay huge dollars to have them taken.

[Windflier]

Oh, ye of little faith. Cuddle with your charts and numbers, trembling in the dark, if you must, but trust me. Sarah Palin is going to surprise you.

You ain’t seen nuthin yet.