Palin seems to do better in polls that don't actually have her as a candidate. Certainly the conservative blogosphere loves her, and they hate Romney---although Ann Coulter, as I recall, endorsed Mitt in 2008.
In most head-to-head polls between Palin and Obama, she comes off worse than anyone else. Now, that's NO reason to reject her, but it is something to note. In 2008, McCain came off better against all Dems, and look at what happened there.
Palin can win in 2012---indeed, as I keep saying, it's possible that Obama will become Herbert Hoover by 2012 and any Republican can win. But I'm not ready yet to just hand her the nomination. I still don't think we've seen the 2012 candidate on our side yet.
“I still don’t think we’ve seen the 2012 candidate on our side yet.”
Well, you are dreaming then. The GOP never nominates darkhorses. Hasn’t happened since 1940.
It will be one of the frontrunners, Palin, Romney, Gingrich or Huckabee. On that you can count. It will only be one of the “darkhorses” if none of these run, which is nextto impossible.
“Palin can win in 2012-—indeed, as I keep saying, it’s possible that Obama will become Herbert Hoover by 2012 and any Republican can win.”
Can win? Right now, Obama is the only behind the eight ball, not Palin. His numbers in Ohio are in the toilet. Indiana, North Carlina and Virginia have already returned to their red “roots” based on 2010 and past electoral history.
Wisconsin is moving hard red with a liberal icon liike Feingold upended.
How about you chart us a path for victory for Obama against Palin state by state. Which states will he take from those carried by McCain in 2008?
And in light of 2010, how is he going to protect states like Florida, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana, New Hampshire, among others, all of which went bright red in 2010?
All the pre-campaign national polls in the world are not going to save him from the Electoral college arithmetic, which will be even grimmer for him (and better for Palin) after the 2010 census).
Tell us how he gets to 270 because I am having a hard time seeing it.
The latest Quinnepac poll (have to find your own link I’m getting ready to watch the WVU-Pit Backyard Brawl)...showed some movement for Palin and had her above Romney and Huckabee...very close.
But movement in the right direction for Palin.
Don't be glib. I freely admitted to you that I didn't search the net for polls, but instead, presented you with several alternative measures of Palin's potential in the primary race.
Perhaps someone else who has the poll results you seek has already posted them for you.
Frankly, the historical accuracy of national polls this far out from a presidential election is abysmal anyway, so I fail to see why you'd want to use them to support your contention that Palin would lose against Obama in 2012.
National polls showed Carter handily beating Reagan in 1980, right up until the election, when Reagan massacred him. I'd think that the sort of data I provided to you is a much better yardstick to measure where the public stands, at this point. And - let's not forget the most recent 'poll', which was the 2010 midterm wipe-out of the Democrats all across the country.
Any thinking person has to factor all of that data into forecasting what's to come in 2012, if they're serious about arriving at an answer that will come close to the probable outcome.
In most head-to-head polls between Palin and Obama, she comes off worse than anyone else.
Oh, I've seen those polls posted here. Most have been produced (or commissioned) by major media companies, or were conducted by little-known, to unknown polling outfits who didn't reveal their polling methods. I wouldn't put much stock in their validity or accuracy.
With all other measures of public sentiment showing that Sarah Palin is immensely popular and influential, it casts strong suspicion on the polls you mentioned, which show otherwise.