America's Unhappy Electorate: Donald Trump polls better against Obama than Sarah Palin

The Daily Beast ^ | 02/22/2011 | Douglas Schoen

[SeekAndFind]

President Obama hits 50 percent in the new Newsweek/Daily Beast poll, but Americans are largely dissatisfied with Congress, its leaders, and plans. (A bright spot: Trump for president!) Full results below.

A new Newsweek/Daily Beast poll shows that while the American people are gradually warming to President Obama's job performance—he's at 50 percent approval ratings, versus 44 percent who disapprove—the American electorate remains deeply skeptical toward the plans of both the Democrats and Republicans in Congress, and gives Congress itself a distinctly negative rating.

Some of the specific are as follows:

• Only 30 percent approve of the job Congress is doing, versus 58 percent who disapprove. • Only 37 percent support the health-care reform law, versus 56 percent who oppose. But in terms of repealing it, the verdict is split: 41 percent want to repeal, 44 percent oppose such a move. • Only 37 percent believe the GOP puts forward positive proposals, versus 49 percent who believe the party is primarily interested in criticizing Obama. The president scores far better in this regard—58 percent believe he puts forward positive proposals—but pluralities still doubt he has solutions to key issues facing the country. • A full 66 percent of respondents are satisfied with how Obama has handled the Egypt crisis.

Given the dissatisfaction that exists and the hyper-partisanship evident in Washington, it is not surprising that a strong majority of voters favor the establishment of a bipartisan process to balance the budget, reform health care, and overhaul the tax system.

Voters express dissatisfaction with both the Democratic leadership in the Senate and Republican leadership in the House, and indeed hold unfavorable views toward both major parties.

The only congressional leader with a positive approval rating is newly elected Speaker John Boehner—40 percent positive to 23 percent negative. Each of the other three leaders has a net negative rating, with Harry Reid (27-44) Nancy Pelosi (33-53) both perceived especially poorly.

Given the level of dissatisfaction that exists, it is not surprising that a clear majority of the American people prefer the divided government we now have to the Democratic rule we had previously. In addition, there is a preference for the Republicans, rather than the Democrats to run Congress after the next election.

The Newsweek/Daily Beast poll also surveyed the 2012 race. The Republican presidential primary is effectively tied between Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee—with Sarah Palin trailing them both by substantial margins in the Republican presidential trial heat.

The prospective addition of Donald Trump to the race did produce some impact, and his support was in the high single digits.

Individual head-to-head ballot tests for president show President Obama with a double-digit lead over Sarah Palin (51-40), a narrow lead over Mitt Romney (49-47) and Donald Trump (43-41), and a tie with Mike Huckabee (46-46).

Moreover, the particularly high percentage of undecided voters in the race with Trump underscores the substantial degree of uncertainty his prospective candidacy provokes.

While the president did draw positive ratings for his handling of the crisis in Egypt, there remains greater skepticism about Egypt and indeed, the Middle East. A solid majority believes that a stable democracy is unlikely to emerge in Egypt, and there is real fear that fundamentalism and conflict will result from the crisis—even under circumstances where the American people say they are largely uncertain about what type of government will emerge.

[wolfman23601]

Why do you say that? If Trump runs, he is worth hearing out. He is a smart and successful man and has some good ideas regarding charging protection payments from countries we protect and clamping down on OPEC. I doubt I’d support him, but he deserves a spot in the debate. Maybe some of his good ideas can get legs on the national stage.

[backwoods-engineer]

Trump funded the most anti-gun politicians out there: Lautenberg, Schmucky Schumer, and more. Trump is no conservative. I will not be voting for him, even if he is the only alternative on the ballot to Hussein.

I will be writing in "Sarah Palin" if Trump is on the ballot.

[Gator113]

Good.... but I will still be voting for Palin.

[ModelBreaker]

“If polls are so accurate, why do we bother with elections?”

Well, for one, Dems can’t give homeless people money to go vote in polls. Nor is it easy for more than 100% of the population in hard D precincts to vote in polls.

[Palmetto Patriot]

Just heard on Rush:

Trump has contributed to Rahm’s campaign in Chicago, as well as to Blago and the Cook County Democratic Club.

[stevem]

Then he ought to challenge Obama in the primaries.

[itsahoot]

If polls are so accurate, why do we bother with elections?

I think the point is that they hope to convince you that their fraud comports with the polls.

Remember when Hillary wanted to use statistical analysis to do the census?

Her next step of course would have been statistical analysis for elections.

[ScottinVA]

He is a smart and successful man

Oh, I don't deny that. However, he's used to dumping people who don't conform to his way of thinking. Not gonna happen in the political world. Further, he has a history of bullying. Back in 1998, a widow named Vera Coking had to sue to keep her boarding house that happened to be in an area close to Trump's casino. Trump demanded that property because he wanted space for limos for his high-rollers. Coking sued and (thankfully) won. Ditto for Claire Sabatini, who had to do the same to hold her restaurant, because Trump had his greedy eyes on that as well in the mid-1990s.

Trump's attempt to grab another person's property tells me all I need to know about how he views eminent domain issues. What do we think his attitude about this sensitive topic would be were he to become President?

He also is an ardent backer of government-run health care, so don't look for any counter-action on 0bamaCare from him.

Trump is also a womanizer. We've been there with that.

So, as for Donald Trump, no thanks. Like I said earlier, I have no argument with the fact he's a shrewd businessman. But he is also an arrogant, self-promoting, steamrolling prick. It's very unlikely he'd be the GOP nominee, but if he is, I'm voting another party. That I guarantee.

[ScottinVA]

I will not be voting for him, even if he is the only alternative on the ballot to Hussein.

Ditto. I don't care what party Trump represents, I'll never mark next to his name on a ballot.

[wolfman23601]

I don’t disagree, but don’t you think he may have some ideas worth debating on a national stage? I don’t want him as president either, but I would like to see whoever the nominee is adopt any good ideas that are out there. For instance, why do we protect other countries, such as Norway, for free so that they can afford their socialist policies and not have to worry about self defense? If we pulled that protection away, they’d be speaking Russian in 5 years. Why don’t we charge them for it? That is one issue I heard Trump bring up that I whole heartedly agree with. I think it is common sense and would score very well as part of a national platform under someone else. I think the man is a slimeball of a character and far from an across the board conservative, but we need as many good ideas as possible. That is what primaries are for.

[ScottinVA]

but don’t you think he may have some ideas worth debating on a national stage?

From the fiscal standpoint, sure, as long as we all don't take him too seriously on other subjects.

[Polybius]

NewsWeak polls have no credibility as they constantly put up results that drive a leftist agenda and try to dilute conservative thinking and politics.

Being a conservative does not mean that you have to follow a Cult of Personality that blindly worships Sarah Palin.

Sarah Palin and The Donald are both reality TV personalities and the overwhelming majority of voters, including a majority of Republicans, do not think that either one of them would be a good President.

What next?

"America's Unhappy Electorate: Jon Gosselin polls better against Obama than Kate Gosselin"?

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%

********

Donald Trump:

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

All .............19%.......75%.......4%.......4%

Dem ...........16%.......76%.......5%.......3%

Rep ............23%.......71%.......5%.......1%

Ind ...........11%..... ..82%.......3%.......0%

Donald Trump is hinting at running for President for one reason: "To enhance the Trump brand".

Sarah Palin is running for President beacause John McCain made the very unwiswe mistake of throwing the Gender Card to try to attract female voters without the due diligence required to see if Sarah Palin was even remotely qualified to be one heartbeat away from the Presidency.

By the time it became painfully obvious that the answer was, No", it was too late as the VP selection had already been announced nationwide.

"Palin couldn't explain why North Korea and South Korea were separate nations. ..... Asked to identify the enemy that her son would be fighting in Iraq, she drew a blank. Later, on the plane, Palin said to her team: 'I wish I'd paid more attention to this stuff'."

[Allegra]

What next?

"America's Unhappy Electorate: Jon Gosselin polls better against Obama than Kate Gosselin"?

"America's Unhappy Electorate: Allegra polls better against Obama than humblegunner."

[wolfman23601]

Concur. The problem with career politicians is they will never go outside of the typical democrat vs. republican talking points unless they are forced to. Someone like Trump can force some issues that need to be discussed. A politician like Romney will never bring out an original idea or take any risks, he will just know the talking points better than anyone else. Thus, we wind up with the same garbage.

[battletank]

“I have no argument with the fact he’s a shrewd businessman. “

Shrewd businessmen do NOT bankrupt numerous businesses they own!

[itsahoot]

He ran his Casino into Bankruptcy.

He didn't do 29 Palms Indian Casino, in Coachella Valley, any good either.

[humblegunner]

"America's Unhappy Electorate: Allegra polls better against Obama than humblegunner."

Only because of smear campaigns launched by disgruntled bloggers.

[Polybius]

For instance, why do we protect other countries, such as Norway, for free so that they can afford their socialist policies and not have to worry about self defense?

For the same reason that 5,000 U.S. Marines and 20,000 Japanese died fighting over a tropical hellhole named Guadalcanal.

Military strategic importance is just like real estate: It's all about "Location, Location, Location."

Why did the Germans and the British fight tooth and nail in 1940 over a frozen chuck of land called Norway when the Norwegians just wanted to mind their own business and stay neutral?

Because whoever controls Norway, controls fantastic attack submarine bases that can threaten the entire Atlantic.

German U-Boat Bases in Norway during World War II

The same thing applies to Canada and the Canadians know it.

We will always be required, for our own protection, to defend the socialistic, U.S.-bashing, self-righteous Canadians for the simple reason that a single footstep can take you from the U.S.A. to Canada.

"Location, Location, Location."