Posted on 02/24/2011 1:19:52 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Gallup keeps bringing the hits. Today it has a breakdown of early Republican primary polls by the top issues among potential voters. First the qualification: Primary polls this early are poor indicators of results. At this point in 2007, Rudy Giuliani led the GOP field and Hillary Clinton had a virtual lock on the Democratic nomination. But these polls do show us something about how the candidates are viewed, and whom they appeal to.
With that said, there are some notable results here. Mitt Romney still does badly among those who social issues as the biggest issue in 2012, as does Newt Gingrich. Perhaps more surprising, Sarah Palin wins among those voters who see national security and foreign policy as the most important issue.
(Excerpt) Read more at swampland.blogs.time.com ...
History shows it will most likely be one of the above 4. Only once in the last 100 years or so did the GOP pick a guy who was unknown and didn’t have a natl profile and that was Wilkie in 1940 after WW2 started and FDR ran for a 3rd term(a special circumstance).
In the modern age, they’ve never done it. So it will be someone who people know and has a national profile. Only Romney, Huckabee, Palin and Gingrich fit the bill. Jeb Bush does but he’s said he’s not running. Petraeus would. Other than that, I can’t think of anyone else.
I agree Romneycare ends Romney’s hopes. So it’s down to Huckabee, Palin and Gingrich and I’d say that’s the likely order if Huckabee runs.
If Huckabee doesn’t run, then I’d say it’s either Palin or Gingrich. And Newt is almost 70 and does the GOP really want a nother 70 year old with white hair to go up against the young and hip Obama? Not to mention all his baggage and the fact that it will be 2012 and nothing says 1994 more than Newt. I think his time has probably passed.
So, it’s likely Huckabee or Palin. One will win in IA and use the momentum to win in SC and go from there.
If the economy has improved Obama will win. If it stays the same or gets worse, he’ll lose.
I guess you will be in for a disappointment then, Palin will be the nominee, unless there is no election, which would not surprise me one bit.
With or without the economy , Obama loses. Obamacare , immgigration and deficts make him DOA. Clinton had none of these problems in 96. Even Bob Dole propped up by a jukebox could win against Obama in 12.
What ought to concern Freepers---and I've been warning about this for a year---is that Huck has such strong appeal among "social conservatives" but also among the Fair Tax crowd.
The good news is that the election isn't today, and the primaries aren't for almost a year. Obama may well be in Hooveresque territory by the summer of 2012, at which time ___________________ (fill in the blank Republican) can beat him.
Your analysis of Romney, though is off, because the FIRST thing people say about him is a reference to his "business ability" and how we "need someone like him" running the country. Whether it's true or not, there is some grass roots support for him as a business person, and again, Freepers tend to dismiss this. I don't think he can win a primary, but his VOTERS need to be attracted to a candidate who DOES have the social creds and the foreign policy sense to win. As of now, it's not clear who that is.
Palin can win, just watch.
I am scratching my head. What has she done to get national security creds?
Just asking?
I would argue that even on election day, most people aren't really informed.
There was a documentary done by a guy in 2008 based on interviews conducted of people who were literally standing in line to vote. The level of ignorance, not just with respect to issues but in regards to the candidates themselves, was shocking. A number of those interviewed couldn't successfully name the two-person ticket for either party.
National elections in America have devolved to such a degree in the last 70-years, that they have almost nothing to do with political ideology or contemporary domestic and international policy. They are, in large part, personal popularity contests - beauty contests between the top presidential candidates and contests about marketing. Whoever looks the part, speaks the part and has the most optimistic message (relative to their opponent), generally wins.
But I heard she was washed up? How can this be? ..... 2ndDivisionVet
Twenty two percent (22%) of REPUBLICANS think she is best (among three other retread opponents) in foreign policy and you are doing cartwheels?
Republicans make up 29% of all voters:
Twenty two percent of that equals a little over 6% of all voters.
What do the rest of the 94% of American voters think of Sarah Palin?
Seventy two percent (72%) of ALL voters and 56% of REPUBLICAN voters believe that Sarah Palin would NOT make a good President according to the latest FOX News Poll:
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%
Whoever has the illusions that Sarah Palin has a clue about foreign policy is seriously mistaken. In 2008, compared to the average Free Republic poster, Sarah Palin was pathetically ignorant.
Seriously, what FR poster in 2008 could not have discussed, at length, the Iraq situation in regards to the Sunni militias, the al Sadr militia, etc.?
It is time to start seriously trying to ensure that Barrack Hussein Obama is not reelected in 2012.
We need a serious and competent candidate that the rest of America can respect.
We do not need the Romney, Huckebee and Gingrich political retreads.
We do not need a candidate that SEVENTY TWO PERECENT of ALL voters think would NOT be a good President.
We do not need a candidate that is so pitifully uneducated about foreign policy that, in 2008, she had no idea who U.S. troops were fighting against in Iraq.
We are in dangerous times and we need competent leadership in the Oval Office. This is no longer 5th Grade when we voted for Class President based upon whether or not we thought that little Sarah was really, really cute.
“Nominally conservative”.
You mean like Bush?
Sounds like you just described Gov Palin. I do find it funny when people do that...
Trailing the two losers in every category but one, and winning that with less than 25% and you think this is a good showing?
As bush showed you can elect as many footsoldiers you want. they simply vote with the leader of the party. Yuo elect a RINO and you get a RINO congress. you elect a liberal you get a liberal congress and if you elect a conservative you get a conservative Congress.
The POTUs is the spot we need to worry about not the footsoldiers....
What also stands out about those poll results, are the columns "Never Heard of" and "Don't Know". It seems that everyone - even the least politically aware - have not only heard of Sarah Palin, but virtually all (over 96%) have an opinion. THAT is remarkable for any candidate this far out.
Have those two losers been attacked 24/7 by the media, academia, Hollywood, the Nutroots, RINOs, the Country Clubbers, the foreign press, TV, the cable shows, cartoons, the White House, the DNC, the peacecreeps and the unions since the Fall of 2008?
Just because 22% of people in a poll believe that John Doe can perform brain surgery does not mean that John Doe can perform brain surgery.
Look at the facts:
She could not explain why North Korea and South Korea were separate nations.
Did you know that the al Sadr militias and the Sunni militias were engaged in combat with U.S. troops in 2008?
I am sure that you did. Sarah Palin did not.
See Post 28.
Name some present conservative Democrats who would be more than willing to run for ‘12 POTUS, please. It’s a rapidly dying breed, and the present moderate Democrats are, also, a dying breed.
Another Factor about Palin is this: to make a serious deep run into the Presidential election, one needs
1. Name Recognition and/or Star power
2. Money and/or the ability to raise money really quickly
3. Base that will crawl over hands and knees for you
Sarah is the only one that has all three components; for example, many people who might worry that she has been beat up by the media and can’t win would still rather see her at a rally than the others if they had a choice, that’s more going to her than listening to someone else in the GOP and their minds might change if Sarah wows them - that is the giant Elephant in the room that many GOP people fear: that she will suck the air out of the room - Bill Clinton in 1992 was not a named politician but he had star power to attract a lot of democrat primary voters to win, Sarah has both name and star power......
And I think Sarah filets him like a freshly caught salmon.
Since 1900, only one Republican became president by defeating an incumbent. That Republican was Reagan. He had four traits that might have helped him:
1. He was conservative.
2. He was a governor.
3. He sought the nomination, in a previous election.
4. He was from the West.
The Republicans, who might run, who have at least three of those four traits, are Sarah Palin, Dirk Kempthorne, Mike Huckabee, and Mitt Romney. I hope that all of them will run, but I don’t know whom I would support.
In 1980, a conservative, Reagan, was elected president, but Democrats retained control of both houses of Congress.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.