Poll: Obama Beats All 2012 GOPers

By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Barack, Huckabee, Newt, Obama, Palin, Polls, Republicans, Romney

(NOTE: I misread the poll results. The poll is among ALL voters. I’ll strike what isn’t relevant anymore, but most of my comments weren’t about the Republican nature of this poll anyway. Sorry for the confusion and thanks to Simon for pointing this out.)

This was a bit of a surprise, especially considering that only Republican voters were polled, but it shows who’s leading the pack in a couple years.

Basically, Huckabee is in a surprisingly good position, but Romney, Palin and Gingrich all have double digit deficits.

From Public Policy Polling:

Huckabee fares the best of the top Republican contenders at this point in time, trailing Obama 49-42. That margin is basically the same as what Obama won by against John McCain in November. Huckabee also has the best favorability numbers of the Republican quartet at 42/34. Even after running for President last year a quarter of the country doesn’t have an opinion about him one way or the other.

Sarah Palin’s numbers are an interesting conundrum. She easily has the best favorability among Republicans voters, with 76% saying they have a positive opinion of her. The other three range from 60-67 with the party base. But she also has the largest percentage of GOP voters- 21%- who say they would vote for Obama if she ended up being the party nominee. So for the folks in the party who don’t like her that feeling is strong enough they’d rather vote for a Democrat. It adds up to a 12 point deficit for her, 53-41. Overall the electorate has a negative opinion of Palin, 42/49.

The low 60% favorability rating among GOP voters belongs to Mitt Romney, certainly an indication that securing the nomination is likely to once again be a struggle for him. He is viewed favorably by the largest numbers of Democrats for any of the Republican candidates in the survey, at 27%. He trails Obama 50-39.

Obama: 49%
Huckabee: 42%
Obama +7

Obama: 50%
Romney: 39%
Obama +11

Obama: 53%
Palin: 41%
Obama +12

Obama: 52%
Gingrich: 39%
Obama +13

All the normal caveats apply here that it’s too early, etc., but if Obama is under 50% and Huckabee is only 7% behind, well, the GOP will take note of that. But if Huckabee genuinely gets the nod as the candidate, I think it would tear the GOP in two for the foreseeable future since it would seem like the religious right’s candidate.


This entry was posted on Thursday, April 23rd, 2009 and is filed under Barack, Huckabee, Newt, Obama, Palin, Polls, Republicans, Romney. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

14 Responses to “Poll: Obama Beats All 2012 GOPers”

  1. Tom Says:

    Yes, because no one’s ever accused PPP of bias in Obama’s favor before. It isn’t like they were giving Obama larger leads than all the other polls throughout the Democratic Primary or anything.

    You know Justin, as a member of the opposition party you were usually quite reasonable. But ever since Obama’s inauguration you’ve been acting like the worst kind of political hack

  2. Kevin Jackson Says:

    Just curious, is there any source of information other than Fox that the Right hasn’t accused of bias? If you think the polls are in doubt offer some proof otherwise you are easily ignored. And the swipe at Justin makes me wonder if you are to be taken seriously either.

    Some of us are easy to offend because we have been dealing with this pathetic BS for decades and it has worn thin. Justin still thinks there is hope for you.

  3. Doctor Professor Says:

    “Just curious, is there any source of information other than Fox that the Right hasn’t accused of bias?”

    Rasmussen. And for the record, Rasmussen’s polls always favor the Republicans more than any other poll. Fox considers this the most fair and balanced poll, make of it what you will.

  4. Below The Beltway » Blog Archive » Obama Leads All Challengers In Early 2012 Polling Says:

    [...] Gardner breaks down the horse race for us: Obama: 49% Huckabee: 42% Obama [...]

  5. Mike Casey Says:

    If this is only Republican voters than it looks like Obama’s won already. The Republican nominee will be an empty honor, just like for Al Smith in 1928.

  6. Simon Says:

    On a personal level, I like Huckabee; he comes across as a very nice, modest guy. Nevertheless, I was and remain deeply skeptical of him as a potential nominee for President; during the primaries, he struck me as Bush III: a big government larsonite who happens to have conservative social views. That has zero appeal to me. Nevertheless, he has put his name on a book recently. It’s sitting in my intake hopper (right next to Dee Dee Myers’ recent book, amusingly enough), and I want to read that. The campaign trail is often a bad place to explain your views.

    Kevin, I can’t speak for “The Right” (granted, we meet regularly for lunch and plotting, we just don’t authorize any one person to speak for the entire conspiracy), but here’s my two cents: all the media is biased, and anyone who thinks Fox is an exception is living in cloud cuckoo land. I think it’s natural that people tend to notice the biases they don’t share rather than the ones they do. What I will say about Fox is that their bias is somewhat less insidious than the rest of the media, in this way. If you watch Fox’s coverage of story X, you will discover that there are two sides to story X, but the liberal side is an utterly stupid view held only by anti-American commie weirdos. If you watch or read most other media outlets, you’ll get the liberal view of it, period. You won’t even find out that there’s another side to it – that information will simply be missing or undeveloped. I tend to think the former is less dangerous, because at least people can then make up their own minds. The bottom line, though, is that all media is biased, and the only way to correct for it is to read widely, critically, skeptically (particularly if it tends to confirm your pre-existing view), and often.

  7. Simon Says:

    Justin, where are you getting the idea that only Republicans were polled, the premise of your headline and first paragraph? I don’t see that anywhere in PPP’s post, and their press release says that the survey is “a national survey of 686 voters” – not Republican voters.

    Moreover, in your blockquote, you quote PPP saying that “among Republicans voters, … 76% say[] they have a positive opinion of” Sarah Palin” but then the number you give from the survey as a whole show Palin trailing Obama 41% to 53%. Those numbers are incoherent if the poll as a whole is only of GOP voters. I think you’ve misread something.

  8. Agnostick Says:

    Gingrich The Hypocrite and his whore intern wife will never make it into the White House.

    Give it up already.

    Agnostick
    [email protected]

  9. TerenceC Says:

    Justin

    Polls don’t matter very much right now – it’s pretty clear the momentum is with the Obama administration – who needs a poll to figure that out? Lets see what the polls say in Nov/Dec/Jan – much more telling.

    Simon

    There may be two sides to a story, but for an organization that calls itself a News sources’ that’s not their responsibility to report the “sides”. A news organization simply has to report the “facts” – and get them correct – and those listening/reading can make up their own mind. Fox News has been consistently proven to inaccurately represent the facts on numerous issues almost to the point where they have lost total credibility. Surprisingly, not a good argument on your part.

  10. Kevin Jackson Says:

    Simon wrote
    I can’t speak for “The Right” (granted, we meet regularly for
    lunch and plotting, we just don’t authorize any one person to
    speak for the entire conspiracy),

    I’m sorry for 20 years or so I have been told how Liberals thought. (e.g., they don’t love America, they are soft on Crime, they side with the terrorists etc.) I just assumed that the other side was also that monolithic. No harm
    intended. Although I do notice that people on the Republican side of the table generally ignore anything that doesn’t fit their bias (which frankly would be damn convenient ploy I must admit)

    Then said
    … but here’s my two cents: all the media is biased, and anyone who thinks Fox is an exception is living in cloud cuckoo land.

    We are all biased in what we think and also through whatever filter we apply. I would say that Fox is, however, exceptional. The only network where the majority of viewers were totally, factually off base on one of the major issues
    of our countries history was Fox. I would consider that blowing away the curve on bias. They are also known for repeating discredited information over and over.

    http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/102.php?nid=&id=&pnt=102&lb=brusc

    I noticed that NPR/PBS (which I have heard repeatedly derided as Sandanista radio in years past had the most well informed viewers/listeners. It is to the shame of the news industry that they turned the war into a who can most toe the patriotic line group rather than investigative critical reporting (which you say you are for). (I would say Bush/Rove/Cheney played that like a tin drum) The danger to us all is that it is easy to whip the ignorant into a frenzy, I’m sure you are familiar with Goering “Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”

    If you didn’t see that in the run up to the Iraq war you were completely clueless. So the Bush White House learned their political chops from the Nazis and their interrogations from Japanese war criminals and the Communist Chinese.

    That is why many of us look at the press as tools for the corporate interests and rarely are they as tough on either side as I would like them to be, but oh my
    God is the lack of critical thinking skills on display on Fox. You could just watch all of the lies on You Tube for the next year or so to see just how blatant it is.

    I have a new goal and that is to find something to agree with as often as possible so to that end…

    you said
    I think it’s natural that people tend to notice the biases they don’t share rather than the ones they do.

    I’d agree with that

    then
    What I will say about Fox is that their bias is somewhat less insidious than the rest of the media, in this way. If you watch Fox’s coverage of story X, you will discover that there are two sides to story X, but the liberal side is an utterly
    stupid view held only by anti-American commie weirdos.

    Insidious implies that there is a grand plan which I think is what the Karl Rove’s of the world want you to believe. That way everything is relative and “you can teach the controversy” — but there is no controversy so that is the bias.

    then
    If you watch or read most other media outlets, you’ll get the liberal view of it, period. You won’t even find out that there’s another side to it – that information will simply be missing or undeveloped. I tend to think the former is less
    dangerous, because at least people can then make up their own minds.

    I on the other hand would prefer that you and others don’t speak in shorthand and instead say “I see this bias, in this instance — for this reason” because frankly, otherwise I am not buying it. Saying it repeatedly becomes truth to a certain segment of the market just like “teaching the controversy” but it is rubbish. Prove your case and you have some credibility. Try to win the argument by repeating the mantra and you make me not want to take the argument seriously.

    and finally
    The bottom line, though, is that all media is biased, and the only way to correct for it is to read widely, critically, skeptically (particularly if it tends to confirm
    your pre-existing view), and often.

    I’d agree with that but you can’t critically, skeptically look at reality and side with Pentecostals who think the Earth is 6,000 years old and that witchcraft is a real force in the world. Realizing that that sounds harsh, the flip side is that absent credible evidence they think I will be tormented for all eternity because they “believe” differently than I do, so who is really judging someone in an over the top manner?

  11. kranky kritter Says:

    I don’t find Fox that much more skewed than CNN or NPR. Certainly more transparent. For the most part I look at that as forgiveable given that they are the only media outlet that skews right instead of left.

    Kevin, I think NPR/PBS represents real conundrum in that 2 separate things both seem to be true about them. Among whatever entities can be considered major news outlets. I think they really stand out for both depth and breadth of coverage. They simply give us more information about the rest of the world than Fox, CNN, MSNBC, and so on. Simon as much as acknowledges this by confessing he tunes in to NPR.

    They also don’t obsess about the winner-take-all market competion to win the sweepstakes for the most coverage on tiny handful of stories representing the flavors of the day or the week.

    At the same time, I don’t think any reasonable person can disclaim the notion that they skew strongly to the left. The thing about bias that always clobbers me the hardest is that it’s almost impossible to see it if you are in it. None of us is immune to this.

    If I were to briefly try to put a finger on where I see the PBS/NPR bias strongest, I think it comes out in the selection of human interest stories, their continual stressing of “telling the story” about an issue via the vehicle of compelling anecdotes. For example, when they drop a lengthy story on some poor unfortunate person whose house is being foreclosed, and after 5 minutes, I still don’t know what their income is or how much money they borrowed, that troubles me.

    Folks who revolve on this axis seem very good at trumpeting data when some shows up that seems to support the established progressive litany on a given issue. But when the data would provide an inconvenient sour note in a moving symphony of a struggling family getting screwed by the man (again!!), it’s left out.

    FWIW, I am not for a second maintaining that such practices are unique to one side. They just stand out to me on PBS/NPR because they do so many lengthy profiles. Which is, I think, something of a luxury that they are afforded due to the nature of their funding.

  12. Kevin Says:

    Kranky wrote
    I don’t find Fox that much more skewed than CNN or NPR. Certainly more transparent. For the most part I look at that as forgiveable given that they are the only media outlet that skews right instead of left.

    Well, as they say, the proof is in the pudding. If you looked at the study, on the most important issue a nation can face a “NEWS” organization misinformed their audience worse than any other medium. PERIOD. They did it individually and collectively on the material and while I would agree that all organizations with the exception of NPR/PBS news have become more entertainment than news (America’s Rose, Jessica Simpson, Britney, Natalie Holloway), the most telling thing for me is that they toed the GOP line completely. Is that really the responsibility of a NEWS organization. I get that commentators try to spin it in their direction but this was a group who misinformed their audience. They were either lousy at their job or don’t feel that the truth is important and either of those are damning. If you know of a similar instance with any of the other organizations let me know. The Right repeats things over and over and people just accept it. Prove it if you can but I know of nothing similar for CNN for instance. If there is, I’d condemn them.

    Kranky then talked about NPR/PBS good and bad

    I guess I would say reality strongly skews to the left. Look at the number of Science laureates that are believers for instance? The number of biologists who feel intelligent design is a joke as a serious field of study. The number of scientists who think the world is 10,000 years old. The number of scientists who think global warming is real. (We were told repeatedly that there was no such thing until the GOP finally admitted it) So is it bias or actual reporting of fact and consensus. Saying that there is no other credible side to gravity isn’t bias, it’s reality.

    Then you said
    If I were to briefly try to put a finger on where I see the PBS/NPR bias strongest, I think it comes out in the selection of human interest stories,…

    I get that but they also routinely give the other side the ability to respond and it was as you say a “human interest” story.

    The people who watch Fox were misinformed on the rationale and honest prosecution of a war that people are dying in. If Bush had made an HONEST case and informed the people why they needed to get on board and the country did, I’d suck it up and say “Well I don’t agree but he made an honest case and people went with him”. The problem is Bush/Cheney et al in the most favorable light you could possibly shine on them did not get informed consent. They steered and cherry picked and Fox acted like a prostitute saying what do you want me to do now, including the very tactic Goering warned of. I expect more of ANY news organization.

    Again, I think calling most news news is a joke. I think The Daily Show searched more for the full story than most of the news organizations. It really bothered me that for the last eight years the most reasoned information about the US was from outside of the country. I’d like them to be more skeptical with everything they hear from everyone and if they don’t want to do news anymore, take in all of their licenses and let the BBC do it. I was recently in London. They had shows on Darwin and Atheism and Science. I can’t imagine the Right allowing it here. I sure haven’t seen it.

    As Chomsky once stated, (paraphrased) we have the ability to have the most diverse viewpoints on any subject and it is decidedly not diverse at all compared to most nations. (Oh and I know Chomsky is liberal but Buckley was conservative and I generally listen when bright people make a point)

    All that said, Fox is exceptionally bad and exceptionally biased.. Should there be examples that I have missed let me know. (CNN had Beck and has Lou Dobbs – who does Fox have like that?) Props to Shepherd Smith for growing a set and getting off the company line though.

  13. kranky kritter Says:

    CNN had Beck and has Lou Dobbs – who does Fox have like that?

    I don’t get this question. Did you mean to say something else? Surely both these guys are representative of the worst, as are Hannity et al.

    BTW, lest you mistake me, my comment that I don’t find fox that much more skewed is in no sense a compliment to Fox.

    I do find the notion that reality skews left comical. Maybe it skews that way when it is compared to what the kookiest of the kooks think, as all of your examples suggest. I know PLENTY of conservatives who don’t think evolution is bunk. And I also know that plenty of moderates continue to doubt both the extent of global warming and the extent of humans’ role in causing it. Surveys show that doubt is rising. Probably because the global temperature has recently undertaken an inconvenient trend of stagnation.

    Of course PBS/NPR give some time in their lengthy pieces to the opposite point of view. This is after all standard journalistic practice. How token the effort is varies form subject to subject and network to network. When it’s NPR/PBS I find that there is a very strong correlation between tokenism and subjects that relate to the progressive litany.

    I think NPR/PBS offer a lot of great stuff, even though some of it smacks of tedious elitism. Were it up to me, I’d love to see it split right in half, with half of it ceded to an editorial board of folks with somewhat more conservative perspectives. Not kooks, but serious thoughtful folks.

    Of course, that might risk a decrease in classical music and aging hippie rock back-patting. That sounds OK to me. YMMV.

  14. Kevin Jackson Says:

    Kranky- the point about Beck and Dobbs is that neither of them could be called liberal by any stretch but had prime spots in the CNN lineup. Closest Fox had to balance was Alan Colmes which to be fair was a a face not made for TV. You might say that is petty and I’d point to the looks of the female broadcasters across the country.

    As to the notion that reality skews left. It was half in jest and yet I think you’d have to admit the most vociferous of their base (the ones most likely to think the world is out to get them and distrust any news source but Fox) do have the views I expressed and they were likely heavily in the 19% who still liked Cheney and the 26% who still liked Bush. They are post rational. i.e. Not all Christians are creationists but in which demographic are they most represented?

    You said
    Not kooks, but serious thoughtful folks.

    I have no issue watching them, but I know of none on Fox. Do you know of any shows on Fox that would even approach “Fair and Balanced”? Are there any where you would expect a balanced and thoughtful approach?

    I used to really enjoy Buckley’s roundtables and the Fred Friendly symposiums because they were higher level discussions and you would occasionally hear something that made you really question your ideas (both from people with similar and dissimilar views). McNeil Leherer was another favorite.

Leave a Reply


NOTE TO COMMENTERS:


You must ALWAYS fill in the two word CAPTCHA below to submit a comment. And if this is your first time commenting on Donklephant, it will be held in a moderation queue for approval. Please don't resubmit the same comment a couple times. We'll get around to moderating it soon enough.


Also, sometimes even if you've commented before, it may still get placed in a moderation queue and/or sent to the spam folder. If it's just in moderation queue, it'll be published, but it may be deleted if it lands in the spam folder. My apologies if this happens but there are some keywords that push it into the spam folder.


One last note, we will not tolerate comments that disparage people based on age, sex, handicap, race, color, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry. We reserve the right to delete these comments and ban the people who make them from ever commenting here again.


Thanks for understanding and have a pleasurable commenting experience.


Related Posts: