Talk Elections

link:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_CACOCTILNHPA_1109.pdf

CA
Romney 25
Palin 18
Gingrich 15
Huckabee 15
Pence 3
everyone else at 2 or less

CO
Romney 22
Gingrich 17
Palin 17
Huckabee 14
Pawlenty 6
Pence 3
everyone else at 2 or less

CT
Romney 28
Huckabee 15
Gingrich 14
Palin 11
Pawlenty 5
Pence 5
Daniels 4
Thune 2

IL
Huckabee 18
Gingrich 17
Palin 14
Romney 12
Pawlenty 7
Daniels 6
everyone else at 2 or less

NH
Romney 40
Huckabee 13
Gingrich 10
Palin 10
Pawlenty 4
Pence 3
everyone else at 1 or less

PA
Huckabee 23
Palin 16
Romney 16
Gingrich 15
everyone else at 2 or less
(Santorum not polled)

he's in the 20's in the most populous states - i.e. Romney is a dead man walking.  as soon as the conservative wing of the party picks its candidate, Romney will be losing by 25 points in those states.

there really is no use polling beyond NH until the results of IA are known. 

But, I think if you give me a list of who's running, I can name you the winner of IA.

It will be interesting to see where Huckabee's support would go to if he didn't run. Obviously his endorsement would become very valuable, but I would think that Palin would be the next candidate for a lot of his supporters.

if they're not already in Palin's camp, they aint gonna be

()
Blue - Huck
Red - Giant Douche

Interesting that Thune's been trading 2nd or almost 2nd on intrade and only scored 2% in CT and nowhere else.  A long Romney vs Huckabee race would be interesting and I think competitive if not as entertaining as Romney vs Palin.

Santorum not polled in Pennsylvania? Disgusting.

I just didn't bother listing everyone who got 1 or 2% in every state.  Only reason I bothered mentioning it in CT, is because there was no one else with 2% or less there anyway.  Here are Thune's #s in each of these states:

CA 1%
CO 2%
CT 2%
IL 2%
NH 1%
PA 1%

IA is the key for Thune, not CT.  If he wins IA, then name recognition is no longer going to be a problem.  Very few had heard of Jimmy Carter prior to his victory in Iowa.

Incidentally, the Des Moines Register had Huckabee at 4% in Iowa in May 2007 (tied with Tom Tancredo), and he ended up winning the state.  So yeah, there's a long way to go.

I'm sorta surprised the conservatives are rocking Romney in IL even as they split the vote. Too bad we can't have polling without huckabee since everyone knows he isn't running.

This poll also includes the following general election matchups between Obama and Mr. Generic Republican:


CA
Obama 51
generic Republican 44

CO
generic Republican 50
Obama 45

CT
Obama 50
generic Republican 42

IL
Obama 49
generic Republican 45

NH
generic Republican 54
Obama 40

PA
generic Republican 52
Obama 42

On the GOP primary crosstabs, there wasn't much of interest in the way of trends that held up across all six states.  Except that Palin does better with conservative than moderate GOP primary voters in all six states, and Gingrich does better with male than female GOP primary voters in all six states.

Illinois?

Great!

Who's "generic Republican"? Never heard of them.

He's really a Great candidate.  We keep trying to get him to run, but we can never quite seem to get him to. :)

Republicans can't win with Romney.  The sooner they realize that, the better off they'll be.

John Thune?

I knew Daniels would eat into Romeny's base, but Thune makes it all the better!

I would suspect Daniels to preform that well in IL, but why is Thune polling "high" there?

What?  Thune is at 2% in Illinois.  That's statistically indistinguishable from zero support!

Let's face it, Romney is the only one of the major contenders of any substance and who is made of Presidential material.

He has the royal jelly so to speak.

Does anyone doubt the GOP of today would be against abolishing slavery if it still existed?  The new costs of ending slavery would stifle businesses!  I'm not kidding.

Yes, I doubt it. 
 
In fact, Republicans would be the first to abolish slavery.  After all, the Republicans are the party of freedom.

The only reason the Democrat Party would abolish slavery is so they could pander to them to obtain a reliable voting block they could then take for granted.

Amusing.

Seriously?????

Sorry, I meant Pawlenty

Huckabee would be against slavery and Limbaugh would blast him for it.

Romney would have been abolitionist as governor but would now be clarifyng he's a states rights abolitionist: what works in Massachusetts may not work in Virginia.

You do realize we're the party that opposed a Health care mandate on the grounds that it violates our economic freedom, right?

Like everything else the last two years, the GOP opposed the mandate on the grounds that Obama advocated it.  Can't help but notice how many Republican polls are led by the father of the mandate.  If Romney's campaign is sunk it won't be because Republicans oppose the mandate as much as the Republicans oppose things they're told are similar to Obama.  Just like Charlie Crist didn't lose the primary for supporting a stimulus plan during a labor crisis that was 40% tax cuts. He lost because he hugged Obama.

Do you really think the ideological extent of the GOP is "Do what ever Obama doesn't do, and vice versa"?  Conservatism has been around longer than he has you know.

Nobody is going to deny the Republican Party freed slaves. But also nobody is going to forget Republicans selling out Black community, Southern Strategy, abandoning civil rights principles, appealing to the racist in Dixie, "being neglect" etc. etc.

And Lincoln today would be teabagged by some conservative hero.

Never Forget that a Republican Sold Out the Black Vote to Prevent an Irish Catholic From Becoming President.

And Republicans love to claim that history books are so biased against them.

I actually agree with this post 95% (ie I believe that whether you like it or not both parties are racist).  The way Democrats try to find racism behind every tree these days is annoying.  It is quite ironic because by doing so they only end up looking racists themselves:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaIhf41ctkM&feature=channel

I mean really guys, REALLY.

Actual racism is dead?!  Jesus.  Was he sick?  I saw him a couple months ago and he looked fine.  What a shock.

Without a doubt, the Democrats proposal to raise taxes on the middle class to pay for slavery reparations cost them the midterms.

Lincoln would love Sarah Palin, wouldn't he?  And Rick Perry.

John Thune would be the best candidate for the GOP and The obumblers worst nightmare



ZOGBY:
Chris Christie 19%
Mitt Romney 17%
Sarah Palin 14%
Jeb Bush 6%
Tim Pawlenty 4%
Mitch Daniels 3%
Haley Barbour 3%

Haha, there probably isn't even 19% of Republicans who know who Chris Christie is.

And Jeff Sessions, and Ted Poe...

Hmmm, let me think

Robert Byrd, former member of the KKK.  I believe Byrd was a.................Democrat, yes, that's it.

Jessie Jackson, prominent civil rights leader, or so he likes to call himself, referred to New York City as..........uh..........oh yes, Hymietown.  Let me think, Jessie Jackson, uh..........oh yes, now I remember,  Democrat.

Senators who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, tooth and nail

Hill and Sparkman of Alabama
Fulbright and McClellan of Arkansas
Holland and Smathers of Florida
Russell and Talmadge of Georgia
Ellender and Long of Louisiana
Eastland and Stennis of Mississippi
Ervin and Jordan of North Carolina
Johnston and Thurmond of South Carolina
Gore Sr. and Walters of Tennessee
H. Byrd and Robertson of Virginia
R. Byrd of West Virginia
 
Let me think for a moment, uh..........oh yes, all Democrats.  Thurmond later a Republican.   

The three most notorious opponents of school integration
 
Orval Faubus, Governor of Arkansas 
George Wallace, Governor of Alabama
Lester Maddox, Governor of Georgia

Now, I believe..........yes, that's right, all Democrats.

Hmmm, seems to me there have been an awful lot of prominent Democrat racists and segregationists.

Hmmm.

Interesting.

The GOP primary samples per state are pretty small here, so the margin of error is big.  I don't think the variation in Pawlenty's support from state to state is all that meaningful, given the small samples.  Of course, if we get subsequent primary polls of other Midwestern states showing Pawlenty in mid-high single digits there, as opposed to low single digits everywhere else, then it might mean there's a regional effect.  But not enough to go on here.
 

the Democrats were in favor of racist and segregationist policies because they were appealing to the south. A major part of their voting bloc were racists. That doesn't mean that today's democrats, who are completely shut out from the south, who now have a majority of minority support, should be held accountable for actions of members of their party from a completely different political landscape. This is why it is irrelevant to point out that it was a Republican who freed the slaves. For the most part, politicians are beholden to their constituents, and the Republican Party's constituents were against slavery. Consider this: if slavery were still going on today, would it not take place in the South? And who is currently the party of the South?

Hmm.

Interesting.

Of course the whole slavery conversation is nonsense and irrelevant as mentioned earlier, but so was this post.

PPP puts out a teaser for its Florida, West Virginia, texas, wisconsin, maine, and minnesota polls:

"Some pretty good numbers for Palin in what we'll be releasing tomorrow"

http://twitter.com/ppppolls/status/2458767518072832

Think she's leading Pawlenty in Minnesota?

I would have to agree Romney is a dead man walking with these numbers.  You cannot split the conservative vote any further than it is now.

You might as well add the exit poll numbers from election night from Iowa and South Carolina to the map.

I'd see her leading West Virginia and Texas. Resonable polling in Florida and Wisconsin as well as becoming close to number 2 in Maine and minnesota. That's my definition of good numbers for Palin at the moment.

I'll go hawkish and predict she's leading in every state but Maine.  perhaps there is a tie in one state.

I'll say Romney comfortably in ME and FL.  Palin in TX and WV.  And Huckabee in MN, WI with Palin a close second.  I'll say Palwenty in the teens in MN.

Yeah, I thought we were talking about Mitt Romney..........

the Democrats were in favor of racist and segregationist policies because they were appealing to the south. A major part of their voting bloc were racists. That doesn't mean that today's democrats, who are completely shut out from the south, who now have a majority of minority support, should be held accountable for actions of members of their party from a completely different political landscape. This is why it is irrelevant to point out that it was a Republican who freed the slaves. For the most part, politicians are beholden to their constituents, and the Republican Party's constituents were against slavery. Consider this: if slavery were still going on today, would it not take place in the South? And who is currently the party of the South?

Hmm.

Interesting.

Of course the whole slavery conversation is nonsense and irrelevant as mentioned earlier, but so was this post.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Welcome to the forum.

At least my details were historical facts.  Your scenario about slavery still going on today has no basis whatsoever in fact, therefore rendering your post even more irrelevant than mine.

Folks, I'm not sure how good some of your reading comprehension is so let me reiterate:

This thread is called "PPP: Romney leads CA, CO, CT, NH; Huckabee leads IL, PA".  This forum board is called the "2012 US Presidential Election" meaning that the discussion has to do with the 2012 US Presidential Election.  For the life of me I don't understand what something that ended almost 150 years ago has to do with the 2012 US Presidential Election and those running in it.  Slavery is a non-existent issue in today's world and has no bearing on the 2012 Election, just like gay rights issues were non-existent in the 1860 US Presidential Election.

If you want to have a penis waving contest over which party was more/less racist or would support slavery do it in the Political board or whatever the hell it's called.
Yes I did get involved somewhat in this convo, but that was because I was mocking the rest of you guys (as usual).  But please shut the hell up already.

I started it.  I will get us back on track:

Never forget a Republican created the model for Obamacare.

These polls are basically meaningless. I think Thune has a lot of potential. Daniels becomes the candidate of choice if the dollar collapses and people look for someone who is serious about fixing the country's budget problems. He would have an edge over Ron Paul because he doesn't come across as the person you rely on in a crisis but Daniels reaks of being the policy wonk who knows what has to be done and why. Other then that situation which I find unlikely, I think Palin, Thune and Romney have real shots at the nomination.

I bet Pat Toomey doesn't like his base in the T being so in love with Huckster.

Yes, just like 2008 polls were meaningless in a late 2006.