VA-PPP: Obama (D) easily defeats all Republicans

[pbrower2a]

Or quite frankly, the poll is wrong:

SurveyUSA has him at 44/54 from a poll taken of adults in December 2009.

Given that it's unlikely that he has improved anywhere in the country since then, PPP may have missed.

SurveyUSA has had a better run that PPP in both election cycles

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollTrack.aspx?g=160c2abe-62b7-457a-85cd-dede0055e407

Who are the 2-3% of Republicans who vote for Obama over Romney, Huckabee but vote for Palin or at least go to undecided?  Are these the mainstream Paulbot Republicans (there is some suggestion from Romney supporters that taking Paul out of polling helps Palin).

A poll from 2009 is nearly useless. As for a voter screen...  the one for an upcoming Presidential election is ordinarily more inclusive for a midterm election, let alone a special election. The 2010 election may change that, particularly of the political dynamics of a poisoned environment with one-sided propaganda drowning out the other side  continues and is similarly successful.

The 112th Congress has yet to convene and show what a Republican majority in the House will do, how the economy goes, and how people will respond. I expect the propaganda blitz similar to that of 2010 to be in effect, but nobody can now guarantee its effectiveness. The Republican Party has almost no moderates, and people will get to see how stealth candidates act.

If the GOP is as elitist and doctrinaire as it was going into the 2006 election, then I expect the Democrats to win big in 2012. Its economic policies create much misery before it can create any good for the non-rich.

   

[memphis]

No matter how precise this poll is, it still tells you that the current GOP frontrunners are damaged goods, some of them hopelessly.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The reason the GOP did so well in the House races is that they were essentially running "generic republicans." Obama's going to demolish Palin and Friends in '12

[Skill and Chance]

sure, the 9th is substantially to the right, the 2nd and 5th are slightly to the right. the 11th, which almost switched hands, is slightly to the left. my point in bringing up the Congressional races was that, when you total up every vote from every district and split them by party, the Republicans had a 12-point lead - which suggests something significant in terms of public opinion in Virginia even with a district set-up that benefits the GOP.

Were any races uncontested by either party or effectively uncontested by sacrificial lambs?

Yes, both the southside VRA district and the D+16 NOVA district had sacrificial lambs, and the R+16 Shenandoah Valley district had no Democratic opponent at all.

[pbrower2a]

No matter how precise this poll is, it still tells you that the current GOP frontrunners are damaged goods, some of them hopelessly.

President Obama has shown what he is as President. He has so operated that at least 40% of the American public is never going to vote for him. He has shown what sort of leader he is, and that anyone who expects him to make a sharp turn and become very different lives in deep delusion.

The "generic Republican" is a Reagan-like nominee who has no obvious weaknesses of regional appeal. We already know that President Obama is going to lose severely among white people in the Deep South and in Appalachia and the Ozarks because he either offends their culture (he's black - whites in the Deep South) or can't relate to it (he's an egghead -- the "Upper South"). But he won big without those votes, anyway, and he could do so again in 2012.

President Obama is a known operating against unknowns. We all know his upper range in the vote, and it is probably an Eisenhower-scale win if he faces the weakest GOP nominee ever. He is definitely not Bill Clinton, who knows how to appeal to enough poor whites to win in much of the South. But look at the others.

Mitt Romney must do far better than John McCain in the Northeast to have a chance. I see Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico lost to the GOP because of large Mexican-American populations, so Romney must not only pick up Indiana and North Carolina (probably easy) but also Florida, Virginia, Ohio (not so easy if the economy is strong), and one of Iowa (which won't be enough if the GOP implodes in Arizona), Michigan, or Pennsylvania. Iowa went for Obama by nearly 10% in 2008 and Pennsylvania went for Obama by slightly more. Michigan probably has too many blacks to go Republican in 2012. To expect a Romney victory is to expect many things going right for the GOP.

Mike Huckabee might have better nationwide figures than Romney, but those are heavily concentrated in the South and near-South. Whether he wins Arkansas by 40% or 15% won't make a difference, and the same can be said of Kentucky, Tennessee, and West Virginia. He probably takes Missouri completely off the table, but Obama won without it anyway. I have yet to see any indication that he could convince Northerners that he is any more relevant than John McCain. Worse yet, his "Willie Horton" killed some cops.

John Thune is a favorite among those betting on longshots, probably because people don't realize how long the odds are. He would be strong among the Religious Right, but the Religious Right is on the demographic fade as a political influence.  Sure, Thune wins if he can win back the suburban vote that Obama won in 2008 that used to be reliably GOP, he is able to cut into Hispanic support for the President,  and if the GOP does impressively in Congress, but that is asking for a lot.  I see no evidence that he can parlay his successes in South Dakota into a nationwide victory for the simple reason that South Dakota is no microcosm of America. Anyone expecting John Thune to be a national campaigner asks for perhaps too much. Haley Barbour would be much the same, only with different cultural characteristics.

Rick Perry  is just simply too nuts for much of America. He would win the states that nobody can conceive any Republican winning and the states that would never vote for a black person for a statewide or national office... which wouldn't be enough.

 
Mitch Daniels? There is no "Indiana miracle". Its economy is nearly in as bad shape as those of neighboring Michigan and Ohio.  

Sarah Palin? She would wilt under a national campaign.  

[Whacker77]

No matter how precise this poll is, it still tells you that the current GOP frontrunners are damaged goods, some of them hopelessly.

Couldn't have put it better myself.  Any of the top four candidates are certain general election losers.  They only appeal to portions of the Republican party and drive Independents away in the general.

I think Romney has a better shot than the others, but that's not saying much.  Better to go with the new faces like Thune and Barbour.  If Jeb Bush is looking at these polls, he would see he has a clear and easy path to the nomination because the field is so weak.  This is two cycles in a row now.

I honestly think Newt and Palin are on electoral suicide missions.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

There is also a good bit of evidence that VA may particularly like Obama relative to generic Democratic politicians.

I have seen no evidence suggesting that Obama is more popular than the local Democrats who were defeated.

[Ben Romney]

The internals of the Virginia poll actually look pretty sound.

The female/male breakdown in 2004 and 2008 was 54 F and 46 M. This poll was 55/45

Black turnout in 2004 and 2008 was 21% and 20% respectively. The PPP poll had 18% black turnout.

The electorate is more Democratic than in 2004, but less Democratic than the one in 2008.

The electorate is more conservative than the electorate in 2008.

In addition the PPP poll has turnout of voters 18 – 29 years in age at 8%. It was 17% in 2004 and 21% in 2008. So they actually underpolled young voters.

So somebody explain to me how this poll is trash?

The key thing to remember about Virginia is that unlike many of the states in the deep south with high black populations, Virginia has a very liberal base of support in Northern Virginia that makes up a large chunk of the population in addition to various liberal pockets dispersed throughout the state in different college towns.

The reason 2009 and 2010 looked so different is because the electorate was much whiter, older, and more conservative. That won’t happen in 2012.

But two years is a huge amount of time. Things change by the month. So a poll two years out doesn’t carry much weight. However, keep this in mind when considering these polls is that the turnout models will be much different than they were the past two elections.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

The internals of the Virginia poll actually look pretty sound.

The female/male breakdown in 2004 and 2008 was 54 F and 46 M. This poll was 55/45

Black turnout in 2004 and 2008 was 21% and 20% respectively. The PPP poll had 18% black turnout.

The electorate is more Democratic than in 2004, but less Democratic than the one in 2008.

The electorate is more conservative than the electorate in 2008.

In addition the PPP poll has turnout of voters 18 – 29 years in age at 8%. It was 17% in 2004 and 21% in 2008. So they actually underpolled young voters.

So somebody explain to me how this poll is trash?

The key thing to remember about Virginia is that unlike many of the states in the deep south with high black populations, Virginia has a very liberal base of support in Northern Virginia that makes up a large chunk of the population in addition to various liberal pockets dispersed throughout the state in different college towns.

The reason 2009 and 2010 looked so different is because the electorate was much whiter, older, and more conservative. That won’t happen in 2012.

But two years is a huge amount of time. Things change by the month. So a poll two years out doesn’t carry much weight. However, keep this in mind when considering these polls is that the turnout models will be much different than they were the past two elections.

I don't think I could have put it better myself.

[pshute]

Hillary2012
 maybe not 'trash" but I would like to see a poll of likely voters.

[Oakvale]

Hillary2012
 maybe not 'trash" but I would like to see a poll of likely voters.

Nobody knows what a likely voter is this far off.

[California8429]

Hillary2012
 maybe not 'trash" but I would like to see a poll of likely voters.

Nobody knows what a likely voter is this far off.

It still would be interesting to poll party faithfuls that always want to vote to see who the grassroots activists and real influences are supporting

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Still very close between Obama and Romney and Huckabee though.

[Liberalrocks]

No matter how precise this poll is, it still tells you that the current GOP frontrunners are damaged goods, some of them hopelessly.

My thoughts exactly. The GOP could be forfeiting this race to a damaged Obama by their substandard field (Romney included). If a strong dark horse does not emerge then Obama is reelected to a second term...imo. He can win without Virginia but its hard to see how Republicans get to 270 without it. Its possible but extremely improable especially considering the field that could be running. In Virginia, I would expect some of them to be polling slightly out in front of Obama particuliarly Romney and Huckabee...just shows you how "fatally flawed" this field is. Many are quite the joke.

[Liberalrocks]

The GOP can lose with Virginia, but it can't win without it.

Pretty much.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Again, still very close with Governor Huckabee. I think he's the only one of these candidates that actually has a shot to beat Obama.