NBC/WSJ poll: 67% don't want Palin, & 50% don't want Romney to ever be president

[Mr. Morden]

link:

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/WSJ-NBC_Poll090729.pdf

poll question: "Would you like to see (READ ITEM) as president some day, or not?"

Palin
yes: 21%
no: 67%
unsure: 12%

Romney
yes: 24%
no: 50%
unsure 26%

From Firstread (re: party breakdown on this question):

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/07/29/2014067.aspx

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Also, favorability numbers for both Palin and Romney:
"Now I'm going to read you the names of several public figures, and I'd like you to rate your feelings toward each one as either very positive, somewhat positive, neutral, somewhat negative, or very negative. If you don't know the name, please just say so."

[combining pos/very positive and neg/very negative]

Palin
positive: 32%
neutral: 20%
negative: 43%
don't know / not sure: 5%

Romney
positive: 28%
neutral: 30%
negative: 20%
don't know / not sure: 22%

[Person Man]

Well, I hope the Republicans have fun. Who actually does have a shot at the Presidency from the right?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

You could argue Romney's numbers are overcomable. But Palin's certainly aren't.

[JerryBrown2010]

With these numbers Obama's going to have fun in the 2012 election.

[Alcon]

With these numbers Obama's going to have fun in the 2012 election.

I don't see why we would ignore the head-to-head match-ups that we have in favor of secondary measurements like this.

Not that they're good numbers, but still.

[Eraserhead]

These two are probably pretty close to unelectable, imo. Palin is beyond scary to anyone not on the far right and Romney, well, we know what his problem is. Mike Huckabee, on the other hand, is sadly probably electable.

[pbrower2a]

These two are probably pretty close to unelectable, imo. Palin is beyond scary to anyone not on the far right and Romney, well, we know what his problem is. Mike Huckabee, on the other hand, is sadly probably electable.

We don't have analogous numbers for Huckabee.

Palin is an electoral disaster, and I can't quite figure Romney except as a trimmer who can be nailed for flip-flops.

Huckabee seems to have a floor of electoral votes closer to John McCain's winnings of 2008 -- but his ceiling is near there, too.  He might keep the Obama landslide near 400 EV, but he is absolutely not going to cut into the Blue Firewall unless Obama screws up badly.   

[Lunar]

what a useless question without some in depth analysis as to how people approach the wording, calm down here people,


Someone can not want Mitt Romney president now but still donate money and volunteer for his campaign later, for any number of reasons.  And hell, how would a hard core Republican, who was just asked if he wanted Palin for president some day, react to a subsequent question about someone who's not Palin?

[President Mitt]

[/quote]

These two are probably pretty close to unelectable, imo. Palin is beyond scary to anyone not on the far right and Romney, well, we know what his problem is. Mike Huckabee, on the other hand, is sadly probably electable.

We don't have analogous numbers for Huckabee.

Palin is an electoral disaster, and I can't quite figure Romney except as a trimmer who can be nailed for flip-flops.

Huckabee seems to have a floor of electoral votes closer to John McCain's winnings of 2008 -- but his ceiling is near there, too.  He might keep the Obama landslide near 400 EV, but he is absolutely not going to cut into the Blue Firewall unless Obama screws up badly.   

Jesus Christ, already counting your chickens before they hatch eh?

[pbrower2a]

These two are probably pretty close to unelectable, imo. Palin is beyond scary to anyone not on the far right and Romney, well, we know what his problem is. Mike Huckabee, on the other hand, is sadly probably electable.

We don't have analogous numbers for Huckabee.

Palin is an electoral disaster, and I can't quite figure Romney except as a trimmer who can be nailed for flip-flops.

Huckabee seems to have a floor of electoral votes closer to John McCain's winnings of 2008 -- but his ceiling is near there, too.  He might keep the Obama landslide near 400 EV, but he is absolutely not going to cut into the Blue Firewall unless Obama screws up badly.   

Jesus Christ, already counting your chickens before they hatch eh?

Hardly. President Obama has plenty of time in which to mess up badly -- and I mentioned Mike Huckabee.  Sarah Palin has plenty of time in which to get a coherent policy statement or two across -- but she has shown such not to be a characteristic.

The negatives for both Palin and Romney suggest that they will have a difficult time challenging an incumbent President, especially if that President has a positive approval rating. How is one to vote against someone for whom one approves yet vote for someone for whom one disapproves except by some accident? 

Have you considered that the 2012 election could be much like the 1972 or 1984 Presidential election, in which the incumbent President who has unenthusiastic support faces a very weak opponent? Such is what Obama's mediocre current approval ratings -- and very poor ones for his most prominent potential opponents -- suggests now. That too can result in a landslide.

I would prefer that in 2012 Barack Obama be a legitimately-popular President facing a challenge from someone with a coherent and valid agenda. Wouldn't you?

[Person Man]

Now that I see it, Romney has a net positive approval...and he is really qualified to be president. Then again, he may be competitive in the West...and if Obama does particularly poorly, Romney could keep Obama to the coast (i.e. win NV, CO and perhaps NM...it would still be pretty impressive for a Republican to swing any these states hard enough to win...not a miracle, though)...but Romney would have trouble holding the GOP firewall in the South. He will win the deep south, but will have to spend money there. He could have to abandon VA and NC later in the campaign and probably won't be able to GA or MO. Basically, we could be looking at a 1996 redux with Romney.

Huckabee, otoh, is more of an ethnic stereotype. He will probably have the same fundamentals that McCain did (despite being a paleo-con instead of a neo-con)...and perhaps he will stregthen the red firewall even more than McCain, but his fate would pretty much be sealed in purple states outside of the South.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Huckabee is nowhere near being either a paleoconservative or a neoconservative. Not every conservative falls into one of these categories, in fact I'd say the vast majority don't. Many don't even consider neocons to be true conservatives.

[Person Man]

Huckabee is nowhere near being either a paleoconservative or a neoconservative. Not every conservative falls into one of these categories, in fact I'd say the vast majority don't. Many don't even consider neocons to be true conservatives.

Well, its all pretty relative, you know. Some people even consider Lieberman or Dodd to be neocons....but the point is right-on. Huckabee's election alignment will probably be a lot like McCain's...though it is likely that MO and NC would be switched for MT and AZ...a Huck-Bama matchup might look like a late 19th century map in reverse..

[pbrower2a]

Huckabee is nowhere near being either a paleoconservative or a neoconservative. Not every conservative falls into one of these categories, in fact I'd say the vast majority don't. Many don't even consider neocons to be true conservatives.

Well, its all pretty relative, you know. Some people even consider Lieberman or Dodd to be neocons....but the point is right-on. Huckabee's election alignment will probably be a lot like McCain's...though it is likely that MO and NC would be switched for MT and AZ...a Huck-Bama matchup might look like a late 19th century map in reverse..

Here's an interesting analogue -- two Presidential elections a century apart. An odd coincidence is that Taft and Obama won their elections by roughly the same percentage of the electoral vote (66.5% Taft, 67.5% Obama):

                                                           

(Electoral votes are shown for 2008)
                                                      Electoral votes

                                                                                                               1908              2008

White --      did not vote (territories and the District of Columbia)         0           13 R/ 12 D
Blue --        Republican both years (Taft, McCain)                                 55 R              45 R
Red  --        Democratic both years  (Bryan, Obama)                            46 D *           60 D*
Beige --      Maryland (split votes in 1908)                                         2R / 6D            10 D
Green --     Republican  1908, Democratic 2008                                  258 R            278 D
Orange --   Republican 1908, Democratic 2008                                   110 D           117 R

(NE-03 should register orange, and would except for a bug in the program)

* Acknowledges that Maryland split votes in 1908 and Nebraska split votes in 2008.


The States have truly flip-flopped in their electoral behavior. The States that Taft and Obama both won in 1908 and 2008 would have been enough  to win for either Taft or Obama. Maryland split its votes in 1908 and not along any geographic lines even though the state gave a slight plurality to Taft.

Much has changed in electoral behavior since 1908:

 1.  Women have the vote (effectively a wash)
 2.  Blacks have the vote in practice throughout America as well as in theory
 3.  The Hispanic presence is much larger
 4.  Four states admitted since 1908 and DC now vote
 5.  Blacks have made a huge migration to the North and West
 6.  Blacks used to vote heavily for the Party of Lincoln and now vote heavily for the Party of LBJ
 7. "Ethnic" whites (Irish, South- and East-Europeans)are no longer second-class citizens who at least have the vote
 8.  Formal education has expanded greatly as a norm
 9.  Huge re-apportionments in the vote have occurred
10. News media have expanded in methods and have become more sophisticated and diverse
11. Property qualifications and poll taxes for voting have been dropped
12. People aged 18-21 now have the vote
13. Gay rights are much more real
14. Technology of voting has changed

What hasn't changed?

1. State boundaries haven't changed
2. We still have the same Constitution with about ten amendments since then, two of which reverse each other (Prohibition)
3. The States still really elect the President, and the popular vote matters less (2000)
4. Most states vote on a winner-take-all basis
5. The potential for vote fraud by administrators remains 

Most states still elect the President on the winner-take-all system


.... I figure that Hawaii  (Asians didn't vote) and DC (Blacks then voted heavily for the Party of Lincoln) would have voted Republican in 1908 and Democratic in 2008, Arizona would have voted Democratic in 1908 and Republican in 2008, New Mexico would have voted Democratic in both years, and and would make no guess about Alaska, but that would in no way have changed things. 

The 18-21 vote was enough to make a difference in only two states in 2008: Indiana and North Carolina. In this scheme, Obama really needed Indiana had he not been able to win 'only' states that voted for Taft -- unless one makes an allowance for the odd distribution of electoral votes in Maryland in 1908.

[Mr. Morden]

Here's an interesting analogue -- two Presidential elections a century apart. An odd coincidence is that Taft and Obama won their elections by roughly the same percentage of the electoral vote (66.5% Taft, 67.5% Obama):

                                                           

(Electoral votes are shown for 2008)
                                                      Electoral votes

                                                                                                               1908              2008

White --      did not vote (territories and the District of Columbia)         0           13 R/ 12 D
Blue --        Republican both years (Taft, McCain)                                 55 R              45 R
Red  --        Democratic both years  (Bryan, Obama)                            46 D *           60 D*
Beige --      Maryland (split votes in 1908)                                         2R / 6D            10 D
Green --     Republican  1908, Democratic 2008                                  258 R            278 D
Orange --   Republican 1908, Democratic 2008                                   110 D           117 R

(NE-03 should register orange, and would except for a bug in the program)

1916 vs. 2000 is even more interesting.  41 out of 48 states flipped parties, and only 7 stayed the same.

[pbrower2a]

These two are probably pretty close to unelectable, imo. Palin is beyond scary to anyone not on the far right and Romney, well, we know what his problem is. Mike Huckabee, on the other hand, is sadly probably electable.

We don't have analogous numbers for Huckabee.

Palin is an electoral disaster, and I can't quite figure Romney except as a trimmer who can be nailed for flip-flops.

Huckabee seems to have a floor of electoral votes closer to John McCain's winnings of 2008 -- but his ceiling is near there, too.  He might keep the Obama landslide near 400 EV, but he is absolutely not going to cut into the Blue Firewall unless Obama screws up badly.   

Jesus Christ, already counting your chickens before they hatch eh?

Hardly. President Obama has plenty of time in which to mess up badly -- and I mentioned Mike Huckabee.  Sarah Palin has plenty of time in which to get a coherent policy statement or two across -- but she has shown such not to be a characteristic.

The negatives for both Palin and Romney suggest that they will have a difficult time challenging an incumbent President, especially if that President has a positive approval rating. How is one to vote against someone for whom one approves yet vote for someone for whom one disapproves except by some accident? 

Have you considered that the 2012 election could be much like the 1972 or 1984 Presidential election, in which the incumbent President who has unenthusiastic support faces a very weak opponent? Such is what Obama's mediocre current approval ratings -- and very poor ones for his most prominent potential opponents -- suggests now. That too can result in a landslide.

I would prefer that in 2012 Barack Obama be a legitimately-popular President facing a challenge from someone with a coherent and valid agenda. Wouldn't you?

[Vepres]

I'd be interested to see the numbers on Gingrich and Pawlenty.

[Democratic Hawk]

Palin's hate rallies were enough to make her toxic in the eyes of any rational moderate - and there is no doubt in my mind that she did John McCain a lot of harm with moderate voters

[Vepres]

Palin's hate rallies were enough to make her toxic in the eyes of any rational moderate - and there is no doubt in my mind that she did John McCain a lot of harm with moderate voters

Apparently she did net McCain some votes from the higher base turnout. However, these were probably all in states where McCain could win even with depressed base turnout.

[Democratic Hawk]

Palin's hate rallies were enough to make her toxic in the eyes of any rational moderate - and there is no doubt in my mind that she did John McCain a lot of harm with moderate voters

Apparently she did net McCain some votes from the higher base turnout. However, these were probably all in states where McCain could win even with depressed base turnout.

According to Ann Coulter, Palin saved McCain from a 1972 Nixon vs. McGovern style rout. McCain only carried moderate voters in five states: Alabama (49-50); Louisiana (45-54), Alaska (43-55); Oklahoma (43-57) and Wyoming (40-57). McCain lost moderates in his home state of Arizona (52-46)

I don't doubt that she didn't play well with the base of the Republican Party but, nationally, Obama won 20% of the conservative vote. Most of whom were likely conservative Democrats, who tend to be of a more economically populist hue, at least, compared with conservative Republicans

Polling suggests that Obama's recent drop-off in approval seems to be coming from Independents and moderate Republicans. Independents will ebb and flow depending on the extent to which they perceive him performing well, or badly, on the issues that matter to them most. He ran poorly among Southern Independents, generally-speaking, but well among them in the Northeast, Midwest and West - and I suspect the drop-off could be more acute in the more libertarian-minded states he carried like Colorado and Nevada, as well as Arizona and Montana